A tiny membrane defending ‘us’ against ‘them’: Arabic Internet debate about hymenorraphy in Sunni Islamic law

Abstract

In the Sunni Arab world, hymen repair has become a subject of considerable controversy due to a public statement of Egypt's Mufti Guma˛a in 2007. This paper analyses Guma˛a's position and the ensuing public debate about it as a means to study the larger conceptions of virginity and the hymen in Middle Eastern societies. In line with critical feminist studies it is shown that supporters as well as critics of the operation rely heavily on patriarchal arguments, views and rhetoric. Both share the societal vision that sexuality can only be lived out licitly in the framework of marriage and both agree that this ideal is in crisis. Where the two sides disagree is over the way in which this ideal should be protected, which derives from their conceptualisation of creation in general and female nature in particular. As a result, debate about hymen repair is not only not transforming social structures but is perpetuating them.

Dans le monde arabe sunnite, la reconstitution de l'hymen est au cœur d'une importante controverse depuis une déclaration publique du Mufti d'Égypte, Ali Guma˛a, en 2007. Cet article analyse la position de Guma˛a et le débat public qui a suivi, avec pour perspective une étude des conceptions les plus larges de la virginité et de l'hymen dans les sociétés du Moyen Orient. Comme l'ont fait des études féministes critiques, il montre comment les partisans de l'opération et ceux qui la dénoncent étayent leur discours d'arguments, de points de vue et d'une rhétorique patriarcaux. Ces deux groupes ont en commun une vision sociétale de la sexualité, selon laquelle celle-ci ne peut exister que légitimement, dans le cadre du mariage; et ils s'accordent à considérer que cet idéal est en crise. Le désaccord entre les deux parties n'apparaît que lorsqu'il s'agit de définir la manière de protéger cet idéal, qui émerge de leur conceptualisation de la création en général, et de la nature féminine en particulier. Il en résulte que le débat sur la reconstitution de l'hymen, non seulement ne transforme pas les structures sociales, mais les perpétue.

En el mundo árabe suní, la reparación del himen se ha convertido en un tema de gran controversia debido a una declaración pública del muftí de Egipto, Ali Guma˛a, en 2007. En este artículo se analiza la postura de Guma˛a y el consiguiente debate público al respecto como medio para estudiar las concepciones más generales de la virginidad y el himen en las sociedades de Oriente Medio. En consonancia con los estudios críticos feministas, aquí exponemos que los defensores y detractores de la operación confían en gran medida en argumentos, opiniones y retórica patriarcales. Ambos comparten la visión social de que la sexualidad sólo puede vivirse legalmente en la estructura del matrimonio y ambos coinciden en que este ideal está en crisis. En lo que las partes discrepan es sobre el método en que debería protegerse este ideal, cosa que, en general, deriva de su conceptualización de la creación y, en particular, de la naturaleza femenina. En consecuencia, el debate sobre la reparación del himen, en vez de transformar las estructuras sociales, las perpetua.

Keywords:

• virginity
• Sunni Islam
• hymenorraphy
• hymen repair

Acknowledgements

Longer versions of this paper were presented at different occasions at Oxford and New York Universities in the autumn of 2008. I would like to thank Soraya Tremaine (Oxford) and Marion Holmes Katz (New York) for offering me this opportunity to present my research. I benefited greatly from their support and the lively discussions on both occasions.

Notes

^1. Interestingly, the criticism of Egyptian religious scholars published in the religious press shortly after Guma˛a's public statement primarily addressed this particular aspect of hymen repair during a marriage rather than before wedding ( unī 2007; Qu b 2007). In Guma˛a's larger study about the issue published later in 2007 (see below), hymenorraphy for lifestyle reasons was considered to contradict sharī ˛a principles.

^2. The Lebanon-based Shi˛ī Ayatollah Fa lallāh (n.d.) also considers hymenorraphy permissible in order to avoid harm, but in contrast to Guma˛a views the operation as an act of deceit and as possibly harmful to society, because it might encourage illicit relations.

^3. I retrieved this document from the fatwa database at www.islamic-council.org (Guma˛a 2007). The quotes can be found by searching the document, which can be found on the website.

^4. A structured overview of the arguments of these two and several later studies can be found in Rispler-Haim (2007). On the influence of these two studies on the whole debate, see Bentlage and Eich 2007. Interestingly, the Dār al-Iftā' study from 2007 makes no mention at all of a fatwa by Egypt's previous Mufti Nar Farīd Wāil issued in 1998, in which he had allowed hymen repair exclusively for rape victims under the condition that the crime had been registered and made publicly known (personal interview with Farīd Wāil, Cairo, 19 June 2007, see also Dupret 2001).

^5. Yāsīn (1995) puts much stress on the principle of usn al- ann, i.e. that people should think good of and believe each other instead of spreading mistrust (580f). In Guma˛a's study, while mentioning usn al- ann too (18), more weight is given to the principle of ra ma (mercy) (5).

^6. The aspect of secrecy and absence of official documents distinguishes ˛urfī from sīgheh or mut˛a (i.e. so-called temporary) marriages, where ideally the father's permission is required and official documentation usually exists.

^7. See, for example, Rif ˛at [2007] and Shalabī [2007] reporting examples of (attempted) so-called honor killings, when male relatives of a woman learnt about her ˛urfī-marriage; see also Rūmī 2007.

^8. This aspect is never questioned – neither by supporters nor opponents of hymen repair – during the whole online debate I will analyse shortly.

^9. For a definition of Internet ethnography see Miller and Slater 2000, 21–3. For the ethics of cyber-ethnography see Sharf 1999.

^10. al-Arabiyya 2007b, 35, 85, 242, 281, 382, 446, 448, 477, 497, 582. Not all of these statements mean that any woman having zinā should be whipped or stoned (although some actually do, of course). Rather they simply comment that zinā is considered a severe crime in the sharī ˛a, which can be punished in this world, thus provoking the question why it should be covered.

^11. al-Arabiyya 2007a, 214; 2007b, 33, 102, 118, 239, 312, 366, 368, 416, 592.

^13. Lan tu˛raf al-sharīfa min al-˛afīfa. This is an obvious typo since it means “it will be impossible to tell the honourable from the chaste woman.” The author probably forgot to insert ghair before ˛afīfa, which he does in the following line, thus changing chaste (˛afīfa) to disreputable (ghair ˛afīfa).

^14. See also al-Arabiyya 2007b, 583 and Akhawat 2007, 2.

^12. al-Arabiyya 2007a, 245; 2007b, 19, 30, 40, 69, 79, 111, 127, 142, 171, 218, 307, 334, 363, 366, 443, 551, 562, 584, 593; 2007c, 67, 89, 134, 142, 171, 232. See also Akhawat 2007, 2 and International Quranic Center 2007, 6.

^15. See for example al-Arabiyya 2007a, 379; 2007b, 511 and 2007c, 245. Compare also al-Majlis al-Yamanī 2007, 2 and 9.

^16. al-Arabiyya 2007b, 136, 138, 238, 305, 322, 367, 371, 389, 390, 427 and 2007c, 46, 75, 82, 94, 105, 107, 163, 180. See also Akhawat 2007, 2.

^17. al-Arabiyya 2007b, 123, 253, 294, 383, 385, 386, 466 and more generalizing criticism of the ˛ulamā' as wasting their time on things of little importance in times of severe political and economic crisis in 2007c, 2, 16, 21, 40, 79, 92, 120, 138, 146, 179, 188, 190, 192, 199, 205, 214, 234, 235.

^20. Explicit approval in al-Arabiyya 2007a, 115, 121, 130, 131, 148, 165, 287, 340, 341. Criticism in 193, 357. See also International Quranic Center 2007, 7, 9, 10.

^18. al-Arabiyya 2007a, 38, 130, 182, 300; 2007b, 58, 340, 355, 587; 2007c, 21. See also International Quranic Center 2007, 2.

^19. al-Arabiyya 2007a, 89, 137, 138, 188; 2007b, 48, 124, 148, 191, 240, 309, 355, 395, 532, 578, 588; 2007c, 21, 97.

^21. For example al-Arabiyya 2007a, 5; 2007b, 435, 516, 571.

^22. al-Arabiyya 2007a, 171, 177, 334, 370; 2007b, 35, 105, 108, 137, 321, 328, 367, 461, 521, 569; 2007c, 9, 22, 33, 48, 59, 65, 81, 104, 122, 125, 172, 185, 187, 232. See also Mexat 2007, 7, 8, 10, 16.

^23. See, for example, āli 2007 and al-Arabiyya 2007a, 8, 130; 2007b, 234, 324, 435, 516, 571; 2007c, 53, 78, 100.

^24. e.g. al-Arabiyya 2007a, 370; āli 2007.

^25. For different assessments of virginity testing according to cultural context, see Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2005 and Vincent 2006.

^26. This is particurlaly the case in the 2007 discussion. In 1987, Yāsīn had explicitly argued hymenorraphy should be allowed – among other things – to end the un-Islamic focusing on the hymen, which he termed “a mere, un-Islamic custom” (1995, 580, 588). Although Guma˛a agrees with Yāsīn on the latter point almost verbatim (2007, 17, 24) he does not go so far as to see the operation as a vehicle for social change.

^27. al-Arabiyya 2006, 1, 16; 2007a, 284, 295, 313.

^28. al-Arabiyya 2006, 1; 2007a, 86, 94, 99, 171, 229, 275, 306; 2007b, 40. See also critically International Quranic Center 2007, 8.

^29. al-Arabiyya 2007b, 434, 551; 2007c, 134, 209.

^30. al-Arabiyya 2007a, 95, 111, 278, 313; 2007c, 107, 110.

^31. In this paragraph, I draw heavily on Freund (2003a and 2003b). See also Arvizu 2004/5, 177.

^32. For example al-Arabiyya 2006, 16; 2007a, 256, 307; 2007b, 36, 46, 116, 284, 567; 2007c, 65. This particular way of ‘reasoning’, which is severely criticized by others (e.g. 2007a, 325; 2007b, 135, 156, 580), is the only case where a clear gender bias could be identified in the whole discussion – the authors of these sorts of comments being exclusively male, of course.

^33. For example al-Arabiyya 2007b, 61, 71, 88, 151, 323, 349, 392, 439, 494, 506, 526, 535.

^34. al-Arabiyya 2007b, 130, 367, 368, 444; 17/2/07, 12, 39, 164, 168, 213, 232. According to Egypt's former Mufti Nar Farīd Wāil, the contract would be invalidated (personal interview on June 19 2007). Guma˛a's study refers in footnote 72 to several court cases, where marriages were not annulled because of a lacking hymen although the marriage contract had explicitly made virginity a condition.

^35. See, for example, al-Arabiyya 2007a, 30; 2007b, 213, 343, 567.