Sosyokültürel, Etik, Tıbbi ve İslami Perspektiften Kız Çocuklarda ve Kadınlarda Sünnet

Yıl 2017, , 125 - 130, 01.04.2017

M İhsan Karaman

https://doi.org/10.21673/anadoluklin.266077

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu
çalışmanın amacı, kız/kadın sünnetinin sosyokültürel, tıbbi, etik ve
dini/İslami olmak üzere dört ayrı perspektiften incelenmesidir. Günümüzde kadın
sünneti Afrika’da uygulanmakta ve uygulama sıklığı ülkeden ülkeye
değişmektedir. Tarih boyunca kadın sünnetine gerekçe gösterilen sosyokültürel nedenlerden
hiçbirinin bilimsel geçerliliği yoktur. Kadın sünneti sıhhi hiçbir yarar
sağlamaz, aksine, erken ve geç dönemde kadının fiziksel, ruhsal ve sosyal
sağlığına ciddi bir darbe vurur. Cinsel sağlık ve mutluluk açısından ise, tam
bir felaket tablosudur. Ancak konu ile ilgili bir uygulama olan “hoodectomy” bir
istisna olup, kadın lehine olumlu sonuçlar veren bir müdahaledir. Kadın
sünnetine etik perspektiften baktığımızda, genel kabul gören temel etik
prensiplerin tümünün ihlal edildiğini görürüz. Son olarak İslami perspektiften
bakıldığında, Kur’an’da kızların sünnetine mesnet teşkil edip hüküm çıkarılacak
bir ayet olmadığı görülür. Kız sünnetinden bahseden hadisler de hadis
ulemasınca zayıf bulunmuştur. Fetva vermeye mesnet olacak sıhhat ve kuvvette
kabul edilmemişlerdir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kız/Kadın sünneti, ataerkil toplum, hoodectomy, İslam’ da kadın sünneti

Female Circumcision from Sociocultural, Ethical, Medical, and Islamic Perspectives

Öz

This paper aims to address
female circumcision (FC) from sociocultural, medical, ethical and
religious/Islamic perspectives. FC is performed primarily in Africa today; its
prevalence varies across countries. None of the sociocultural justifications
developed historically for FC is scientifically valid. FC provides no health
benefits, but, on the contrary, severely impairs the physical, psychological
and social health of the victim in the short and long term. As for sexual health
and satisfaction, the outcome is disastrous. Hoodectomy as another relevant surgical intervention,
however, can be distinguished as an exception because it can be for the benefit
of the woman. When we assess FC ethically, we see that all of the generally
accepted, major principles of medical ethics are violated. Finally when we look
at FC from an Islamic perspective, the Quran does not contain any verses to
ground or adjudicate arguments on FC. The hadiths reporting about the
justification of FC have been determined by the hadith scholars to be weak.
They have not been accepted as sound justificatory sources that a fatwa can be
based on. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

female circumcision, patriarchal society, hoodectomy, female circumcision and Islam

Kaynakça

• 1. Birleşmiş Milletler Çocuk Fonu (UNICEF). Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. Erişim: www.unicef.org/publications/index_69875.html, erişim tarihi: 10.12. 2016.
• 2. Birleşmiş Milletler Çocuk Fonu (UNICEF). The State of the World’s Children 2015: Executive Summary. Erişim: www.unicef.org/publications/files/SOWC_2015_Summary_and_Tables.pdf, erişim tarihi: 20.12.2016.
• 3. Wikimedia Commons. FGM prevalence UNICEF 2015. Erişim: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FGM_prevalence_UNICEF_2015.svg, erişim tarihi: 20.12.2016.
• 4. Oringanje CM, Okoro A, Nwankwo ON, Meremikwu MM. Providing information about the consequences of female genital mutilation to healthcare providers caring for women and girls living with female genital mutilation: a systematic review. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;136(Suppl 1):65–71.
• 5. Perron L, Senikas V, Burnett M, Davis V. Excision génitale féminine. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2016;38(12S):S348–S369.
• 6. The National Health Service. Female genital mutilation (FGM). Erişim: www.nhs.uk/Conditions/female-genital-mutilation, erişim tarihi: 10.01.2017.
• 7. Pearce AJ, Bewley S. Medicalization of female genital mutilation. Harm reduction or unethical? Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2014;24(1):29–30.
• 8. Serour GI. Medicalization of female genital mutilation/cutting. Afr J Urol. 2013;19(3):145–9.
• 9. Morlin-Yron S. Cut in secret: the medicalization of FGM in Egypt. CNN Africa. 7 Şubat 2017.
• 10. Shell-Duncan B. The medicalization of female “circumcision”: harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice? Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(7):1013–28.
• 11. Topping A, Carson M. FGM is banned but very much alive in the UK. The Guardian. 6 Şubat 2014.
• 12. Dorkenoo E, Morison L, Macfarlane A. A Statistical Study to Estimate the Prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation in England and Wales: Summary Report. Londra: Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development; 2007.
• 13. Biglu MH, Farnam A, Abotalebi P, Biglu S, Ghavami M. Effect of female genital mutilation/cutting on sexual functions. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2016;10:3–8.
• 14. Bazi T. Female genital mutilation: the role of medical professional organizations. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(4):537–41.
• 15. Jurnalis Uddin ve ark. (ed.), Female Circumcision: A Social, Cultural, Health and Religious Perspectives. Cakarta: Yarsi University Press; 2010.
• 16. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü. WHO Guidelines on the Management of Health Complications from Female Genital Mutilation. Cenevre: Dünya Sağlık Örgütü; 2016.
• 17. Bishai D, Bonnenfant YT, Darwish M, Adam T, Bathija H, Johansenc E ve ark. Estimating the obstetric costs of female genital mutilation in six African countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:281–8.
• 18. Wikimedia Commons. FGC types. Erişim: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FGC_Types.jpg, erişim tarihi: 13.02.2017.
• 19. Refaei M, Aghababaei S, Pourreza A, Masoumi SZ. Socioeconomic and reproductive health outcomes of female genital mutilation. Arch Iran Med. 2016;19(11):805–11.
• 20. Holmes V, Farrington R, Mulongo P. Educating about female genital mutilation. Educ Prim Care. 2017;28(1):3–6.
• 21. Vogt S, Mohmmed Zaid NA, El Fadil Ahmed H, Fehr E, Efferson C. Changing cultural attitudes towards female genital cutting. Nature. 2016;538(7626):506–9.
• 22. Abdulcadir J, Rodriguez MI, Say L. Research gaps in the care of women with female genital mutilation: an analysis. BJOG. 2015;122(3):294–303.
• 23. Yount KM, Carrera JS. Female genital cutting and reproductive experience in Minya, Egypt. Med Anthropol Q. 2006;20(2):182–211.
• 24. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü. Female genital mutilation fact sheet. Erişim: www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241, erişim tarihi: 02.03.2017.
• 25. Clarke E. Female genital mutilation: a urology focus. Br J Nurs. 2016;25(18):1022–8.
• 26. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü. Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency Statement. Cenevre: World Health Organization; 2008.
• 27. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü. A Systematic Review of the Health Complications of Female Genital Mutilation including Sequelae in Childbirth. Cenevre: World Health Organization, 2000.
• 28. Larsen U, Okonofua FE. Female circumcision and obstetric complications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;77(3):255–65.
• 29. Zeplin PH. Clitoral hood reduction. Aesthet Surg J. 2016);36(7):NP231.
• 30. Hunter JG. labia minora, labia majora, and clitoral hood alteration: experience-based recommendations. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;36(1):71–9.
• 31. Placik OJ, Arkins JP. A prospective evaluation of female external genitalia sensitivity to pressure following labia minora reduction and clitoral hood reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(4):442e–52e.
• 32. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Biyomedikal Etik Prensipleri, çev. M. Kemal Temel. İstanbul: BETIM; 2017.
• 33. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü. Management of Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Postpartum Period in the Presence of Female Genital Mutilation. Cenevre: World Health Organization, 1997.
• 34. El-Ahl A. A Small Revolution in Cairo: Theologians Battle Female Circumcision. Spiegel, 6 Aralık 2006.
• 35. Menka E. Islam does not support female circumcision. GhanaWeb, 16 Mart 2005.
• 36. Karaman H. Kızların sünnet edilmesi yok. Erişim: www.hayrettinkaraman.net/makale/0621.htm, erişim tarihi: 25.02.2017.