Yet, despite the restriction against severity, the Prophet did not here prohibit circumcision completely. Permitting such a ritual constitutes an act of tolerance by Islamic law for pre-Islamic practices, and may be overruled by the Islamic prohibition against harmful acts. Consider, for example, that Islamic law protects a woman's right to sexual enjoyment, as demonstrated by the fact that a woman has the right to divorce on the grounds that her husband does not provide sexual satisfaction. Such prohibitions are consistent with the hadithic warning against severity in female circumcision. The answer becomes obvious when one realizes that Christians from many of these countries also insist that the tradition is mandated by their religion as well.
People often confuse traditions rooted in local culture with religious requirements.
Immigrants from such countries now residing in the United States stand between the culture of their heritage and the American culture of their environment. They cannot and should not be expected to abandon their religion. There should be no doubt, however, that the young amongst them, at least, will be willing to abandon old-world cultural practices at odds with their adopted culture when such practices are unsupported by religion. For the Muslims, opposition to cliterodectomy and infibulation should be considered part of our ongoing mandate to fight against superstition and oppression.