Tell that to the mollahs. If you have any impact so much the better. Anything that will reduce the practice is welcomed (immo). If that means only cutting a part of the prepuce, I’m all for it.0

Yes, Heather made the first two points very clearly. Did you read the OP? Your third point is interesting, and I think it might be true, but it is in dire need of some data.

It is not that there are no other religions that have laws that are different from the laws of a specific country, but Sharia is proposed, and pushed, against those very laws: it is contended it should be imposed regardless. That is a good reason -and hence fair- to single it out, methinks.

Yes, if the ‘demand’ could be satisfied by the removal of part of the prepuce, we would go a long way towards the goal of limiting the mutilation. Reduced to a mutilation so minor as to be happy about.
Since Mohammed allegedly (if we accept his existence) said not to overdo it, it should be compatible with Islam. I would love to see those imams to be more clear on that.

Everything I’ve read says it’s a more mild form that’s usually done there. I believe the most common form is the removal of a small part of the prepuce. If one of the worse forms was done, I’d say this form was a good first step towards stopping it if they were unable to persuade them to stop altogether. (WHO, UNICEF etc have focused their efforts on countries where the worst forms are done.) This milder form is the type the Indonesian government promoted as the “proper” way to do it.

The only thing I could find is that it came to Indonesia in the 13th century with the arrival of Islam (supports your thesis there). And that it has been ‘prevalent’ since, whatever that means.
On the other hand, years ago I also read some Dutch colonial ‘literature’ about sexual exploits of the colonialists, but even in detailed descriptions of the ‘pussies’ (and detailed they are), there is no mention of mutilation.
There is also the notion that some of the FGM in Indonesia did not involve actual cutting, but piercing and/or extracting some blood.

I don’t know the data, but I’m not so sure that FGM is like the chador, burka, niqab etc. Even societies that otherwise treat women reasonably well, like the Kurds, practice FGM. It’s been something that’s been going on for centuries. If there had been a break under colonial government, which I very much doubt, it’s unlikely to have started again. Afaik, it never stopped.

Colonial governments introduced their law codes, but weren’t known for protecting women from religious or cultural rites. It’s only recently that any of those same governments have introduced anti-FGM laws in the West and there’s no reason to think they had them in colonial times. I think if they had, or if there’d been a reduction in FGM under colonial law, we’d know about it.

The reason I think the laws to ban it are potentially a sign of prejudice is because US law is already in force, and takes priority over all other laws. Already, no one can put any other law code above US law in that country. Sharia is no different. It is already illegal for Sharia to take precedence in any situation, just like it’s illegal for NZ law to trump US law in the US.

These Detroit doctors allegedly performing or enabling FGM have been charged with a crime under US law. That they were acting legally under Sharia is not a potential defence. A specific law against Sharia was not required to charge them.

Also, if Sharia is going to be singled out, that’s not fair. There are plenty of other religions that have laws that are different from the laws of a country. We live with that. We put up with multiple religions railing against abortion, contraception, adultery etc, telling people they will burn in hell for eternity for engaging in those things for example, but none of those things are illegal under the law.