User:Flynnjed/Sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 107:

{{Quote|[https://unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/De-linking%20FGM%20from%20Islam%20final%20report.pdf 'Delinking Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting from Islam'] by Ibrahim Lethome Asmani & Maryam Sheikh Abdi (2008)|'Shafi’i view it as wajib (obligatory) for both females and males'}}

'Reliance of the Traveller' by by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (1302–1367) is the Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law according to Shafi'i School. {{Quote|''Reliance of the Traveler'' [''Umdat al-Salik''], Section e4.3 on Circumcision|'''Obligatory (on every male and female) is circumcision.''' (And it is the cutting-off of the skin [''qat' al-jaldah''] on the glans of the male member and, '''as for the circumcision of the female, that is the cutting-off of the clitoris')}}Nuh Ha Mim Keller's 1991 translation of Reliance of the Traveller is bowdlerised to make its content more acceptable to Western eyes and translates the word 'bazr' ( بَظْرٌ ) as 'clitorial prepuce' instead of simply 'clitoris' (see section [[#Defining Bazr|Defining Bazr)]].

'Reliance of the Traveller' by by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (1302–1367) is the Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law according to Shafi'i School. {{Quote|''Reliance of the Traveler'' [''Umdat al-Salik''], Section e4.3 on Circumcision|'''Obligatory (on every male and female) is circumcision.''' (And it is the cutting-off of the skin [''qat' al-jaldah''] on the glans of the male member and, '''as for the circumcision of the female, that is the cutting-off of the clitoris')}}'''Nuh Ha Mim Keller's 1991 translation of Reliance of the Traveller is bowdlerised to make its content more acceptable to Western eyes and translates the word 'bazr' ( بَظْرٌ ) as 'clitorial prepuce' instead of simply 'clitoris' (see section [[#Defining Bazr|Defining Bazr)]].'''

===Hanbali Madhab===

Line 410:

====FGM not required by Islam====

Since the 1990s Islamic scholars, clerics and other sources have issued fatwas and statements that appear to criticise, condemn and even forbid FGM. However, ~~an alert~~ reading of these reveals that they virtually all engage in some form of equivocation ('deliberate ~~evasiveness in wording : the~~ use of ambiguous or equivocal language') in order to appear to be more critical of FGM than they are.

Since the 1990s Islamic scholars, clerics and other sources have issued fatwas and statements that appear to criticise, condemn and even forbid FGM. However, a critical reading of these reveals that they virtually all engage in some form of equivocation (deliberate use of ambiguous or equivocal language) in order to appear to be more critical of FGM than they are.

Probably the most cited instance of this is a fatwa issued by Dr Ahmed Talib, the former Dean of the Faculty of Sharia at Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious university for Sunni Islamic learning.

{{Quote|[https://www.academia.edu/6142789/Egypts_Villages_Fight_Female_Genital_Mutilation_WFS_NEWS Dr Ahmed Talib, Dean of the Faculty of Sharia at Al-Azhar University]|“All practices of female circumcision and mutilation are crimes and have no relationship with Islam. Whether it involves the removal of the skin or the cutting of the flesh of the female genital organs… it is not an obligation in Islam.”}}After gaining our trust by forthrightly condemning FGM ~~it could almost pass unnoticed that~~ the implication of his final phrase (‘''it is not an obligation in Islam’'') is that, under Islam, FGM’s legitimacy may stop only just short of ‘obligatory’ - which, of course, could include ''‘highly recommended’''. There is a world of difference between something ''not being obligatory'' and something being ''forbidden:'' the fact something is not ‘obligatory’ in no way implies that it is undesirable, unacceptable or forbidden: owning a dog is not ‘obligatory’ ~~– but that in no way implies that owning a dog is frowned on, discouraged or forbidden~~; giving to charity is valued, respected and encouraged but, like FGM in Islam, it is not ‘obligatory’. A fatwa may be adorned with much criticism and condemnation of FGM, but if all that criticism amounts to nothing more than a statement that ''‘FGM is not obligatory under Islam’'' – it merely reveals that the author of the fatwa was unable to state that ''‘FGM is forbidden under Islam’''.

{{Quote|[https://www.academia.edu/6142789/Egypts_Villages_Fight_Female_Genital_Mutilation_WFS_NEWS Dr Ahmed Talib, Dean of the Faculty of Sharia at Al-Azhar University]|“All practices of female circumcision and mutilation are crimes and have no relationship with Islam. Whether it involves the removal of the skin or the cutting of the flesh of the female genital organs… it is not an obligation in Islam.”}}After gaining our trust by forthrightly condemning FGM, the implication of his final phrase (‘''it is not an obligation in Islam’'') could easily pass unnoticed i.e. that under Islam, FGM’s legitimacy may stop only just short of ‘obligatory’ - which, of course, could include''‘highly recommended’''. There is a world of difference between something '<nowiki/>''not being obligatory'<nowiki/>'' and something being '''forbidden':'' the fact something is not ‘obligatory’ in no way implies that it is undesirable, unacceptable or forbidden: owning a dog is not ‘obligatory’; giving to charity is valued, respected and encouraged but, like FGM in Islam, it is not ‘obligatory’. A fatwa may be adorned with much criticism and condemnation of FGM, but if all that criticism amounts to nothing more than a statement that ''‘FGM is not obligatory under Islam’'' – it merely reveals that the author of the fatwa was unable to state that ''‘FGM is forbidden under Islam’''.

Line 427:

====FGM existed before Islam====

The underlying assumption of this argument is that ''if a practice existed before Islam then it can not be Islamic''. Most of what constitutes Islam is not original to Islam. Muhammad took what was a secular practice and sacralised it.

The hidden assumption here is that only that which Mohammed originated can be Islamic. If this were true almost nothing that has been considered Islamic over the last 1400 would be so. Monotheism, male circumcision, abstention from pork, giving to charity, interdictions on lying, murder would all be unislamic since previous religions and societies have held these beliefs and practices.

But the grain of truth behind this argument is that FGM did indeed exist before Islam. But though a practice that is persistent once established – it would have eventually died out as more advance Graeco-Roman and Christian conceptions of society and humanity spread and prevailed, not least monogamy. But Mohammed took what was a practice specific to his particular tribe and, by deeming his life and teachings as 'exemplary' and perfect for all mankind, for the rest of time, and then by subsequently praisnig and approving of FGM - Mohammed sacralised FGM and guaranteed that it would exist and flourish for as long as Islam existed.

Line 432:

Line 436:

====FGM is an African practice====

This is a commonly heard variation on “FGM existed before Islam” - and it is true that FGM existed in a part of Africa before the invention of Islam – notably Egypt and the West coast of the Red Sea. But FGM was also practiced in Arabia before the invention of islam, not least by Mohammed's tribe – the Quraysh – the FGM Hadith record this fact.

We can note that most of Africa does not practice FGM and that the majority of FGM happens outside of Africa – it appears to have been the islamic invasion and occupation of Africa and Islam's plundering of the content for sex slaves that spread FGM to its current extent which coincides with that of Islam, its influence and its bloody borders.

It is also well documented that FGM was brought to Indonesia by Moslem traders and conquerors in the 13<sup>th</sup> Century. Indonesia has +90% rates of FGM amongst its Moslems and is of the Shaafi school - the School that makes FGM obligatory.{{anchor|christians2}}

====Christians practice FGM too====

The underlying assumption of this argument is that ''if Christians engage in a practice then it can not be Islamic. This would mean that what is 'islamic' depends on what ~~non~~-~~Muslims think and do~~.''

The underlying assumption of this argument is that ''if Christians engage in a practice then it can not be Islamic. This would mean that what is 'islamic' depends on what Christians do. That if Christians, for example, started paying abstaining from pork, then abstaining from pork would become un-Islamic.''

fgm in europe (show map)

However, it is true that some Christians practice FGM. But the Christians who practice FGM are nearly all living as isolated and persecuted minorities living within a dominant Islamic FGM-practicing culture. FGM is both an islamic purity practice, and within FGM-practicing societies girls who are not cut are considered impure, and any contact or proximity with them, or sharing of objects will be considered as contaminating. This means that individuals, families and communities that do not observe to the dominant culture's purity observances are perceived as gravely threatening the spiritual and religious lives of that community since, for example, a Moslem's prayers will be rendered invalid if he is inadvertantly contaminated, and will continue to be invalid until he correctly purifies himself.

This means that in such Islamic communities, non-Moslems who do not follow the communities purity observances are shunned, stigmatised, discriminated against and persecuted.

We saw this recently in Pakistan when a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, drank from a Moslem's cup- and brought upon herself, her family and her community much violence, hatred and persecution.

Hence, non-Moslems come under great pressure to adopt the dominant Islamic purity practices in order to minimise persecution. A clear example of this are the Copts who are Christian and who make up 10 to 15% of the population of Egypt. Copts practice FGM at about a 74% (compared to 92% Moslems). Copts themselves recognise that they practice FGM in order to minimise persecution. we can note also that it is Christian minorities such as the Copts who appear to be the most ready to abandon FGM when it becomes safe and possible to do so.

There are however three countries where FGM appears to be practiced by Christian majorities – Ethiopia, Eritrea and Liberia. The FGM in Liberia is practiced as part of the initiation into secret women's societies. FGM in Ethiopia and Eritrea is due to a combination of historical factors, not least of which being that they were the hubs of the Islamic slave trade, where slave girls captured in West Africa were infibulated to guarantee their virginity and thus raise their price, in preparation for the slave markets of the Islamic Middle East. This Islamic practice, associated with slavery, was adopted by the locals, and has persisted – though FGM is being rapidly abandoned in both countries (compare to neighbouring Somalia).

Line 448:

Line 465:

Second, there are many practices in Islam that are optional.

The assumption underlying this argument is that what is 'Islamic' consists solely of that which is either obligatory or forbidden. But this is wrong; religions are also defined by what they encourage, discourage, what they allow and tolerate. For example, no one would question that the Eucharist, Holy Communion, is Christian, but it is recommended, not obligatory.

this obfuscation arises because different schools of Islam take slightly different stances on FGM: the shaafi making it mandatory. The Hanbali and some branches of Maliki islam seem to highly recommend it. Hafani Islam seems to merely recommend or allow it.

The schools' different levels of obligation are reflected in the incidence of FGM. And where it is merely 'allowed' or 'tolerated' are we surprised that parents abstain from an act that goes against parents deepest instincts?

We're not talking about an ethically neutral act, such as the Eucharist - swallowing a wafer - or Baptism - sprinkling water on a baby's head - we're talking about a serious crime, an act of mutilation and torture carried out on a child, a grave violation of the child's human rights.

'Allowing' is no more the appropriate base-line for such an act than it would be for murder of Chidl sexual abuse.

Imagine a religion that has three different schools - one school merely tolerates CSA , another recommends it and another makes it mandatory

Will we be surprised that in the society that makes it mandatory there will be very high rates of child sexual abuse? in the society which recommends it that the rates will be very high, but lower than where it is compulsory? And where it is merely tolerated the rates will be lower, but still higher than in a society that prosecutes and stigamatises child sexual abuse – since that minority of people predisposed to engage in CSA will have licence to do so.

Except that no parent has a predisposition to gratuitously mutilate their child's genitals - an act that goes against the profoundest instincts of not just parents, not just humans, but all nurturing animals.

Islam sows the seeds of FGM - some seeds fall on stony ground, some fall on rich soil – in some places the seed will grow, in others it won't. But the sower is culpable in that this is a are seed that should never be sown in the first place – and pointing out that there are places where the seed has not taken does not exculpate the sower.

Line 459:

Line 494:

====the Qur'an forbids mutilation====

This argument engages in Petitio Principi or 'Begging the Question' (The fallacy of assuming in the premise of an argument that which one wishes to prove in the conclusion). Islam forbids all mutilations to the human body – '''''other than those that Islamic law permits'''''. Hence male circumcision is a mutilation that Islamic law permits and it is therefore not forbidden. Likewise [[Amputation in Islamic Law|the amputation of hand and feet]]. Beheading, [[stoning]], and [[crucifixion]] are all also permitted in Islamic law and involve mutilation prior to the victim's death.

====There is no record of Muhammad having his wives or daughters circumcised====

-There is no record of Muhammad undergoing circumcision himself, or having his sons circumcised.

-Mohammed would not have needed to command or require the circumcision of his wives, since females in Mohammed’s circle would have been automatically circumcised in childhood. In the [[User:Flynnjed/Sandbox#Someone to Amuse Them|hadith narrated by Umm ‘Alqama]] the persons being cut are clearly children. FGM is generally a practice arranged by female relatives.

User:Flynnjed/Sandbox: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search