Iranian lesbian denied asylum by Britain.

[Caladan]

Still openly spouting fabrications I see, when I've not only asked you to produce one single statement by me saying cutting of the clitoris is acceptable, but I also brought the full quote from the Islamic site you *partially* quoted earlier, which clearly says it refers only to the skin that covers the clitoris and not the clitoris itself.

You only damage your own reputation by persisting with such falsifications.

Nonsense. this whole debate seemed to go a hundred miles over your head, easily.
I myself have provided the source for 'the Islamic site' (only one of two most popular Islam realted sites on the web), so please dont act as you have provided information that I've been hiding.
I dont care if its only the 'skin that covers the clitoris', you can define the 'right way to do it', all you want, all of us still think its barbaric, and the fact that your telling us whats the right way to do it, is pathetically sad.
furthermore, I'd like to make note to other members that there are a few types of female genital mutilation:

Type I
The WHO defines Type I FGM as the partial or total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce (clitoral hood)

Type II

The WHO's definition of Type II FGM is "partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora.

Type III: Infibulation with excision

The WHO defines Type III FGM as narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and repositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation)."[1] It is the most extensive form of FGM, and accounts for about 10% of all FGM procedures described from Africa.[29] Infibulation is also known as "pharaonic circumcision.

 

[Caladan]

You only damage your own reputation by persisting with such falsifications.

My reputation here is a longstanding one and will survive your outbursts and meaningless attacks. so far you have been on the defense from several of our longstanding members on various issues, from your homophobia to your misogynism. I'd be more worried about that, than trying to delegitimize our long standing members.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I am showing what other scholars have to say, to give a balanced view. Anyway based on Dr Ahmed Kutty's fatwa and similar fatwas, I am totally against any female circumcision.

As am I. :flower:

 

[Badran]

Why do you think God cares whether somebody is actively homosexual? Human beings create children, but we never posit that the children should obey their parent's based on their fiat.

I see what you are saying, but the relation between us and our parents, is not like our relation with God. For me to guess why does God care about that wouldn't be accurate at all, because also why would he care about lot's of other stuff, that are personal stuff and wouldn't hurt others. So, i can't really guess.

 

[Abu Rashid]

My reputation here is a longstanding one and will survive your outbursts and meaningless attacks.

Right, well do the jolly decent thing then and please quote me stating it's ok to cut the clitoris.

A post number and quote will be fine thanks, I shall await.

 

[*Anne*]

Just to stay on track here:

While the discussion of cutting is making me nauseous, I do believe Abu never said anything about cutting the clitoris. I think he mentioned a small nick (Was that the word?) in the hood.

*faints*

 

[Caladan]

Right, well do the jolly decent thing then and please quote me stating it's ok to cut the clitoris.

A post number and quote will be fine thanks, I shall await.

My 'beef' with your approach is not about fully cutting the clitoris, partially cutting the clitoris, cutting just a little bit of the clitoris, or making an incision in the hood over the clitoris, it is that anything should be done to the girls genitals at all. stop diverting the topic into childish semantics as if this is the focus of the debate.

 

[Darkness]

Only one person is peddling baloney here, and it's you!

On the issue of honour murders for instance, Christian South America is probably the most prominent place that it occurs. Most of the countries in the world with legislation that excuses honour murders are Judeo-Christian, not Muslim.

Difference is the media couldn't give a crap about Brazilian men murdering their females for infidelity and then getting off virtually unprosecuted for it.

Doesn't make the same kinds of headlines that it does if the magic word "Muslim" is in the headlines.

And it happens quite regularly in English-speaking societies but they just palm it off as "crimes of passion", such a beautifully romantic term for murder.

And the legislation in so called Muslim countries (which are run by mostly European law codes anyway, not by Islam) didn't appear until the period of european colonialism. The Napoleonic code was the first introduction Muslim countries had to the concept of diminished responsiblity for honour murders. Doesn't excuse those despicable countries that continue to implement it, but look at the history of it.

There you go on again about how Muslims are being persecuted. We are not argueing that, because if we were, I would agree that the media is more willing to demonise Muslims, as opposed to Christians. I am well aware of the fact that misogyny prevails in South America and Christian states in Africa. I am outraged that Uganda is considering passing a law that would give homosexuals the death penalty. And, just the other day, I was argueing with my Christian Dad that he was being hypocritical in solely blaming Muslims for misogyny, theocracy, and general regressive society and governance.

Stop diverting the issue. I am a secular humanist and oppose any religious or philosophical fundamentalism that leads to social regression.

 

[Darkness]

I see what you are saying, but the relation between us and our parents, is not like our relation with God. For me to guess why does God care about that wouldn't be accurate at all, because also why would he care about lot's of other stuff, that are personal stuff and wouldn't hurt others. So, i can't really guess.

I guess what I do not understand is why many Muslims do view the issue like many Jews do; that is, if you wish to be Jewish and practice certain rituals it will be pleasing to God, but if you do not, it is not of prime importance. I would think the Islamic idea of a person being judge based on their good and bad deeds, would outweigh any issue of ritual in deciding whether a person goes to Heaven or Hell.

 

[Badran]

I guess what I do not understand is why many Muslims do view the issue like many Jews do; that is, if you wish to be Jewish and practice certain rituals it will be pleasing to God, but if you do not, it is not of prime importance. I would think the Islamic idea of a person being judge based on their good and bad deeds, would outweigh any issue of ritual in deciding whether a person goes to Heaven or Hell.

Well, the deeds of a person in Islam has extreme importance in his judgment. We do give a big weight to the rituals, but it's because being a good person in Islam is not just being good to people, it is being good to people, and being good to God. However, a person who doesn't pray but treats people good, is better than a person who prays but treats people badly. For more than one reason.

 

[Abu Rashid]

I guess what I do not understand is why many Muslims do view the issue like many Jews do; that is, if you wish to be Jewish and practice certain rituals it will be pleasing to God, but if you do not, it is not of prime importance. I would think the Islamic idea of a person being judge based on their good and bad deeds, would outweigh any issue of ritual in deciding whether a person goes to Heaven or Hell.

Actually in Islam the sins, even the major ones (except for one or two certain sins), do not take someone outside of the fold of Islam, nor do they preclude one from going to heaven necessarily, but does that mean the law is not applied to them? Of course it is.

The Jewish concepts on this are very bizarre if you ask me. Even if a Jew renounces his belief, he's still considered a Jew, merely based on his ethnicity. To me that's just ludicrous.

There you go on again about how Muslims are being persecuted

I wouldn't say persecuted, just slandered.

I am well aware of the fact that misogyny prevails in South America and Christian states in Africa.

Ok, that's good to see. But do you think Christianity is the cause of it? Do you think Christians in the West should be held responsible for it? Or do you recognise it's not due to Christianity, but due to their backward third-world tribalistic mindset, which has nothing to do with Christianity, nor with Western Christians?

If so, then we are on the same side on that issue, so no need for us to even broach it.

 

[Abu Rashid]

While the discussion of cutting is making me nauseous

I can sympathise with your sentiments there. If some ignoramus were confusing male circumcision with cutting the head of the penis and kept going on about it, I think I'd be exiting the discussion pretty quick.

I do believe Abu never said anything about cutting the clitoris. I think he mentioned a small nick (Was that the word?) in the hood.

Yes a small incision in the hood is not damaging at all, as the hood is very much the equivalent of the male foreskin, and therefore is pretty much an equivalent procedure. Yet Islam still did not even encourage that, but advised if someone were to practice it, to make it small since that can increase the pleasure for both partners rather than reduce it.

 

[Abu Rashid]

it is that anything should be done to the girls genitals at all. stop diverting the topic into childish semantics as if this is the focus of the debate.

Do you hold the same position towards male circumcision? Do you consider your parents to have mutilated you (assuming that you'd have to be circumcised, being Jewish). If so, then I'll accept your position that you believe nothing should be done.

But I won't accept your hysteria about what Islam permitted regarding females, since in reality it's no different to what's regularly done to males, which very few say "boo" about.

 

[Sahar]

I have no doubt. at some point a Muslim scholarly consensus is going to have to be reached into which direction to take the Islamic world or rather religion, either into a path with coming to terms with the spirit of change and social development or remaining static and dig in into archaic habits which alienate Muslims.
right now, Islam has alot to reform, perhaps more than all other major religions, many Muslims understand the need to accomodate their religious identity to where the world is going, other radical movements are trying to pull to the opposite direction.

Nonsense. Female circumcision is not an issue in most of the Muslim countries. It's an issue in a country like mine, it seems Egyptians inherited this practice from Pharaohs. And when Egypt was culturally liberal, it was widely practiced.
It's an issue in many other African countries due to some tribal beliefs.
This has nothing to do with reforming the religion to accommodate the non Muslim world.
No thanks, we don't need to accommodate to the Western world, we need to accommodate to Islam itself and our best interest.

 

[Sahar]

Yes a small incision in the hood is not damaging at all, as the hood is very much the equivalent of the male foreskin, and therefore is pretty much an equivalent procedure. Yet Islam still did not even encourage that, but advised if someone were to practice it, to make it small since that can increase the pleasure for both partners rather than reduce it.

Funny Abu Rashid, who support this practice or try to justify it religiously claim the opposite, for them it's a way of lessening women sexual desires to protect them and to guard their 'Iffa (chastity). Complete nonsense.

 

[Abu Rashid]

This has nothing to do with reforming the religion to accommodate the non Muslim world.
No thanks, we don't need to accommodate to the Western world, we need to accommodate to Islam itself and our best interest.

Masha'allah sister this is exactly correct. We have absolutely no need to modify our religion to accommodate anyone. Unlike the Christians, we will never compromise our beliefs to please the atheists.

Funny Abu Rashid, who support this practice or try to justify it religiously claim the opposite, for them it's a way of lessening women sexual desires to protect them and to guard their 'Iffa (chastity). Complete nonsense.

Yes that is one of the clear reasons why the current practice is usually not related to the hadith mentioned. Because the prophet (saw) specifically mentioned that the practice he was referring to increases the pleasure, not decreases it.

The only way they can tie Islam into this, is to try and confuse the different kinds of practices, and create an hysteria about them, lumping them all together, when the practice Islam spoke of has nothing to do with what they're talking about.

Surely I agree what many do today is really damaging to girls and deprives them of their rights as a human being to experience the pleasures Allah (swt) has created for them to experience, and therefore completely banning the practice is indeed the best position to take, since it's not even part of Islam anyway.

 

[Sahar]

I'd like to quote parts of the detailed version of the fatwa of Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi (I read it in Arabic and alhmadulillah I found its English translation on Islamonline English):

As for my point of view regarding female circumcision, I see that all the evidence cited by jurists concerning circumcision’s being either mandatory or recommended (sunnah) do not apply to women.
There is no clear-cut evidence in Shari`ah indicating that circumcision is prescribed either as mandatory or sunnah for women in Islam...

...There is another hadith to the effect that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a woman who circumcised women in Madinah: “Cut out a small part, and do not be excessive (in cutting).”
This hadith is not authentic, for all its chains of reporters are weak, although Sheikh Al-Albani considered this hadith to be authentic due to its being narrated with a number of chains of reporters. Nevertheless, one doubts such a way to conclude its authenticity. Circumcision is an issue of interest to every Muslim family that requires clear evidence. This being the case, why was this hadith transmitted through weak chains of narration?

Even if one approves of its authenticity, does the way the hadith is expressed refer to the circumcision’s being imperative or recommendable, or does it simply clarify how it should be performed?
I believe that the hadith merely guides women to what is best to be done when they perform female circumcision, and this does not imply that this operation is obligatory or even a confirmed act of the sunnah.

In my point of view, female circumcision is permissible, but it is an established rule that permissible matters may be banned if they happen to involve harm, due to the juristic rule that there should be no harm, nor reciprocating harm. Permissible matters may also remain in practice and be improved, as implied in the above hadith regarding the way of female circumcision.

In fact, female circumcision needs to be scrutinized. If unbiased experts prove that it really has harmful effects on females, it should be banned so as to ward off such effects.
At the same time, if it is proved by some specialized doctors that some females are physically in need of being circumcised, this operation can be performed.

Read more: Circumcision: Juristic, Medical & Social Perspectives - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
​

​

 

[Sahar]

Yes that is one of the clear reasons why the current practice is usually not related to the hadith mentioned. Because the prophet (saw) specifically mentioned that the practice he was referring to increases the pleasure, not decreases it.

I believe Abu Rashid what was meant that not to be excessive in cutting is better for the woman and her relationship with her husband, not the small cut itself. Anyway, it's a weak hadith according to many scholars.

Surely I agree what many do today is really damaging to girls and deprives them of their rights as a human being to experience the pleasures Allah (swt) has created for them to experience, and therefore completely banning the practice is indeed the best position to take, since it's not even part of Islam anyway.

Agreed.

 

[Darkness]

Ok, that's good to see. But do you think Christianity is the cause of it? Do you think Christians in the West should be held responsible for it? Or do you recognise it's not due to Christianity, but due to their backward third-world tribalistic mindset, which has nothing to do with Christianity, nor with Western Christians?

If so, then we are on the same side on that issue, so no need for us to even broach it.

I believe that issues such as female circumcision and the death penalty for homosexuals are linked to Christian fundamentalism. Then again, I see Religious Fundamentalism as regressive component of tribalistic mindset. That is, a society that does away with religious fundamentalism takes a step away from a primitive mindset. I think it is pretty clear that if we were to remove Christian fundamentalism from Africa, homosexuals would not need to fear for their lives. However, I do not blame the vast majority of Western Christians for these third-world nation's retrograde belief systems. The majority of Western Christians practice a Christianity that is rooted in humanism - thanks to the enlightenment. Neither do I blame Badran with your infantile belief in executing those who not follow the tenets of your interpretation of the Qur'an.

 

[Autodidact]

I really hope that you don't expect me to take your posts seriously.

Whatever you need to do to avoid confronting the truth.