Christian/Muslim ThreadsMore sexual attrocities in Islam: Female circumcision, etcHi again H2O
Sorry for my delay, I am very busy these days, I must disappoint you, but your reply did not impress me.
First of all because I challenged you to post me a saying of Muhammad, which clearly explains the procedure of female circumcision, in that it rules out the cutting of the clitoris.
You were completely unable to meet this challenge. Instead you enforce your interpretation of Abu Dawud, that ‘not cutting to severely’ refers to the cutting of a women’s lips or foreskin of the virgina.
However, since Muhammad never made such a statement I cannot take your interpretation as valid.
Thus I will ask again: Could you please give me a phrase from Muhammad himself, which clearly states that female circumcision is the removal of a women’s virgina foreskin and not the clitoris; that is what I asked for?
H2O wrote:
Now based on this inforamtion alone by it self. How can one apply prohibitation to the sever cutting of a woman's clit ? No such thing can be applied to a clit. In other words this would mean to not completely cut it which would still go again you whole idea of removal. The only part of the woman's virgina that such a act of " prohibiting severe cutting" is to the lips(forskin) of the Virgina.
And that might exactly be the circumcision Muhammad was legalizing, the text does certainly not give any clear insight into the matter.
H2O writes:
Not to Cut severely what ? What is not to be cut severely is the complete removal of the lips of the virgina, they are only to be reduced by 1/3 or half.
But where does Muhammad state that female circumcision permits only that the lips of the virgina are to be reduced by 1/3 or a half?
Again could you please show me a reference to a Hadith, which reveals that Muhammad ever said that concerning female circumcision.
According to H2O female circumcision, by the removal of the clitoris is a contradiction against Koranic teaching.
H2O wrote:
Yes many of us have sprung against such practice cause the remol of the cliterus is Harram as we have provided eminent proof from the Quran as it is ALTERING the nature of human being.
To prove his case he quotes Sura 4: 119
"I(the Devil) will mislead them (mankind), and I will create in them false desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattle, and to deface the (fair) nature created by Allah." Whoever, forsaking Allah, takes Satan for a friend, hath of a surety suffered a loss that is manifest. (Quran 4:119)
First of all it surprises me that the devils words are to be found on the heavenly tablet.
Also I wonder if the devils words are included into the miraculous category to which no other writings are assumed to be compared (however, that is not the issue here).
I stated in my last post that Sura 4: 119 was a contradiction against the concept of circumcision, not at least female circumcision. I challenged H20 to provide me with a Sura, which makes circumcision an exception but banns the cutting of any created being.
To this H20 replied:
That’s the whole point. It is a contradiction to the removal of the female cliterus which would be ALTERING her nature, Not to circumcision of the excess flesh of a man(Forskin) and the excess flesh pertaining to the woman(Forskin) this is not ALTERING THEIR NATURE. IF you consider this altering their nature then cutting your hair and nails must the same.
In other words, what you are saying is that the cutting of hair and nails is similar to the cutting of a women’s virgina lips? Good grief this is complete insanity, I are being serious here H20?
Secondly H20, if the cutting of an animals ear alters its nature, would it not be obvious that cutting of a females virgina lips would be the same. /b]
However, the matter may be even more serious since, the circumcision Muhammad legalized was possibly the removal of the whole clitoris, at least so far I have seen no evidence which proves the opposite.
Thirdly, concerning Sura 4: 119 which prohibits the cutting of a human body, may seriously contradict other passages of the Koran, such as Sura 5:33
5:33] The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.
I do indeed sympathize with some of those who fought Muhammad, such as the minority of Jews who were violently attacked and suppressed under Muhammad’s regime.
It is a pity that those who dared fighting back, could risk, crucifixion or the cutting of hands and feeds.
Was it not satan who declared that he would create in them false desire of mutilation (Sura 4: 119), and I am sure that a range of these Jews who were attacked and eliminated were just as righteous as was Muhammad and any of his followers.
From this point of view, we may indeed have a contradiction, or even a statement who the real source was behind suras such as Sura 5:33.
Even worse we may have to deal with a further paradox, that Sura 4: 119 may not ban female circumcision by the removal of the clitoris.
H2O additionally stated that female circumcision was a means of hygienic practice, he quoted Volumn 007, Book 072, Hadith Number 779. (Sahih Al-Bukhari) to prove his point, which says:
Narated By Abu Huraira : I heard the Prophet saying. "Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, cutting the moustaches short, clipping the nails, and depilating the hair of the armpits."
The problem here is, whom am I to listen to H20 or other scholars, such as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah:
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about whether women should be circumcised or not. He replied:
Praise be to Allaah. Yes, they should be circumcised, i.e., the top of the piece of skin that looks like a rooster’s comb should be cut. The Messenger of Allaah (S) said to the woman who did circumcisions: “Leave something sticking out and do not go to extremes in cutting. That makes her face look brighter and is more pleasing to her husband.” That is because the purpose of circumcising a man is to make him clean from the impurity that may collect beneath the foreskin. But the purpose of circumcising women is to regulate their desire, because if a woman is not circumcised her desire will be strong. Hence the words “O son of an uncircumcised woman” are used as an insult, because the uncircumcised woman has stronger desire. Hence immoral actions are more common among the women of the Tatars and the Franks, that are not found among the Muslim women. If the circumcision is too severe, the desire is weakened altogether, which is unpleasing for men; but if it is cut without going to extremes in that, the purpose will be achieved, which is moderating desire. And Allaah knows best.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 21/114
So whom am I to listen to H2O or
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him)
Yeah Allah have mercy on him
Kai
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |