ok
The following is an answer to your question from http://www.islam-qa.com , there is a search engine their with answers to other questions as well. And there are a few more responses regarding circumcision - the following is one of them:
"Ruling on female circumcision (khitaan)
In his book Al-Mughni, Imam Ibn Qudama (may Allaah have mercy upon him) said: “As for circumcision, it is obligatory for men, (but not women); for women, it is considered as a good practice. This is the opinion of many scholars”. Imam Ahmed said “(for) the man, it is more serious and critical, … (and as for the woman) it is less significant.” 1/70
Circumcision for women is done by cutting a piece of the clitoris, and the sunnah is not to cut all of it, but a part of it (Al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah 19/28).
Wisdom dictates, however, that the benefit must outweigh any harm, and the woman’s best interest is the overriding factor. If the clitoris is enlarged, for example, perhaps part of it should be cut, and if not, then there is no need.
Judgment may further be determined by the natural disposition and physiological
aspects of different women which vary from one country to another (depending
on the climate, for example).
Regarding the issue of circumcision, the following is a reported hadeeth (marfoo’)
ascribed to the Prophet (peace be upon him):
“Circumcision is sunnah for men (i.e. enjoined), and a good practice for
women.” However, it’s degree of validity in questionable (see “The ýSeries on
Weak Ahaadeeth” by Albaani, hadeeth #1935).
As for the appropriate procedure for performing female circumcision, there is a
hadeeth via Umm 'Atiyyah, may Allah be pleased with her, reporting that there
was a woman in Al-Madinah who performed circumcision. The Prophet
(peace be upon him), said to her:
“Don’t cut deep or exaggerate in circumcising; it is better for the woman’s
contentment and more beloved to her husband (i.e. to cut only a little).” (Sunan
Abu Dawood in “The Book of Manners”, and he indicated that it is a weak
hadeeth [da’eef]).
Perhaps what has been described by the scholars is sufficient in this issue.
Allaah the Most Knowledgeable knows what is best and most correct."
I guess it sort of rests on the validity of the hadith.
[This message has been edited by Achtung (edited February 18, 1999).]
ok
Your Welcome ;)
I think the site is very useful as well. Although on certain issues their are discrepancies among scholars, and this site is no exception. I'd use it but with caution, with full knowledge that the site is maintained by men, who have their own normative views regarding Islam and the world.
Good luck in your search for answers, keep struggling :)
Jesus.. I can't even believe it.. I don't care how prominant were the Ulmas who said in favor of this practice, it is absolutely barbaric and cruel. A woman has the complete right to her body and pleasure. I can't believe we still look towards some ignorant Ulmas who lived in a primitive society some hurndreds of years ago to dictate our social individual rights in more educated and civilized 90's!!! I won't even accept it if it was said by Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him).
a_monad, nobody asked you to accept any fatwa. Thats your own personal choice.
I personally think the hadith should be thrown out, I don't think its authentic (as countless other hadiths). I was simply trying to answer NY Ahmadi's question - "Is there any religious edict (Fatwa) condemning female circumcision?" These hadith (along with many others) should be re-examined critically and thrown out if they go against the grain of the Qur'an.
You wrote, "A woman has the complete right to her body and pleasure."
What about a man? Male circumcision also limits male sexual pleasure. Should male circumcision be an individuals choice? Some would say that male circucision is "cruel", barbaric", and "primitive".
You wrote, "I can't believe we still look towards some ignorant Ulmas who lived in a primitive society some hurndreds of years ago to dictate our social individual rights in more educated and civilized 90's!!!"
In the "educated and civilized 90's" we kill one another using smart bombs and missiles, in the past century we've killed more people than the entire history of mankind. We sit back and watch as millions of children starve to death because of a lack of food and medicine. If that is "civilized" than we have definately progressed from the "ignorant" and "primitive" society of the past Ulama's. Personally I think that its useless arguing over which time period was more civilized than the other. Its time to re-examine ourselves and look for solutions for the future, and stop moving our communities in the direction of two opposing poles - with the west's version of modernity on one side and the traditional ulama's dogmatic interpretation of Islam on the other.
I applogize if it sounded from my message that it was a critique on you personally.. I did not mean that way. But my response was more in the sense that these type of hadiths should not even be related and quoted by labeling them as "weak" or "unauthentic". They should just not even be quoted because that's how it spreads and confuses minds.
As far as male circumcision is concerned, I believe it is done for a different purpose (at least that's what my understanding is) not for controling one's sexual pleasure. If it is done for the same purpose as it is suggested to be done for women, then hey, I would say yes, it is should be every individual's choice. Why not?
I don't think counting number of lives lost in one particular century as compared to the other one is the only and most appropriate measure of civility. What I meant was based more on micro level.. an individual's knowledge and social awareness. And an individual today is definitely more educated and civilized as compared to some Ulma who lived hundereds years ago. I don't think today's man need to be told to cut her wife's clitoris so that she would be obedient. And definitely don't even try saying that to an American woman.
"my response was more in the sense that these type of hadiths should not even be related and quoted by labeling them as "weak" or "unauthentic". They should just not even be quoted because that's how it spreads and confuses minds."
My apoligies, when I posted the "fatwa" on Genital cutting (actually should read mutilation) I should have placed a disclaimer on the post explaining the fact that the hadith is most probably unauthentic (although the weakness of the hadiths are mentioned in the original post).
I think it is important to understand the past if we are to move on in the future. So I don't agree with you in your ascertation that simply relaying a weak hadith would confuse believers - it will only confuse weak minds.
There are cases of male circumscision (when too much foreskin is removed) which severely limits sexual pleasure. Males who are circumcised in this manner also suffer from a great deal of pain when they engage in sex. Weather it should be an individual choice or not, I'm not sure. There are health benefits to male circumcision - mostly related to cleanliness. Since infants are incapable of making rational decisions, we have to leave it to their parents to make decisions for them and hope that their parents make decisions in their best interest. Or the other route would be to allow society to dictate what is in the best interest of the child. In either case you have the possibility of doing harm to the child.
"And an individual today is definitely more educated and civilized as compared to some Ulma who lived hundereds years ago."
This is debatable. Is an average human being really more "educated and civilized" today than an individual who lived "hundreds of years ago." To be honest, I'm not really sure (but I highly doubt it). Yes we have progressed in terms of our technological capability and our ability to both destroy and save everything around us (including our fellow humans and our entire biosphere). Our base of knowledge has definately grown, but weather the average individual (or even the highly educated individual) is using this knowledge in a "civilized" manner, or using it all is questionable.
I don't support female circumcision. I try not to be judgmental, I understand that it is a cultural practice for some people and has been part of their life histories for centuries. I don't know what the reasoning is behind female circumcision for these societies, you seem to have assumed (or perhaps you know) that genital mutilation is a custom imposed by males to control females and insure their "obedience" to their male "masters". I personally don't know. But again it comes down to the question of choice and who makes the choices for newborns. Should it be parents (who may or may not support circumcision) or society (who may or may not support circucision), either way you are caught in a dillema.
One thing is for certain in my mind - Islam does not encourage or advocate female circumcision.
Achtung ;)
I saw this documentary on TV once about an African country/tribe (I can't recall the name now) on women's circumcision. They showed this 9 year old girl who was crying and begging to her father and mother not to circumcise her but nobody listened. And the idea was to control that girl's sexual desire by circumcision. So, yeah, you can say that I know for sure at least about that one society the purpose of circumcision.
Secondly, the paragraph in your message "Don't cut deep or exaggerate in circumcising; it is better for the woman's
contentment and more beloved to her husband (i.e. to cut only a little)." (Sunan Abu Dawood in "The Book of Manners", and he indicated that it is a weak hadeeth [da'eef])" hints on the purpose of circumcision if it were to be allowed in Islam, and that's on what I based my opinion. (I can't understand why there are so hadeeths about this issue, even considered weak, but none of them acutally elaborate the exact reason for it - not so logical). And yeah, there are a lot of weak minds out there.. and also, if one to preach Islam and someone who is inclined towards it but have questions about something like this would not take it so good even if these hadiths are considered weak!
Thirdly, I base my argument "And an individual today is definitely more educated and civilized as compared to some Ulma who lived hundereds years ago." on the fact that today's "Average man" can think more objectively and rationally than those primitive Ulmas who lead there lives studying just religion and believing on it. When they came across anything that was contradictory, they would decide it by ijtihad... and even the ijitihad comprosied of the similiar set of Ulmas... How many of those Ulmas studied Physics, Chemistry, and Math? When you are studying only one thing, you are not aware of the other facts which can build a whole picture or awareness.
Mostly, religion tries to dictate (I don't mean word "dictate" to be taken negatively here. There are certain things in religion that should be adopted by society as whole, and there are others which should not be.. that of course, is a separate discussion) the society as whole and that's exactly where the dilema is.
See, religion is purely a subjective matter. Religious beliefs can vary from individual to individual but it is the objective matter which is more important when it comes to practices that effect the society as a whole because you cannot deny an objective fact. Yes, we have created more destructive instruments using today's technology than in the past.. and yes there are things which our primitive forefathers advocated that are universal and basic to our human existence and should always be abided by.. but not one fact or element (good or bad) that we posses today compared to the past can determine higher sense of civility and education. It is the whole picture.. what mostly determines is the basic approach towards a matter that a mind today as compared to yesterday uses to effectively understand and adopt social values and practices. And today's mind definitely have a better objective approach than yesterday's. Because we did not only inherited our history's knowledge but also checked its validity, combined with finding new, solid, scientific, and undeniable fact on our own. And sure enough, our next generations are going to do even better.
As far as male circumcision is concerned, well, if there is no proof medically that it has health and cleanliness benefits then why do it? I don't know for sure if there are any benefits or not... but it is kind of too late for me personally to make that choice :)
[This message has been edited by a_monad (edited February 28, 1999).]
You are correct (at least about certain societies). The custom of infilioration is practiced in Somalia - it involves not only cutting the clitoris, but also sewing up the vulva, allowing for a small opening to pass urine. The custom seems to be rooted in a desire to control women's sexuality. Its slowly being rooted out, and labelled unacceptable.
You wrote: "...I can't understand why there are so hadeeths about this issue, even considered weak, but none of them acutally elaborate the exact reason for it - not so logical.."
Hadiths like these exist because people made them up. One of the main obstacles to curtailing this practice in Somalia is the voices of the traditional "mothers" who perform the ritual. These individuals are paid for there services. Its there livilihood. They have the most to lose if the practice is considered - "un-Islamic". They uphold the hadith to legitimize their practice - they're ancestors or predeccesors in their profession were probably the ones who narrated the hadith and spread it.
You wrote, "How many of those Ulmas studied Physics, Chemistry, and Math?"
Ghazali was a philosopher, he was also a theoligion. He read and critiqed the works of western philosophers. Ibn Rushd and Averroes are two more examples of men well versed in all of the sciences (math, anatomy, philosophy, medicine), pioneers for the awakening in Europe. These men were well educated. The first Universities were in the Muslim world. They were adopted by Europeans, even the diciplines taught in early European universities were identical to the ones taught in Muslim universities.
I can't really tell if your arguing that the average man is more educated today than yesterday or is it that your arguing that the average man is more educated than the Ulama of the past? I think its really futile to argue about this point anyways - "who is more educated, who is more civilized". Your arguments are based on a universalistic notion of human rights (you sound like an orientalist), mine are a bit slanted towards a cultural relativist perspective (I sound like an apologetic). Maybe its best to agree to disagree on this issue.
There is nothing in the Qur'an which dictates that either man or women be circumcised. By the way, you can still reattach your foreskin if you wish - there is an operation available. If you wish to go under the knife.
Achtung ;)
Interesting info. Thanks. I think I did not phrased my argument correctly about the average man today vs Ulma in the past. Because the comparison should be contextually relative to the society they both live(d). The more debatable point could be that an average man today thinks more objectively relatively as compared to Ulmas in the past, with their relevance to the society they lived in. But again, the argument itself is endless, and would eventually tend to be subjective in the end. And, yep, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing.
Circumcision is barbaric in any form. A natural body is a gift of god and learn to respect as it is rather then modify it. If you do modify that indicates that you don't agree with the gift of god as it is.
A Indian:
Agreed! It is barbaric. I don't think anybodies God sanctions Female Genital Mutiliation. (There are religions however that sanction and encourage male circumcision.)
What are your thoughts about plastic surgery? Is it barbaric. How about for infants born with physical deformities. Is such modification and alteration in disagreement with "God's gift"?
Achtung ;)
A indian......
What do you say about Satti...???
just curious..... ;)
I think I now know how discussion will go like
"What do you think of sati"
"Why do you take pride in keeeping women virtual prisoners in house?"
"What do you think of untouchability?"
"What do you think of raped women can't prove she is raped and bring guilty to book unless 4 people are watching the show?"
"What do you think of caste system?"
"Why do you take pride in calling youself idol-breaker and convert people by sword?"
Ah! those Hidu-Muslim debates. One ancient and other medievial religion, both full of beliefs which do not stand the test of time.
But at least being not well defined and organized makes reforms in Hinduism lot easier.