Female Gentile mutilation
- By: Qwaider
- On:Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:23:37 PM
- In:Thoughts
- Viewed: (22762) times
- Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Rated 3.5/5 stars (789 votes cast)
A subject that has crossed the minds of many undoubtedly, due to it's cruelty and amount it's being spread.
A recent article by fellow blogger, "Ha Ana Za, Amira" has shed some light on some staggering numbers to say the least. Where almost 97% of all female newborns are being subjected to such inhumane cruel mutilation in the name of religion, traditions and virtue.
[UPDATED]
Justification
There is absolutely no excuse, or justification in my the world that can explain why something as cruel as that can be performed on newborn females. Virtue, religion or hygiene reasons are all bogus. I doubt a any religion would sanction such acts
Islam's Position:
In Islam, the only record of that was the prophet passing by a midwife about to performing it, where he asked her to "Titaqi Allah" or in other words fear god in what she's doing. Realising how such a practice might have psychological and social results.
To make it even clearer. Islam has actually no official say regarding this matter, and left it to the conscious of people practicing it to decide for themselves. With that said, the prophet has not practiced, condoned or encouraged the practice. Furthermore, he has not practiced it for his own daughters and grand daughters
In a recent interview, the highest Islamic clerical position was also against the practice, making it absolutely clear tha Islam is against such a practice
Since Biblical times
The oldest recorded female circumcision was during the time of the prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) in Arabic, the story goes that Sarah, has vowed to cut Hager to three pieces for baring the child of Abraham. Fearing Sarah's wrath, and not wanting her to break her vow, Abraham instructed Hager to cut her self in three places, Pierce her two ears and circumcise herself.
Historians, place the time of Abraham at around 10,000 years BC. Around the same time the horse was domesticated (By Ishmael) and the first Arabs emerged. (Ishmael, was the first to ride a horse, and the first to speak in the modern Arabic tongue)
In modern times
There has been so much light shed on this matter, mainly due to the work of scholars like Nawal Saadawi, who has been the victim to such cruel practice her self. As she describes her ordeal
Inhuman, cruel, unjustified and illogical
Women suffering from the procedure, suffer from frustrated and cold intimate relations and disappointment achieving sexual satisfaction. Leading to frustration for them and their partners.
Not only that, but the idea of virtue that is often smeared into every discussion diminishes in the face of logic. Circumcised women apparently suffer from lack of satisfaction leading them to seek pleasure in forbidden places. Making the idea of getting multiple partners or partners with more proficiency a more likely possibility.
Map of most affected areas
To sum up
There is no justification, no reason, no goal and absolutely no benefit, social, medical or hygienical from these practices. And they need to be totally abolished
Governments need to shoulder the responsibility of banning such tribal and archaic practices. And be extremely strict regarding violators, since such a practice is really a crime against humanity, and the future of a person
Memories....
al7amd lilah we don't have this habit in Jordan.
In any case, people tend to do this following their religious convictions or traditions. It's not much different than mentally scarring little children with ill ideas.
But I totally see your point and personally agree with it
Anyway, I'm still against it. and I strongly believe it shouldn't be done unless there's a medical need
Only males were circumcised, as a symbol of the covenant.
Look a little bit deeper and you will find it in the old testament
I would also like to draw your attention that it was not Mandated, I'm using biblical events to allow some form of dating for the practice.
Could you let me know the source?
Al Bidaya wal Nihaya (The beginning and the end) for Ibin Kathir, who have added to his book testimonials from Hakhams and Rabi's of his time. This is guaranteed to be in the Torah, and the old testament. But might not be in all editions
Additionally I've seen this on one of the documentaries on the History channel
By the way, Wikipedia is very useful, but it's written by people for people, you don't even need to be a scholar to write an article on Wiki pedia. Nor does it include everything.
As I said above, this is not about the books condoning, allowing or encouraging it, it's only about Dating the process to the oldest mention of it. The story of Hagar
islam's position.
Shiite have a fatwa against it
sunnis don't have a fatwa against it, and the last fatwa on the issue tells people to ignore what health workers say and carry on with the practice, that was the last fatwa for al azhar on the issue.
on the issue i have never heard of that 7adith, do you have a source for it. on the other hand i know 3 that are there supporting it(or allude to it). with only one being sa7ee7 (verified)
so the only way for islam to be absolutely against it on the sunni camp is with a fatwa. what we have is a fatwa encouraging it ...
as for the biblical reference:
I had to go back and look at it and there was nothing of that sort in the bible neither old or new or any of the older editions.
One origin of the story is that al tabari was told by Musa ibn harun about it(a jew talking about it) which does indicate that they might have perhaps practiced it in the past, and the covenant for the circumcision could have been inclusive of females too.
no self respecting historian would place ibrahim at 10000 BC when the whole biblical record can only be generously stretched to be 10,000 from the present to the creation, and that is a generous stretch.
historians do place ishmael if they had to at around 18th century BC. while ibrahim at 2000 BC
while he was the father of what we might call arabs there is no indication that he ever spoke arabic and never mind modern arabic(which means 3ami btw)
arabic is said to have originated in its current form at around 400 CE some 2 thousands years after ishmael
ENJOY!
The Jewish calender is already in the 5700 years, But I have to admit it's not a very good indication of time or anything. But lets say it was a practice by the very old races. I think Abraham is much older than that. And if it's true the Ishmael tamed the first horse, then that would be 10,000 years ago. But who knows, maybe the horse was tamed more than one time, by different people. 10k is a long time.
It might have been OK for old tribes to do such practices, cannibalism might have been fine to them too. But That doesn't mean these things should continue.
As for the hadith, there were clear instructions NOT to over do it. But no instructions to actually do it. It was like "If you're going to do it, do a tiny bit, but it never said Do it unconditionally) Therefore, it's unnecessary.
i didn't mention the horse thing because i never really heard of it but since he is the grandfather of Arabs and they are proud of their horses them they sure would have did some lore about how he tamed the first horse, taken lore to be historically accurate didn't make me look at it ;)
hmm in case of cannibalism Muslims were forbidden from doing that in the Quran it is haram. so it couldn't have continued regardless of our moral compass.
as for the hadith there is that one which is da3eef and another two. so saying that Islam is against FGM or khitan is misleading. since the the fatwa mentions that it is a blessing (makroma lil nisa2) and more. based on that it is encouraged in the sunni faith if anything.
here is the link to the last fatwa about the issue, there have not been any later fatwas against ... there was a modification i believe in '89
i hope that it gives a clearer representation of where do the sunnis stand on the issue of FGM.
I will need to go back to my notes and get back to you. But I am certain of the following:
1) Circumcision for men, is fard (mandatory) or Sunna according to some fatwas.
2) Circumcision for women is not Fard and people appear to consider that this automatically means Sunna, not it's not. It's only for men. But granted Islam didn't call to abolish it.
With all that is mentioned, it's obvious that Islam Shiite or Sunni can not be blamed for FGM.
It is Muslim tradition, and there are no references Ibn Kathir on who the rabbis were he speaks of. There are Ethiopian Jews who have practiced it, but this is where culture overrides scripture.
Just so you know I went further than Wiki :)
Would it be fine if I switch the wording to prehistoric instead of biblical?
And bravo for digging more,
Now, again, I'm just using the biblical wording because I wanted to date it. But maybe that is wrong
Since Hagar was Egyptian slave, and Abraham asked her to get circumcised (regardless of the source of that story) then we have two things here. First, he didn't ask Sarah, although he did ask All the men in his house (this is in the bible, right?)
But he did ask Hagar, and because of that (and since Muslims follow originally the religion of Abraham) some went on to conclude that it's allowed.
Taking the whole story into perspective we see:
1) The Quran is silent on that, it doesn't say DO it
2) When Mohammad heard of it being done, he requested that IF they did it, not to do too much of it. (So not doing it is OK)
Therefore, as a Muslim I'm telling you, It's NOT of Islam, and Islam is against it.
Wow this very old post is still alive!
though the following of the practice exhibit more of a cultural connection than a religious one.
so kinzi you would be at error when arguing that its a muslim tradition when it is more of a social one. as for jewish female circumcision i read about it and the rationale was two part. one relating to only people of the covenant can perform sacrificial rituals and some females did them so they had to be, plus that the covenant applies for both sexes after it was established. am a bit hazy on the details so if you'd like i will dig it up. and btw the also against the rule of bodily mutilation is of the new covenant as far as i know and hence the difference between Christians and jews when it comes to circumcision
ok, ok... i promise the resurrection of this post is over for me ...
Either way, Islam isn't to blame for the practice.
secondly, female circumcision is not circumcision. a woman's clitoris is equivalent to the male penis head but even more sensitive. What if mohammed said about male penis "IF they did it, not to do too much of it."? you would probably convert to being jewish.
you make a point that it was cultural and i agree. i just find it evil that instead of condemning it someone said "IF they did it, not to do too much of it.".