European Muslims and Islamic scholars like to spread the myth, female genital mutilation would find neither basis nor justification in Islam. This may be taken as normative (counter-) reduction of very honorable intention, the Muslims had in intra-Islamic discourse, therefore, make no accusation. Scientifically speaking, analytically is nonsense. In many rural areas of the rusty kitchen knife still reigns unchallenged and, of course including the Islamic legitimacy. And also in more urban environment is only slowly transported one by Western standards of value change of consciousness. In this context, the following text from the environment of the Muslim Brotherhood is seen. This is against the religious "circumcision" of women argued that but without a broad social debate talk about the subject the word to do. The author works hard, the position that "circumcision" is not prescribed in Islam to support. At the same time he promoted cultural laissez-faire, in order not to split the umma (community of believers) - one of the biggest concerns of scholars of Islam have always been.
[Finally, a linguistic note: In the translation work, it proves again and again as the difficulty of distinguishing between citation and proclaimed to the author to distinguish, that is quoted and on his own behalf Spoken elapses often in one another and is at best analogy, but not grammatically to separate. There may be in this manifest ignorance (or denial) of the quotation technology a cause for misunderstanding papal citations in the Arab world]
of: IslamOnline 25/07/2006
circumcision of women - between the permitted and forbidden.
Masud Sabri **
It is amazing that whenever the topic of circumcision comes to language, big controversy is high and cook the emotions. It is as if the matter of circumcision is a case for the Last Judgement would be, and as if they were untouchable. We do not want the matter Small talk but you have to classify it and discuss it according to the correct traditions, in the [religious] legal, and social and medical context.
can the matter be regarded circumcision from several angles: this includes the Sharia perspective that is fundamental to this issue and the medical perspective that is important for the development of a Sharia-position by acts supplementary and clarifying. Just that some scholars said, "God the Almighty has two books: the visual book and read the book. The book is the apparent existence of the sciences, life and others, and read the book, which is the word of God of the sublime, the venerable Qur'an. It is of course unthinkable that there could be conflicts between the two books, the creator but God is the Most High. "
Add to that the social dimension, especially in matters where one agrees or not on issues that are assessing turn of admissibility. One should not condemn a people because it is a custom practiced or not practiced, so long as the community that lives in it, matches it. It is important that there are no differences in the legislation and that some people on the most appropriate. They should be here on the views of legal scholars of all time and orient places. This brought to determine the law and its practical implementation, using the tools of the Sharia in agreement. They pulled both the medical and the social context into account, because both indicate and explain the truth of the Sharia Court. Basis of a Sharia ruling on a matter is a clear legal notice (in the sources, translator's). If this clarity is lacking, the verdict on the basis of finding the law of each is like the individual.
opinion on circumcision
Let's look at the decision about circumcision, we find that divided the legal scholars on this issue.
The First: circumcision is sunnah (desirable) for men and women
The Second Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women
The Third: Circumcision is mandatory for men and an honorable deed for women
The Fourth: There are no opinion on circumcision. It is neither obligatory nor recommended. Ibn Qudama handed the words Hassan al-Basris. "If someone is Muslim, it does not matter whether he is circumcised," he said, "It is black and white convert to Islam. Investigated any of them and cuts them. "The advice against Ibn Qudamas and the rulings of scholars suggest that as a boy are not circumcised, if he is afraid.
During the conversation the lawyer was agreed that the circumcision of boys separated from the circumcision of girls is to be treated. Here, the different nature of what might be cut off the light. When a boy's circumcision, the foreskin that covers the glans are separated so that the glans is exposed completely. In women, cut the skin over the clitoris, which is above the Harnausgang. The jurists prohibit strip off anything beyond the woman to inflict any damage. They thus have bad habits through the circumcision of girls by some ignorant men and women practice. They do so from the circumcision torture for the girls. The doctors also believe that invite failure of the practice. The lawyers say they saw it as desirable that there is little to be cut away with the woman and that the cutting will not exaggerated.
This position is consistent with the medical point of view, just after the circumcision of men only excess skin is while it is the woman a physical intervention. For this reason many doctors refuse from female circumcision, for what they referred to is nothing excess.
There are many doctors who say that circumcision harms women. But we also find some who reject this generalization. Circumcision, which are know to be Sharia-circumcision, differs from the one led by many people. With her there was no damage to the woman.
legitimacy of circumcision
The claim that there was no evidence of the legitimacy of female circumcision is not correct. Nor is it correct to speak of a duty. In a healthy (correct traditional, translator's) is called Hadith: "When two circumcised, they must "Wash. This Hadith draws attention to the fact that the women were circumcised, but it found nothing in it that points to a duty of that. A duty could only be justified by referring to the cutting. There are some other hadiths, such as the hadith of Umm Radillah Atia, "A woman led by circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (saw) said to her: Do not overdo it because it makes the woman more advantageous and it is preferred by the husband. " The Imam Al-Shafii mentioned it and the narrator Abu Dawood told this Judgement Abu Dawood has narrated it. He said: "But he said, not by force." It is known that the Shafi'i those are in favor of a mandatory circumcision for women. At the same time providing one of its greatest scholars of a hadith, which states: Do not force. Contemporary narrators are there any necessary corrections, but they can also be read no circumcision duty but merely to recognize indications of the existence of female circumcision. The
refers also to the work of Abraham (peace be upon him). The Lord said, "Then we gave a you that the religious community of Abraham was orthodox." And there was a great debate among legal scholars: let us follow Abraham in everything he does, or we follow what is written in our law? That is, that with respect to this reference does not prevailed among all scholars match.
the mistake made by the Islamic scholars when they consider circumcision to be legitimate conveys the Imam Ibn Taymiyya in his fatwas: The Intended at the circumcision of the male is to clean up under the foreskin accumulating impurity. Intended for the circumcision of women is an adaptation of their desire. Because if they have foreskins, their desire is fierce. And if exaggerated the circumcision, was the desire of the woman is too weak. Then the man at his wife did not enjoy the full, if he loves her. When you cut away the little woman, you get the intended average. However, is the word of Ibn Taymiyyah's an interpretation and not a legal sign. The following Hadith scholars classified as weak (that may well be wrong), "circumcision is sunnah (desirable) for men and an honorable deed for women."
call for reflection
That means for us on the issue of circumcision as follows:
1) It is not possible to speak of a circumcision mandatory, because only such an obligation for the umma to which it a reference (in the writings, translator's) are
2) The legal scholars differ on the circumcision of men and women. They recognize the dangers of circumcision in women and the need to preserve the one hand a kind of mediocrity, not to harm the woman and prevent the other hand the ignorant women in the implementation of this operation. It is essential that they be conducted under medical supervision trusted, so we do not hurt our daughters and protect their health, so they are not sexually frigid and we would have benefited us more harm than good.
3) If the circumcision is harmful and if it is not necessary, we apply them not, neither boys nor in girls. It said Imam Ahmad Hassan al-Basri and other imams. God the Almighty turn harm from the Muslims and allow the Muslims not to harm himself.
4) One can distinguish in the Hadiths that involve circumcision as existing and those that show them as non-existent, but it is desirable. This is due to customs and traditions. And when you consider the environment into consideration, then a hot environment can not be compared with a cold. The Imam Ibn al-Haaj has recorded in his book "input" that meaning. He mentions that "a difference in the law regarding women are: Is she or was completely cut distinction between people of the East and people of the West? Man the East is applied to preserve a remnant of their natural form, the people of the West is not applied "
For me, this statement of exceptional beauty.. For the lawyers explain that circumcision was due to the manners and customs of the people. Therefore, it is also necessary to vary the nature of circumstances. People need not be equal in them, but they all choose what they consider themselves as fit and proper.
So this means that the people practicing these differences, without a war between their religious scholars or their Their physicians or sociologists should break out. Each side of them is happy. We must recognize the different nature of people and places accurately. Is our whole approach is not directed at states in which it features in many areas of general human behavior?
means that circumcision, if it can cause damage should not be applied. It is enough to the events that are told. It was useful to correct the pleasure of the woman. Back then it was nothing wrong with this practice, and the doctors agree. But you need Medical Services supervisor, so it is performed in the correct manner. Which we clarified the legal scholars in our conversation.
After that, I say: If there is broad consensus among legal scholars and doctors on the issue of circumcision, then does that mean for us that not every person should ostentatiously announce his opinion. Instead, we must think through the job well, in order to open up areas of agreement and reconciliation, while well together and participate in the project of some umma. It will divide us and not some. And when it is time to split, it must not be that one opinion is the rational and the other the wrong thing. Instead, we might - I say perhaps, in the opinion their time-, situation-and location-based context and treated as the other opinion in its other time-, situation-and location-based context. In this way we benefit from our intellectual wealth that comes from all of our scholars of law, medicine, society and the scholars of other sciences.
** legal scholar at the Faculty and for "islamonline.net"
