The Truth About Islam And Female Circumcision/FGM

images

This is a difficult question to get an authoritative answer for (but it shouldn’t be) – and hardly ever spoken of by ‘dawah carriers’, with rare exceptions. The reasons for this frequent omission will soon become abundantly clear.

From the outset, on such an important and understandably emotive topic, let me reassure my readers, that ‘circumcision’ in the sense of surgical assault on the clitoris, infibulation etc or indeed any type of tampering with the female clitoris is unequivocally prohibited, (in Arabic terminology ‘haraam’) and is hideously immoral and this is the unanimous agreement of all within the bounds of orthodox traditional Islam and sharia.

However, I must now go into more detail: because as Islamophobes and sadly Salafis as well will remind us, ‘circumcision’ (translated as ‘khitan’ in Arabic) is mentioned for women in no less than the Muwatta of Imam Malik (the early hadith compendium) as well as in Bukhari’s ‘Adhab wal Mufrad’ – several times the euphemism ‘when the circumcised part touches the circumcised part’ (i.e that of the man and the woman) is used to describe sexual activity, even in at least one case reportedly by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This of course has led Islamophobes, the genuinely uninformed and inexcusably ignorant (often Muslims) to shout it at the top of their lungs and make a direct link between the reprehensible practices of some Sub-Saharan (and Egyptian) communities and orthodox Islam.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

But then why is ‘circumcision’ (or ‘khitan’) mentioned for women in Islamic sources at all? It was clearly widespread in pre-Islamic Arabia and there is a narration that Hadrat Uthman (RA), the third Caliph, allowed women to be circumcised when it was requested. A group of female prisoners of war had a female warden who asked him whether the captives should be circumcised as per custom at that time, and Uthman allowed it..

The key issue here is what was meant by ‘khitan’ of a woman (or even a man): even amongst the pagan Arabs it meant only taking off part of the labia minora (or as they described it ‘that part between the clitoris and urethra which looks like the comb of a rooster’ – more on this later) and absolutely nothing else. This is a procedure known as a ‘limited labioplasty’ and is common today for cosmetic purposes (though that was not the Arabs reason – more on this in a moment too).

As mentioned, this practice (limited labioplasty) was very widespread during the time of the pre-Islamic pagan Arabs, and likewise during the time of The Prophet (SAW). He is neither reported to have praised it nor proscribed it. In fact his alleged view on it is only mentioned in one undoubtedly weak hadith from ‘Sunan Abu Dawood’ (a famous collection of hadith narrations) which has two versions. In it, a woman of the Ansar (the ‘helpers’ from Medina) approaches the Prophet and asks if she is allowed to continue circumcising women, as that was her profession.

Narration #1: ‘If you want to do it, make it very shallow (arabic ‘ashimi’) and do not go very deep. Because it will brighten the face of the woman and give more portion to the husband’.

Narration #2 ‘do not go very deep because it gives more portion of enjoyment (‘athza’ in Arabic) for the lady and that is more liked by the husband’.

Both versions of this narration are weak…but so what?

Both are straightforward: that ‘khitan’, or ‘circumcision’ if you will, for the woman is merely tolerated and if done is to be for the express purpose of ‘improving her enjoyment of sex’.

How so?

The classical scholars have explained while commenting on this hadith that the logic was that when the Labia Minora are at their full extent they may partially cover or obstruct the clitoris thereby reducing it’s stimulation by friction from the male pubis (or indeed penis, especially if it is large) during sex. This in turn may conceivably delay female orgasm, since clitoral stimulation is a big part of this. Clearly the hadith commentators were already well beyond denying the female orgasm which was sadly found in some other societies until much later. Since many men suffer from premature ejaculation, failure to stimulate the clitoris would make this shortcoming even worse and may cause the woman to not experience orgasm at all during sex. Hence the woman climaxing at the same time (or at least near to) as the man is more ‘liked by the husband’, as per the hadith. It is clearly also less sexual work for him if what they say about better exposure to the clitoris is correct. Note that the covering or hood (anatomically ‘prepuce’) of the clitoris is not mentioned.

The euphemism in the first narration ‘brighten her face’ also refers to the woman’s enjoyment of sex, since depression or unhappiness is often referred to as ‘darkening of the face’ in Arabic (another misunderstood expression, which people incorrectly portray as racist).

Therefore the phrase ‘athza-lil-maraa’ in the above hadith or ‘more portion of enjoyment to the lady’ in English, is explained as to help women reach orgasm by partially removing obstructions to clitoral stimulation (namely large or mobile labia minora, especially after multiple pregnancies), especially if the man has a smaller penis or suffers from the common enough problem of premature ejaculation.

This is obvious without the commentary on the hadith to anyone who has had sex with a woman or is familiar with the rudiments of female anatomy:

File:Vulva anatomy.jpg

Or from the (now famous) classic ‘Greys’ Anatomy’:

File:Gray1229.png

This is not some clever idea or interpretation I have dreamed up: not only is it obvious from the text of the Hadith, but it is the consensus of the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence that anything other than this is ‘muthla’ (Arabic for mutilation) and thus absolutely prohibited (‘haraam’) and punishable. Therefore we are the first to welcome punitive measures by the British government against FGM and demand that others follow suit.

Once again: it is the consensus (‘ijmaa’) of the four madhahib (as mentioned, the schools of jurisprudence in Islam) unanimously, that only, as they call them ‘minor lips’ can be partially removed – without touching the clitoris at all and without reaching the urethra at all.

The proof is in the agreed upon (by orthodox Muslims as opposed to modernist or protestant movements such as Salafism) books of Islamic law and conduct: ‘Bahur Rayagh‘, the authoritative text of the Hanafis is quoted below. Hanafis hold that circumcision for women is merely permissible – the Shafis, Malikis and Hanbalis hold it to be sunnah or waajib – so Muslims speakers and dawah carriers who say that ‘it is mutilation’ without clarifying why, for example, there is an opinion of Ahmad ibn Hanbal saying that it is compulsory, are leaving themselves wide open for a humiliating rebuttal, let alone the other narrations mentioned. Nonetheless, it has to be said that even regarding the limited labioplasty ‘khitan’, the Hanafi position is clearly the only tenable one – how do the other schools establish a compulsory action based on a single weak hadith?

‘It is the khitan of the lady to remove the skin which looks like the comb of the rooster (‘that thing on the head of the rooster’)…between the clitoris and the urethra there is a thin layer of skin; it is this that can be removed.’

In the ‘Majmoo’, Imam Nawawi (read: an authority) repeated the above quote.

In the Hanbali (most literalistic) school, Mansur ibn Yunus Al Buhayti repeated the above mentioned quote verbatim.

Another Hanbalite authority, the famous Ibn Qudamah Al Maqdisi:

‘The khitan is to remove the slim skin on the top of the vaginal opening’.

Note that it is interesting that even the entirely legal (and increasingly popular at the time of writing) procedure of ‘Labioplasties’ practised nowadays (often for cosmetic reasons or influenced by the types of vaginas popularised in pornographic imagery) is completely prohibited in Islam as they involve; ‘a plastic surgery procedure for altering the labia minora (inner labia) and the labia majora (outer labia)’ (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labiaplasty), and Islam is completely unequivocal about anything other than only a slight trimming of the inner labia being genital mutilation (recall: ‘muthla’ in Arabic sharia terminology). Labioplasty with clitoral unhooding, is also practised in the UK/US especially if the clitoral prepuce (or ‘hood’) is too thick and interferes with sexual stimulation and is even more problematic Islamicaly – as per the prohibition of going and tampering with anything other than the labia minora (which would also exclude the clitoral prepuce).

It is clear that the problem we appear to have in the West is how to make Islam more tolerant of the widespread forms of vaginal (plastic) surgery practised here rather than Islam being permissive of the vulgarity that is FGM. Given the long-standing ijma (consensus) of Islamic jurists on this issue though, that leeway for allowing even procedures such as therapeutic clitoral unhooding is likely to be…well, perhaps none.

So let me just emphasise once again to make it abundantly clear: even the types of vaginal surgeries commonly practised in the UK and US are proscribed by traditional, old fashioned Orthodox Islam – let alone the entirely absurd claim of Islam being an excuse for FGM. In fact, Islam has a far more harsh definition of FGM than the law as it stands now.

I would personally support voices which question the expansion and acceptability of potentially harmful vaginal cosmetic surgery (although, truth be told, I would argue the same for cosmetic breast augmentation – but that’s a whole different story).

Okay, you may well ask, but then where did the idea, that no doubt exists and is sadly practised that ‘khitan’= female circumcision = removing the clitoris’ come from if all this is true?

If the Four Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence are unanimous, and condemn mutilation of the clitoris or cutting anything other than the labia minora, then why does the problem even exist?

And why aren’t most Muslim speakers, with few exceptions, willing to clarify this matter, especially as some of the classical schools regard ‘khitan’ as compulsory for women? (It is not even compulsory for men in the Hanafi school by the way)

The problem, as so often, begins with the unusual and troubling opinions of controversial 14th century heterodox thinker Taqi Ad Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya (1263 – 1328 C.E).

He popularised his (personal) view that ‘khitan’ or ‘circumcision’ was carried out for the actual reason of reducing the sex drive of women, that if women are circumcised they will ‘not enjoy it (sex) too much’. Even he however did not go so far as to say the clitoris should be removed (but he is implying it, in direct contravention of the hadith we mentioned from Abu Dawood).

Ibn Taymiyya is mentioned by the hadith master Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani to have left the consensus of Muslims on twenty or more issues: this is perhaps the most sickeningly gynophobic in an already disturbing oeuvre.

His disciple (and fellow icon of the Salafi/Wahhabi movement) Ibn Qayyum Al Jawzi, in his book ‘The Sunnats Pertaining to the Newborn’ sadly followed His Masters Voice and said that khitan was to ‘balance/lower the desire of the female’.

Of course, this is again in direct contravention to the alleged saying of the Prophet who said that if done, it should be only to ‘give her more portion in the enjoyment of sex’ (‘Athza-lil-maraa’). So much for a ‘Quran and Sunnah’ based religion I guess…

Interestingly, the only other scholar I could find who went against the consensus was Ibn Jawzi (the student of Abdul Qadir Al Jilani, not of Ibn Taymiyya), who mentioned it in his commentary on the difficult hadith of Bukhari, regarding the episode where Abu Bakr (RA) allegedly returned the insult of an opponent by mentioning the clitoris (which is ‘Al bidr/badr’ in Arabic). Ibn Jawzi said that the ‘bidr’ was ‘the part the lady lady leaves behind when she is circumcised’.

We can at least perhaps excuse the ramblings of Ibn Taymiyya, who never had a wife or sexual partner that we know of at least, and could perhaps be ignorant of such matters and since he did not explicitly say that the clitoris should be mutilated. Sadly however, contemporary Salafi scholars such as Nasiruddin Albani, Muhammad Hasan and Albanis’ Egyptian disciple (though they apparently only met for three hours) Huwayni, have shown no such restraint and have been far more explicit – they have said that ‘khitan’ is indeed FGM and involves the removal of ‘some part of the clitoris’, but not all (most generous of them: I wonder if they would be similarly accommodating if someone were to cut off ‘only a part’ of the head of their penis’?). They claim the saying of The Prophet (SAW) ‘keep it shallow’ refers to the clitoris.

I am sorry to be blunt: this is sheer madness and a gross and inexcusable violation of traditional Islamic law for fourteen centuries (i.e forever).

However Albani does not stop there: he violates a second consensus by saying that ‘khitan’ (which in his case really is FGM), is only to be practised on certain ladies. And who are these unlucky women? Well the ones from ‘hot countries, due to their well developed clitoris’. I will leave it to the reader to figure out how he came to this gynaecological conclusion.

Even more horrifically, doyen and most senior of the latter day Salafis, rector and founder of Medina ‘University’ Abdul Aziz Bin Abdullah Ibn Baz (1910 – 1999) went so far as to say that French women in particular should be preferentially subjected to a clitorectomy due to their sexual habits. How he arrived at this disgusting (and racist) stereotype does not bear thinking about.

So now perhaps it becomes clear why people from certain orientations in the Islamic community and the ‘dawah’ movement are unwilling to speak about important concerns that non-Muslims (and most Muslims) will have: for the sake of not going against Albani and other Wahhabi figureheads, the enquiring mind is met with amateurish efforts which are easily refuted (or even deliberately dishonest) or worst of all, a wall of silence on the issue, as we find from most of the well known Dawah carriers in the UK (I’m talking about iERA if you did not take the hint).

Yet worse, the scholarly authority behind organisations such as iERA and public speakers such as Hamza Tzortzis, Haitham Al Haddad, makes remarks on ‘female circumcision’ without the necessary clarifications: given his militant insistence on the Wahhabi tradition, one suspects they would not be forthcoming in any case…

An interesting critique of Labioplasties in the UK (often for cosmetic reasons):

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex-and-relationships/labiaplasty.htm

Wikipedia explains the WHO gradings of FGM: the ‘lowest’ grade, Ia, still involves the clitoris (it is removal of the clitoral hood and as mentioned, may be carried out in the NHS for a think and obstructing hood as mentioned above), in contravention to the consensus of the Muslim schools of jurisprudence and thus even this is a major sin and forbidden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#Procedures_and_health_effects

A more academic presentation of much of the same information, by an Islamic jurist:

 

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “The Truth About Islam And Female Circumcision/FGM

  1. Talk about ‘not making the necessary clarifications’.

    See Hatiham Haddad completely mistranslating the hadith and blagging his way through this topic: totally sickening. This guy is the ‘authority’ behind speakers such as Hamza Tzortzis.

    This guy can’t even read Arabic or what? Where is the mention of chastity in that hadith? And why can’t he talk without saying ‘tayyib’ every six seconds?! Is there something wrong with him?

    He is even asked about what the level of circumcision should be at the end and blatantly does not know! Why the hell is he talking about it then if he does not even know what it is?!

  2. If this doesn’t show people the total madness of people such as Albani, Ibn Baz, Ibn Taymiyya (and his latter day popularisers in the UK, such as AR green, Bilal Phillips and Hamza Tzortzis) then we might as well give up…anyone who is willing to allow people to cut off his her genitals, on any grounds let alone idiotic ones such as ‘to stop women being promiscuous’ is in a cult and not a religion, just like the atheists say…

  3. What the hell?! Salafis actually believe all that crap that Islamophobes accuse us of?

    How can girls join movements like that? What’s wrong with these people?

    Thank God that this talk came from a Muslim and not a non-Muslim, or imagine the results.

    I’m sorry, but even more than the other stuff, this proves for me that Ibn Taymiyya is a mental idiot. Forget all this ‘respect the scholars crap’. That’s out of the window for someone who wants to chop up women’s vaginas. My mother and sisters are more important to me than that sex-mad moron.

    No wonder I have never heard these dawah guys give a detailed talk on this. They are just bs-ing or not mentioning it at all. I see why now. Salafist nutters the lot of them.

  4. Yet another argument for what should be clear to most. The best way to attack Islam and distort it’s image is simply to read ‘salafi’ books concerning theology, fiqh and fatwas and just quote from them or translate

  5. Pingback: Quotations to ponder or laught at « Blogging theology

  6. Haddad…what a filthy woman hating monster…he’s willing to put a blade to a woman’s clitoris without even knowing the basic of the procedure. The guy asking the question at the end knew more than him. I’m sorry: but that guy is pure evil. How can someone claiming to be a Muslim even think of doing this to a woman? hasn’t this guy got a mother or sister?

    I can’t believe these beasts do courses for new Muslim sisters or run a helpline for girls who leave Islam – people like Haddad are the reason women leave Islam. Dirty filthy perverts, may Allah punish him and his followers. I don’t even pray for people like this who are willing to mutilate women by cutting off their clitorisis because they are the lowest of the low. How would they feel is we were to castrate them to lower their desires. Animals.

    but where is proof that brother Hamza is his follower? Hamza is a good person, I have seen him in many events. He does not say this things.

  7. Strong, and offensive but I have no choice but to allow it, especially as I assume you are a woman from your name (SE Asian?) and this kind of issue is going to provoke a strong response and whoever posted that video by Haddad did not do him any favours.

    Hamza is the direct student of Haddad and does nothing without his approval and consults him and only him or other Salafi scholars. I have this is personal communication from Tzortzis himself and it is all over the net if you Google ‘Hamza Tzortzis and Haddad’. Same goes for IERA in general – they get their scholarship from Haddad.

    Please don’t be so naive: as you can see from Haddads lecture, he needs a politically correct European mouthpiece and Tzortzis is that man.

  8. Pingback: Lies, Damn Lies…and Haitham Al Haddad | Asharis: Assemble

  9. There are many sayings of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) to show the important place, circumcision, whether of males or females, occupies in Islam. Among these traditions is the one where the Prophet is reported to have declared circumcision (khitan) to be sunnat for men and ennobling for women (Baihaqi).
    He is also known to have declared that the bath (following sexual intercourse without which no prayer is valid) becomes obligatory when both the circumcised parts meet (Tirmidhi). The fact that the Prophet defined sexual intercourse as the meeting of the male and female circumcised parts (khitanul khitan or khitanain) when stressing on the need for the obligatory post-coital bath could be taken as pre-supposing or indicative of the obligatory nature of circumcision in the case of both males and females.
    Stronger still is his statement classing circumcision (khitan) as one of the acts characteristic of the fitra or God-given nature (Or in other words, Divinely-inspired natural inclinations of humans) such as the shaving of pubic hair, removing the hair of the armpits and the paring of nails (Bukhari) which again shows its strongly emphasized if not obligatory character in the case of both males and females. Muslim scholars are of the view that acts constituting fitra which the Prophet expected Muslims to follow are to be included in the category of wajib or obligatory.
    That the early Muslims regarded female circumcision as obligatory even for those Muslims who embraced Islam later in life is suggested by a tradition occurring in the Adab al Mufrad of Bukhari where Umm Al Muhajir is reported to have said: “I was captured with some girls from Byzantium. (Caliph) Uthman offered us Islam, but only myself and one other girl accepted Islam. Uthman said: ‘Go and circumcise them and purify them.’”
    More recently, we had Sheikh Jadul Haqq, the distinguished head of Al Azhar declaring both male and female circumcision to be obligatory religious duties (Khitan Al Banat in Fatawa Al-Islamiyyah. 1983). The fatwa by his successor Tantawi who opposed the practice cannot be taken seriously as we all know that he has pronounced a number of unislamic fatwas such as declaring bank interest halal and questioning the obligation of women wearing headscarves.
    At the same time, however, what is required in Islam, is the removal of only the prepuce of the clitoris, and not the clitoris itself as is widely believed. The Prophet told Umm Atiyyah, a lady who circumcised girls in Medina: “When you circumcise, cut plainly and do not cut severely, for it is beauty for the face and desirable for the husband” (idha khafadti fa ashimmi wa la tanhaki fa innahu ashraq li’l wajh wa ahza ind al zawj) (Abu Dawud, Al Awsat of Tabarani and Tarikh Baghdad of Al Baghdadi).
    This hadith clearly explains the procedure to be followed in the circumcision of girls. The words: “Cut plainly and do not cut severely” (ashimmi wa la tanhaki) is to be understood in the sense of removing the skin covering the clitoris, and not the clitoris. The expression “It is beauty (more properly brightness or radiance) for the face” (ashraq li’l wajh) is further proof of this as it simply means the joyous countenance of a woman, arising out of her being sexually satisfied by her husband. The idea here is that it is only with the removal of the clitoral prepuce that real sexual satisfaction could be realized. The procedure enhances sexual feeling in women during the sex act since a circumcised clitoris is much more likely to be stimulated as a result of direct oral, penile or tactile contact than the uncircumcised organ whose prepuce serves as an obstacle to direct stimulation.
    A number of religious works by the classical scholars such as Fath Al Bari by Ibn Hajar Asqalani and Sharhul Muhadhdhab of Imam Nawawi have stressed on the necessity of removing only the prepuce of the clitoris and not any part of the organ itself. It is recorded in the Majmu Al Fatawa that when Ibn Taymiyyah was asked whether the woman is circumcised, he replied: “Yes we circumcise. Her circumcision is to cut the uppermost skin (jilda) like the cock’s comb.” More recently Sheikh Jadul Haqq declared that the circumcision of females consists of the removal of the clitoral prepuce (Khitan Al Banat in Fatawa Al Islamiyya. 1983).
    Besides being a religious duty, the procedure is believed to facilitate good hygiene since the removal of the prepuce of the clitoris serves to prevent the accumulation of smegma, a foul-smelling, germ-containing cheese- like substance that collects underneath the prepuces of uncircumcised women (See Al Hidaayah. August 1997).
    A recent study by Sitt Al Banat Khalid ‘Khitan Al-Banat Ru’ yah Sihhiyyah’ (2003) has shown that female circumcision, like male circumcision, offers considerable health benefits, such as prevention of urinary tract infections and other diseases such as cystitis affecting the female reproductive organs.
    The latest is the study Orgasmic Dysfunction Among Women at a Primary Care Setting in Malaysia. Hatta Sidi, and Marhani Midin, and Sharifah Ezat Wan Puteh, and Norni Abdullah, (2008) Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 20 (4) accessible http://myais.fsktm.um.edu.my/4480/ which shows that being Non-Malay is a higher risk factor for Orgasmic Sexual Dysfunction in women, implying that Malay women experience less problems in achieving orgasm than non-Malay women. As you know almost all Malay women in Malaysia are circumcised (undergo hoodectomy) in contrast to non-Malay women who are not. This would suggest that hoodectomy does in fact contribute to an improved sex life in women rather than diminishing it as some argue.
    Another good reason why women need a hoodectomy (Islamic female circumcision). It can prevent cancer arising from oral sex. Here’s an interesting news item:
    US scientists said Sunday there is strong evidence linking oral sex to cancer, and urged more study of how human papillomaviruses may be to blame for a rise in oral cancer among white men. In the United States, oral cancer due to HPV infection is now more common than oral cancer from tobacco use, which remains the leading cause of such cancers in the rest of the world.
    Researchers have found a 225-percent increase in oral cancer cases in the United States from 1974 to 2007, mainly among white men, said Maura Gillison of Ohio State University. “The rise in oral cancer in the US is predominantly among young white males and we do not know the answer as to why.”
    It is obvious that the only way men can acquire the HPV virus is through the oral stimulation of one’s partner’s clitoris which allows the virus to enter the mouth. The virus no doubt is harboured in the prepuce of the clitoris just as it has been found that HPV also resides in the foreskins of males, through the transmission of which cervical cancer occurs in females. Thus a hoodectomy could, by removing the part that harbours the virus, significantly reduce or eliminate the risk of women transmitting the virus to their male partners.
    For more benefits of Islamic female circumcision also known as hoodectomy see http://www.umatia.org/2011/Safe%20Female%20circumcision.doc

    • This reply has only been allowed to show the silliness that people such as yourself employ: you were given the authoritative fatwas of the four schools, which all, including Ahmad are from before Bukhari, but you ignore the IJMA and CONSENSUS of the believers and refer us to:
      1) Hadith from Adhab wal Mufrad which was addressed in the article which you did not bother to read AT ALL: that hadith does not tell you anything about what is to be removed and in any case, like an Ahl Hadith or Salafi or confused individual that you are, you think usool can be derived directly from hadith. Then please derive for me directly from Sahih hadith how to pray.
      2) You narrate to us from Ibn Taymiyyah, the very guy we said went against ijma. YOU CLEARLY POSTED THIS WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE AT ALL. In any case – your comprehension of Arabic or anatomy is flawed and the precupice of the clitoris is not the thing that looks like the roosters head. Neither did Ibn Taymiyah speak of precupectomy (which is allowed in the UK but maybe not in Islam). Also, you did not give the reference from ‘Majmoo’ (because the statement you claim Ibn Taymiyah made is not in there).
      3) You ignore the evidence from the authoritative Imams of Islam, which to you is nothing and resort to, in addition to Ibn Taymiyyah, who cared not a jot for ijma, to latter day scholars from Al Azhar who agree with you. So what? Ijma of the Imams is there, who cares about Taymiyya or ‘Jaddul Huq’? Are they Mujtahid Mutlaq to be able to ignore the Imams (they are for you of course). And anyweay, who cares about the precupice, the pupose of the article was to refutre those who say that you can touch the clitoris, since these guys are saying that you cannot touch it, they agree with us and the Imams. So what? Anyway, Ibn Taymiyya does not say it is a hoodectomy – read the article before writing.
      4) You mistranslated the hadith: we do not follow hadith without referring them to usool of hadith and to fiqh anyway(unless one is a Wahhabi ‘oh no I’m not Wahhabi! blah blah’): it says ‘do not deepen it’ not ‘cut plainly’ and in neither case does it mention the precupice and nor could it be followed literally anyway as do not deepen what exactly? The cut of the clitoris or the Labia or the precuopice? In a any case, perhaps you don’t know the difference between labia minora, prcuopice and clitoris (maybe not only did you not read the article, you did not look at the diagrams)
      6) Hadith of Bayhaqi -‘enobling’ does not mean sunnah or waajib – you are completely confused
      7) ‘such as the shaving of pubic hair, removing the hair of the armpits and the paring of nails (Bukhari) which again shows its strongly emphasized if not obligatory character in the case of both males and females. Muslim scholars are of the view that acts constituting fitra which the Prophet expected Muslims to follow are to be included in the category of wajib or obligatory.’
      Mistranslated again: no one took the hadith as literal and you have not quoted the rest of it: it says ‘pluck out the armpit hairs’ and not shave them, so no one took this literally. You also don’t understand the difference between Sunnah and waajib. Which Mujtahid scholars say that acts constituting ‘fitra’ are waajib? We have already seen that your proofs are whoever agrees with you even if they have no rank against the Imams of fiqh and even if it is against ijma. So no one cares if your scholars told you that Sunnah=Waajib, because that is wrong and it shows you do not know the difference between Fiqhy Sunnaha and Kalaamy Sunnah etc.
      8) How do medical studies on orgasm prove anything in Islamic Fiqh? Are you saying the reason circumcision is ‘waajib’ is because some studies show that it improves orgasms? So are all things which gynaecologists say improve female orgasm waajib now? Interesting Usool.
      9) Prophet already said that it improves orgasm, why are you telling us these studies?
      10) You are misguided about science and medicine – you sent a essay, not published in any medial or scientific journal by a Sudanese (!) Gynaecologist, a place where the Salafists practice FGM widely and expect us to take this as a proof. So what about the hundreds of doctors from the WHO who say it is not safe? In any case, the article is about precupectomy and you provided zero evidence that that is what the hadith were referring to (apart from your own commentary and no reference to why anyone should believe you. In any case, precupectomy is legal in the UK, so what is the point defending it if that is REALLY what these guys are practising and they do not touch the clitoris at all? And if it is the case, what were Ibn Taymiyyaha and Ibn Qayyum talking about when they said female circumcision is to balance or lower the woman’s desire? It is the exact opposite of what the Prophet and Imams said, i.e that it is to increase her enjoyment.

      Removing the precipice is legal, though not supported by the evidence you brought. So why are you defending something already legal? We said that touching the clitoris is haraam by ijma. Why are you talking about the covering of the clitoris? Also, where is the word ‘precupice’ as opposed to ‘minor lips’ in the evidence you have brought?
      11) I did not look at your other studies because one link is broken and the other is not even in a medical journal or recognised by any reputable medical body. I am a doctor and do not accept nonsense and garbage reports and studies with absolutely no scientific standards for my patients.
      12) In any case, since you agree that the clitoris is not to be touched and we never said that the imams did not mention khitan but merely clarified by what is meant by that khitan, why are you going on about whether it is wajib or sunnah and whether it is the precupice or the minor labia? So what?
      The reason is you did not read the article properly nor did not understand it and also to try and show that Ibn Taymiyyah did not go against the ijma, but you failed and only referred us to a massive book, namely ‘Majmoo’ without any reference. Also, what about the statements of Albani, Ibn Baz and Ibn Taymiyyahs student Ibn Quyyam?

      You have badly wasted everyone’s time: we said that clitoris is not to be touched, you agree. You say it is the precupece and not the labia minora. Maybe – but where is the proof except for your tafseer of the hadith and the statement of the Imam of Azhar? Good if he agrees not to touch the clitoris. You said Ibn Taymiyya said do not touch the clitoris – good if he did – where is the proof?

  10. Pingback: What is the ruling of Female Circumcision In Islam? | Avicenna Answers

  11. Pingback: Female Circumcision and FGM | Avicenna Answers

  12. Pingback: Many Muslim Leaders Denounce ISIS Out Of Convenience, Not Conviction | Asharis: Assemble

  13. Assalaamu alaikum, as I reverted in Indonesia in 2005, I was unknowingly made to have a partial cliterodectomy. it was very upsetting as no one batted an eyelid (I was told I was just being dramatic) and i was handed my convert certificate someone pointed out at the bottom the rule that I had to proceed with circumcision. I am married to a culture who belives in partial cliterodectomy for purity and reducing desires. I have long debated with anyone who will listen the points you have argued here in your article, i have explained that what hapoened to me just made me *more* sexually frustrated, quite the opposite of reducing desire, but they are not a people who warm to such logic, or care for personal accounts, but they prefer to refer to their source materials and are satisfied with it. Thank you for your efforts, after reading this, I now do not feel so very alone in the world.

    • It was very sad to read your comment. It is just indescribable how ignorant some human beings are. Muslims so often lament at how Muslims are oppressed by the ‘kuffar’ whilst ignoring the Muslims who seem to be begging for their co religionists to apostasize. Testimonies like yours show just how urgent immediate change is; if we allow Muslims to make Islam unbearable and intellectually untenable there won’t be a thing we can do to stop Muslims apostasing in favour of secular liberalism. I hope you stick around on this site and enjoy reading, I’m looking forward to making a comeback here and also writing more articles!

    • Julina,

      I am very sorry I did not reply to your comment for such a long time.
      It was bad manners by me.
      I was very angry to read about your experiences and I want to thank you so much for sharing them with us.

      I was motivated by your comment to write another article about these issues and InshaAllah I will present it soon.

      Thanks a lot and sorry again!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s