Female circumcision halal?

Maryah wrote: Kenya has signed the protocol and banned the practice under the Children's Act 2001

We don't need any new laws, such as the Children's Act 2001.

The One God has made all the laws already.

There are no new laws, and all man-made laws are invalid.

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

But I wouldn't even go as far as to say that those populations regardless their size in the religious consensus form a unified opinion on the matter.

What does a unified opinion establish, who placed the argument upon this notion, when did i claim it was unified in the muslim world, how is this even relevant to establishing what is or isnt part of Islamic law.

If this is true why isn't it acceptable in all other muslim countries?

this is like asking me what is a madhhab and how do people go about following one, at this stage in the discussion  and after many of your assertions you should know the answer to this by now.

I never said that it wasn't in the first place.

Ok so you acknowledge it is sunnah, are you then splitting hairs or dont you know the significance of a sunnah act.

No, I was referring to the excision of any part of the female genitalia, but if you are looking for particular clarification then no, according to Islamic tradition the clitoris itself is not entirely cut obviously but the hood as you've mentioned. Perhaps I was not clear here.

That was a rhetorical question.

I also understand the Islamic process of legislation on certain matters such as the subject we are currently discussing.

Care to point me towards classical texts in english on the matter, the only thing i have seen is third and fourth hand articles summarising some points. By and large you are ignorant of Islamic law and procedures you simply think what you have read all there is and nothing more exists on this earth.

you treat and approach this topic like you would any other topic this is where your lack of experience with the sharia is really apparent to those more familiar with it than you.

Dont confuse confidence in ones self to be correctness this is nothing but arrogance and arrogance blinds an individual from at least looking for other possibilities or knowledge.

How can one make a correct interpretation of a sound statement if it does not directly address an issue.

your lack of understanding the arabic language is apparent here, had you known an ounce of arabic you would answer this question your self, but you dont seem to have a problem judging Islamic matters solely based on english translations.

If the prophet comments on a specific thing he did not say that thing is law.

learn arabic and you wont ask such annoying questions, intelligence mixed with ignorance and arrogance this is your entire argument.

For example in the case with the Hadith the prophet didn't specify that female circumcision was obligatory nor is it even mentioned in the Qur'an. so how can a ruling be made on this if it is not even mentioned in the Supreme source which is god's Holy Words: The Qur'an Kareem.

His commenting it self is approval his silence also is considered approval and acceptance, only his open and clear condemnation is taken as prohibition. In Islam the natural state of matters is permissibility until it can be established that it is prohibited. His commenting elevates the matter above mere silence to the extent of it being recomended and to some scholars wajib [obligatory]. You need to know Arabic and the basics of Usul principles and Fiqh to understand how this was deduced, what i underlined is one such principle.

You may be interested in knowing that most sects that have come up in Islam have done so by means of  reversing this above fundamental principle ie they state all matters are haram until permissibility is established.

As far as Sunnah is concerned, there are some Prophetic Hadiths that may indicate the legality of practicing female circumcision despite the fact that none of these Hadiths have an authentic chain of transmitters so that it is not possible to deduce a legal ruling from them on such a very serious human matter.

It was authentic enough for three madhhabs to rule upon it and one to state it is wajib, you do not know more than them about its chian of transmission nor any modern day sectarian scholar who speaks above himself.

They can only explain the sciences in accordance to Islamic tradition using subjective premises which amount only to the subjective truths they are so willingly trying to prove.

Clearly you did not understand what i said about your perception being limited to your experiences this is a basic reality that applies to all people. As long as you have not even read a basic text on Usul al Fiqh you can not even imagine what has been said let alone comment on and easily push aside the issue as you have.

Is this realy what you have reduced entire sciences to, by your simple imaginings and wishfully thinking.

Also logically speaking you are committing a fallacy and based upon what you're saying I can only reduce this large paragraph to a simple "That is your opinion." Since you claim to be more informed than me I'd like to see that.

You havnt proven anything i have said is fallacious just simply stated that it is, why dont you bother to investigate these sciences for your self, the nature of your argument is an indication of your lack of knowledge.

Qur'an. My process is not extremely different than that of scholars who interpret doctrine/text.

So you dont bother to study the methodoligies of muslim scholars have never even investigated the matter and you somehow conclude that your approach is similar to theres.

Are you jocking?

The prophet was the leader of the community but he did not separate himself from the people nor made himself more than others only those who revere him do so.

his piety was not due to his ditance away from Allah but due to his nearness, Isa raised the dead walked on water performed many miracels was raised to heaven spirit and body was he any less pious.

I, unlike yourself do not revere the prophet in the way Christians revere Jesus (I do not say your reverence is worship but your reverence is more than it should be of a great person).

Your reverence is that of a westerner not a muslim or a person who understands.

�Say: �If your fathers or your sons or your brothers or your wives or your tribe, or any wealth you have acquired, or any business you fear may slump, or any dwelling-places which please you, are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and fighting hard in jihad in His Way, then wait until Allah brings about His command.�� (9:25)

�None of you will believe until I am more beloved to him than his children, his father and all people.� (al-Bukhari, Muslim & an-Nasa�i)

�Umar ibn al-Khattab told the Prophet, �I love you more than anything except my soul which is between my two sides.� The Prophet replied, �None of you will believe until I am dearer to him than his own soul.� �Umar said, �By the One who sent down the Book on you, I love you more than my soul which is between my two sides.� The Prophet said, ��Umar, now you have it!� (al-Bukhari)

A muslim should love the prophet more than his own self, this is a direct instruction from the prophet [sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam].


Edited by rami

Sign*Reader wrote: Do you drive and what city you cruise around in? I thought if I visit that city I will be a bit careful about some one running the red light or not yielding

Look. Traffic regulations must be derived from the rules of the One God too:

"It is forbidden to hurt or kill someone"

Now, whatever is needed to enforce this rule, is a derived rule that I can accept, because it simply implements the rules of the One God.

It is absolutely permissible to derive a ruling or even a practical rule from the rules of the One God. This must be performed according to well-known and well-understood methods, in order to prevent unlawful derivations from being enforced.

In my impression, Islamic Shariah works like that. If that's true, there is no room for "invention" of new rules in Shariah. And if that is the case, it is simply an absolutely superior legal system.

Any legal system that does not invent new laws out of the blue, is superior to the western "Roman" legal system cum "parliament", which is obviously just a despicable instrument of oppression.

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum crasss

Now, whatever is needed to enforce this rule, is a derived rule that I can accept, because it simply implements the rules of the One God.

this is correct, the scholars have derived laws and rulings from the Quran this is how the Quran is still relavant 1400 years after it was revealed.

In my impression, Islamic Shariah works like that. If that's true, there is no room for "invention" of new rules in Shariah.

All derived laws must be in accordance with the spirit [if you like] of Islam and not at odds with it. It is not permissible to derive a law that contradicts other aspects of the religion, the science of Usul al fiqh was to ensure all this was done with integrity and constancy so a scholar living in north africa will come up with the same conclusion as a scholar living in india [depending on context of course].

That approach would be disastrous. Do you know which sects in Islam do this?

Kahrijites where one, Wahabie's another but they are moving away from this extremest view and adopting many things from the Hanbali Madhhab but are still far from this though.