Political Crossfire Forums

Rilzic · Joined: 22 May 2005 Posts: 385 Location: Alb, NM, USA

I have to write a report on this for english and i am going to try to write a paper supporting it.

No i don't support it but i know all the class is going to write against it and it will be a easy A if i can write a half decent paper for it.

So what i need to know and please PM me if you would like to or post here the Pro's and Con's for it.

1. So far i have things like Pro's It is the right of the family to do it or not. not that of the state or religion to chose.

2. ancient econmic benifits and possible modern health benifts with things like AID's and such

my Pro arguements and a bit more detailed then that but i don't have time expaining right now but i need one more PRO for my paper besides the whole religion pro.

I'll expain later my PRO's if you wish me too.

Thank you all.

P.S. Excuse my spelling. I am late for class.

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

Rilzic,

1. So far i have things like Pro's It is the right of the family to do it or not. not that of the state or religion to chose. [/u]

The thing is, there are no pros to female circumcision. In fact, it's not part of Islamic beliefs and is in fact to-tally against Islam. Moreover, this castration that you speak of is actually a pre-Islamic, barbaric Arab practice, as well as a practice in North African and other African countries. However, you won't see people in the cities of Egypt doing this. It's not a legal practice, and is in fact more harmful than beneficiary. Radicals who see this as beneficiary think of it as "protecting a female's chastity". In the end, it's the woman's choice if she wants to have extramarital sex or not. This practice is nothing but pure sadism.

[i]2. ancient econmic benifits and possible modern health benifts with things like AID's and such

There are no benefits to circumcision. One might say "Yeah, that's like a contraceptive, only more painful", but it doesn't help in the end, though. AIDS is primarily transmitted by sexual contact, and I'll give you credit for that. However, it is also spread by other means.

I'm sure that our resident Egyptians on this board can help you more with this issue.

Rilzic · Joined: 22 May 2005 Posts: 385 Location: Alb, NM, USA

I know i am agreeing with you but i didn't have time to go into it then.

I know it is not a Muslim thing but an arab, african and even in ancient europe they did it.

and according to a study by the person that wrote the short story that my essay is based stated that in egypt over 90% of unedutcated still practice this and 66% of educated do. According to her study which is what my essay is based of. The short story is against it as well but the question that we base the essay off is:

"pretend you are a educated muslim man or woman and make an arguement for or against female circumcision."

i am pretending i am for it. pretending mind you and it is based off the study and story not what is there or what you believe. this is a english class and one of the things i will be graded on is weather i can make an arguement from a position that i was not born nor raised with. it has nothing to do with acutal politics thats why i didn't want to go into the religion part and why i asked that even if you are against it just give me reasons people that support it even if you don't for my papers sake.

That is also why i said i would discuse it later if anyone wanted to but i have a paper to write now.

Anyway i understand it was just a misunderstanding because i was in a hurry. I just though it would be good for my paper to get the perpective of a muslim or someone from egypt or the middle east.

I am still witing the paper so still don't have much time to post here but would be thankful for any input from any of you.

The story is "the mutilated half" by Nawal El Saadawi

Another question: Is arranged marrage practiced in egypt in the rural or urban centers?

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

Rilzic wrote: Another question: Is arranged marrage practiced in egypt in the rural or urban centers?

I would say that it's practiced in most rural parts of the Arab world and even in some middle-class families, but then again, I'm not so sure about that. However, arranged marriage is a rare practice right now because the new generation of Arabs are more open-minded and wary than previous generations, but yet many seem not to hold their breath over the issue. My parents met each other and it was no matter of arranged marriage. Same as my uncle and aunt... well, most of them.
If you have any other questions, let me know.. :)

HomoUniversalis · Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject:

Quote: In fact, it's not part of Islamic beliefs and is in fact to-tally against Islam

In line of the Shariah, I find this unconfusing. I would expect something to be 'totally against islam', mentioned in the shariah as being such. After all, the five degrees of the shariah would imply it being put in the 'unlawful/prohibited' category, yet by my knowledge, it is not. Frankly, I know of no quranic verse (or for that matter, from the hadith) that speaks against circumcision on females.
I'm not saying it is something islam propogates, but the shariah do not speak against it, and I find your statement to be, thus, misleading. Perhaps you could shed some light on it.. :)

Mr U

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

HomoUniversalis wrote: Quote: In fact, it's not part of Islamic beliefs and is in fact to-tally against Islam

In line of the Shariah, I find this unconfusing. I would expect something to be 'totally against islam', mentioned in the shariah as being such. After all, the five degrees of the shariah would imply it being put in the 'unlawful/prohibited' category, yet by my knowledge, it is not. Frankly, I know of no quranic verse (or for that matter, from the hadith) that speaks against circumcision on females.
I'm not saying it is something islam propogates, but the shariah do not speak against it, and I find your statement to be, thus, misleading. Perhaps you could shed some light on it.. :)

Mr U

Circumcision is a form of sadism and is harmful. Whatever is harmful, God prohibits us from doing, especially to ourselves. There is a verse in the Koran that says something like this, but I don't have much time right now to give you the exact verse.

XPhile2868 · Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject:

Female circumcision is is abuse of women. I hope that soon Egyptian society, and other places where this practise takes place, abandons it to history as soon as possible. Like other people have said, there is no need for this mutilation.

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

XPhile2868 wrote: Female circumcision is is abuse of women. I hope that soon Egyptian society, and other places where this practise takes place, abandons it to history as soon as possible. Like other people have said, there is no need for this mutilation.

It's quite rare in Egyptian societies. Just that the media coverage of such rare cases make you think that it's quite common. :wink:

HomoUniversalis · Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject:

Quote: Circumcision is a form of sadism and is harmful. Whatever is harmful, God prohibits us from doing, especially to ourselves. There is a verse in the Koran that says something like this, but I don't have much time right now to give you the exact verse.

Yet it serves the ideology of women not enjoying sex, as sex is not meant to enjoyed, but meant to made children. If it is implied, and that is what I was referencing to, I don't believe you can say that is directly opposite to the beliefs of islam. I don't believe it is completely opposite to Christian beliefs, either, because the bible (by my knowledge) does not mention it either.

It fits, in my opinion, the need to turn islam's image into that of a 'religion of peace'. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is not a religion of terrorism, but that doesn't mean you have to go to another extreme. Just be fair about what islam truly is, methinks.

Mr U

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

HU wrote: Yet it serves the ideology of women not enjoying sex, as sex is not meant to enjoyed, but meant to made children. If it is implied, and that is what I was referencing to, I don't believe you can say that is directly opposite to the beliefs of islam. I don't believe it is completely opposite to Christian beliefs, either, because the bible (by my knowledge) does not mention it either.

Islam and Christianity both look at the subject of sex with pretty much the same view: if you wanna make love, you gotta have a ring (you should be married) and an intention to get some babies. Sorry for my harsh words, but that's what I mean.

HU wrote: It fits, in my opinion, the need to turn islam's image into that of a 'religion of peace'. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is not a religion of terrorism, but that doesn't mean you have to go to another extreme. Just be fair about what islam truly is, methinks.

Islam is a religion of peace as much as Christianity is, but the thing is that Islam is being practiced wrongly by many people in that it gives you this bad image about Islam. If you truly understand why Islam is called the religion of peace, I can pull you an article about it.

Rilzic · Joined: 22 May 2005 Posts: 385 Location: Alb, NM, USA

Well i got my paper turned in so i can take a little more time to expain which i wish i had the time to do before but i didn't sorry.

The short story was of this lady (name and title in my second post) did a study at ONE university in egypt and only of 120 people. As you can see thats not a good pool for a study. It was brought up in class that her methods were questionable. Again this was not what my paper was about so i didn't bring it up before. This paper was also writen years ago so it IS outdated by almost 30 years.

As far as Islam (I am not Islamic) the author points out that God has made man perfect there for the parts they remove would have been ment to have been there. Why would God put something there that is evil or dirty. This is her argument.

Reseaching for my paper I came across several things stating that it is not in the koran. Muslim leaders though have taken position on it before. Atleast in egypt, they mostly say it is up to the families involved although more and more are against it with people educated to the university level making up the largest portion against it. It happens most in african countries and Iran and egypt according to the short story that is like i said outdated. With some of the worst cases in Sudan

I wanted to make this clear, I am not for it, but took that stance in my paper for the challenge of arguing for it and trying to get brownie points with my teacher.

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

I'll get back to you later. Don't go away. :)

Seapearl · Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:33 am Post subject:

Rilzic wrote: I know i am agreeing with you but i didn't have time to go into it then.

I know it is not a Muslim thing but an arab, african and even in ancient europe they did it.

and according to a study by the person that wrote the short story that my essay is based stated that in egypt over 90% of unedutcated still practice this and 66% of educated do. According to her study which is what my essay is based of. The short story is against it as well but the question that we base the essay off is:

"pretend you are a educated muslim man or woman and make an arguement for or against female circumcision."

i am pretending i am for it. pretending mind you and it is based off the study and story not what is there or what you believe. this is a english class and one of the things i will be graded on is weather i can make an arguement from a position that i was not born nor raised with. it has nothing to do with acutal politics thats why i didn't want to go into the religion part and why i asked that even if you are against it just give me reasons people that support it even if you don't for my papers sake.

That is also why i said i would discuse it later if anyone wanted to but i have a paper to write now.

Anyway i understand it was just a misunderstanding because i was in a hurry. I just though it would be good for my paper to get the perpective of a muslim or someone from egypt or the middle east.

I am still witing the paper so still don't have much time to post here but would be thankful for any input from any of you.

The story is "the mutilated half" by Nawal El Saadawi

Another question: Is arranged marrage practiced in egypt in the rural or urban centers?

Ancient Europe?? Where exactly?

Anyway, Waris Dirie, a beautiful top model from Somalia, suffered a lot due to circumcision. With C.Miller, she wrote a book, "Desert Flower" about her life.
I found her foundation's site, maybe you'll find some intresting ideas...

http://www.waris-dirie-foundation.com/web/e_index.htm

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

Seapearl wrote: Ancient Europe?? Where exactly?

Anyway, Waris Dirie, a beautiful top model from Somalia, suffered a lot due to circumcision. With C.Miller, she has wrote a book, "Desert Flower".
I found her foundation's site, maybe you'll find some intresting ideas...

http://www.waris-dirie-foundation.com/web/e_index.htm

I've read her article in a Reader's Digest issue once. What they did to her was sickening; she actually had an account on the circumcision herself.

HomoUniversalis · Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject:

Quote: If you truly understand why Islam is called the religion of peace, I can pull you an article about it.

Sure, I'll be more than interested. A man can only read so many articles on dhimmitude, apostasy, small jihad before he makes his judgement.

Mr U

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

HomoUniversalis wrote: Quote: If you truly understand why Islam is called the religion of peace, I can pull you an article about it.

Sure, I'll be more than interested. A man can only read so many articles on dhimmitude, apostasy, small jihad before he makes his judgement.

Mr U

Dhimmis are not second class citizens.
Small Jihad... well, here you go.
Apostasy... not one person who converted to another religion other than Islam has been put to death.

HomoUniversalis · Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:12 pm Post subject:

Saracen wrote: Dhimmis are not second class citizens.

I agree. Yet, this depends on the definition of second class.

Quote: Small Jihad... well, here you go.

I see not how this responds to my inquiry, or why islam would be a religion of peace.

Quote: Apostasy... not one person who converted to another religion other than Islam has been put to death.

You can not be serious here. http://www.secularislam.org/humanrights/silent.htm

The shariah is very explicit about apostasy, and its punishment is either banishment, or death. In the history of islam, you say, not one has been killed for changing his belief from islam to another?

Mr U

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

HU wrote: I agree. Yet, this depends on the definition of second class.

Dhimmis are protected. Also, they pay 1% land tax, while Muslims pay 2.5%.

HU wrote: I see not how this responds to my inquiry, or why islam would be a religion of peace.

Jihad is not attack. It's mainly defense.

HU wrote: You can not be serious here. http://www.secularislam.org/humanrights/silent.htm

The shariah is very explicit about apostasy, and its punishment is either banishment, or death. In the history of islam, you say, not one has been killed for changing his belief from islam to another?

Well, what I'm saying is that there are not a lot of cases documented. Islam does not shed blood. People do. Also, there are many Muslims who converted to Christianity and were never prosecuted. Moreover, the secular website you showed me had some biased tendency towards it. It speaks of a holocaust. Yes, I know Iran has its troubles, but I need to see more stats.

HomoUniversalis · Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject:

Saracen wrote: Dhimmis are protected. Also, they pay 1% land tax, while Muslims pay 2.5%.

Please. I would not even apply to dhimmitude. I'm an apostate, khafir as I am. These dhimmis you refer to are not allowed to publicly practice their faith, or build churches. There are other infringements on their rights. This is not equality. And land tax? The dhimmis in the old days owned that land, and were forced to pay tax over THEIR land to their new conquerors. And, how about the other taxes?

Quote: Jihad is not attack. It's mainly defense.

Of course it is. Yet, the terms of attack and defense are described by the believer, not the quran.

Quote: Well, what I'm saying is that there are not a lot of cases documented.

Irrelevant. You said no one.

Quote: Islam does not shed blood.

You wish to debate semantics? If the quran and hadith, recognised sources of islam were not the source with which this blood was shed, I would be the first to agree with you. Sadly, however, the quran is not just a book of peace and contains chapters on how to wage war.

Quote: People do. Also, there are many Muslims who converted to Christianity and were never prosecuted.

There have been murders in the western world that have not been prosecuted. I believe some US president shot a traitor outside the white house.

Quote: Moreover, the secular website you showed me had some biased tendency towards it.

Quote: It speaks of a holocaust.

You disagree with the terminology? The article speaks of hundreds of thousand kills. Killed under nations ruled by the shariah. You can't kill hunderds of thousands under the rules set by Mahatmi Gandhi.

Quote: Yes, I know Iran has its troubles, but I need to see more stats.

I was making an inquiry, you responded with the a statement of no one dying.

Here, an article by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3155279.stm
Scroll down to "The impact of Sharia"

Mr U

Saracen · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 16428 Location: On Earth

HomoUniversalis wrote: Please. I would not even apply to dhimmitude. I'm an apostate, khafir as I am. These dhimmis you refer to are not allowed to publicly practice their faith, or build churches. There are other infringements on their rights. This is not equality. And land tax? The dhimmis in the old days owned that land, and were forced to pay tax over THEIR land to their new conquerors. And, how about the other taxes?

Oh, you're talking about Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states? With this I can agree with. However, in the Islamic Empires of the past, dhimmitude was much better and much closer to Islamic beliefs than it is now. Moorish Spain saw the construction of Mosques, Cathedrals and Synagogues all over the place. Here's a take on Islamic tolerance and early dhimmitude:

Imad ed Deen wrote: When Umar ibn Khattab conquered Jerusalem, the city had a mythological significance for the Muslims, not only as the site of the night journey and ascent of the Prophet Muhammad, but as the site of the earlier Muslim prophets from David through Jesus (peace be upon them all). Yet, Umar allowed the existing Christian population to stay, to keep their churches, and to freely worship despite his profound disagreements with their theology. He valued observance of shari`ah requirement of just treatment of the People of the Book more highly than establishing a façade of "Islamization" on the newly conquered city, notwithstanding his belief that it was the Muslims who were the true heirs of legacy of David. Accordingly, the only request the Christians asked of Umar that he did not fulfill was their demand that Jews not be allowed back into the city.

Yes, I know that this is unfair if dhimmis are supposed to pay land tax when conquered, but this is not entirely a bad thing. Muslims who live there still have to pay a 2.5% tax that is not just for land tax, but is also a religious duty. Moreover, that money goes well-spent: it goes to feeding the needy and building the country's infrastructure and roads and so on. Also, Islamic conquests were not as bloody as you think they were. This is an interesting take on Arab history, as a side reference.

HU wrote: Of course it is. Yet, the terms of attack and defense are described by the believer, not the quran.

While you may be correct in a sense, you speak of it as perceptions. For example, Hamas and Osama Bin Laden see their "Jihad" against their foes as a form of retaliation and defense against the enemy. Osama Bin Laden sees his attacks as justified because he is attacking the Western powers for their meddlings in the Middle East. Hamas attacks Israelis because they are sitting on stolen land, and are pretty much otherwise like your IRA.

HU wrote: Irrelevant. You said no one.

Ok. There have been cases. However, as mentioned by this other Muslim on this board, these cases are relatively few in Saudi Arabia or overall... well, that's what he said. I hope he comes here to confirm that for you.

HU wrote: You wish to debate semantics? If the quran and hadith, recognised sources of islam were not the source with which this blood was shed, I would be the first to agree with you. Sadly, however, the quran is not just a book of peace and contains chapters on how to wage war.

The Koran contains chapters like Al Anfal, which means The Spoils of War. It does not admonish a Muslim to wage war. Also, as evidenced by many Islamic Scholars, the Koran can't be taken verse by verse. You have to look at all verses before it and after it, and any verse with a reference to the same topic about why these things should be done. For example, in the chapter of the Koran called "Help" or "Ma'un", there's this verse:

(4)Woe be to those who pray!

Ok, when you take this verse alone, you'll think "Whoa, Islam talks about prayer and now it's telling us not to?!" Look at the next verse:

(5)Those who are to their prayers neglectful

See what I mean?

HU wrote: There have been murders in the western world that have not been prosecuted. I believe some US president shot a traitor outside the white house.

.......

HU wrote: You disagree with the terminology? The article speaks of hundreds of thousand kills. Killed under nations ruled by the shariah. You can't kill hunderds of thousands under the rules set by Mahatmi Gandhi.

In what country, though? Iran? They're ruling by a strict form of Shari'ah. If it was anyone who truly practiced the Shari'a, it was the Caliph Umar Ibn al Khattab. Iran is ruled by Shi'ite Muslims. I'm a Sunnite, so I have nothing to do with them. Also, the Iranian purges were meant to kill political opponents, not religious opponents. Furthermore, the Shah's purges were deadlier and involved the deaths of more people.

HU wrote: I was making an inquiry, you responded with the a statement of no one dying.

Here, an article by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3155279.stm
Scroll down to "The impact of Sharia"

Interesting. I've seen this story before. I know firsthand of what is going on in Nigeria, and frankly, I'm sick of what Muslims there are doing. I've seen the case of this Amina Lawal and I believe that the person who slept with her was also put to death. As evidenced by this verse in the Koran:

God wrote: [24:2] The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

You'll find similar things in the Bible and Torah, but I'm not so sure on those parts. Thanks for the article though.