Jump to content

Talk:Khitan (circumcision)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enquiry

[edit]

I have just launched this page. Can anyone provide Arabic text for the word Khitan?

Ezra (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

circumcision of prophet

[edit]

Please give the reference was prophet muhammad circumcised and did he circumcised his sons and grandsons . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.142.34 (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Mohammad didn't have any sons. That is why we have surat-al-kowthar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.1.206 (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prophet was born without a foreskin. Apparently.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Arabs circumcised for religious reasons?

[edit]

I am wondering if someone can give a reference that supports the claim that among the Arabs before Islam, Christians circumcised for religious reasons.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has replied, and as the reference cited is dubious ("the Ghost Dance [is] a psychoanalytic account of the birth of religion through the lens of his [La Barre's] treatment of the ghost dance religion of native America") I will remove it. --134.153.33.203 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

disposal of the foreskin ?

[edit]

Are there any traditions or rules in Islam concerning the disposal of the foreskin after it is cut off ? I understand Jews bury theirs. In USA they are often sold for research.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western world Muslims don't all circumcise boys, unlike Jews

[edit]

Jewish boys are all circumcised everywhere and even in France Jews circumcise baby boys on the eighth day of their lives as a sign of joining the covenant with God which He made with Abraham and for example in France, even if a Catholic boy or man has an infection he might be circumcised and same for some Muslims, but I am right and I know some Muslims from my school in Sydney and those Muslim male students are uncircumcised as some are born in Australia and they told that their parents chose to not circumcise them and even King Salman Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia is uncircumcised and even the Egyptian President has a foreskin so he is an uncircumcised Muslim. Only some Muslims circumcise but none in Australia as they don't need it to become Muslim at child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.163.41 (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the female genital mutilation section

[edit]

Hello. I would like to pose a request for the female genital mutilation section of this article to be removed. Unlike male circumcision, FGM has no basis in Islam and the vast majority of Muslims do not practice FGM. Also many of the sources in this article citing the practice as such are either dead, point to unreliable sources, for example one source referenced in this article, [2] this website is biased against circumcision and posts a bunch of misleading information. Also all the hadith citing FGM as an Islamic practice has been deemed by numerous scholars and jurists as weak and inauthentic, whereas male circumcision is mentioned in all the authentic collections of hadith. For more information, read this report [3] from the World Health Organization for a more detailed explanation. I would just like to see this section be removed from the article altogether as it is not an Islamic practice and using weak, inaccurate, and dead sources to justify that it is among the rites of Islam like circumcision is is misleading. Some food for thought. Also I'm requesting that the expiry date on the semi-protection template that Drmies (talk) set up for this page be changed to permanent instead as I suspect that the disruptive editing will not stop once the date expires. Thank you.

--FrozenIcicle96 (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to second FrozenIcicle96's request to remove the FGM section, which appears to lack objectivity. I find the section Media Campaign particularly disturbing, as it presents the group of women fighting FGM among the Bohra community as basically making a big deal out of nothing. These women deserve at the very least more respect than that if only because they are braving the risk of social exclusion and harassment in their community in order to break a taboo. And while the "religious" basis for sexual mutilation is interesting (and less clean-cut than it is presented), it would be even more interesting to contrast it with the basis for the WHO's standards, the hygiene conditions in which it is usually carried out, and maybe with a gynecologist or sexologist's opinion of the consequences on a girl's health and future sex life. Implying that it can enhance sexual sensitivity when all scientific studies I've read say the exact opposite would require some serious references... other than citing clitoral unhooding, a controversial practice at best, which in theory should be reserved for specific situations (discomfort, etc.), and which is carried out on adult women, by doctors, in operating rooms.

86.194.255.147 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus commenting on practices in Mohammad's time?

[edit]

This article says that Josephus "attested" that "in the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad circumcision of men was carried out by most pagan Arabian tribes and female circumcision by some, and male circumcision among Jews and Christians for religious reasons." How could Josephus attest to this when he lived centuries earlier? 74.71.93.18 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Quranists

[edit]

Firstly, I have removed much of the text from the section on Quranists for the following reasons:

The first paragraph was original research in which the editor(s) stated their personal interpretation of some Quranic verses and then quoted the English translations of those verses without using reliable published sources that corroborate their interpretation of those verses. The second paragraph started off by listing the names of three people (Dr. Arif Bhimji, Mustafa Kamal al-Mahdawi and Nawal El Saadawi) for whom there is no evidence that they are Quranists and used dead links or irrelevant citations (such as a link to a Quranist website discussing numbers) to make the list seem credible. The second paragraph also mentioned a statement made by an Umayyad caliph named Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, implying that his statement somehow demonstrates that circumcision is unnecessary in Islam, but no source was mentioned, Quranist or otherwise, that corroborates such an interpretation of his statement. There was only one sentence in the entire section that was appropriately cited so I did not remove it.

Secondly, considering how Quranists are a tiny minority and how many if not most Muslims view them as apostates from Islam,[1][2][3] I feel having a separate section on them after the Sunni and Shia sections inappropriately portrays them as a valid Islamic sect on par with Sunnism and Shiism in terms of importance and notability, disregards how the status of Quranists as Muslims is disputed and so counts as a violation of Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories (WP:FRINGE).

If we do decide to keep the current section on Quranists, I think it should mention their minority status (with a brief mention of how their status as Muslims is disputed) and should not portray Quranist opinions as widely-held Muslim beliefs in light of Wikipedia's policy regarding due and undue weight (WP:WEIGHT): "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." — Human10.0 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sheikhs Of Al-Azhar: Quranists Are Apostates; And The Evidence From The Holy Book Proves Their Guilt". ahl-alquran.com.
  2. ^ Gibril F. Haddad. "The Probativeness of the Sunna". livingislam.org. Archived from the original on 2012-01-16. Retrieved 7 November 2015.
  3. ^ Ibn 'Abd al-Barr. Jami' Bayan al-'Ilm wa Fadlihi. (2:33).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

Edits 15 April 2017 - Daim ul Islam

[edit]

I undid the edit: (cur | prev) 15:46, 14 April 2017‎ 79.79.161.242 (talk)‎ . . (29,054 bytes) (+120)‎ . . (Clarified the isssue of FGM in Islam) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit) Because the paragraph cites the Dawoodi Bohra test of Daim ul Islam. According to this sect, it is an Islamic practice, as they quote the Prophet and Ali. The name of the book is also called "Daim ul Islam", which means pillars of Islam. Muffizainu (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khitan (circumcision). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts by User Slim Virgin

[edit]

User: Slim Virgin - Can you please explain your justification for making mass reverts? You've done so without providing any justification whatsoever. The previous edits were cited through classical dictionaries, and all citations were provided from Islamic, medical and Community references. Muffizainu (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for the Page

[edit]

The matter is controversial, and highly misunderstood by both spectrums. I believe Wikiedia should be able to provide neutral information on the practice of female circumcision and provide information relating to both sides of the story. There are pages dedicated to FGM as well, so that information does not need to be repeated here. This page should only be limited to "Khitan" ie circumcision, and define the term circumcision for both male and females which is referredas Type 1a by the WHO & UN.

  • Definition - Khitan (Arabic: ختان‎‎) or Khatna (Arabic: ختنة‎‎) is the term for male and female circumcision Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad ibn Mukarram (1311). Lisan Al-Arab. Qumm, Iran. p. 1102. ISBN 9953131953. & Lane, Edward William (1863). Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Willams & Norgate. p. 703.
  • Views on female circumcision[1] are very disparate and significantly fewer Muslim schools regard it as a religious requirement. Khitan, in some of parts of the world, including Indonesia and Malaysia, may also refer to the female genital mutilation (properly khafḍ).[2][3]
  • Complete defintiion of the term FC in an Islamic context, since the page defines the Islamic word "Khitan"

Khafḍ or k̲h̲ifāḍ, is the Arabic word for circumcision usually used for women rather than men.[2] It is also referred to as khitān for both sexes.[4][5] Today the word is used to mean any of the forms of female genital mutilation from Type 1a to Type 4.[6][7] In many communities of the world, khafd is a rite of passage and refers to excision of the female genitalia.[8] There are 4 types of FGM that range from the least severe incision on or partial removal of the prepuce skin over the clitoris to very severe excision and infibulation procedures.[9] Over 125 million women, primarily in Africa, Middle East and Parts of Southeast Asia and South Asia are currently known to have undergone FGM, with Egypt recording the highest number of khafd women in the world.[10]

  • FC amoung the Muslims and Shias

Like male circumcision, female circumcision[5][11] is considered as a religious requirement of the Dawoodi Bohras. Both male and female circumcision (Arabic khatna and khafd respectively)[5][11] find mention in books of jurisprudence written in the 10th century, including in Daim al-Islam,[12] the principal book of Ismaili Fatimid jurisprudence written by Al-Qadi al-Nu'man (died 974 CE/ 363 AH). The book traces the custom for both genders to the sayings of Prophet Muhammad and his successor (according to the Shia) Ali ibn Abi Talib.

  • Prosecution and Reduction - details on individual communities position of FC, and by also providing the opposing views.

References

  1. ^ [1] Encyclopædia Britannica (2009)
  2. ^ a b khitān Encyclopædia Britannica (2009)
  3. ^ “A Tiny Cut”: Female Circumcision in South East Asia The Islamic Monthly (March 12, 2013)
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ibn Manẓūr 1311 1102 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Lane 1863 703 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ K̲h̲afḍ, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2013
  7. ^ E. J. Van Donze (1994), Islamic Desk Reference (Compiled from Encyclopedia of Islam), ISBN 9004097384, Brill (Netherlands), page 69
  8. ^ Gerald R. Hawting (2006), The Development of Islamic Ritual, ISBN 978-0860787129, page 358-361
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference who.int was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Archived 2013-12-03 at the Wayback Machine UNICEF, (July 2013)
  11. ^ a b Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad ibn Mukarram (1311). "Arabic root word ختن". Lisan Al-Arab. Qumm, Iran. p. 1102. ISBN 9953131953. ختن : ختن الغلام والجارية يختنهما ويختنهما ختنا ، والاسم الختان والختانة ، وهو مختون ... والختان : موضع الختن من الذكر ، وموضع القطع من نواة الجارية . قال أبو منصور : هو موضع القطع من الذكر والأنثى ; ومنه الحديث المروي : إذا التقى الختانان فقد وجب الغسل
  12. ^ Poonawala, Ismail K.H. The Pillars of Islam: Volume I: Ibadat: Acts of Devotion and Religious Observances. Oxford India Paperbacks. ISBN 0195684354.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Khitan (circumcision). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defitintion of Khitaan

[edit]

The opening defintion of the article says "Khitan (Arabic: ختان‎) or Khatna (Arabic: ختنة‎) is the term for male circumcision" and provides citations of Lanes and Lisan al Arab - where as both these references state that the term "Khitaan" is used for both male and female circumcision. This should be highlighted in the defintion, and not limited to males. More references for the above position are: https://www.britannica.com/topic/khitan-Islam http://www.paulyonline.brill.nl/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/khitan-SIM_4296?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of-islam-2&s.q=khitan "The term is used indifferently for males and females". This needs to be clarified.Muffizainu (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of total circumsised women is not relevant

[edit]

@GenoV84: First off, your claim "You can't remove sourced content"[4] is ridiculous: if it's not relevant, I can remove it. And the sentence According to UNICEF, over 200 million women in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia have been subjected to the practice and are living with FGM isn't relevant because it's the total number of circumsised females throughout the entire world (not just "Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia", as stated in the current version of the article) and, most importantly, across religions. Therefore it isn't relevant, as FGM is also practised in e.g. Christianity[5]. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) (/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/) 09:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Foreskin

[edit]

@GenoV84:

Please cite Islamic sources from scholars, or from the Qur'an or Sunnah where "cleansing of the foreskin is recommended instead." is confirmed.

"Cleaning of the foreskin is recommended instead" does not mean that circumcision as law or tradition has been abolished.

Yalendo

Yalendo 19:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yelendo: Hello. That phrase that you are referring to about the cleansing of the foreskin had been written by an anonymous IP ([6]), not me, and that same IP didn't even care to provide a reliable source for it. Anyways, as I was trying to explain to you, me and other editors who have worked on this article previously, including Iskandar323, have deleted every IslamQ&A citations and those of other self-published propagandistic websites because they're not even close to be regarded as reliable sources by WP standards. Please stop the edit warring; I invite you to understand that these websites that you keep citing, namely IslamQ&A and fiqh.islamonline.net ([7], [8]), cannot be used on Wikipedia because they don't qualify as WP:RS. GenoV84 (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @GenoV84::
If you are writing about Islamic topics, then you also need the religious sources and not statements by non-Muslims or interpretations by people who have not studied Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh).
On the website Sunnah.com many Hatihe are named who testify that circumcision is part of the religion. I have no interest in arguing or causing problems.
What websites do you consider acceptable for the evidence that supports them?
I ask that no false statements and false interpretations that have no basis in religion be presented here as correct. Sites like: fiqh.islamonline.net or sunnah.com are not propaganda sites. I am referring to hadiths of: Sahih Muslim, Jami' at-Tirmidhi, Sahih al-Bukhari all of which are confirmed in hadith scholarship as "sahih" - authentically confirmed by chain of transmission. Where is propaganda here? See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hadith_studies
Yelendo 22:14, 10. May 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yelendo: No, absolutely not. We don't need religious texts or clerics to dictate how to write Wikipedia articles, because those religious texts and clerics which you keep referring to (bible, koran, hadith, rabbis, ulama, priests etc.) are nothing more than primary sources on Wikipedia, therefore they're not even close to be regarded as reliable sources by WP standards. Wikipedia exclusively needs secondary, academic, reputable, and reliable references which are fully in accordance with the WP policies and guidelines. I invite you again to read those policies, because those are the rules which dictate all the editors how to properly add the right content and cite the right sources on this encyclopedia. I further suggest you to avoid using primary sources and religious texts of any kind, and I hope that my clarification about the correct usage of references on Wikipedia has been helpful. GenoV84 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reputable sources regarding religion are only reputable from qualified persons who have studied. Where are the sources supposed to come from? Should a Buddhist monk use Christianity to provide evidence of another religion that he doesn't even understand? Atheists who do not speak Arabic should interpret hadiths? Far from any logic.
"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." - I have given sources that are accurate and verifiable, that are easily verifiable. Thank you for inviting me to the guidelines, but with all due respect, they are of no value if they are not authentic by unqualified people who have not studied fiqh. For example, European orientalists have very often misinterpreted what is evident from the Arabic language in relation to the Qur'an and Sunna, which is not academic.
You write: "Wikipedia exclusively needs secondary, academic, reputable, and reliable references which are fully in accordance with the WP policies and guidelines"
Except for secondary, all categories are present.
Here is a very general and unrelated source:
https://www.unaids.org/fr/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2007/february/20070226mcpt1 or https://books.google.at/books?id=cJQ3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA20&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
This can certainly be classified as secondary.
Yelendo 04:10, 11. May 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yelendo: The Encyclopaedia of Islam is already cited throughout the article, I added the citation years ago; that edition is quite old but still useful nonetheless. The UNAIDS link in French that you provided doesn't cited any reliable reference, neither academic nor medical, therefore it's completely useless. European and American orientalists, including the editors of Encyclopaedia of Islam and other reference works about the history of Islam, are qualified academics and scholars who have studied for many years in high-learning institutions and Universities, and have specialized in the study of Eastern civilizations, including academic disciplines such as Asian studies, Middle Eastern studies, and even Islamic studies. Deliberately disparaging qualified academics, professors, and scholars simply because they are Westerners doesn't help your case either.
Regarding the other things that you keep saying about this project, such as If you are writing about Islamic topics, then you also need the religious sources and not statements by non-Muslims or interpretations by people who have not studied Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh). and Thank you for inviting me to the guidelines, but with all due respect, they are of no value if they are not authentic by unqualified people who have not studied fiqh., let me just say that that is not the way Wikipedia works, and the WP policies and guidelines cannot be discarded by editors in order to appease religious clerics or groups, as you keep insistently demanding from this encyclopedia.... unless the entire WP community agrees to do so, which is never going to happen, obviously. GenoV84 (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @GenoV84:: Thank you for at least removing the wrong sentence: "all maintain that circumcision is not obligatory; cleansing of the foreskin is recommended instead". This is true, but as it was in the context, it would have said that it does not make circumcision necessary, but that is wrong.
Circumcision as well as the cleaning of the genitals or, in the case of uncircumcised persons, e.g. babies, is nevertheless obligatory, but so is subsequent circumcision. It is important to correct false statements.
Yelendo 10:31, 11. May 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yelendo: "False statements" according to whom? Nobody. I deleted that paragraph simply because it was unsourced, not because it was false, and neither it was wrong. According to the WP policy WP:RS, we need "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors". Citations in article space do not have to meet religious standards—only WP:RS.
GenoV84 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@@GenoV84: "independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
Then where does the knowledge and verifiability for authenticity come from?
How is Kathryn Kueny more trustworthy than the majority of Islamic scholarship.
Do Muslims have to have their religion explained to them by professors who have not studied Islam in a university like Medina or Al-Azhar?
Studying theology in general does not make you a scholar of a specific religion.
The problem here is that you are quoting outsiders who are not qualified (in terms of fiqh).
Qualified persons in this area (scholars) are demoted. I've said everything there is to say. Users who will read what is written can form their own impression of the qualitative approach. Yelendo 22:30, 11. May 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yelendo: Kathryn Kueny is an academic and scholar which currently serves as Professor of Theology at Fordham University, where she also serves as Director of the Middle Eastern Studies and Religious Studies programs (check [9]). As anyone can clearly see, Dr. Kueny is far more qualified, trustworthy, and reliable than the vast majority of Muslim scholars in the world according to WP quality and reliability standards, because she is a real scholar, not a religious preacher or clergyman who follows religious ideologies or agendas. After all the explanations that I gave to you about the WP policies and guidelines in my previous replies, which you have seemingly stated to disregard with contempt, you still refuse to get the point and understand how Wikipedia actually works. That's your problem, not mine. GenoV84 (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the section "Comparisons with female circumcision"

[edit]

Previously, the small section "Comparisons with female circumcision" was poorly written, very disorganized. I rewrote the entire section, adding some information from Religious views on female genital mutilation. I am confident that my rewrite is an excellent improvement.

@Barbardo has reverted my edit simply saying "No need to be rewritten." WP:Ownership of content lists an example of odious Ownership Behavior when “an editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it ‘unnecessary’.” I urge @Barbardo to review WP: Editing Policy and WP:Ownership of content. I disagree with @Barbardo’s personal point of view, clearly.

@Barbardo should pursue WP: Dispute Resolution.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]

You removed sources and then added primary sources which one hadith calling for it are deemed weak/daeef and then added a unsourced line about it being mostly found in muslim countries when it varies and is primarily based in africa my suggestion is removing the hadiths and the above line you made in the start of the paragraph. Barbardo (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes and copied text from another article from wikipedia if you agree with the changes then this issue is dealt with. Barbardo (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


@Barbardo
I wrote this BRIEF paragraph:

Traditionally, Islamic scholars found justification for khafḍ in these well-known hadiths:[1]

Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform khitan in Medina. The Prophet said to her: "Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband". (Sunan Abu Dawud 41:5251)

"The Messenger of Allah said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory." (Sahih Muslim 3:684; Sahih Bukhari 1:5:289)

Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – khitan, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.” (Sahih Bukhari 7:72:777)

You replaced this paragraph with information you copied, verbatim, from the long article Religious views on female genital mutilation:

A hadith from the Sunan Abu Dawood collection states: "A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband." Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani describes this hadith as poor in authenticity, and quotes Ahmad Bayhaqi's opinion that it is "poor, with a broken chain of transmission". Yusuf ibn Abd-al-Barr commented: "Those who consider (female) circumcision a sunna, use as evidence this hadith of Abu al-Malih, which is based solely on the evidence of Hajjaj ibn Artaa, who cannot be admitted as an authority when he is the sole transmitter."[31] Another hadith used in support is in Sahih Muslim: "The Messenger of Allah said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory." Mohammad Salim al-Awa states that, while the hadith is authentic, it is not evidence of support for FGM. He states that the Arabic for "the two circumcision organs" is a single word used to connote two forms of circumcision. While the female form is used to denote both male and female genitalia, it should be considered to refer only to the male circumcised organ.[32] A hadith in Sahih Bukhari says: "I heard the Prophet saying. "Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, cutting the moustaches short, clipping the nails, and depilating the hair of the armpits."[33] Mohamed Salim Al-Awwa writes that it is unclear whether these requirements were meant for females.[34]

In my humble opinion, this long, complicated discussion of the unreliability of the ahadith, citing minority scholars, gives UNDUE WEIGHT within the very brief section "Comparisons with female circumcision" of the Khitan article.
Please review WP:UNDUE in WP:Neutral point of view. Please rewrite the paragraph from a neutral point of view, giving due weight. In my humble opinion, you should get a third opinion.
QamarBurtuqali (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]
@Barbardo Moreover, because you copied text from another article, citations [31], [32] and [34] are incorrect.
QamarBurtuqali (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]
You can't add hadiths as they are primary sources witgoyt secondary sources and you have also copied the first paragraph its fine as it because the hadith that calls for it is weak. Barbardo (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barbardo:
You are INCORRECT. I provided a secondary citation for the original paragraph here:

Traditionally, Islamic scholars found justification for khafḍ in these well-known hadiths:[30]

The [30] citation is : "Ibrahim Lethome Asmani, Maryam Sheikh Abdi (2008), De-linking Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting from Islam, https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/De-linking%20FGM%20from%20Islam%20final%20report.pdf"
QamarBurtuqali (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]
Thats not a commentary of the hadiths Barbardo (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ibrahim Lethome Asmani, Maryam Sheikh Abdi, De-linking Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting from Islam Archived 2017-02-21 at the Wayback Machine, Washington: Frontiers in Reproductive Health, USAID, 2008, 3–5.


Alawites

[edit]

Where in the following link is it claimed and authentically proven that Alawites do not practice circumcision? - https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ac1570.html

Alawites practice circumcision of newborn or infant boys.

https://books.google.at/books?id=keD9z1XWuNwC&pg=PA285&lpg=PA285&dq=alawite+circumcision&source=bl&ots=FBbAmDuxwE&sig=ACfU3U0LcvZF7ysnN047O7KuV0YUSeqZ9w&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNq6Kil OWDAxWSYPEDHTYRDE04KBDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=alawite%20circumcision&f=false

https://www.ahewar.org/search/Dsearch.asp?nr=4262

http://ar.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AA_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%85%D8%B9

Yelendo 20:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelendo (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khitan_(circumcision)&oldid=1216257795"