FMG

Begbie wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: So, where is the difference of opinon since I clearly highlighted it to be a cultural practice than having anything to do with divine origin? qaradawi says it's sharia, i'm not disputing divine or cultural. I'm questioning the ethic.

Well you are not very correct in quoting Sheikh Qaradawi. Here it is as what the website says, if at all anything about shariah but not by the Sheikh Qaradawi. "As for the Shari`ah stance on female circumcision, it�s a controversial issue among the Muslim scholars and even doctors." (Bold and underlined are from my self to highlight the actual stance).

Hence, your assertion is not supported but contradicted. Secondly, the issue of ethic in FGM is intrinsically associated with culture, as is now clear, therefore, its meaningless to find its roots from religion, though I have already provided the answer to that.

AhmadJoyia wrote: same as  the shiekh himself has declared it when he says "..But whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin ........". and then says I personally support this

I guess personal opinions are different than official ones. That is how I understand it. Personal opinions are, sometimes, held due to cultural influences, as I have alluded to, than on sound evidence.

What has it got to do with sin anyway ?

I don't know. Probably you need to consult the one who said this.

AhmadJoyia wrote: On the more, the evidence presented in support of FGM, is not authentic. Hence, there is no doubt left. Whatever, the Shiekh is saying is his personal feelings, depending upon his own cultural inclinations. Then the sheik is a dangerous quack ?

I don't say such a thing simply as I have already explained as how a "personal opinion" could be different than the "official" one.

Allah knows the best.  

Edited by AhmadJoyia

It disturbs me tht the quackery of qaradawi is held in such high regard in certain muslim (and leftists) quarters.

This is unfortunate. The first ayat that came down to the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was "Iqra" meaning "read". We are to read and seek knowledge and that would mean to start with the Qur'an and then the "hadith" and so on. When we are well equipped with the treasure that has been revealed to us in the Quran and then listen to scholars we can distinguish between the right & the wrong or the truth & the false. I have little knowledge of this person that you refer to except that I heard a person preaching youngstrs that it is alright to eat at "Mcdonalds" eventhough it is not halal. This she quoted was from qaradwi. I am not in agreement with this.

Abeer23, Alhamdulillah halal food is available almost everywhere in the western countries. It is available even in some supermarkets. But to issue a fatwa so loosely defeats the purpose of eating halal and the efforts of all those who have helped make halal so easily available. Eating in the homes of the people of the book yes, but again if pork or anything haram is offered no. Allah has permitted us to eat non-halal in exceptional circumstances, but I personally find it very sad that this notion is spreading even amongst those who would otherwise eat only halal.

Begbie wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Well you are not very correct in quoting Sheikh Qaradawi. I quote him because he is a well known, prominant "scholar".

Well my dear brother Begbie, I didn't say "why" you quoted Sheikh Qardawi but incorrectly quoted him. Kindly go back and read my objection again and verify. 

Surely you mean qaradawi is contradicted ?

 Again, you misunderstood the whole reply of mine and same you are doing to the personal opinon of Sheikh Qardawi. 

I know that but it concerns me that the likes of qaradawi allows this "culture" to perpetuate by condoning it in a pseudo islamic grounding.

I don't blame the Sheikh, but the website which is promolgating the personal opinons without qualification despite the fact that they know that the issue is "controversial" and yet forwarding a biased "personal" opinon in favour of one side without the other.

He seems to draw his opinion from islamic teachings, does he not ?

As I said before, its more of a cultural influence than anything else, simply because there is not authentic source for his "official" opinon, though the website is blamed for advertising such an image.

Why wouldn't you call him a dangerous quack if he is so far off the mark ?

The website is to be blamed for this issue.

His personnal opinions also stretch to killing homosexuals and apostates. Does anybody in the muslim world take this man seriously ?

This is off the topic, and hence can't comment.

 

Edited by AhmadJoyia