Talk:Female genital mutilation

Editing Islam Section

The sentence that mentions that since Female Circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran - therefore it is unIslamic - is a misleading statement. This is because MOST of the Islamic practices follolwed by the Muslims is NOT mentioned in the Quran, rather, it is mentioned in the traditions of the Prophet Muhhammed. Thus I removed it. Muffizainu (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I also suggest removing the following sentence "but the practice became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female chastity and seclusion", because only about 3 of the 100s of sources talk about "chastity", all the other versions mention it is done to increase sexual pleasure between male and female couples.Muffizainu (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Muffizainu, I've reverted your edits because they have no consensus and aren't supported by Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. If you have medical or academic sources that you'd like to use, please post them here and we can take a look. Also, please look at WP:MEDRS for the kind of sources needed for biomedical information. For other kinds of statements, we accept (for example) reports by UN bodies, governments, academics who work with them, and other academics who have specialized in FGM. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you've not explained your reason for revert. In my explanation I explained 1) The idea that since FC is not mentioned in the Quran and therefore un-Islamic isn't correct, because most Islamic practices are not mentioned in the Quran, including Male circumcision. Islamic practices and the details on how it should be done are found in the traditions of the Prophet Mohammed. So, that sentence in itself is wrong and misleading. You may refer to (Arora KS, Jacobs AJ. Female genital alteration: a compromise solution. Journal of Medical Ethics 2016), where they say: "It is no more possible to define Islam within the four corners of the Quran than to define Christianity (which includes traditions ranging from Presbyterian to Pentecostal to Greek Orthodoxy) solely from a reading of the Bible. Rather, the content of religious belief and practice are guided by interpretive texts and traditions. Thus, many Muslim scholars classify Female Genital Alteration (FGA) as ‘Sunnah’ or practice established by the Prophet Muhammad. Though not prescribed explicitly in the Quran, the practice thus is religiously virtuous. In fact, the colloquial term for FGA procedures in Arabic refers to a ritual state of purity.” For those who aren't aware, even simple "Islamic" practices like praying 5 times a day, or how to pray or fast, are not mentioned in the Quran - the details are found in the traditions and narrations of the Prophet Mohammed. 2) I also cited information that FC was deemed obligatory by certain sects in Islam namely the Shaafi'i and Hanbali, you can view the information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation

That is why I wrote "In Islam, Type 1a female circumcision is praised in several hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble, sunnah (tradition), or waajib (mandatory) - based on the various Sunni Islam & Shia Islam traditions" 3) I didn't make this edit, but I did suggest it, that "the following sentence "but the practice became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female chastity and seclusion", because only about 3 of the 100s of sources talk about "chastity", all the other versions mention it is done to increase sexual pleasure between male and female couples. Thus, you haven't explained on what basis you reverted the edits. I request a vote from editors to confirm my findings as well. Muffizainu (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Muffizainu: SlimVirgin did: "no wp:consensus". Discuss here per wp:BRD Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 10:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim1138 & SlimVirgin - I am already discussing this and I think this requires a response/counter response. Because when some one reverts, it is their duty to explain their reverts and engage in discussion on talk page as well. Muffizainu (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It has already been explained. Everything on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. See WP:RS for what counts as a reliable source. You removed that FGM isn't mentioned in the Quran. You think that doesn't matter, but reliable sources disagree. We also explain that it isn't mentioned in the Bible. You want to rely on a religious website. You removed the view of the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, sourced to UNICEF. You want the article to say that Type 1a FGM is either a good thing or at least not harmful. But reliable sources disagree with you, including the World Health Organization, not least because they say that what practitioners call Type 1a is, in fact, usually Type 1b. See this WHO fact sheet, updated February 2017, in which they call Type 1a "very rare". SarahSV ^(talk) 19:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is regularly monitored by page watchers and the "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits" is 44. I am one of those who has agreed with SarahSV's edits but have not previously bothered commenting because everything that needs to be said is has been. Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq I think you are mistaken or have misunderstood what I have said. 1) About Female Circumcision not in the Quran. I have cited above reliable sources WP:RS "Journal of Medical Ethics 2016" above, and in that they say that just because it's not in the Quran doesn't negate the fact that it is an integral path of the Islamic tradition. To add to that, I was just explaining that MOST Islamic practices are NOT in the Quran - for example, Male Circumcision, so, the fact that it's not in the Quran doesn't negate the fact that it is an Islamic tradition. If you want more citiations, then please view this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_(circumcision) 2) About Azhar, I will add some information to the article to show that even within Al-Azhar there are many positions. The rulings Azhar or UNICED aren't absolutist, and have changed over time and highly contested. 3) Type 1a not harmful: You answered your own question. If the WHO fact sheet says that Type 1a is "very rare" and usually Type 1b, that proves that we aren't talking about Type 1b, and that isn't a matter of contention, and they are 2 different prodecures. Hence, I stand by the statement that Type 1a isn't Type 1b, rare or not, and if you disagree, then I request you to bring me ONE citation that clearly mentions the harm in Type 1a (not 1b or above). Muffizainu (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I see edits at Khitan (circumcision) like this which indicate a desire to portray certain types of FGM as being wonderful, indeed motivated by a desire to spread pleasure. I don't currently have the energy to spell out how much nonsense is involved in that, but I will note that using http://www.clitoralunhooding.com/ as a reference entirely misses the point as that website concerns alleged benefits of a surgical procedure on consenting and informed adults performed by American gynecologists under the best surgical procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The Toronto Star reported in April on a study, "Understanding Female Genital Cutting in the Dawoodi Bohra Community", which apparently says that Type 1b is indeed being performed by the Dawoodi Bohras, not 1a. It is being done by traditional cutters without proper tools on 7-year-olds, who are being told that a "worm" is being removed. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The report (a survey of women who have experienced FGM within that community) shows a mix: 65% (202 women) did not know what had been done to them; 21% said that part of the clitoral hood had been removed; 5% said all the clitoral hood had been removed; 5% said the clitoral hood and part of the clitoris had been removed; 3% reported that their entire clitoris had been removed (that's assumed to mean the visible part); one woman said her labia had been cut too; and two did not respond. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Thank you for the information on the Bohra community, but my and talk messages haven't been about that. I have edited or suggested 1) Quran 2) FC in Islam 3) Disagreement about Azhar University Clergy. Yet, you haven't been able to justify your reverts. Secondly, the citations do mention clitoris (Type 1b), although that information, may or may not be correct, I haven't brought it up, and am not making edits in regard to that. What I did say is that Type 1a is different to Type 1b - and whether Type 1b is practiced, it's still not Type 1a - and, if you have ANY information on the harm of Type 1a, then I would like to see it. Thanks Muffizainu (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Azhar University Disagreement

SlimVirgin - Can you explain why you have reverted the Azhar University Edits? After citations provided.Muffizainu (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edit relied on what seems to be a religious website with a statement from 1981. This article has to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:No original research. When the issue is a medical one, sources must also comply with WP:MEDRS. If you could make yourself familiar with those pages, that would help. If you want to say there is disagreement about FGM, we would need (for example) a United Nations body, or an academic source, reporting that disagreement. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Azhar, it's a theological position on an Islamic position. I don't think the UN is an authority on Islam. Do you?Muffizainu (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a USAID paper about FGM and Islam. You could also look for academic sources. Those are the kinds of sources we need. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, no university has "unified consensus" on any issue—what would such a thing mean? How can a 1981 statement verify "still a matter of contention"? You could ask at WP:RSN whether the reference is considered a reliable source that supports the edit. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As for Azhar, here's some information to show even the recent disagreements: In 2007, as a response to the statements issued by Mohammed Syyed Tantawi and Ali Jumua wherein the practise of khafd was considered un-Islamic and directed against, a group of jurists and intellectuals re-asserted the 1981 findings of al Shaykh al Azhar Jad al Haq mentioned earlier. https://ar.islamway.net/article/2362/%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A9-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B2%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF-%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%88%D9%89-%D8%B7%D9%86%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AB Dr Mohammed Musayyar in an interview published by Memri in 2007 says that even though all the four Madhahib have different interpretations in the matter varying from obligatory to sunnah to a noble deed. (2007, May 23). Islamic Scholars on Female Circumcision - YouTube. Retrieved July 22, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oI0KmUKq8 In an interview published by Memri in 2007, Dr Mohammed Wahdan- a lecturer in Al Azhar University claimed that the origin of female circumcision is since the time of prophet Ibrahim whose first wife Sarrah was jealous of Hajar. Islamic Religious Experts on Female Circumcision - YouTube. N.p., 23 May 2007. Web. 22 July 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUvrHsPaTSo>. Among the scholars and institutions that support female circumcision according to an article published in 2005 is: Shaykh ‘Atiyah Saqr – the former head of the Fatwa Committee in Al-Azhar, and Dar al-Ifta Al-Misriyah. http:// www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/60314/female%20circumcision%20in%20islam (Munajjid, 2014)

Besides Azhar, there are many other Islamic Organizations that have validated the tradition of Female Circumcision. That should also be added. Muffizainu (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please engage with the discussion and respond to the points raised. The current situation appears to show an eagerness to insert a point of view into the article using any technique available with no regard for a coherent discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the points raised. The original text said that the Azhar University disagreed with the practice. I provided information that the University itself has disagreements within itself, and thus, that information is irrelavant on the page. I provided the citations. If you want to keep the Azhar disagreeing, then you can also put the citations that Azhar agrees with female circumcicision as well. This will give both sides of the story. If it all it has been I who've been discussing on the talk page, and User Slim Virgin is deleting without providing any justification. Muffizainu (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I was going to comment at WP:DRN but the section has been closed. I will post the start of my thoughts here although I do not propose engaging in much more back-and-forth because the issue is so clearly one of an attempt to argue against the most reliable sources available which have been chosen for the article.

The July 2007 reference states "Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, the highest religious authority in Egypt, issued a statement saying FGM/C has no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions and that it is harmful and should not be practiced." That is a quote from a UNICEF news report that refers to the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research. A claim that others at the university where the Council is located disagree is not relevant. After-the-fact sources with claims that the purpose of s certain form of FGM is to increase sexual pleasure of the couple cannot be used to balance UNICEF. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Muffizainu, I can recommend two ways forward. First, open a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, and lay out your sources for them. That will attract independent editors who will offer an opinion as to whether your sources are policy-compliant for the points you want to make. Second, write to a few authoritative scholars of Islam in mainstream universities, and ask them to recommend an up-to-date scholarly overview on the position of Islam, or branches of it, on FGM. Explain that the aim is to write a very brief summary (a couple of sentences) for Wikipedia. The Islamic studies department at Harvard might be a good place to start. When you've collected some sources, or even just one, we can decide whether to use that material to update this article. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq I will be providing you multiple citations about the position of Azhar and other Islamic organizations. As for increasing sexual pleasure. Almost every classical Islamic text says it. I will be providing you citations for those as well. These sources predate the existence of the UN, and these are the Classical and Modern basis for the practice oof Female Circimcusion in Islam.

As for the Islamic position, I have even cited the Journal of Medical Ethics 2016, which you have completely ignored. And the Islamic position cannot be ignored. I will quote it again for your information. (Arora KS, Jacobs AJ. Female genital alteration: a compromise solution. Journal of Medical Ethics 2016), where they say: "It is no more possible to define Islam within the four corners of the Quran than to define Christianity (which includes traditions ranging from Presbyterian to Pentecostal to Greek Orthodoxy) solely from a reading of the Bible. Rather, the content of religious belief and practice are guided by interpretive texts and traditions. Thus, many Muslim scholars classify Female Genital Alteration (FGA) as ‘Sunnah’ or practice established by the Prophet Muhammad. Though not prescribed explicitly in the Quran, the practice thus is religiously virtuous. In fact, the colloquial term for FGA procedures in Arabic refers to a ritual state of purity.”Muffizainu (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

And the UNICEF statement regarding the Council is irrelevant? Why? The Council is irrelevant? Why? Is it ritual purity or sexual pleasure? Or is it whatever is currently useful to rebut an unwanted response? Please follow the above recommendation about the reliable sources noticeboard but keep it focused on just a couple of points. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq I never said the "UNICEF statement regarding the Council is irrelevant". Infact, I agreed that statement should stay, but at the same time, it must be clarified that the same council has in the past deemed in favour female circumcision. Plus, there are many more scholars, from the University, and other Islamic organizations that have said the same. I have proposed that that statement should be updated with information from both sides. And if the new information is not welcome, then the one-sided statement should be deleted. That is what I have been proposing all this time. And, along with the Quran statement, I have proposed to add a list of all the classical Islamic scholars that have either said (on accord of the Prophet) that it is either compulsary or reccomended. You can't have one-sided information and blatantly ignore the other side because it doesn't serve the narrative. Muffizainu (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Muffizainu, if this situation continues, someone is likely to ask that you be topic-banned from this issue. Wikipedia must reflect the mainstream view and significant minority views, according to the most reliable sources. The most reliable sources—for the issue you want to include in the religion section—are (reasonably) up-to-date medical and academic secondary sources, and position statements from national and international bodies.

This article does include views that object to the mainstream international position; see Female genital mutilation#Criticism of opposition. We could perhaps include there the view that Type 1a is practised, and that certain groups recommend it as harmless. But it would have to be written and sourced very carefully. That is why I think your research should start by writing to scholars of Islam in mainstream universities so that you can gather the best sources.

Also, I'm concerned about this focus on the Dawoodi Bohra, given the criminal charges that were filed in the US in April this year. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In between fair discussion, sudden inclusion of Topic ban seems giving a threat. When discussion is on Azhar university stand naming particular sect also looks like diverting the issue. All the stands taken by any one of Azhar to be taken care of and let the viewer decide.

Citation style again

Following my post in March that I was adding wikicite to UN reports, [1] I'm considering again changing the citation style to {{sfn}} for journal articles or books that are used repeatedly with different page numbers. I'm not certain yet which sources to do it for, or even whether to go ahead, but I'd like to experiment, so I'm checking here, per WP:CITEVAR, in case there are objections. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Double cropped

In this edit, Wikimandia changed

File:Mary Karooro Okurut (cropped).jpg

to

File:Mary Karooro Okurut (cropped) (cropped).jpg

That changed the article from permalink to permalink. I suppose there is some technical benefit for the double cropping (more focused on the face) but the original seems more appropriate here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I was about to remove that image anyway as part of an effort to make the page look a bit tidier. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I just helping with an automated request that someone made at Commons to replace the larger file with a closer-cropped file, which seemed like a good faith request, but of course the larger file is still available and can be used when it's preferable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)