Saturday, March 6, 2010

Islam and Female Genital Mutilation (Female Circumcision)

For some reason, many Muslims in the West deny the fact that Islam promotes female circumcision. To help clear up this issue, consider this fatwa (and the videos that follow).

Assalaamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaahi Wa Barakaatuhu

1. Circumcision for males is Waajib (compulsory) according to Imaam Abu
Hanifa. If circumcision will hinder a person from accepting Islam then
accepting Islam should be given preference over circumcision.
2. It is Mustahabb (commendable) for females to circumcise. It is narrated
in an authentic Hadith quoted from Abu Dawood Shareef that during the
Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)'s time there was a woman in Madinah
who used to perform circumsicion for women (Fathul Bari vol. 16 p. 353)

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Here's the Hadith referenced:

Sunan Abu Dawud 5251--Umm Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said: 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.

The translator adds the following footnote, summing up the positions of Islamic scholars:

The reference is to the circumcision of girls. It was practiced in Arabia when Islam came. It is disputed amongst the jurists. Some Shafi'i scholars hold that circumcision of girls is obligatory, but others think that it is recommended. Ata, Ahmad b. Hanbal, and some Maliki jurists also hold that it is obligatory. Abu Hanifah maintains that it is recommended and not obligatory. Malik also holds that it is recommended. According to Ahmad, circumcision of women is recommended but it is obligatory in men.

Of course, if you don't like the conclusion, you can always dispute the Hadith.


Radical Moderate said...

I have heard a few Muslim woman say more then once that this is the choice of the woman. There are many reasons why should would want this done. And that "It is a Fact... A FACT that woman in warmer climates have larger clitoris then woman in colder climates" and yes I have that one recorded.


I appreciate the debates and lectures by the christians on this website and others. David Wood has been doing an awesome job, and I would like to say thanks.

One of my concerns is regarding our brother Nabeel, I believe that he is a great christian and strong believer in God, but one of the concerns I have is his debating techiques; in defending the deity of christ, he does not seem to answer questions clearly when debating against muslim debaters, also after many christians watch his debates, they seem to still have doubts because of unanswered questions by Nabeel.

As a christian believer I feel he is strong and his walk with faith, but i beleve he is better at getting lectures and teaching the people, instead of debating.

Anonymous said...

For any male to endorce female cirucism under any circumstances should be as the the apostle Paul said to the Judizers be castrated. Female mutilation is a barbaric practice and any religion that would allow this under any circumstance is a barbaric religion

Sepher Shalom said...

The Student,

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. I think Nabeel generally answers questions directly and sufficiently in his debates (keeping in mind the time restriction inherent to debating), and I think some of the best demonstrations of this can be found in his defense of the deity of Yeshua.

If there are some doubts or questions that you feel you have been left with, have you considered sending an email to Nabeel through the Acts17 website to address them?


@ Sepher Shalom, once again no disrespect towards Nabeel but as far as defending the deity of Christ he really didn't do a good job aganist Sami, personally I feel Sami is an obstacle in which he hasnt yet over came.

I believe in the near future the more he humbles himself and continutes to allow others like David, Sam and James White to take the league then he will be ready for debating, but for now he seems better off teaching and lecturing

Radical Moderate said...

The Student I'm sorry I'm listing right now to the "Debate with Osama" and I have to totally disagree with you.

Name me one question that he has not answered. To be honest I am amazed that Nabeel did not reach up and SMACK Osama especially when Osama kept interrupting Nabeel during his rebutle period.

The Student what are you confused about could you please elaborate.


minoria said...

I saw the debate with Sami.Sami was answered by Nabeel,he simply wanted to make others think he wasn't answered so he kept saying he hadn't been answered.It's like the:


In his debates he keeps saying that the "before Abraham was,I AM" does NOT mean Jesus was claiming Deity.Nonsense.It does.


In one of his books,and he is no Christian at all,he says that in "before Abraham was,I AM" Jesus is definitely claiming to be God,because I AM is in EXODUS.Now EHRMAN is alot more competent that DEEDAT was.So here a SKEPTIC says the same thing.Deedat was using that technique to give the idea he was right.


He was a genius at propaganda and said:"LIE,LIE,LIE,that something remains."So Deedat used it in the sense that the gospels do have Jesus saying he was God but if you say 100X:"He never says it,he never says it,he never says it(even when he does)"then some will believe it."

Sepher Shalom said...

The Student said: "I believe in the near future the more he humbles himself and continutes to allow others like David, Sam and James White to take the league then he will be ready for debating, but for now he seems better off teaching and lecturing"

The men you mention are certainly, in my opinion, some of the best apologists debating Islam today, however, the only people that would benefit from Nabeel regressing from the debate field would be the Muslims. Nabeel overcomes far more arguments than he concedes.

The Student said: "...but as far as defending the deity of Christ he really didn't do a good job aganist Sami"

Just to clarify, we are talking about Sami Zaatari right? If that is the case I am even more confused by your comments.

Which of Sami's arguments specifically did you find convincing, and Nabeel unable to answer?

(Note: I'm not trying to say Nabeel is an 'infallible' debater. I'm just trying to figure out what specifically you are referring to.)

And again, I have to ask, have you considered emailing Nabeel through the Acts17 website to discuss your doubts and questions from the debate in question?

Sepher Shalom said...

While I know it is from a book that has become polarizing in modern Islamic apologetics, there is also this quotation from Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveler - A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. This book comes with the approval al-Azhar University (الأزهر الشريف), the leading institution for Sunni learning in the Islamic world:

e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called khufaad).

Sepher Shalom said...

I think the pattern is clear here:

In the Islamic world the Sheikhs are bold enough to speak the unfiltered teachings of Islam, while in the west the message and teachings are "sanitized" so as not to offend western sensibilities.

I have noticed this seems to be one of the prime duties given to western converts to Islam who go on to become Imams and Sheikhs. They are mouthpiece agents who filter the message through their knowledge of the cultural norms of their homeland in order to present Islam in the most palatable way (regardless of how close to the truth it actually is).


@ Fat Man I really didnt listen to the debate with him and Osama,because for one Osama isnt someone worth debating and Osama has never even came close to winning any debates or making any sense. So I try my best to avoid any of Osama's debates.

I was more so refering to his debates with Sami,Bassam and others.In which other christain debaters easily refute them and he seems to struggle with.

But he has to time to learn and grow

Royal Son said...

The Student: With all disrespect - you have been given a number of opportunities now to substantiate your claims regarding Nabeel's debates with Muslims and you have chosen not to.

Again, to reiterate what my brothers have requested of you, can you please give us some examples of questions that Nabeel left unanswered?

I personally believe that Nabeel does an excellent job debating. He presents his points clearly and in a well structured manner.

If you disagree, then I recommend that you provide examples of what you are claiming. I find it especially odd that this topic would come up in a thread such as this, but if you were so strongly convicted to mention it here, one would expect some evidence. Sounds reasonable does it not?

Not only so, but I would like to make a few further points. In a debate, there simply is not enough time to respond to every single point an opponent makes. Time just does not allow for this. It is thus the job of the debator to prioritize his points according to what he considers to be the most important objections requiring an answer.

Another point is that often Nabeel debates in the style of a pre-emptive strike, in the sense that he prepares the audience for objections that are commonly made by Muslims, and why such objections are not logical or consistent. In doing so, when such objections do surface, it is not always necessary to answer them because the foundation work has already been laid.

That being said, nobody is perfect and I believe that the Lord will continue to develop the talents of brother Nabeel as well as all the members of the Body of Christ according to the time and opportunity apportioned to them by the Lord.

I personally find Sami to be a very unconvincing debator. Let me give you a simple case in point. One of the pages of Sami's website contained an article written by him, mocking the bible as a ridiculous book because it mentions the Balam's donkey speaking to him. Sami considered the bible to be a fairytale because of such nonsense. Yet, when he appeared in my room in Paltalk one day, he failed to respond to me when I asked him if he likewise considered the Qur'an to be ridiculous since it talks about talking ants? I also mentioned yafoor, Mohammad's talking donkey. He basically ignored my words and left.

Regarding the subject of the Deity of Christ, in His debate with Dr James White, he eventually rested on one objection to try and carry his presentation - Mary not worshipping Jesus. As Dr. White handily refuted him throughout the debate, this was the one point he tried to cling to and focus on thinking it was the one unanswerable argument that destroys Christianity, and yet this is a fallacy of arguing from silence, even though I believe Luke 1:46-47 is a case of her doing so.

Anyway, enough from me, I look forward to interacting with your points to follow.

Nazam said...

Amnesty International asserts, “FGC [female genital cutting] predates Islam and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims.”

However, Female circumcision is practice by both Muslims and Christians, namely in parts of Africa. It is performed by Muslims, Coptic Christians, members of various indigenous groups, Protestants, and Catholics, to name a few. One sect of Jews, the Falashas, also circumcise both sexes.

Dispite some difference of opinion amoong Muslims scholars, everybody agrees that this is not compulsory for females but only for the male child.

Here's a question, in Romans (2:25-27) Paul speaks about Circumcision only having any value if you observe the law. But if you break the law you have become one of those who is not circumcised. But those who are not circumcise but keep the law's requirements wll be regarded as being circumcised.

But isn't circumcision one of the Mosaic law's requriements? What does Paul mean that it doesn't matter whether your circumcise or not what matters is keeping the law, when keeping the law also means being circumcise? This was the convenant that God had made with Abraham in Genesis, ch. 17.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey student,

No offence to the other debaters you mentioned but I actually prefer Nabeel’s style in these affairs. I wish I was more like him.

He projects humbleness and the love of Christ while not giving an inch to falsehood and He seems to have a genuine compassion for his opponents. He appears to be interested in winning souls more than just winning debates.

While I love to watch the boldness of Sam and the preparedness and relentless logic of James White not to mention the bulldog like tenacity and focus of David Wood. There definitely is a place for Nabeel’s approach.

While all of us, Nabeel included could stand to learn more I feel it would be a great loss to the kingdom if Nabeel ceased doing this kind of thing.

We need him more not less.

Just my two cents


Radical Moderate said...

The Student...

I'm sorry man but you really don't know what you are talking about. First Nabeel did loose it in the debate with Sammi but that is understandable.'

His debate with Bassam was awesome, the only debate where I can say the Muslim actually won. He pretty much conceded to the textual variations etc... You even hear Nabeel say as much in the debate. Also the question by one of the Muslism in the audience "I have never heard these things about the Quran." As far as Bassam correcting Nabeel on the use of a English translation of a source, as Nabeel said in the debate with Osama... "I'm still waiting on that translation". So I think Bassam just used smoke and mirrors.

Can you please demonstrate just one point were you as a Christian or any other Christian has "doubts because of unanswered questions".

sam said...


i believe we all can get over how nabeel debates or not. i dont think student was trying to single out just nabeel. if student feels nabeel needs a litle work then theres really nothing wrong with that. no bodys perfects. we all sud work at ourselfs to be good at wut we do or to be better. at theses times we really sudnt stab at our own brothers and sisters. i hope nabeel doesnt take this seriously. and by the way i havent seen the debate which u folks r takin about.

Royal Son said...

4. Sami points out that Christians go to the wrong people (the pharisees) when it comes to the view about Jesus. Sami says that the fact that the pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy carries no weight because they didn't even know their book. Instead, Sami suggests we turn to the true believers found in Matthew 16:13-14 -

"13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist ; and others, Elijah ; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

First thing to note is that Jesus never said "who do the true believers say that the Son of Man is?" Rather He just uses the generic term "people". How Sami identified this group as referring to true believers is beyond me. Regardless, if we are to agree with Sami that these are true believers then we have a problem. These people differ with each other on who Jesus is. Some say John the baptist, some say Elijah, some say Jeremiah, and some say one of the prophets.

So which person is correct? Supposedly they are all true believers according to Sami. Does Sami believe that Jesus was John the baptist? Furthermore, one only has to go ONE VERSE LATER to see that none of these responses were adequate - even that Jesus is "one of the prophets":

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am ?"

Obviously Jesus is looking for a response that goes beyond the claim that He is one of the prophets.

Peter answers Him in verse 16 and identifies Him as the Son of the living God. According to Islam, Allah has no Son.

This same chapter has Peter also rebuking the Lord for his statement that He was to be crucified. Jesus rebukes Peter and calls Him Satan for this. Did Sami's bible omit these verses? Did Sami forget about these verses? Was he ignorant of them? Why did he only stop at verse 14 which didn't even identify the group of people as believers nor have Jesus commending their statements to be true?

5. Sami then tries to suggest that the Son of man is not God in Daniel 7:13-14 because a kingdom is GIVEN to him. Sami does not realise the import of his concession that the Son of Man refers to Jesus. This person would be served by people of all nations and languages and his kingdom would never end. Who else is to be served for eternity and has an eternal kingdom other than God Himself?

6. Sami tries to argue with the Christian's use of John 5:23 regarding the Christians' need to honor the Son even as they honor the Father. Sami suggests that the word in the Greek can bear two meanings:

i. Exactly the same way, identical. In other words worship.

ii. The same in proportion.

Obviously Sami is trying to uphold the second meaning showing that it is a plausible rendering in place of the first. This is a very weak argument from Sami because he already concedes that the Christian understanding of the term even as (the first: identical) is one possible translation. He is not refuting the first definition therefore but can only at best say - look, here's another possible definition. And yet, even if we are to go with the second definition it still amounts to worship because it would be blasphemous to apportion the same AMOUNT of honor, the same PORTION of honor both to God and to a mere creature.

Ok those 6 points are as far as I got to with the opening statement. Lord willing, I will continue and address more of Sami's claims. Sorry if my responses are brief but hopefully it should be crystal clear from the outset that Sami Zaatari's arguments make not even the slightest dent against the bible or the beliefs that we hold to concerning Jesus Christ.

Royal Son said...

Alright, THE STUDENT, I've been listening to the debate between Sami Zaatari and Nabeel Qureshi.

I have only gotten to about halfway through Sami's opening statement and was amazed at how incredibly weak it was.

I am going to post the points I have observed and my brief responses. If anyone else wants to chime in, feel free:

1. First Sami puts on a Jehovah's Witness hat and tries to argue that John 1:1-3 should not be translated as "the word was God" but rather "the word was a god". Sami later says that the best translation would read "the word was divine" He then goes on to say that the word of God is the power, will, purpose, and wisdom.

Here we see that Sami has identified Jesus as being the word, and says that this word (Jesus) is the power, will, purpose, and wisdom of God. He also says that this word has always been with God.

In doing so, Sami is applying characteristics that belong to God alone. Sami however tries to smooth over this by saying that we are all the word of God, even though the Qur'an only ever refers to Jesus as being the word of God.

Compounded with this is Sami's complete silence on verse 3 in which all things came into being through Him. So the entire universe came into being through Jesus, no response from Sami on this one. Now it would be ridiculous to say that the universe came into being through all of us, thus demonstrating that his attempts to broaden the application of the designation "Word of God" to all people is without any merit whatsoever.

2. Sami attempts to show the biblical Jesus as being a sinner with John 8:1-11 in the case of the adulterous woman whom Jesus does not stone. Sami asserts that Jesus sinned by not stoning the adulterer, failing to recognise a number of basic points:

i. Jesus was addressing the command in this context TO the pharisees not to Himself.

ii. Jesus did uphold the law by taking the woman's sin upon Himself and bearing the judgement for it upon the cross.

iii. The account is not even found in the earliest manuscripts. Not denying that it could be an authentic oral tradition, but Sami needs to deal with the original text.

3. Sami then tries to show that ego emi in John 8:58 should be translated "I am he" and does not mean He is God at all. Sami proposes that Jesus saying that He was before Abraham simply refers to his existing in the foreknowledge of God. Such a position is fraught with difficulties however, because if the meaning refers to foreknowledge, then Abraham too would have existed in the foreknowledge of God, thus how could Christ exist in God's foreknowledge before Abraham?

Add to this Sami's claim that this speaking was for Jesus to show that He was on the same level as Abraham. Actually that makes no sense, because if we all existed in God's foreknowledge, then that logically would make everyone including the unbeliever on par with Abraham. Such a position is undefendable.

Radical Moderate said...

In the first video, the Muslim Imam says "It up to the doctor she will decide if a girl needs it or not"


You are severing a nerve bundle. I would like to see these Muslim men have the head of there pennis removed.

Radical Moderate said...

Simon well said, however the student made a statement that after listening to Nabeel on the deity of Christ that

"also after many christians watch his debates, they seem to still have doubts because of unanswered questions by Nabeel."

So i would like THE STUDENT to Quantify that statement. Provide some documentation as to what Nabeel said in any of his debates that would raise doubts in Christians on the deity of Christ.

So unless he can do that, then he is just making a empty accusation, and he is actually slandering Nabeel.

So The STUDENT I will ask again What did Nabeel say and in what debate did he say it that caused you or any other Christian to have doubts in the deity of CHRIST.

ben malik said...

Fatman, stop jumping the gun and assume that the student is slandering Nabeel. If this is what he feels then this is his feeling. So stop forcing him to see it your way. I believe his purpose in making his feelings known here on a blog run by Nabeel and David was so as to give some brotherly advice to Nabeel since I am pretty certain he reads the comments that get posted here. So give the brother a break.

ben malik said...

Royalson, I aagree with you that Sami's points were bad and wouldn't put a dent in the Deity of Christ. However, the reason you and I feel that way is because by the grace of God we have studied the Scriptures and have seen the marvelous truth of the diety of Christ running also throughout its inspired pages.

However, not all Christians have studied this aspect of their faith with any depth so Sami's points can do some initial damage to their faith. Now where they go from there is up to them.

For instance, as you go through Sami's points you mention Sami's comments regarding the Son of Man receiving a kingdom from God. Your reply really doesn't address this part of his objection, in fact it leaves it unanswered. Your comment that the Son of Man is served by all the nations and rules forever is an excellent point, but it leaves unanswered another objection made by Sami.

If I recall Sami did mention in the debate that Daniel was also worshiped by Nebuchadnezzar who even offered sacrifices to the prophet. See Daniel 2:46-49. I don't recall Nabeel providing an adequate reply. However, I may be wrong since it has been awhile since I last headr that debate.

It is comments and objections like these that leave Christians who are still young in the faith questioning whether Jesus is truly worship as God.

Now I know that you can easily reply to these points but that is besides the point. The Student was trying to show that these are some of the things which Nabeel didn't answer satisfactorily which caused some Christians he knows who may not be as strong and mature in their faith to have more questions than answers. And I agree with him here.

Sepher Shalom said...

Nazam said: "Amnesty International asserts, “FGC [female genital cutting] predates Islam and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims.”"

I would like to point out, Nazam, that as a Muslim you have no choice but to reject the statement from Amnesty International you have quoted, as it is the Islamic position that Adam was a Muslim. How could FGC predate Adam when females postdate Adam?

I also find it most interesting that your initial reaction to this post is not to comment on the Islamic sources, nor the words of the Sheikhs in the videos, but rather to quote Amnesty International, and then to pose a question to us about Paul's comments on male circumcision.

Sepher Shalom said...

ben malik said: "The Student was trying to show that these are some of the things which Nabeel didn't answer satisfactorily which caused some Christians he knows who may not be as strong and mature in their faith to have more questions than answers. And I agree with him here."

I think it is a factual statement to say that there have been arguments brought up in debates that Nabeel has not answered. However, this applies to all debaters universally. Nobody debates in limited time constraints and answers every question.

My problem arises when The Student suggests that something that is universally true by the nature of debating should cause Nabeel to stop debating. This comment bothers me because it seems to ignore Nabeel's strong body of work in the field of apologetics.

In short, saying there are arguments that have not been dealt with to his satisfaction or suggesting areas Nabeel could focus improvement is one thing, but to suggest Nabeel shouldn't be debating is another all together.

In any case, I am thinking that you and I are probably in agreement on the above issues.

Radical Moderate said...

LOL I"m sorry I thought The Student was a Muslim. LOL sorry dude.

Nazam said...


Words mean different things in different context.
The statement that according to Amnesty International, female circumcision "pre dates Islam" means before the time of the Prophet Muhammed not before the time of Adam.

I did comment on the Islamic sources in a broad way by admitting that despite the difference of opinion among Muslim scholars all of them agree this is not compulsory for females but only for male children.

I will also add that those who like to cite Hadith in support of Female circumcision are regarded as being weak and cannot be relied upon by eminent Hadith scholars such as Bukhari and Abu Dawud. For example Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his book, Talkhees al-Habeer, cites Ibn ul-Mundthir who says "There is no report about circumcision that can be relied upon, and no chain of transmission that can be followed."

I think my question about Paul is an interesting one and it is something that has been on my mind when I was rereading Romans a couple of weeks ago and saw this as an opportunity to ask. What does Paul means when he teaches (Romans 2:25-27) it doesn't matter if your circumcise what matters is keeping law. But isn't circumcision part of the law? He then goes on to say that, those who are not circumcise but keep the law's requirements wll be regarded as being circumcised. But if your going to keep the law wouldn't that also regard Paul's followers as upholding circumcision?

ben malik said...

Ok guys in order to be fair I went back and listened to the entire debate between Sami and Nabeel concerning Who is Jesus. I must be honest and say that Sami dominated the debate and exchange and Nabeel didn't come out looking as well as he did in other debates. Just my two cents on this debate.

Royal Son said...

Ben Malik, thanks for the comments. I didn't get as far as the points you mentioned with regards to Nebudchanezzar as I had only listened as far as about 12 minutes or so into Sami's opening statement, and my responses admittedly were brief and probably did not address everything as sufficiently or adequately as I would like, but I would like to have a continuation of sorts to look more into Sami's points.

I guess all I would have liked to have seen were some points mentioned by THE STUDENT as unanswered objections so that I'd have something to work with. Since I didn't have that I've been just going through the bits I've heard.

You mentioned something about Daniel being worshipped by Nebudchanezzar. While I note this point, I consider it to be strikingly different from peoples of all nations serving a person for eternity in a kingdom that never ends. Nevertheless there are other responses that can be made and I think I shall do so as I proceed further into the debate.

Much grace.

Ameena said...

Female Circumcision Prevents HIV/AIDS

Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, and union status.

Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania:
for better or for worse?
(3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)
International AIDS Society


Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone Female Circumcision had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.

Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes
Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID

Radical Moderate said...

Ok just to be clear. I was listing to Nabeel's debate with Osama when I read The Students comment. I thought The Student was a Muslim even possibly Osama himself.

yes it is true that Nabeel did not do good in that first debate. The mocking voice, and yes some of his responses were poor. The Response to Sammi's point on Daniel receiving worship was less then edifying. To be honest I'm still looking for a good response on that.

Now to be fair to Nabeel there were extenuating circumstances, which Nabeel has eleborated on in previous posts. (You try producing a debate, at the same time your finishing up your medical degree and then go and debate with someone who at the time just offered frustration and not arguments.)

The reason why I jumped on "THE STUDENT" is like I said I was listing to the Osama engagement and I have to say I was impressed with the style and class of Nabeel. For Osama is DEMON POSSESSED. I don't throw that term around lightly. I serious believe the man is demon possessed.

So I'm listing to this, i'm at the point in the second rebutle where Osama keeps interrupting Nabeels presentation and at the same time this is going on in my head phones. I read from THE STUDENT "but one of the concerns I have is his debating techniques".

I did not know who "THE STUDENT" was, had I known I would of approached the situation differently. I honestly thought it was either Osama or another Muslim and I thought the debate he was referring to was the one I was listing to.

Now with that said I think everyone not just debtors but anyone involved in any form of public speaking can learn from Tony Costa's. It was amazing in the form of style. There is not a "UMMM' or a stutter, it is just pure presentation.

Notice how he pauses, when ever he gets to a point where I or others would insert a "UMM" he pauses. He lets his mouth catch up to what his mind is thinking. That is dicipline and training. It is perfect "O WAZA" major technique.

minoria said...

If I am not mistaken the word used in DANIEL is the Aramaic word PELAKH/PELACH which can mean "to serve"(in a non-religious way) and "to worship"(to worship God),the meaning depending on the context.


I have no problem with that expression.Really,the Trinity is THREE PERSONS and 1 God.Then of course one person(the Father) can actually GIVE something to another person(the Son).It's still God giving something to himself.

Radical Moderate said...

Ameena thank you for proving Darwinism is just WRONG.

We are talking about severing a NERVE BUNDLE. In a woman it is the highest concentration of nerves only comparable to the head of the penis in males. It's sole purpose, its only purpose for that matter is to give a woman sexual pleasure and gratification.

Severing this deprives a woman of this GIFT OF GOD. Yes it is a GIFT OF GOD.

This has nothing to do with the transmission of STD's. Do you even know how STD's are transmitted?

They are transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids. If a woman has her clitoris removed, bodily fluids are still exchanged during un protected sex.

Hiwot said...

Royal Son, would you please continue answering Sami's points?



Fat man and I have spoke with each other outside this blog about the issue reagarding Nabeel and I clearified who I am.

But other than that I'm going to be honest srtaight foward, some people want to be politically correct cause they themselves are christains.

What I said still stands and there is no changing my mind intill Nabeel proves different in (MY EYES) and others as far as his debating skills.

And if Nabbel disagrees with me and would like to know why I feel the way I do? Then I would be more than happy to demostrate (TO HIM) his poor responses during debates

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Student and others,

I will also be completely honest.

I have seen a whole lot of this 'I will be completely straight forward and honest' crab on pal-talk; there is a time for being completely straight forward and honest, but it also requires wisdom, and paltalk is utter chaos; its hardly possible to administrate a room, because everybody wants to be straight forward.

And the 'I will be completely straight forward and honest' personalities ussually do not appreciate such mentality from others.

Would it not be far more appropriate to be wise and to solve this matter with Nabeel himself, if there really is a problem.

And if Nabeel failed to solve an argument effectively then by all means we can solve the problems by a combined work, utilizing the blogs, the youtube, etc.

ben malik said...

Anyway, I think we have all made our points and stated our views concerning the debating skills of some of our brothers. I think it is time we moved on to something else.

Fernando said...

Brother Sepher said: «How could FGC predate Adam when females postdate Adam?»...


Fernando said...

Someone saide: Female Circumcision Prevents HIV/AIDS...

sure... and cutting one's head also... how stupid (yes, stupid!!!) can someone bee to believe in suche thingue?

Royal Son said...

Getting back to the account of Daniel and Nebudchanezzar,
from the very same chapter - Ch2 verse 30, we see something
of Daniel's own consciousness concerning Himself:

30 "But as for me, this mystery has not been revealed to
me for any wisdom residing in me more than in any other
living man, but for the purpose of making the
interpretation known to the king, and that you may
understand the thoughts of your mind.

Here Daniel concedes that his own wisdom is no greater than
that of any other living man. What he has received is a
revelation from God and that is simply for the purpose of
giving understanding to the king concerning his dream. As
John Gill points out in his commentary of Daniel 2:30
"...but as the king might think he had, by revealing this
secret to him, and that it was owing to that; but that
he had not such wisdom, and, whatever he had, which
was the gift of God, it was not through that, or any
sagacity and penetration into things he was master of,
superior to others, that it was revealed to him"

Daniel also recognizes himself as a sinner in 9:20 -

20 Now while I was speaking and praying, and confessing my
sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my
supplication before the LORD my God in behalf of the holy
mountain of my God,

So what we are left with is an argument from silence, while
Daniel himself acknowledges that any wisdom he has is not
his own but from God and that he himself is a sinner.

If any argument is to be made from silence it would have to
be that Daniel, a person who recognizes that God alone is
the bestower of all that is good, a person who recognizes
that He is a sinner, deserving of the wrath of God would
repudiate the notion of being worshipped rather than
happily accept it. Contrast this with Jesus Christ who not
only received worship, but acknowledged those who did so as
true believers, and underscored the need to be worshipped
by pointing to His omniscience and omnipotence, something
completely absent from Daniel.

Royal Son said...

Alright, I listened to some more of the debate, and I will
post some responses to other points made by Sami, but first
I'll address this point regarding Daniel receiving worship
from King Nebudchanezzar. Nabeel responded to it ever so
briefly, not in the way that I would but He did make one
point which was noteworthy and it is a point that needs to
be made more forcefully, and that is this:

Nabeel states that Daniel 2:13 does not mention Daniel
rebuking King Nebudchanezzar, but in the case of Thomas'
confession, Jesus does give a positive response. What you
have in Daniel 2:13 is an absence of response mentioned,
thus for Sami to make this point, it would be an argument
from silence.

Now Sami would be right to respond to this by saying that
citing Matthew 2:11 would be an argument from silence as
well - of course Jesus would not respond in that verse
because He was an infant, or in Matthew 14:33 but Jesus
does give a response to Thomas' confession, and indeed in
other passages of scripture.

For example: Matthew 28:17 says

17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were

Note Jesus' response in the verses following:

18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All
authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I
commanded you; and lo, I am with you always , even to the
end of the age."

Here Jesus speaks of having all authority, states that
people should be baptized in His name, and that He will be
with the disciples until the end of the age. The words
speak of His omnipotence and omnipresence, and all in the
context of receiving worship from His disciples.

In John 9:35-41 we have Jesus healing a blind man while
some Pharisees are standing by. The passage is quite
striking because Jesus applies the miracle of healing the
blind man in a positive spiritual sense , and in the
reverse (negative) sense to the Pharisees:

35 Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him,
He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man ?"

36 He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in

37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is
the one who is talking with you."

38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him.

39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world,
so that those who do not see may see, and that those who
see may become blind."

40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these
things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?"

41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have
no sin ; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

Here we see that following the formerly blind man's
confession and worship, Jesus describes the formerly blind
man as who who couldn't see but now can see, and the
pharisees as those who could see and have become blind.

Were the blind man to have blasphemed Jesus, by giving
undue worship, he would not be spoken of as one who was
blind and could now see in the same sense that the
pharisees who could see had become blind. Jesus is using a
spiritual application here and it is an implicit
affirmation of His Deity, and thus an acceptance of the
worship He received.

Royal Son said...

My apologies. My original post was over the maximum allowed number of characters and so I split it into two sections in notepad and then copy pasted each back in here. I didn't realise that the format was going to be all messed up. I should have done a preview first.

minoria said...

Hello Royal Son:

You have answered well.In DANIEL 2:46 when Daniel interprets a dream and all of a sudden Nebuchadnezzar prostates himself before Daniel and orders sacrifices in his honor,according to the text,there is nothing from Daniel:NOTHING,neither ACCEPTANCE nor REFUSAL.The text is silent about his reaction.I say:"the text omits details."



No,because in DAN 5:16 Daniel had just interpreted another dream for BELSHAZAR and he tells Daniel he will make him "THIRD in the government of the kingdom."


Till they discovered that Belshazar had coruled with NABONIDUS,the sentence made no sense.Why not offer him 2nd place?Why third?See,details were omitted,just like in DAN 2:46.

Imran Suhail Ashraf said...

Quran is the only book that is the absolute authority in islam. Not only is female genital cutting not a subject in islam, moreover male circumcision is not even an obligation on muslims. It is a practice attributed to prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) and thus it becomes something allowed in islam but not obligated.

The hadith book mentioned is only accepted by few sunni muslims from shafi sect. other sects have their own books and many moderate muslims and new converts only follow Quran.

best wishes to all.

Omar said...

I am shocked as a muslim that a practice such as this could be even considered remotely islamic the fact of the matter is the female portion of our race has been abused by men who find themselves inadeqaute compared to other men and therefore pick on women .. Allah did not create the women of the world put emphasis on their worth such as our mothers to be then abused by us men Islam is a tool but often has inappropriatly handled as a weapon over the thousands of years and in my opinion is the reason for lessening of faith of recent times your souls sins and deeds outweigh all other attributes...

Anonymous said...

Religious views on female genital mutilation (FGM) vary even within the same religious tradition. According to Gerry Mackie, a researcher, FGM is found only within and adjacent to Muslim communities,[1] but the practice predates Islam, and is not required by it.[2] Also, Al-Azhar University, the highest school of learning in Sunni Islam says that FGM prohibited. The religious scholars, the most respected in Sunni Islam, issue this fatwa (a religious edict) saying that FGM as a practice contravenes Islamic law [3] The only Jewish group known to have practiced it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia.[4] There is no unequivocal link between religion and prevalence.[5]