U.S.: 228,000 women have undergone or are at risk for female genital mutilation

"Cutting" doesn't describe it. "Circumcision" doesn't, either. It is mutilation, plain and simple, and must be recognized as such. But at least this story doesn't entirely tiptoe around the prevalence of the practice in Muslim countries.

It may be a millennia-old practice, but the fact remains that Islamic law embraced it, and that is the reason for its persistence -- it is not at all merely "cultural." From the Shafii manual of Islamic jurisprudence, Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler), certified as "reliable" by the Misunderstanders of Islam Al-Azhar University in Egypt:

"Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)" -- 'Umdat al-Salik e4.3

Regional variances of the practice in Muslim communities depend just as much on the justification of the principle in Islamic law. Those who would defend "just a little" cutting as somehow more acceptable -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics, with their approval of a "ritualized nick" (background and commentary here and here)-- miss the point: Mutilation is mutilation, and must not be allowed to happen on U.S. soil. Period.

"Pressure for female genital cutting lingers in the U.S.," by Stephanie Chen for CNN, May 21:

(CNN) -- Fatima Mohamed, a 45-year-old Somali immigrant living in America, was faced with a question most parents will never worry about: Should my daughter be circumcised?
The United States has outlawed female genital cutting, but cultural and religious pressures to circumcise girls linger among some African and Muslim immigrant families. Mohamed says the decision was an easy one for her to make after going through the painful experience herself in Africa as a child. She strongly opposes the idea of cutting her 11-year-old daughter, an American-born Somali with long curly hair, who plays soccer and likes watching "American Idol."
But not every family in her African community in Massachusetts feels that way. Nor can they they swiftly make the decision to reject circumcising their daughters, because it's a cultural ritual integral a woman's identity, she says.
"They say they don't want to hear it," Mohamed says. "Some think I'm disrespecting my own culture. Some will say, 'You act like an American now. You forgot about who you are.' "
In the U.S., an estimated 228,000 women have been cut -- or are at risk of being cut -- because they come from an ethnic community that practices female genital cutting, according an analysis of 2000 Census data conducted by the African Women's Health Center at Brigham and Women's Hospital. The Census reports there are roughly 150 million women living in the United States.
The World Health Organization estimates up to 140 million women and children worldwide have been affected by female genital cutting. The WHO defines female genital cutting as a process that alters or injures female genital organs for nonmedical purposes.
There are several types of female circumcision. The most severe types require the inner or outer labia to be sewn together, a procedure performed in parts of Somalia and Egypt. Other forms include excising the entire clitoris or part of the clitoris.
Genital cutting dates back at least 5,000 years, says Marianne Sarkis, a professor of international development at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. Some women desire the procedure because they believe they are dirty or unmarriageable if they are not cut, she said. There are cultures that begin cutting women as early as infancy, while some wait until adolescence.
Communities divided
Not all families in communities where female genital cutting is commonplace will want to participate. In Mohamed's immigrant community in Massachusetts, families are divided, she says. Some refuse to allow the procedure, as she does. Others say they want it, and many remain silent.
Occurrences of the practice have been documented in the U.S. In March, a Georgia mother was charged with female genital mutilation after the father noticed an infant's genitals "appeared to be have been circumcised," according to the Troup County Sheriff's Office. Officers wouldn't comment further on the family.
Several advocacy workers say the more common scenario involves sending girls back to their home country to have the ritual performed. Over the past few years, Taina Bien-Aimé, president of the women's advocacy group Equality Now, has heard several anecdotal stories of girls being sent back to have the procedure.
With summer vacation approaching, one 34-year-old mother from Senegal, living in New York City, says she knows several African families in limbo about genital cutting. One of her female friends abandoned her husband earlier this year when he asked for their 6-year-old daughter to be cut in Africa this summer. The friend, who speaks little English and is jobless, fled to a shelter with her daughter....

Read it all.

UPDATE: Mark Durie observes (thanks to Hesperado) that the above translation of Umdat al-Salik is itself deceitful, as its editors have attempted (futilely) to soften the barbarism of the practice for non-Muslim consumption. It is as relevant as ever that, as stated above, "Those who would defend 'just a little' cutting as somehow more acceptable ... miss the point. Mutiliation is mutilation." Durie writes:

"The Reliance of the Traveller, a respected manual of Shafi'i jurisprudence, states "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" (section e4.3). [The English translation by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (certified by Al-Azhar University) disguises the true meaning of the Arabic text by offering the following bogus English 'translation': "For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert)."
| 51 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

51 Comments

| Leave a comment

Barbarism, pure and simple. Oh, and misogyny, pure and simple.

You act like an American now. You forgot about who you are.'

Says it all really. Multiculturalism divides, it doesn't unite or strengthen.

To keep this and other vile cultural practices from becoming established in the U.S. it is necessary to repeal the 1965 Immigration Act, seal the borders and enact an immigration moratorium while designing an immigration policy that serves the national interest. And it goes without saying that such a policy will exclude Muslims.

Torture is the first thing that comes to my mind.

Evil wears many masks...FGM is one of them...And the 'ritual nick', is a black magick ritual in honor of 'The Devil', sometimes known as 'Old Nick'...You can be sure Old nick is present anytime this black ritual is performed...

Wait a minute...Why are Somalis sending their children back to Somalia for this sick ritual if it's so dangerous they had to emigrate here en masse? Also, how can they afford the freight if the majority of them are on welfare? I can't afford to take my kids to DisneyLand, and they are sending their daughters back to a hell-hole for the unspeakable?

Along the way haven't any of them ever asked "Why? What good does it do?" I used to think that it was done to control the sexual impulses of the female, thereby hopefully preserving virginity until marriage. But recently I read that after FGM, many women can still experience orgasms.
Anyway, FGM is outrageous child sexual abuse and everybody involved in it needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If these people don't want to become Americans, send them back. The American academy of Pediatrics can go with them.
I'm sick of bizarre accommodations being made for Muslims when they aren't made for anybody else.

"You act like an American now. You forgot about who you are."

I can think of no more compelling or revealing
statement to support an immediate ban on ANY further muslim immigration to this country.
Let them be "who they are" in their own muslim
fairy-lands.

"The friend, who speaks little English and is jobless fled to a shelter with her daughter..."

Here we go again. THEIR problems become OUR problems. Sorry, but I don't WANT their problems. And I shudder to think what the societal and financial cost of those will be as their numbers are allowed to increase. Not invented here, not intended here, not wanted here. Again, let them be physical, psychological and financial liabilities where that's a way of life. And that ain't here...

"To keep this and other vile cultural practices from becoming established in the U.S. it is necessary to repeal the 1965 Immigration Act, seal the borders and enact an immigration moratorium while designing an immigration policy that serves the national interest. And it goes without saying that such a policy will exclude Muslims."

Bingo, perfect. Had to repeat that, simple to the point. The 1965 Immigration Act was flawed, and it obviously needs fixing.

If the clitoris is completely removed at the root as is done in Soamlia and Egypt, there is no possibiltiy for orgasm.

Tell me if you think a female can experience orgasm anytime after these procedured being done to her:

Warning - Graphic Images:

http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/somalia/fmgpictures.htm

And to make matters worse several weeks ago it was published that the American Academy of Pediatrics was endorsing a procedure of "cutting" little girls to accommodate Arabic/Islamic parents HERE IN AMERICA in hopes they would not take them to Islamic countries for the mutilation procedure. WHAT CAN THEY BE THINKING????? Accepting this barbarism is itself succumbing to it. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW, I reminded the idiots at AAP.

Protest at: The American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Blvd., Elk Grove, Village 6007-1098
phone: 847-434-4000
fax: 847-434-8000

There is a Washington DC address also. See their web site.

"removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert)."

Marisol, like Robert Spencer, still hasn't gotten the memo yet, apparently.

Mark Durie has argued that the translation Marisol is using, and which Spencer has used time and again, is not only inaccurate but indicates an Islam-Apologetic motive to soften the truth about Islamic support for FGM.

As I noted before in Jihad Watch comments (and it wasn't the first time I called attention to this in Jihad Watch comments):

Durie argued that the English translation is incorrect, of female circumcision as involving only removing the "prepuce of the clitoris" which the English translator goes on to assert in a bracketed note "and not the clitoris itself as some mistakenly assert". Durie has argued the English translator is probably mistranslating this on purpose, as an apologist, in order to make Islam look a little less barbaric, for according to Durie, the Arabic clearly states that the entire clitoris is to be cut out.

See:

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/01/22/clarification-of-islamic-law-support-for-female-genital-mutilation-by-dr-mark-durie/

Why isn't the anti-Islam movement setting in stone Mark Durie's argument so that this one piece, the problem of FGM, of the jigsaw puzzle of the larger Problem of Islam can be used effectively? Or, if Durie's argument is unsound, why doesn't someone present a counter-argument to it?

Heaven forbid that the anti-Islam movement ("such as it is," as Diana West recently noted in a wry parenthesis) might tighten up its evidentiary claims. In this case, however, we have ironically a negligence of evidence that could strengthen the claim while evidence that weakens the claim continues to be purveyed.

Those who are interested in learning about the barbaric misogynist African/Muslim "custom" of FGM should read African-American author Alice Walker's "Warrior Marks" (1993). Here's the link to order:

http://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Marks-Genital-Mutilation-Blinding/dp/0156002140

"... "Some think I'm disrespecting my own culture. Some will say, 'You act like an American now. You forgot about who you are.' "

That's all I need to hear. Send those SOB's home.

Not all families in communities where female genital cutting is commonplace will want to participate. In Mohamed's immigrant community in Massachusetts, families are divided, she says. Some refuse to allow the procedure, as she does. Others say they want it, and many remain silent.
......................

These "families in communities where female genital cutting is commonplace" should be notified that FGM performed on their children *is a crime*, that undertaking it will result in prison time and in the loss of custody of their abused children.

More:

One of her female friends abandoned her husband earlier this year when he asked for their 6-year-old daughter to be cut in Africa this summer. The friend, who speaks little English and is jobless, fled to a shelter with her daughter...
......................

Good for this mother. But how many other Muslimahs are this brave? (and that doesn't even account for the Muslimahs who *actually embrace* the barbaric practice). Have charges been filed against the father?

More:

UPDATE: Mark Durie observes (thanks to Hesperado) that the above translation of Umdat al-Salik is itself deceitful, as its editors have attempted (futilely) to soften the barbarism of the practice for non-Muslim consumption...
......................

Thanks for the update—I know Hesperado has been posting about this for a while now.

Have Islam. Have barbarism. Count on it.

Thanks Marisol, and graven image.

It's also interesting that the editor (and translator?) of that manual of Islamic law, according to Durie, was apparently a Western convert to Islam.

People are naturally distressed when they think about any kind of surgical procedure on genitalia. There have always been moves afoot to ban circumcision as "mutilation" - however it has been researched by some scientists (some of whom were vehemently against it then changed their minds) who found that male circumcision not only in no way equates with female circumcision, but the health benefits far outweigh the risks. Most importantly it has never been proved that male circumcision results in the lessening of sexual pleasure, either.

http://www.circinfo.net/pain_and_memory.html
http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html
http://www.circinfo.net/

We have to continue saying to everybody and anybody who will listen (and well done to Jihad Watch and others) that FGM among Muslims is not only a particularly despicable form of physical violence against women, it totally traumatises them, and it is a sickening form of pychological humiliation. We must keep broadcasting the fact that this is yet another way that Islam can the PROVED to be a cruel, violent intolerant sadistic religion. All this rubbish about FGM being a "cultural" practice in order to gloss over it and excuse it can be disproved when we put forward examples of Islamic scholars not only finding excuses for it to be done, but saying it is an integral part of Islamic law.

The Muslims who remain silent in the face of this kind of torture of girls and women are as culpable as those who promote it, as are some American organisations for appeasing those who demand it:

http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/05/american-academy-of-pediatrics-condones-female-genital-mutilation.html


I am so sick of bending over backwards for other culturals and their rituals.. Like many other responses, if you don't like the rules here leave. Plain and simple!! Our GOVT is against us, the Homegrown American that is.. They want our rights and privelages revoked. They want us to pay for everything. The illegals comes here set up shop, they push their laws like sharia, and they make a mockary of our laws and take our tax money..to fund it to boot.. Come on People, when are we going to take our GOVT back? I mean seriously.. is their really anyone in congress who is for us? they passed their health care wheter or not we wanted it,, which most did not.. We are screwd as a nation unless we vote them out in the fall..Take back what was ours.. If we become a one world GOVT, it's a free for all. and our way of life will be a thing of the past. Muslims have their foot baths, pray in our schools when the want to, and if your a Christian GOD for bid you wear a cross or read a bible.. We have lost what our founding fathers have given to us, it's time we take it back and tell the rest of the world don't mess with us.. Our president aplologises for us, and he makes us look like fools..
I know it's a bit off the subject, but if this happens to poor defensless women of their cluture, what will happen if the Muslims take over, and all women are circumcised?

The Mark Durie quote from Hesperado from Bostom does not list the source of the Mark Durie quote. If it is on Durie's blog, I can't find it, and Bostom doesn't provide the link or other information showing us where we can find it.

Anyways, what's presented above from Durie highlights a potential problem that needs further investigation, but it hardly demonstrates anything. Durie does not even identify the critical words in question and does not show us how these are mistranslated. In addition, the "n" note may or may not be the note of the translator; it may be a translation of a commentator.

I would not be surprised if what we have here is yet another example of Muslim translators and commentators trying to soften up or alter the wording for English-speaking non-Muslim audiences. But this has to be demonstrated, especially in a way that can be evaluated by those of us who do not know Arabic (but who can check the claims using online translators, etc.).

Here are a couple of English language finds from the Muhaddith site (which has a freely available searchable Reliance of the Traveler, Fiqh ul-Sunnah, and others):

"The Reliance of the Traveller. Version 1.06 - By Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri
BOOK E: PURIFICATION >> Chapter E-4.0: The Body
E-4.3: Circumcision Is Obligatory
Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)"

"Fiqh-ul Sunnah. Version 1.05 - By Sayyid Saabiq
Volume 1 >> Fiqh 1.21 a: Circumcision
Fiqh 1.21 a: Circumcision
This prevents dirt from getting on one's penis, and also makes it easy to keep it clean. For women, it involves cutting the outer portion of the clitoris. Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah said, "Ibrahim circumcised himself after he was eighty years old." (Related by al-Bukhari.) Many scholars say that it is obligatory.'ّ The Shaf'iyyah maintain that it should be done on the seventh day. Says ash-Shaukani, "There is nothing that states explicitly its time or indicates that it is obligatory.""

Sigh...

Yes I feel deep sympathy for these Muslim girl childs that undergo this horrific barbarism. No child deserves such an assault (major understatement) on their little bodies.

As for Muslim adult women? I feel utter contempt for these women who have undergone the same mutilation as children and continue to support it and force it on their girl childs, knowing very well how horrific it is (during the process and its consequences). Muslim women are not necessarily victims. They are they own worst enemies. Yes, Muslim men want their women subordinated. But who do you think actually performs FGM? Its the women. They are the cutters. The rusty blades, knives, scissor weilding barbaric monsters.

Excuse me, I need to go vomit now.

Hmm, I just realised my mistake. I used the word cutters.


....FAIL :-/

Respectfully, to trivialize male cutting or even PRAISING it in the same breath as declaring your horror and indignation at FGM?

While I will oppose FGM with every ounce of my being, I prefer to stand up against ALL genital alteration without patient consent, and I'm more than a little bemused that it takes very clear and present danger to our little girls to upset most of us, it seems. Just makes me wish someone fought for my generation of boys when we were only a matter of hours old, couldn't tell the Torah or Bible from a phonebook, and too defenseless to break the restraints and stuff the blades sideways where the sun don't shine for the circumciser.

While I can't make anyone see what they refuse to: for anyone in this day and age who still believe that lopping off the most sensitive part of the male anatomy as a blanket treatment for American boys (yes, it's pretty much just us. Believe it or not, 85% of the world's men are intact, and they seem to be doing dandy), I'd implore you to re-examine this one. Only wish this dawned on us a century ago. And to try to justify it with "that's just how we've always done it" is pathetic, and might be too close an equivalency to the very practice we're vocalizing against here. A lot of traditions deserve to be pissed on from a great height.

Just in case I haven't made it clear, FGM disgusts me, and I will not give it slack. But to deny ANYone, boy or girl, their birthright of intact, fully functional sex organs should not fly, especially not in the so-called "free world."

While I don't want to get too far off topic here, I did take a look at the links you had provided, Jamie. Again, respectfully, I would implore you to please look elsewhere. To say that that particular page is full off half-truths, outdated myths, and outright lies would be an understatement. As I lamented above, I can't make anyone see what they refuse to, but if you'd humor me, this is a good place to start.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

I have to say, that graphic of the banana was simply charming. Seems to me I'd leave that kind of imagery out of my website if I was trying to argue FOR the mutilation. Then again, and at the risk of sounding overly sensitive (or insensitive--a boy can't win for trying somedays......), to argue for non-medical, non-therapeutic genital cutting without victim consent is like trying to argue for rape. And I'd be highly suspect of folks who do either.

"Some will say, 'You act like an American now. You forgot about who you are."
--Fatima Mohamed, Somali immigrant in the U.S.

Is it rude to ask why the hell anybody immigrates to this country if they do not want to be "American", or if they think of being "American" as something to be sneered at?

Just a Concerned Citizen thank you for your two posts, and I find myself wondering why you believe I "praise" male circumcision or otherwise? I simply stated an opinion, that's all. It's clear you positively do not agree with it, and it's interesting you chose to address the subject of FGM in a merely cursory way - but it would not have led ME to suppose you praise that, even if you had not mentioned you condemn it. So YOU yourself feel strongly about it - point accepted.

A Jewish male (of which I'm one, and yes, I've been circumcised, and I do not have a problem with it,as I said above I neither condemn nor praise it) - is normally circumcised at 8 days old, so therefore cannot possibly have a say in the matter. When a Muslim decides to mutilate his daughter however, it invariably leads to threats and intimidation if his will is thwarted (see the article about the Muslimah who had to flee). Members of my family have declined to circumcise their boys, and while it wasn't received at all well, nobody put them in fear of their lives. I am still close to them, and I consider their sons just as Jewish as I am.

Again, your opinion is your opinion. Equating male circumcision, which very rarely causes medical complications and, whether you agree or not, has been found to be beneficial to male health, with an act of barbarity which leaves Muslim girls and women traumatised for life, and often with infections and complications when they eventually have sexual intercourse or give birth - is totally flawed, to say the least.

Incidentally I saw a horrifying film quite some time ago here in the UK, about the life threatening complications encountered by European doctors when a very young girl, recently married, was brought into their clinic. Her labia had been sewn up as a child - and on her wedding night her husband decided to "gain entry" with a large knife. And you talk about bananas.....

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/fgm/fgm.htm

Thank you for hearing me out, Jamie. But when it's declared that something has valid benefits, and then going so far as to provide handy links "proving" the position, when the subject of male cutting hadn't even been mentioned before in this discussion (which is why I refrained from commenting up to this point)....... I'm sorry, but that reads like praise to me. If was out of line, you'll have to pardon me. It just really gets my goat to see one atrocity defended but the other allowed to slide.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/circumcision_quiz.htm

You say that you are satisfied with your cutting. I'm genuinely pleased for you, in that case. But honestly, isn't there at least some small part of you that wishes it was YOUR call instead? It can't be a warm and fuzzy to know that as boys, our genitals are considered public domain and not of our own when we're helpless.

With that, I know I'm getting off topic now, so I'll let it go. Thank you for bearing with me.

Just a Concerned Citizen thank you. "Satisfied with my cutting...." Quite frankly (considering it was 35 years ago) I really haven't really thought about it very much!

Kinana,

"Durie does not even identify the critical words in question and does not show us how these are mistranslated. In addition, the "n" note may or may not be the note of the translator; it may be a translation of a commentator."

There seems to be another, perhaps fuller, account of Durie's argument floating around.

A commenter at this blog quotes Durie on this --

http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2006/07/jihadwatchcom-and-anti-muslim-bigotry.html


-- and provides a pdf document for a source.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/Witness%20Statement.pdf

In that pdf document (search for "clitoris" to find the relevant section), Durie provides the Arabic text of the passage in question from the Reliance of the Traveler, then he presents the translation of Keller, and then claims her translation is deceptive, and provides what he claims is the proper translation of the Arabic. As can be seen below, the two translations are markedly divergent, and if Durie is correct, Keller was not merely being artful in rendering a twist on the meaning, but was brazenly lying, claiming that the Arabic word bazr (apparently meaning "prepuce") applies where it does not apply -- i.e., also to the female organ, and not merely to the male organ -- when not only was this distinction apparently maintained in the original Arabic, but was also contradicted by another Arabic word in the original text -- HufaaD -- which apparently means, according to Durie, the whole clitoris.

Keller's version:

“Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)”

Durie's version:

“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 HufaaD).”

From the pdf document, this appears to be the sum of Durie's argument. I haven't been able to find anything more detailed on the Net from Durie on this.

Since Durie provides in that pdf document the original Arabic, it should be doable for someone who knows Arabic, and who is trustworthy, to confirm Durie's claims. (Of course, to be scrupulous about this -- which we should be -- we should verify that the Arabic Durie provides actually comes from the Reliance of the Traveler.)

There are a couple of problems still with Durie's claim.

First, the divergences between Keller's and Durie's renderings are so marked, one would have to conclude that Keller was a brazenly mendacious interpolater. For example, the typography is sloppy in Keller's translation: was this sloppiness in Keller's original, or was Durie sloppy in his quotation of Keller? The sloppiness in question concerns the use of parentheses:

“Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)”

Notice the first parenthesis (which begins the "O:" passage) has no closing parenthesis, since the clause ends after "mistakenly assert" which itself belongs to a parenthetical remark that belongs within the first parenthetical remark. Typographically, the clause should end thusly:

"...as some mistakenly assert).)"

Or, the sloppiness could be located elsewhere: the closing parenthesis for the "O" comment should appear at the end of "for both men and women". This seems the more likely restoration.

Then there is the matter of what Keller uses to identify each parenthetical remark (or, as Kinana asks, is Keller merely rendering what is in the original Arabic, or is she interpolating Arabic commentators who have commented in some other source on the Reliance of the Traveler?) In Keller's translation, we have three such identifiers: There is the "O:", then there is the "n:", and finally there is the "A:". What do these letters denote? I have read a lot of scholarly works, including works examining translations, and I have never come across these designations. And why are the "O" and the "A" capitalized, but not the "n"?

Now, if we are to assume perhaps that all the material presented in Keller's parenthesis are not in the original Arabic, but are commentary on it (either Keller's own, or her translations of other Arabic commentators either in the Reliance of the Traveler or from other sources), and if we similarly bracket out the two parenthetical passages in Durie's version (neither of which are designated with letters, as Keller's parenthetical passages are), we are left with the following comparison (using our restoration of the more likely closing parenthesis in Keller's version):

Keller's version:

“Circumcision is obligatory. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce of the clitoris."

Durie's version:

“Circumcision is obligatory 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 clarifies that Keller apparently extended the Arabic bazr ("prepuce", which Durie translates as "piece of skin on the glans of the penis") beyond the penis of the male to also include the clitoris of the female, and that according to Durie, the Arabic does not warrant that extension. Again, this should be easy to verify, by finding someone who knows Arabic and who has credentials that would impress outsiders to the debate as authoritative on the matter of Arabic translation.

A further problem with Durie's version, though perhaps it is a minor problem, is his parenthetical inclusion of the Arabic for "clitoris" (implying the "whole clitoris"), which he notes is HufaaD. Now, why the capital D at the end of the word? I have never seen transliterations of Arabic with capital letters at the end of words. Is this a typo, another instance of sloppy rendering? Or does it reflect something about Arabic itself?

This and the other points above need to be clarified. The Anti-Islam Movement (such as it is) should not be run like some bargain-basement operation here. Let's tighten up our screws, for God's sake.

Hesperado

you can ask Durie himself here:

http://markdurie.blogspot.com/

He's got a background in linguistics - his PhD was on the language and literature of the Acehnese - so he should be able to answer your question.

There is, too, the fact that Nonie Darwish, Raymond Ibrahim and Wafa Sultan are all able to read and translate Arabic.

I would think it would take Spencer about a minute to ask them *what the original Arabic says*, in this crucial passage.

Thanks for the link, DDA. I will ask Durie.

Hesp,

Thanks for the reference to Durie's testimony. Unfortunately Durie has made a photographic presentation of the Arabic script so I cannot enter it into an online translator to do a word-for-word translation. (That's what Durie should have provided in addition to the translation he did provide: A word-by-word literal translation, with each Arabic word beside its English counterpart. Word-by-word translations are not necessarily sensible or smooth, but this would help show how he arrived at his translation, and would give us some idea of where Keller was departing from the Arabic).

A couple of comments on your post:
-Keller is a man.
-The capital letters followed by comments in the RoT (e.g., O: ) as I recall stand for different commentators (Islamic scholars); I am not sure what the lower-case letters (e.g., n: ) stand for.
-You're right about the missing end of the parentheses. I noticed that too, and so I was not sure where the commentary ended.
-you suggest bazr might mean prepuce and hudaaD (with that curious capital D) might mean clitoris, but I'm not sure these words mean what you suggest. Google Translate gives me different terms.
-Durie's rendering is indeed radically different from Keller's.

The translation issue here highlights a more important and larger issue, namely the general problem that most pious Muslim scholars in the West and translators, etc., are not giving us non-Muslims accurate information about the Islamic texts. If Keller has departed from the Arabic so far that the Arabic version has the clitoris itself being cut out but his English version has a bit of skin (but not the clitoris itself) being cut, this is either negligence or deception on a massive scale. If this is the case, this simple fact itself is worthy of a front-page, detailed article demonstrating exactly how Keller went wrong. I suspect that there are many, many more examples like this not only in Keller’s translation of the RoT, but more generally in English translations of the Quran, Hadith, and Sira. Indeed, over the years, we've (at JW) come across some examples of this.

The translation I give is very literal. Disbelieve it if you will - no one has ever challenged it.

Hesperado says: "First, the divergences between Keller's and Durie's renderings are so marked, one would have to conclude that Keller was a brazenly mendacious interpolater."
That was exactly my point.

Hesperado's questions are clarified in my book, The Third Choice, which corrects and standardizes the transcription of khifadh, explains the missing bracket, and in a footnote explains the interpolated notations.
See
http://www.amazon.com/Third-Choice-Islam-Dhimmitude-Freedom/dp/0980722306/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274405255&sr=1-1#reader_0980722306
and search for bazr to go to page 64.

There are other discussions of Keller's misleading translations elsewhere in the book, and a long and detailed discussion of female circumcision drawing on many contemporary sources.

Glad you dropped by. I second Marisol's thanks for your work.

I'm glad that you've directed us to what would seem to be a more detailed presentation of your translation of the relevant passage. But why not make this important information about this particular passage immediately and freely available online, where it can be disseminated widely?

Sorry I don't have time to type out all the Arabic.
Word-for-word (tracking from left to right of course), the Arabic reads:

line 1
Obligatory[wajib] (on every one the-male

line 2
and-the-female) the-circumcision (and-he cuts-off the-piece-of-skin which

line 3
on glans the-penis but-verily circumcision the-female however-he

line 4
cuts-off the-clitoris[bazr] [and-it-is-called "khifadh"]


Mark Durie

In response to the request to make information available, I do recommend that people read the discussions of female circumcision in The Third Choice (pp.64-65. 74-79). The second passage gives a very clear explanation of this sharia requirement, explaining its distribution, and debates about its significance among Muslims today. Pp. 55-64 provides a detailed discussion of the problems of misinformation, including an explanation of the theology and practice of deception in Islam.
Information about the book, and how to get a copy, can be found at:
http://www.markdurie.com/The_Third_Choice.html

===========

HERE IS THE TEXT FROM THE THIRD CHOICE (pp.67-68), TOGETHER WITH THE NOTES.
Circumcision is one of the matters dealt with in the Reliance of the Traveller, a manual of Shafi‘i law, in which the original Arabic text is published facing Keller’s English translation. The English translation of the section on circumcision conceals the Arabic instructions for circumcising girls by excising the clitoris. The Arabic is translated by Nuh Hah Mim Keller as follows[1]:

Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women.[)][2] For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)[3]

However what the facing Arabic on the same page actually says is:

‘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 bazr
‘clitoris’ [this is called khifadh ‘female
circumcision’])’.[4]


[1] [Nuh Ha Mim Keller, ed. and trans., Reliance of the Traveller, p.59 (§e4.3)]
[2] A closing bracket appears to be missing in Keller’s text.
[3] Note that bazr is, in fact, the Arabic word for ‘clitoris’. In this context sunna means ‘recommended’. The square brackets in this quotation are Keller’s. O = excerpt from the commentary of ‘Umar Barakat; Ar = Arabic; n = remark by translator; A= comment by Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi
[4] Peter Antes, ‘Islam in the Encyclopedia of Religion,’ confirms this view, reporting that clitoridectomy is obligatory only in the Shafi‘i school of Sunni Islam. The word khifadh literally means ‘making calm, gentle, submissive’ or ‘lowering’.

Thanks much for these detailed replies; this is generous of you to post this here.

I'm now looking through the forward, preface, table of contents, and The Third Choice looks like an excellent book that I'd like to add to my small collection of Islam-related material.

Mark Durie,

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond.

I just have one question about your translation of the Arabic:

You wrote:

"However what the facing Arabic on the same page actually says is:

‘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 bazr
‘clitoris’ [this is called khifadh ‘female
circumcision’])’.[4]"

I am confused as to why you begin "by cutting off..." with a parenthesis (which is closed at the end of the entire passage). Usually a parenthesis indicates an interpolation not in the original. Your parenthetical portion would then indicate that the original Arabic only literally contained "‘Circumcision is obligatory". What part or parts of the text following those three initial words are also in the original Arabic? If you could clarify this, I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks.

In checking Mark Durie's translation of the key phrase, I have found "cutting of the clitoris" using three separate online translators (they garbled parts of the translation, but they were consistent on the key phrase), and an apparently Muslim blogger "Muslihoon" who in 2006 translated this part as "cutting off of the clitoris." The Muslihoon author wrote:

QUOTE:

"There is a popular book called “Reliance of the Traveler” (عمدۃ السالک, cumdatu-s-saalik) which is a sort of portable shareecah. Going through it, I was a little shocked to find this:

ویجب (علی کل من الذکر والأنثی) الختان (وھو قطع الجلدۃ التي علی حشفة الذکر وأما ختان الأنثی فھو قطع البظر [ویسمی خفاضًا]).

Translation per Nuh Ha Mim Keller: Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.) (“e4.3” of the book.)

More literal translation: And it is obligatory (upon all men and women) the circumcision (and it is the cutting off the skin that is on the glans of the male and on the other hand the circumcision of the woman it is the cutting off of the clitoris [and it is considered decreasing]).

Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller). Reliance of the Traveller. Delhi, India: Aamna Publishers, 1994, p. 59. If an Arabic-speaker can give a better translation for the text, I would appreciate it very much.

Another translation (from “The status position of women in Islam” on Answering-Islam.org):

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).

“Khufaad” can be considered to mean “shortening,” “decreasing,” “diminishing.”

This book is according to the Shaaficee school of jurisprudence. According to Wikipedia (“Importance of the Shāfi‘ī School” in “Shafi`i”):

The Shāfi‘ī school is followed throughout the Ummah, but is most prevalent by Kurds in Kurdistan (in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran) and by other communities in Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Palestine, Syria and is the official madhab followed by the government of Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia. It is followed by approximately 15 percent of Muslims world-wide.

The Shāfi‘ī tradition is accessible to English speakers from the translation of the Reliance of the Traveller.

So the good news is that female circumcision is not obligatory according to all four schools of jurisprudence: only the Shaaficee school of jurisprudence holds it as mandatory, which would explain why it is so prevalent in Africa and why al-Azhar supports it. The bad news, though, is that many Muslims (evidently, according to Wikipedia, 15% of Muslims) hold it as mandatory."

END OF QUOTE

...btw, the google translation renders the part of the passage in question that refers to the female circumcision as "the female genital mutilation."

p.s., the three online translations that gave "cutting of the clitoris" are based on the Arabic type-written script provided by Muslihoon, who rendered the phrase as "cutting off of the clitoris."

Hesperado asks:

"I am confused as to why you begin "by cutting off..." with a parenthesis (which is closed at the end of the entire passage)."

The answer is:

The parenthesis is in the Arabic original!
If you scroll back up past the post you responded to, you will see that I gave there a word-for-word gloss on the Arabic text.
All the information that you need it there.


Mark

I explain in The Third Choice how female circumcision correlates strongly with Shafa'i Islam. E.g. Kurds do it in Iraq, but not Arabs (the Iraqi Kurds but not the Arabs are Shafa'i). Indonesians and Malaysians do it, but not Indians (SE Asians are Shafa'i, but not Indians). In Saudi Arabia it is normal in Shafa'i areas only.

What this means is that the prevalence of the practice does not correlate with pre-Islamic customs, but is strongly associated with the form of Islamic jurisprudence followed in an area.

However thi s does not explain variations in the severity of the practice (e.g. more traumatic versions in Somalia). Strictly speaking, pharonic circumcision, involving cutting off the labia, is inconsistent with Islamic teachings, as far as I am aware. So there is a cultural component which goes beyond the dictates of religion.

Note that the word 'khifaad' means literally to lower, but metaphorically it means to make calm or gentle. Muslims who practice this believe that the girls are made more submissive by it, and if it is not done, that the girls will give trouble and be rebellious.

No doubt when this is done to older girls who can remember the experience, the shock of being mutilated by one's mother and her friends - often without any advance warning at all - would be expected to have an intimidating effect, and make girls more submissive. This is why it is called khifadh.

I have heard of FGM before and i never really thought these demons were doing this until i saw the pictures, to say that they live in the 7th is an insult to folks who lived in the 7th. these FMrs are evil, plain and simple. and there god mo sucks ass out loud for ever.

Thank you, Dr Durie.

Looks like I, too, had better hurry up and get a copy of 'The Third Choice' :)

Mark Durie,

I asked you to clarify the parenthesis (actually two distinct parenthetical passages) in your translation, you wrote:

"The parenthesis is in the Arabic original!"

Strictly speaking, this cannot be: 14th-century Arabic did not use parentheses.

You added:

"If you scroll back up past the post you responded to, you will see that I gave there a word-for-word gloss on the Arabic text.
All the information that you need it there."

That word-for-word gloss also raised difficulties for me, but at that point, I wanted to focus on one problem at a time.

Here is that word-for-word gloss which Durie provided:

line 1
Obligatory[wajib] (on every one the-male

line 2
and-the-female) the-circumcision (and-he cuts-off the-piece-of-skin which

line 3
on glans the-penis but-verily circumcision the-female however-he

line 4
cuts-off the-clitoris[bazr] [and-it-is-called "khifadh"]

Problems with this word-for-word gloss:

1) As I observed above, 14th-century Arabic did not use parentheses. The insertion of parentheses has two functions: a) either to denote the interpolation of explanatory clarification of meaning which is only implied by the text but is not explicitly there; or b) to denote a sense of semantic meaning which is arguably in the text and which the translator is legitimately denoting with typographical punctuation (such as modern parentheses) not explicitly in the text.

So, let us assume Durie's parentheses are all type (b), as he himself said "The parenthesis is in the Arabic original!" -- by which he must mean not that they are literally visible in the original Arabic, but are legitimately inferred to be there semantically. This can apply to all sorts of typographical punctuation, not only parenthesis marks -- such as the em-dash, the semi-colon, the colon, etc.: all typographical punctuations which pre-modern (and non-Western) languages did not use. An example of this legitimate inference of typographical puctuation would be when someone is transcribing a public speech. First, we could transcribe the speech literally without punctuation, since speakers (with the sole exception of Victor Borge) do not enunciate typographical punctuation when they speak:

When I was a kid I used to climb apple trees in a field behind our house our house was mostly in a suburban area but there was a considerable tract of woodland nearby woodland owned by the local university and it was on one of those summer days oh for those endless summers of childhood when I had a nasty fall from a high limb and landed in the hospital.

It would be perfectly legitimate for a transcriber of this speech to interpolate typographical punctuation -- such as a comma here and there, an em-dash or two, an exclamation mark, and a couple of parentheses -- to render it not only more readable but also to render explicit certain semantic nuances already implicit in the original:

When I was a kid, I used to climb apple trees in a field behind our house -- our house was mostly in a suburban area but there was a considerable tract of woodland nearby (woodland owned by the local university) -- and it was on one of those summer days (oh, for those endless summers of childhood!) when I had a nasty fall from a high limb and landed in the hospital.

With that clarified, let us more closely examine just the parentheses (for now) in Durie's word-for-word gloss, first the first two lines:

line 1
Obligatory[wajib] (on every one the-male

line 2
and-the-female) the-circumcision (and-he cuts-off the-piece-of-skin which

I can see no reason for using parenthesis marks with the passage "(on every one the-male and-the-female)" for semantic clarification (as I described above). If all the words Durie includes in that parenthesis were in fact in the Arabic original, there is no reason to put parentheses there, for the rendering without them -- "Obligatory[wajib] on every one the-male and-the-female the-circumcision" -- is perfectly understandable for the purposes of a gloss.

Secondly, even if we wanted to insert parentheses there to help the flow of the passage (for it would not technically be incorrect to do so), the first parenthesis seems to be inserted in the wrong place:

Obligatory[wajib] (on every one the-male and-the-female) the-circumcision...

In terms of the semantic function of parenthesis marks (as I discussed above), the more reasonable place to put the parenthesis would be the following:

Obligatory[wajib] on every one (the-male and-the-female) the-circumcision...

Does this reflect sloppiness on Durie's part in typing out his word-for-word gloss? Would he have inserted his parenthesis according to the second example after taking just a little more thought on the matter? When we then examine his more finished translation, an additional difficulty crops up:

"Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off..."

Aside from the redundant and superfluous parenthesis here (as we noted in his word-for-word gloss), we note a discrepancy between the more finished translation and that gloss, where the parenthesis in the latter begins at "the-male", whereas in the former it begins at "for every".

The second parenthesis

...(and-he cuts-off the-piece-of-skin which on glans the-penis but-verily circumcision the-female however-he cuts-off the-clitoris[bazr] [and-it-is-called "khifadh"]

The second parenthesis is additionally problematic for more than one reason:

a) there is no closing parenthesis; this could probably be rectified by Durie's more finished product of translation where he inserts the closing parenthesis at the very end of the entire passage.

b) assuming the above rectification (and taking the liberty of adding that closing parenthesis as well as an opening contextualization in square brackets), let us examine that second parenthesis:

[Obligatory is]...the-circumcision (and-he cuts-off the-piece-of-skin which on glans the-penis but-verily circumcision the-female however-he cuts-off the-clitoris[bazr] [and-it-is-called "khifadh"])

Immediately, we see one of the problems: here, unlike with the first parenthesis where we argued that the parenthesis marks were superfluous and redundant, the parenthesis marks do not do enough to massage the passage into coherent, or at least grammatical, meaning. I.e., here, whether the parenthesis marks are included or excluded, would make no difference and would not help either way to massage the grammatical mess of the apparently literally rendered original Arabic.

Thirdly, we reasonably assume Durie's inclusion of hyphenation-strings (e.g., "and-he cuts-off") denotes a single Arabic word best rendered, for the purposes of a literal gloss, this way. Given this reasonable assumption,

a) note that in the above example, Durie left out a hyphen between "and-he" and "cuts-off": does this mean there were two separate Arabic words there or is that a typo by Durie? From my limited experience with Arabic, the latter seems more likely.

b) What about the un-hyphenated words "which on glans"? Are we to assume these represent three separate Arabic words? Somehow, this seems unlikely -- though the matter could be easily settled by someone who knows Arabic who would be reasonably compliant with our questions and not begin to show signs of a curious prickliness when presented with reasonable questions. Similarly we have, in the prior parenthesis, "on every one": are we to assume, because Durie has not inserted hyphens between each word, that these represent three separate Arabic words, "on", "every" and "one" (for, the fuller passage indeed includes hyphens elsewhere: "on every one the-male and-the-female")?

c) The passage rendered "the-penis but-verily circumcision" makes sense: "the-penis" could easily be one Arabic word, while "but-verily" could be a second Arabic word, and "circumcision" would be a third Arabic word in the text. However, earlier, Durie rendered "the-circumcision" (which we assume reflects an al- or its equivalent in the original Arabic), but here he only renders "circumcision". Are we to assume the two instances in the original Arabic were different in this respect -- that the first one included the Arabic article "the", while the second instance did not include it?

d) Even taking into account the primitive grammar of the Arabic original, Durie's gloss (which, again, the parentheses do not ameliorate at all) sinks even lower than Cro-Magnon-speak:

Obligatory[wajib] (on every one the-male and-the-female) the-circumcision (and-he cuts-off the-piece-of-skin which on glans the-penis but-verily circumcision the-female however-he cuts-off the-clitoris[bazr] [and-it-is-called "khifadh"])

First, the "and" that begins the second parenthesis is grammatically incoherent. The best damage repair, typographically speaking, for this would be not a parenthesis, but perhaps a semi-colon at the end of "the-circumcision" -- thus (and cleaning out the -- for our purposes of clarity here -- extraneous other punctuation):

Obligatory on every one the-male and-the-female the-circumcision; and-he cuts-off the-piece-of-skin...

(A colon would also work there.)

Secondly, there seems to be a major mistranslation in one specific locution, reflecting an elementary inversion which, again, might reflect a casual negligence on the part of Durie:

"...(and-he cuts-off the-piece-of-skin which on glans the-penis...)"

Massaging this Cro-Magnon-speak into coherence, we get the following:

"...(and he cuts off the piece of skin which on the glans is the penis...)"

This obviously could not be the intent of the original Arabic: in fact, it is the precise reverse of what must be the original intent, which we could render thusly:

"...(and he cuts off the piece of skin which on the penis is the glans...)"

I.e., it seems that Durie, in a moment of carelessness in typing out his word-for-word gloss, got the "penis" and the "glans" (the medical term for the tip or head of the penis) out of their proper semantic sequence in this locution. In his more finished translation, Durie gets the order right:

"...by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male..."

-- but in so doing, makes a separate mistake: In leaving out the "which" which he had included in his word-for-word gloss, Durie creates a meaning here that distinguishes the "piece of skin" that is cut off from the "glans". The "piece of skin", however, is not "on the glans", as Durie's translation clearly denotes: rather, the glans is that "piece of skin" that is cut off! As we clarified above, the "which" of the word-for-word gloss refers to the "on" in order to denote the "glans which is on the penis" (even though as we showed, Durie got the two terms reversed). But in his finished translation, Durie seems to have forgotten all this, and renders a confusing distinction between the "glans" and the "piece of skin", where they should be the same thing.

Finally (for now), we have the final portion and the problem of Durie's square brackets:

...but-verily circumcision the-female however-he cuts-off the-clitoris[bazr] [and-it-is-called "khifadh"]

There is no ambiguity about the fact that in scholarly translations and emendations, square brackets (unless explicitly mentioned) represent explanatory text by the translator that is not in the original, or represent specific instances where the translator wishes to point out the original wording. Thus, according to the latter function, the "[bazr]" presents no problems. However, the second one -- the "[and-it-is-called "khifadh"]" -- raises a blatant problem: the "and-it-is-called" part with its hyphenation indicates that Durie is translating some original Arabic there which he put inside square brackets. Did Durie thus intend parentheses, and not square brackets, for this passage? That would be the only way to salvage it. Another example of his carelessness?

A second rendering Durie provided for a more finished translation --

...circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr ‘clitoris’ [this is called khifadh ‘female circumcision’])’.[4]

-- doesn't help. First, he fails to employ the more standardized use of square brackets for "bazr" (which we showed above he in fact did do in his other rendering of a more finished translatino) and instead has "bazr" first as part of the English then only adds 'clitoris' after it, which is most unusual in scholarly translations.

Secondly, he again uses the square brackets -- which should denote text not explicitly in the original -- for text that clearly implies it is in the original -- [this is called khifadh ...], since he employs the same unusual clarification within those brackets -- ‘female circumcision’ -- that he used for bazr, denoting that the portion not in single quote-marks is in fact part of the original.

Conclusion:

All these questions are not merely anal quibbling: they speak to an absence -- in both Durie's word-for-word gloss and his more finished translations -- of the punctilious care which scholars must employ in order to demonstrate that their scholarly product is sound and credible. When numerous little questionable apparent lapses crop up like the ones I adumbrated above (and there are more I did not include), it begins to call into question the quality of Durie's finished product.

Dear Hesperado:

Parentheses are indeed part of the Arabic as printed in The Reliance: have a look for yourself.

Arabic grammar is neither primitive nor Cro-Magnon. It is just different from English.

I stand by the translation as given.

Dear Prof. Durie,

The pdf you emailed me of the original Arabic for this part of the ROT has four parentheses -- but none of them has their appropriate complement: two are opening parentheses without closing parentheses; and two are closing parentheses without opening parentheses. Even reading it right to left doesn't save the problem. (The two square brackets are fine in this regard.)

I can demonstrate the problem using zeros for Arabic text, and parentheses, and roughly duplicate the text you emailed to me:

000 00 0000 00 000) 0000 00 0000 000 000) 0000 (0000 000 0000 0000 00 0000 0000 000 ([00000 0000 0] 000 000.

Secondly, I find it hard to believe that 14th century Arabic used modern Western punctuation like parentheses and square brackets. Did the Muslims invent parentheses and square brackets, like they are purported to have invented everything else? I would need independent confirmation of this claim. Prof. Durie in his email to me refers to this original Arabic rather cryptically as "Keller's Arabic". Does this mean that Keller monkeyed a little with the original Arabic -- perhaps added the parentheses and brackets? Did Keller transcribe the Arabic?

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter