Explanation of the author's statement: "And circumcision is obligatory as long as one does not fear for one's own life."

The Shaykh : He said "And circumcision is obligatory". The first to practice circumcision was Ibrahim (peace be upon him). Circumcision for a male is the cutting of the skin above the glans, and circumcision for a female is the cutting of a piece of excess flesh above the place of penetration. The jurists said that it resembles the comb of a rooster. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that it is obligatory for both males and females; therefore, the male must be circumcised and the female must be circumcised. When did they say it is best? They said it is best in early childhood, but they also said it is disliked on the seventh day from birth until the seventh day, because in this period there is fear for the child. However, from the eighth day onward is better, because performing it in early childhood causes physical pain but not emotional pain, or the child does not know and feels physical pain but not emotional pain. Performing it in adulthood causes both physical and emotional pain, and it is known that the former is lighter. From another angle, performing it in early childhood leads to faster growth and healing, as is known and observed, making it better. The scholars differed regarding the original ruling on circumcision: is it obligatory for both males and females, as is the school's position? Or is it obligatory for males but not females, as chosen by al-Muqaddam and a group of scholars? Or is it a recommended practice (sunnah) for everyone, for males and females? Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) lengthened the discussion in *Tuhfat al-Wadud*, detailing the arguments of both sides, but he did not reach a preference. And it seems, Allah knows best, that nothing was preferred in his view in this matter. The closest opinion is that circumcision is obligatory for men and a recommended practice (sunnah) for women. The reason for the distinction is that circumcision for men has a benefit related to one of the conditions of prayer, which is ritual purity. Because if this skin remains, when urine exits from the hole of the glans, it remains and accumulates, becoming a cause of burning or inflammation, or because every time it moves or is squeezed, urine exits and thereby becomes impure. So it is obligatory for men. As for the woman, the utmost benefit in it, they say, is that it reduces her *ghilmah*, meaning her desire. This is seeking perfection and is not in the category of removing harm. So the difference between them is this. And this is, in my view, the closest opinion: that it is obligatory for men and a recommended practice (sunnah) for women. Then it must be that there is a skilled doctor who knows how to circumcise. If a skilled doctor is not found, is it permissible for a person to circumcise himself if he is good at it? If he is good at it, it is permissible for him to circumcise himself, and Ibrahim (peace be upon him) circumcised himself. So if you are good at it, there is no harm. The author also stipulates "as long as one does not fear for one's own life". If one fears for one's life from death or illness, then it is not obligatory. This is a condition in all obligations: one does not become obligated with inability or with fear of destruction, harm, or illness. So if one fears for one's life, it is not obligatory. Now, is it permissible for the circumciser to look at the 'awrah of the one being circumcised, even if he has reached ten years of age? Yes, it is permissible for need, because this is a need and there is no harm in it. Now, what are the proofs? We mentioned that the stronger position is that it is obligatory for men and a recommended practice (sunnah) for women. The proof for that is that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said and did not specify. And multiple hadiths were reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered those who embraced Islam to be circumcised, and this indicates obligation. And because circumcision is a distinguishing feature between Muslims and Christians, to the extent that Muslims used to identify their killed in battles by circumcision. The Jews circumcise, and Muslims circumcise, and the Arabs also circumcised before Islam, but the Christians do not circumcise. So they said this is a distinguishing feature. And if they say it is a distinguishing feature, then it is obligatory. They also established its obligation, saying that circumcision is cutting something from the body, and cutting something from the body is not permissible; it is forbidden. And the forbidden is not made permissible except by an obligation, or it is not made permissible by a recommended practice (sunnah). And on this basis, circumcision becomes obligatory, because the forbidden is not made permissible except by an obligation. They said, and because circumcision is performed by the guardian of the orphan. The guardian of the orphan is encroaching upon him, or not? And encroaching upon his wealth, because he gives the circumciser a wage. So if it were not obligatory, it would not be permissible to encroach upon the body and wealth of the orphan. And all of this indicates, as you heard from the evidential and theoretical proofs, indicates obligation. But regarding women, there is consideration. The apparent of the opinions is that it is obligatory for men but not for women.

The questioner : And what is the proof for this?

The Shaykh : The proof is what you heard.

The questioner : No distinction between women and men?

The Shaykh : It is what you heard.

The questioner : You were not present.

The Shaykh : I say what you heard: that men's circumcision is for removing harm, and women's circumcision is for seeking perfection only. And there is a hadith, but it is weak , although it is weak, and even if it were authentic, it would be very clear.