Eninn's Islam Thread

Originally posted by TacDavey
It isn't simply aesthetic reasons. The wikipedia page says:

"Simmons et al. report that the foreskin's presence "frequently predisposes to medical problems, including balanitis, phimosis, venereal disease and penile cancer", and additionally state that "because we now are able to effectively treat foreskin related maladies, some societies are shifting toward foreskin preservation.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin (Beware clicking this link, as there are penis pictures that follow.)

It doesn't happen all the time, and we can treat it, so it isn't as necessary as it may have been in the past, but there ARE benefits to it with basically no negative repercussions.

What reason is that? It helps increase sexual stimulation? Taken from the same wiki page as above:

"The effects of circumcision on sexual sensation however are not clear, with reports of both enhanced and diminished sexual pleasure following the procedure in adults and little awareness of advantage or disadvantage in those circumcised in infancy."

It goes on to say:

"[a]necdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity. Objective published studies over the past decade have shown no substantial difference in sexual function between circumcised and uncircumcised men."

The other option presented was protection with antibacterial enzymes, but even that was challenged:

"no controlled scientific data are available regarding differing immune function in a penis with or without a foreskin."

The World Health Organization even said it wasn't completely clear what the role of the foreskin is, and that it is a matter of debate.

Whatever the foreskin is suppose to do, it seems it can do it just fine with or without it. So I wouldn't say it is altering it in a way to make it imperfect.

Once again, it is not done simply because it "looks prettier".

That's the thing, though. They would have to adapt. They would have go out of their way to compensate for the negative repercussions of having the toe removed. Circumcision doesn't require any adaptation at all. The athlete's foot example is not even close to being viable. You bring me any scientific or medical study that shows that removing the little toe from a child will decrease his or her risk of athletes foot later in life and you might have something, though even then, it still wouldn't be the same since, again, removing the toe carries negative consequences where as circumcision does not.

According to the article before, there CAN be complications but they can be treated. I'm not here saying that not getting circumcised is the wrong choice, and that you will be in and out of the hospital all the time if you don't get it done. I'm simply rejecting the idea that circumcision is barbaric. I'm not defending circumcision as something that everyone, or even most people, should do.

You realize that has all been basically dismissed, right? Why it's an elective surgery and most medical insurances no longer cover it? Phimosis is a condition where there's a problem with the foreskin, like a defect, it can be fixed sometimes without a circumcision; sometimes it must be done. Penile cancer is the funniest. Basically "there's a bit more penile area that could become cancerous". Might as well remove one testicle, as it could lower the risk of the man/boy developing testicular cancer, simply because he has one less testicle that could become cancerous. Barbaric thinking.

Already covered the benefits of having a foreskin and it being there for a reason. Keeps the penile gland moist/protected, helps protect against urinary tract infections. It's not vestigial, no matter how hard you try to pass it off as such "it has no purpose."

It is basically done just for looks, considering the rarity of "complications" happening.

LoL, how is that not barbaric? "There can be complications, so let's just cut it off". But again, with about 80% of the world's men not being cut, you'd think these "complications" would be more heard about.

Still laughing at foreskin = penile cancer. Since you brought up your religion, wouldn't this be condemned in the New Testament?

Originally posted by eninn

Hijab is an obligation and a necessity for every Muslim woman

Actually Eninn everything in Islam is a choice:

Quran 2:256:

"there is no compulsion in religion."

Originally posted by eninn
In order to protect them from any harm or assault

Lol It's not a force field. If a rapist is going to rape, a piece of cloth isn't going to stop him.

It's purpose is to act as a medium between Men and Women. A medium which discourages sexual relations outside of marriage. Men are also supposed to dress modestly.

Originally posted by eninn
Veiled women that encourages you to respect them

Well as a Muslim man you should respect women for who they are regardless of how they dress.

Originally posted by eninn
Women dressed in scandalous
Extremists
Encourages you to abuse her
Regardless of the laws

Nothing enourages or gives anyone the right to abuse a woman.

Hijab is supposed to reflect what's on the inside. But it's all about the inside end of the day.

Don't fall into the trap of being obsessed with what's on the outside and judging based on that, otherwise your doing the same thing your accusing others of, and that contradicts the inital purpose of Hijab.

And btw the verse about Hijab was not revealed until very late into Prophet hood so was never the priority Muslim men tend to make it nowadays. Believe it or not there were women walking around Madina half naked under Mohammad's (pbuh) rule. Fact.

Originally posted by Robtard
You realize that has all been basically dismissed, right? Why it's an elective surgery and most medical insurances no longer cover it? Phimosis is a condition where there's a problem with the foreskin, like a defect, it can be fixed sometimes without a circumcision; sometimes it must be done. Penile cancer is the funniest. Basically "there's a bit more penile area that could become cancerous". Might as well remove one testicle, as it could lower the risk of the man/boy developing testicular cancer, simply because he has one less testicle that could become cancerous. Barbaric thinking.

Are you sure? According to the page, the article that quote came from is from 2007. It isn't exactly ancient.

Originally posted by Robtard
Already covered the benefits of having a foreskin and it being there for a reason. Keeps the penile gland moist/protected, helps protect against urinary tract infections. It's not vestigial, no matter how hard you try to pass it off as such "it has no purpose."

And I believe I just provided quotes that say the exact opposite. You basically just ignored my points and then reasserted your previous stance.

Originally posted by Robtard
It is basically done just for looks, considering the rarity of "complications" happening.

It isn't just done for looks. I don't know why you are so insistent that this is the case. And it said there was an increased potential. Not that the problems were the common outcome.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, how is that not barbaric? "There can be complications, so let's just cut it off". But again, with about 80% of the world's men not being cut, you'd think these "complications" would be more heard about.

Once again, it said there was increased risk, not that these risks were common, and it also said that the health risks are treatable.

Originally posted by Robtard
Still laughing at foreskin = penile cancer. Since you brought up your religion, wouldn't this be condemned in the New Testament?

Why would you say that?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Are you sure? According to the page, the article that quote came from is from 2007. It isn't exactly ancient.

And I believe I just provided quotes that say the exact opposite. You basically just ignored my points and then reasserted your previous stance.

It isn't just done for looks. I don't know why you are so insistent that this is the case. And it said there was an increased potential. Not that the problems were the common outcome.

Once again, it said there was increased risk, not that these risks were common, and it also said that the health risks are treatable.

Why would you say that?

Yes. You can easily search online for medical sites that show circumcision benefits, ie "facts" as not being founded and ever changing. At one point it was "fact" that circumcision stopped boys from masturbating. Common sense should tell you that the "penile cancer" one is just outright ridiculous.

Again, it's backwards thinking. I also don't feel like getting into an online link posting war.

I'm including the religious/cultural aspects under the "looks" department. Ergo, it's really just done for looks, unless there's an actual problem/defect with the foreskin.

So why have it done to a baby if it's so negligible? Let him choose for himself when he's older.

I assume as a Christian you believe God created you in his image. Do you think you can improve on that image by whacking off a bit of skin? Did God create an error when he made man with a foreskin? Then that bit in Corinthians about our bodies being holy temples and such.

Hijab is very much compulsory.

The verse you quoted is abrogated by the Surah 9, ayah 5, or ''The Verse of the Sword'' as it's known and it no longer applies.

If you're unfamiliar with the clause of abrogation, it is still in Al Baqarah (the same Surah you're reading from) and it's number 106, and it says:

''Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?'' Qur'an 2: 106.

Because Qur'an isn't laid out in chronological order (or any order at all) the abrogated verses are, therefore scattered all over the Qur'an and at random places. Al Baqarah, which is second Surah in the Qur'an has been revealed as the first one in Medina and 87th Surah chronologically.

Regardless, it is abrogated by the Verse of the Sword.

Even if that verse was still valid, it in no way means that hijab isn't obligatory. Since Mo decided it was to be so, then it was going to be so.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Hijab is very much compulsory.

The verse you quoted is abrogated by the Surah 9, ayah 5, or ''The Verse of the Sword'' as it's known and it no longer applies.

If you're unfamiliar with the clause of abrogation, it is still in Al Baqarah (the same Surah you're reading from) and it's number 106, and it says:

''Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?'' Qur'an 2: 106.

Because Qur'an isn't laid out in chronological order (or any order at all) the abrogated verses are, therefore scattered all over the Qur'an and at random places. Al Baqarah, which is second Surah in the Qur'an has been revealed as the first one in Medina and 87th Surah chronologically.

Regardless, it is abrogated by the Verse of the Sword.

Even if that verse was still valid, it in no way means that hijab isn't obligatory. Since Mo decided it was to be so, then it was going to be so.

Urm yeah context is a wonderful thing. You go on about 9:5, try reading 9:4 first:

"(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous."

It's also put into context by Surah 60, Chapters 8-9:

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection).” (60:8-9)

^ As you can see the basic message there is pretty clear on context of situations.

Context is the most important thing to remember when reading The Quran. Because it was revealed over 23 years and so each verse was stated against a specific scenario and has a context.

You mentioned the same chapter I was quoting, well also in the same chapter is this: 2:85 "So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?"

Fact is "there being no compulsion in religion" was never ever abrogated. It's a basic Islamic principle. We make our choices out of our free will, that's why GOD gave us free will, and that's why we are accountable for our choices in the hereafter.

Islam as far as I know is also the only Religion that has clearly stated it can not be forced on anyone.

If your trying to educate yourself on Islam then I would suggest less learning from Islam haters like Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch and more learning from actual Muslim scholars.

For English speaking lectures, I would suggest going to a few Humza Yusuf or Zaid Shakir talks. They're both very knowledgeable speakers, who have been taught under some of the most renowned Islamic scholars in the world.

DARTH POWER, why then have I heard about people being killed for becoming a Christian in the Islamic world?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
DARTH POWER, why then have I heard about people being killed for becoming a Christian in the Islamic world?

Probably for the same reason that Buddhists in the early 1900s burned the ideological opponents to death and communist leaders lived in luxury. People can justify anything no matter what their holy texts say.

I read once that Muslims--or at least the Ottoman Empire--only adopted the face veil after the conquest of the Byzantine Empire which required face veils for all women.

Is there any truth in that?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes. You can easily search online for medical sites that show circumcision benefits, ie "facts" as not being founded and ever changing. At one point it was "fact" that circumcision stopped boys from masturbating. Common sense should tell you that the "penile cancer" one is just outright ridiculous.

Really?

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51742

"Uncircumcised males also were three times more likely to develop cancer in the penis compared with a circumcised man"

The only thing is this form of cancer is extremely rare anyway. So even with an increase like this you still don't have a very high chance of getting it. It DOES increase the risk though.

Also, a Google search produces mixed results. The very first two pages talk about how circumcision is beneficial. The page linked above doesn't actually think circumcision should be recommended as a procedure, but even it admits that there ARE benefits. They just aren't all the special and they certainly aren't necessary.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, it's backwards thinking. I also don't feel like getting into an online link posting war.

You don't need to get into a link war. I would think that quotes from medical professionals would be pretty helpful in determining something like this, however. They certainly hold more weight than either you or me.

Originally posted by Robtard
So why have it done to a baby if it's so negligible? Let him choose for himself when he's older.

That's not a bad suggestion. Nor did I say that was something you shouldn't do. I don't think it's justified to call those who DO decide to choose for their children barbaric or wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
I assume as a Christian you believe God created you in his image. Do you think you can improve on that image by whacking off a bit of skin? Did God create an error when he made man with a foreskin? Then that bit in Corinthians about our bodies being holy temples and such.

Lol. Sure. I also don't believe in make up, or styling your hair.

This is something I have heard before, and no, I don't think that verse means we should do absolutely nothing with our bodies. I fully believe make up is acceptable and I don't see it as us trying to improve on God's original design. I'm also completely alright with tattoos.

Yes

I am quite right
You do not know anything about Islam

Veil
Obligatory for every Muslim woman and not a choice

You explain the Holy Qur'an
it Is wrong for you

Imposition of the veil, such as prayer and fasting .... And so on
There is no freedom left in the commands of God
God says in the Holy Qur'an
(59) O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful

Terms Islamic hijab?! :
A: The Islamic hijab must meet the 8 conditions as the scholars said, are:
1 - Not to be a garment of fame.
2 - and that is not brazen thin (ie, should not be transparent).
3 - and that covers her all the body except his face palms.
4 - and that is not in itself a decoration.
5 - and not to be embodied for the body (ie, should not be tight).
6 - and should not be perfumed with bakhoor.
7 - and that does not resemble the clothing of the man.
8 - Finally, that does not resemble the dress of kaafir women.

-- There is a difference between
You are a Muslim
And you did not embrace Islam until now

You are a Muslim means you need to apply all the laws of Sharia

Did not embrace Islam until now
You are you the freedom to choose

256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

So

, With no one to judge someone with murder without proof of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah may Allah bless him and his family and him.
And a death sentence for the word called when Muslim scholars to "apostasy", what is apostasy? What is apostasy?
What is the rule of the apostate?
First, apostasy ... Is the disbelief after Islam.
Second: What is apostasy ...
Divided the things that you get the apostasy into four sections:
A - rose in to belief, such as polytheism or deny the status of fixed qualities or proof of the child to God, it is believed that it is an apostate unbeliever.
B - rose in words, gain Allaah or insulting the Prophet peace be upon him.
C - rose deeds, such as dumping the Koran in a dirty place; because to do so disregard the Word of God Almighty, it is non-ratification of the Principality, as well as to an idol or worship of the sun or the moon.
D - apostasy doing it, like leaving all the rites of religion, and stay away from the final work.
Third: What is the rule of the apostate?
If you wear a Muslim, and who fulfills the conditions of apostasy - selected adult of sound mind - missed his blood, and kill Imam - Muslim governor - or his deputy - Kalkadhi - not washed and prayed for should not be buried with Muslims.
The evidence for killing an apostate is because the Prophet peace be upon him: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him," Bukhari (2794). What is meant by religion ie Islam.
And the Prophet peace be upon him: "The blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god but Allah and I am the Messenger of Allaah except in three cases: self-esteem, and previously married adulterer, and his religion outgoing junctions of the group," Bukhari and Muslim 6878 1676
See encyclopedia jurisprudence 22/180
Thus it is clear to you is that the killing of the apostate holds order of God as commanded us to obey the Prophet peace be upon him said: {And obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those of you}, The Messenger of Allah may Allah bless him and his family and him to kill the apostate also offer saying: "It is changes his religion, kill him. "
You may need this issue from you to the time of conviction, and to meditate upon, and perhaps you think the question that if a person follow the right and entered it and converted to this religion only right that Allaah has enjoined, then Allow him to leave easily at any time and utter words of kufr that come out of it , Atone Allah and His Messenger and his religion and his book, then do not occur deterrent punishment to him, how will that impact on him and the other entrants in the religion.
Do not you see that this makes the true religion to be followed like a store or shop where a person enters in and out whenever he wants whenever he wants and maybe encourage others to leave the right.
Then this is not a person did not know the right was not exercised in worship, but people knew, March and led worship, no punishment is greater than it deserves, but such a strong governance have not kept only for the person who has not prepared for his benefit because he knew the right and follow the religion, then left him and abandoned him, what the same worse than the same person.
The bottom line answer is that God, who revealed this religion, which is imposed by the rule of the income of the killing, and then abandoned him, and not this provision of the Muslim ideas, suggestions and reasoning, and as long as it also must follow the rule of God as long as We like Lord -allah.

-Adultery, theft, homosexuality, alcohol
And so on ....

The limits of God
Application and implementation
Not for discussion

229)These are the limits ordained by Allah, so do not transgress them. And whoever transgresses the limits ordained by Allah, then such are the Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc.).

You fool yourself
Western society
Full of adultery, betrayal, sexual harassment and illegitimate children and family disintegration

In ignorance
Hijab for women with high-Shan
Housemaid did not wear veil to signify that a simple

Veil something basically
Not only in Islam
But
In Judaism and Christianity also
By interpolating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vnf9yJGy9Dc

http://www.biblestudytools.com/song-of-solomon/4.html%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%AA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covering_of_the_eyes

וּלְשָׂרָה אָמַר, הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי אֶלֶף כֶּסֶף לְאָחִיךְ--הִנֵּה הוּא-לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם, לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אִתָּךְ; וְאֵת כֹּל, וְנֹכָחַת

"And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved" Genesis 20:16

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H0f26n5Hyno

http://www.12allchat.com/chatters/do.php?img=143939

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/208421_179957418720282_159859037396787_414611_7626199_n.jpg

-In America
Cases of rape
Of a woman or girl
Every 6 minutes

-for men

People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah An Noor:

“Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.”

[Al Qur’an 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

7. And We sent not before you (O Muhammad ) but men to whom We inspired, so ask the people of the Reminder [Scriptures - the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel)] if you do not know.

learn befor you speak

And how those women are going to attract good men?

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Urm yeah context is a wonderful thing. You go on about 9:5, try reading 9:4 first:

"(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous."

It's also put into context by Surah 60, Chapters 8-9:

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection).” (60:8-9)

^ As you can see the basic message there is pretty clear on context of situations.

Context is the most important thing to remember when reading The Quran. Because it was revealed over 23 years and so each verse was stated against a specific scenario and has a context.

You mentioned the same chapter I was quoting, well also in the same chapter is this: 2:85 "So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?"

Fact is "there being no compulsion in religion" was never ever abrogated. It's a basic Islamic principle. We make our choices out of our free will, that's why GOD gave us free will, and that's why we are accountable for our choices in the hereafter.

Islam as far as I know is also the only Religion that has clearly stated it can not be forced on anyone.

If your trying to educate yourself on Islam then I would suggest less learning from Islam haters like Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch and more learning from actual Muslim scholars.

For English speaking lectures, I would suggest going to a few Humza Yusuf or Zaid Shakir talks. They're both very knowledgeable speakers, who have been taught under some of the most renowned Islamic scholars in the world.

I don't think you quite understand what you're saying.

Let me summarise - ''no compulsion in religion'' verse has been abrogated BY the Verse of the Sword. There's no ''context'' to speak of in terms of hijab at all. The verse of no compulsion in religion has been revealed in Mecca when Mo was weak. After migrating to Medina, the verse of the sword has been revealed cancelling the Meccan verse entirely. You'd know this if you studied the hadiths or the tafsirs, but you clearly didn't. It is what it is.

Also, I don't know where you're getting ''basic islamic principle''. It's just nonsense.
The basic Qur'anic principle, however, IS the abrogation of the Qur'an where the verses are contradictory.
Again, please make an attempt to read the tafsirs and hadiths.

Also, Sura 60 ayat 8 and 9 - please look up the circumstance of that revelation (ie, look at the accompanying hadith) before you quote it, otherwise it's quite embarrassing you're quoting it in this situation.

''If you're trying to educate yourself about Islam...''.

I lol'd so hard at this comment.

yes

This woman

`Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`as (May Allah be pleased with them) reported: Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The world is but a (quick passing) enjoyment; and the best enjoyment of the world is a pious and virtuous woman".[Muslim].

Commentary:
This Hadith mentions the qualities of a virtuous woman. When her husband looks at her, she pleases him; when he orders her, she obeys him; and when he is absent, she guards herself (chastity) and the property of her husband. (Abu Dawud and Nasa'i).
This Hadith stresses the fact that if one wants success in this world and the Hereafter, he should select a pious wife. Rather than going after her beauty, lineage and wealth, one should give preference to her Faith over all other considerations. If he chooses a woman who is faithful to her Deen and strictly adheres to the Shari`ah, she would be a source of blessing for him in this life and the Hereafter.

This is always the case
Interpretation of the Holy Qur'an to suit the fancies of a non-Muslim

This is religiously impermissible
7. And We sent not before you (O Muhammad) but men to whom We inspired, so ask the people of the Reminder [Scriptures - the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel)] if you do not know.

`Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As (May Allah be pleased with them) reported: The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Convey from me even an Ayah of the Quran; relate traditions from Banu Israel, and there is no restriction on that; but he who deliberately forges a lie against me let him have his abode in the Hell."[Al-Bukhari].

Commentary:
This Hadith contains the following three important points:
1. It stresses the importance of acquiring knowledge of the Qur'an and Hadith and imparting it to others. No matter whether one has more or less knowledge, he must communicate it to others. There is no justification to presume that preaching or inviting to the Message of Allah is the duty of religious scholars and those who are well-versed in this sphere. In fact, it is a duty upon every Muslim, so much so that if a person knows even a single Verse of the Qur'an, that is to say if he knows only one injunction of Allah, he is duty bound to communicate it to other people.
2. It allows the communication of Jewish Traditions but this permission is subject to the condition that such Traditions are not against the elucidations of the Qur'an and Hadith.
3. There is a stern warning on attributing any false saying to the Prophet peace be upon him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qM1e-cD-aw

Islam as far as I know is also the only Religion that has clearly stated it can not be forced on anyone.

Did you bother reading that article in full, or did you just skim for what you wanted to see? That's outdated and it's inconclusive.

That very same article basically ends with:

"The medical debate is over; there are no medical reasons to justify it," says Dr. George Denniston, president of the international organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision and a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Denniston says removing the foreskin to prevent infection is like "cutting off the ear to reduce ear infections. It's just absurd."

Here's an article on penile cancer: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-prevention

"Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer."

Here's an article on penile cancer risk factors:http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-risk-factors

"Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence."

If you want to lower the chances of getting penile cancer, eat right, don't smoke and practice safe-sex, don't go mutilating the penis, it's barbaric.

Originally posted by Robtard
Did you bother reading that article in full, or did you just skim for what you wanted to see? That's outdated and it's inconclusive.

That very same article basically ends with:

"The medical debate is over; there are no medical reasons to justify it," says Dr. George Denniston, president of the international organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision and a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Denniston says removing the foreskin to prevent infection is like "cutting off the ear to reduce ear infections. It's just absurd."

Here's an article on penile cancer: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-prevention

"Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer."

Here's an article on penile cancer risk factors:http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-risk-factors

"Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence."

If you want to lower the chances of getting penile cancer, eat right, don't smoke and practice safe-sex, don't go mutilating the penis, it's barbaric.

Actually I did read that. Notice what they are actually saying.

They are saying that, while there ARE benefits, the benefits are not enough to where they think a doctor should recommend circumcision for medical reasons alone.

Not one of those quotes you gave actually said "circumcision does nothing to prevent penile cancer". What they said is that they don't recommend getting circumcision if you are going to be doing it just for that reason, because even without the decreased probability, you weren't very likely to get that form of cancer anyway.

Also, I believe that your definition of mutilation was changing a part of the body in a way that makes it "imperfect". And since I've already shown that circumcision does not do that, the term mutilation does not apply here.

So in the end you have a procedure that does no harm to the child at all and adds slight medical benefits. Is it necessary? No. But it's pretty far from barbaric.

Guess you want to read what you want to read, what is actually said doesn't matter to your agenda: "than on medical evidence".

Also goes on to state: "Uncircumcised men with certain conditions [Phimosis] may be at higher risk for penile cancer." Meaning this is only really depending were certain conditions/problems pre-exist; and then it's still a maybe if the cancer risk are higher.

As far as the smegma (simple matter of washing, like any part of your body): "Most experts now believe that smegma itself probably doesn't cause penile cancer, but it can irritate and inflame the penis, which may increase the risk of cancer. It may also make it harder to see very early cancers. Men can prevent smegma from building up simply by washing the penis with the foreskin retracted."

It does make it imperfect. The foreskin is there for a reason.

Further head-in-the-sand from you, all to protect a barbaric practice that's been drilled into your head as being "okay".

Originally posted by Robtard
Guess you want to read what you want to read. "than on medical evidence".

It does make it imperfect. The foreskin is there for a reason.

Further head-in-the-sand from you, all to protect a barbaric practice that's been drilled into your head as being "okay".

That's saying just what I said. Circumcisions are made for religious reasons more than they are for medical ones, because the medical benefits are not great enough for a doctor to recommend it just for that reason.

There are no medical benefits. That's the point. You're cutting off part of person's body being put there for a reason.