Eninn's Islam Thread

Originally posted by Robtard
It does make it imperfect. The foreskin is there for a reason.

I have provided quotes that refute this already. The only defense you have been able to produce is "Well, it has a reason because I say it has a reason."

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

With all due respect, I believe the one sticking their head in the sand is you, considering you have been blatantly ignoring direct quotes from medical professionals.

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

There are medical benefits, they just don't change enough to where a doctor should recommend it for only those reasons.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I have provided quotes that refute this already. The only defense you have been able to produce is "Well, it has a reason because I say it has a reason."

With all due respect, I believe the one sticking their head in the sand is you, considering you have been blatantly ignoring direct quotes from medical professionals.

Incorrect. The foreskin is there for a reason, you're ignoring this because you have to.

Did you ignore my direct quotes that show you're wrong on purpose?

Originally posted by Robtard
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."

So if someone has a preexisting medical condition like Phimosis, it "may" increase the risk. And irritants "may" increase the risk of cancer. Two "may", so like I said, that cancer-issue you quoted initially is outdated and nonsensical.

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect. The foreskin is there for a reason, you're ignoring this because you have to.

See what you just did there? I made a point, and you ignored it and simply reasserted your original point without even backing it up. I have provided direct medical quotes that say you are wrong. Now, when you respond, it would be nice to hear your refutation of these quotes, and not simply you saying, once again, "No. It has a reason." Otherwise, I am simply going to have to assume you are trolling me.

Originally posted by Robtard
Says the guy who just ignored direct quotes that show you're wrong.

they didn't show I was wrong, and I explain why they didn't show I was wrong.

Robtard & TacDavey will you two stop ignoring each other! 😛

Originally posted by TacDavey
See what you just did there? I made a point, and you ignored it and simply reasserted your original point without even backing it up. I have provided direct medical quotes that say you are wrong. Now, when you respond, it would be nice to hear your refutation of these quotes, and not simply you saying, once again, "No. It has a reason." Otherwise, I am simply going to have to assume you are trolling me.

they didn't show I was wrong, and I explain why they didn't show I was wrong.

LoL, dude, chronic head-in-the-sand:

Originally posted by Robtard
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."

Originally posted by Robtard

So if someone has a preexisting medical condition like Phimosis, it "may" increase the risk. And irritants "may" increase the risk of cancer. Two "may", so like I said, that cancer-issue you quoted initially is outdated and nonsensical.

That was me refuting(for the second time) the only medical thing you quoted, outdated material that was at best inconclusive>

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, dude, chronic head-in-the-sand:

Those are direct medical quotes in bold, which you've ignored three times now, yet you accuse me of ignoring and trolling. Clever >

That was me refuting(for the second time) the only medical thing you quoted, outdated material that was at best inconclusive>

You must have added those after I responded to your original post.

First, those quotes do not reject that idea that the risk for cancer is higher. They simply add clarification as to why/ other ways it increases cancer. Notice that at no point in either article did they actually say "it does not increase the risk for penile cancer." Furthermore, the second article you yourself submitted says:

"Men who were circumcised as children have a lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not..."

It's pretty hard to misinterpret that one. It then even says:

"... but studies looking at this issue have not found the same protective effect if the foreskin is removed as an adult. Some studies even suggested a higher risk of penile cancer in men who were circumcised as adults."

Which is actually a reason supporting it being done as a child.

Second, you never responded to the fact that there is no valid medical data that suggests the foreskin actually has a noticeable purpose.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You must have added those after I responded to your original post.

First, those quotes do not reject that idea that the risk for cancer is higher. They simply add clarification as to why/ other ways it increases cancer. Notice that at no point in either article did they actually say "it does not increase the risk for penile cancer." Furthermore, the second article you yourself submitted says:

"Men who were circumcised as children have a lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not..."

It's pretty hard to misinterpret that one. It then even says:

"... but studies looking at this issue have not found the same protective effect if the foreskin is removed as an adult. Some studies even suggested a higher risk of penile cancer in men who were circumcised as adults."

Which is actually a reason supporting it being done as a child.

Second, you never responded to the fact that there is no valid medical data that suggests the foreskin actually has a noticeable purpose.

You like to cherry-pick the article and not grasp what it says as a whole as a means to further your agenda.

"In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account. "

So we have two factors which at best "may" increase the risk of penile-cancer and then it goes on to say:

"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."

Are you trolling now? We have covered the purpose of the foreskin several times now and you ignore what I post and then reassert that is has no purpose. I's there to protect the gland (penis head), it's not vestigial. Here's yet another article: http://people.howstuffworks.com/circumcision1.htm in a nice simple format.

Originally posted by Robtard
"In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account. "

So we have two factors which at best "may" increase the risk of penile-cancer and then it goes on to say:

Yes, and circumcision removes the possibility of gaining these factors that could cause penile cancer. How is removing something that could cause cancer not reducing the risk of getting cancer?

This quote is saying that the protective effect (They even call it a protective effect) is not seen if the person already has these factors. That means that while the protection IS there, it won't be if you wait too long and develop these factors and then get circumcised.

When all is said and done, the article blatantly says that circumcision reduces the risk of cancer. I already provided the quote taken right from the article.

Originally posted by Robtard
"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."

You are still misunderstanding what this quote is saying. It's saying that the DECISION to get circumcised is done more for religious reasons than medical. It does NOT say that there are no medical benefits to circumcision. It says these benefits are not the reason behind the DECISION to get circumcision. Look at the last sentence.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you trolling now? We have covered the purpose of the foreskin several times now and you ignore what I post and then reassert that is has no purpose. I's there to protect the gland (penis head), it's not vestigial. Here's yet another article: http://people.howstuffworks.com/circumcision1.htm in a nice simple format.

And I have already provided a quote that says that some hold to this idea, but that it doesn't actually hold up to medical and scientific data. Go back and read through my quotes. You can even check out the page they came from. Even the World Health Organization claims that the role of the foreskin is debatable.

LoL, still reading what you want to read.

Phimosis is a medical condition people are generally born with. Circumcision can cure that, though it can be fixed without it sometimes. The cancer issue is still a "may", not will cause.

Smegma may irritate the penis which then the irritation "may" increase the risk of caner. Again may. A lot of things can irritate the penis though.

The "than on medical evidence" is self explanatory, they're literally saying there's no conclusive proof that having a foreskin increases the risk of penile cancer and circumcision is therefore really only dependent on social/religious reasons. You were using outdated information.

As far as the purpose of the foreskin, it's right there, but you once again read what you wanted to. It protects the penis head, why it's there. It's not just garnish.

This is a pointless and circular argument. Even when I posted medical dated, yon continue. F it, you win by attrition, good job.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, still reading what you want to read.

Phimosis is a medical condition people are generally born with. Circumcision can cure that, though it can be fixed without it sometimes. The cancer issue is still a "may", not will cause.

Smegma may irritate the penis which then the irritation "may" increase the risk of caner. Again may. A lot of things can irritate the penis though.

I don't think I ever said it was a certainty that uncircumcised men will get cancer. So I don't know why you keep pointing out the "may" as if I wasn't allowing for the fact that it was only a possibility.

And once again, if you remove something that can cause cancer, then you have lowered the chance of you getting cancer haven't you? This is all saying exactly what I've been saying this whole time.

Originally posted by Robtard
The "than on medical evidence" is self explanatory, they're literally saying there's no conclusive proof that having a foreskin increases the risk of penile cancer and circumcision is therefore really only dependent on social/religious reasons. You were using outdated information.

No, see, that's exactly what I was saying it WASN'T saying. Look at the quote, I broke it down in my last post. The quote is saying that no one bases the DECISION to get circumcised off of the medical reasons. The do it for religious reasons. The quote did NOT say there was no medical benefits. It said the medical benefits that there are are not the reasoning behind the DECISION to get circumcised. Read the last sentence of the quote. It is talking about the decision to get circumcised. That's the subject of the last sentence.

Originally posted by Robtard
As far as the purpose of the foreskin, it's right there, but you once again read what you wanted to. It protects the penis head, why it's there. It's not just garnish.

This is a pointless and circular argument. Even when I posted medical dated, yon continue. F it, you win by attrition, good job.

I'm not ignoring you're link. As I said, I have already provided quotes from, among others, the World Health Organization, which trumps a "How it works" website, which isn't even clear if it is a medical site at all. The quotes I provided even allowed for the fact that there were those out there that claim that it protects the head, but said that in reality there is no medical data that suggests the head is safer with the foreskin.

But
Islamic countries
Do not apply Islamic law in the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith
Going fancies
who is on the whims
And contrary to
And follow the false doctrines and Shiite Baha'i, and so on

Pakistan, Afghanistan
until Egypt the (law enforcement French)
and to prevent driving

This is not Islam

Muslim is not pleased about it
But freedom is constrained by oppressive governments the power-hungry

But
I say the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith
Only the truth inside them
Bukhari is the book the right and the main source of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him
And beyond ranging from Sahih Muslim, Tirmidhi and Nasa'i and Ben Majah, and so

Islamic law
From allah to the people
the Constitution of the life world and the Hereafter
Integrity in the life of a Muslim

All the rules in Islam

Imposed or prohibited
The foundation
Protection
Human

So
This is an appeal to all Muslims and non-Muslims

Islam in the Qur'an and the Hadith

Not in the actions of governments

peace be upon you

Hor alaina: a collection of Hora Eyes which the whites of the same very white, very black and Swadh

Al Ain: Aaina collection, a large eye

The Almighty said an informant than prepared for the pious slaves
(54) Thus. And We will marry them to fair women with large, [beautiful] eyes
-As stated in the description of Hor they Quaab, he says
(31) Indeed, for the righteous is attainment -

(32) Gardens and grapevines
(33) And full-breasted [companions] of equal age
(34) And a full cup.
(35) No ill speech will they hear therein or any falsehood -
(36) [As] reward from your Lord, [a generous] gift [made due by] account,
God created the heaven virgins (beautiful - close in age - did not get married before - loved) -
(35) Indeed, We have produced the women of Paradise in a [new] creatio
(36) And made them virgins
(37) Devoted [to their husbands] and of equal age
(38) For the companions of the right [who are
(39) A company of the former people
(40) And a company of the later peoples

(56) In them are women limiting [their] glances, untouched before them by man or jinni

The Qur'an told us about the beauty of the women of Paradise, he said: (and Hur eye, Like unto preserved pearls) and to be which you did not change the purity of the color of sunlight, do not tamper with the hands, ((56) In them are women limiting [their] glances, untouched before them by man or jinni
(57) So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?
(58) As if they were rubies and coral
(59) So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny
(60) Is the reward for good [anything] but good and once you God this has to have reached a very good and Beauty

Them ((72) Fair ones reserved in pavilions
(73) So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?
(74) Untouched before them by man or jinni )

The women of Paradise disinfectants what is going on in the world of the women are menstruating or bleeding and mucus, etc., and the appropriate meaning (and pairs them with disinfectant as they will abide therein) a

Has told us the Prophet peace be upon him about the beauty of women of Paradise, in the hadeeth narrated by Bukhari and Muslim from Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him - and talk about the first group to enter Paradise - (and each and every one of them wives, the marrow of the market for behind the meat from Hassan) a

Look at this beauty that occurs about the Prophet peace be upon him you find his counterpart, which you know? (If a woman seen by the people of Paradise to people of the land in between the lit and filled with fragrance, and the veil of her head is better than what the minimum) Bukhari

And determine the number of wives of each person in heaven two seems to be the lowest number, otherwise it is stated that the martyr married with two seventy-wife of virgins, In Sunan al-Tirmidhi, and Sunan Ibn Majah attribution is true for brave Ben Ma'di said: The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him: ( The martyr is six qualities: forgive him in the first batch of blood, and finds his place in Paradise, and protected from the torment of the grave, he will be safe from fear most, and placed on his head a crown of dignity, one ruby of which is better than what the minimum, and married seventy-two girl virgins , and intercede for seventy of his relatives) a

Ibn al-Wahhab Muhammad ibn ibn Ka'b Qurazi said: and the God who is no god but He, if a woman virgins informed the strap from the throne to turn off light strap sun and the moon, how walled and that God created something worn only by what from clothes and jewelry

The tender for the peaceful Malik bin Dinar: O Abu Yahya longing. He said: O tender: In Paradise Hura boasts the beauty of the people of Paradise for the fact that God wrote on the people of Paradise will not die to the last of whom died of beauty. He said he kept giving words of anguish from the owner of forty days

Singing virgins

Stated in the Lexicon Tabaraani East attribution that Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet peace be upon him said: (The spouses of the people of Paradise to sing their husbands with the best voices that he heard a cat. That than sing: We are good things beautiful, spouses of people who Cram, who look at a objects , and thus sing it: Canary,
Anas may Allah be pleased with him that the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him: (The virgins in heaven to sing, they say: We are beautiful ****, Bina Cram for couples) a

Poplar recipe

Ibn al-Qayyim in his book poplar grove preachers recipe: In a written slaughtered you my love and I do not love your My purpose rather not support you. Liver and liver her mirror mirror the marrow of her leg behind her flesh, and jewels as you can see the red drink in the bottle white, and also see the white wire in the middle of the net ruby

Dalal poplar

Roy-Hasan may Allah be pleased with him, he said: in heaven with his wife virgins on a bed of ruby red and it dome of light, if you said to her: You may miss the Mhitak, said inflict the bed Ruby red to General Morgan Green, and creates God Almighty in the kindergarten of the light paths, one grew saffron, camphor and the other, in Vtmshee grew saffron, camphor grew back in, and walk seventy thousand colors

Poplar jealous eye on their husbands in this world

Reported in Musnad Ahmad and Sunan al-Tirmidhi, the attribution is true for Maaz may Allah be pleased with him that the Messenger of Allah peace be upon him said: (do not hurt the woman, her husband in the world, but his wife said of the virgins: Do not hurt him God killed you, for he is an outsider you are about Get separated from you to us)

Given the believer in Paradise strength of a hundred men

From Anas, may Allah be pleased with him that the Prophet peace be upon him said (given the believer in the power of heaven as well as well as from sexual intercourse. It was said, O Messenger of God, or able to do that? Said, given the strength of a hundred men), narrated by al-Tirmidhi

All I can Say a Man Will have his wife + 70 Women to have sex **** !

Were/are the Virgins actual people according to Islamic doctrine? Like, does every girl who dies a virgin get assigned to a virtuous soul in the Muslim cosmology? Or are they created only for the purpose of pleasuring virtuous souls? And even then, are they actual people or just simulacrums?

I ask because I'm not sure what level of incredulity I should set myself on.

I kind of habitually ignore eninn's threads anymore, but the title caught my eye. I came in expecting some Arabic softcore. Instead I got this:

Originally posted by eninn
In a written slaughtered you my love and I do not love your My purpose rather not support you. Liver and liver her mirror mirror the marrow of her leg behind her flesh, and jewels as you can see the red drink in the bottle white, and also see the white wire in the middle of the net ruby

...needless to say, I am more aroused than anticipated.

biscuits

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Were/are the Virgins actual people according to Islamic doctrine? Like, does every girl who dies a virgin get assigned to a virtuous soul in the Muslim cosmology? Or are they created only for the purpose of pleasuring virtuous souls? And even then, are they actual people or just simulacrums?

I ask because I'm not sure what level of incredulity I should set myself on.

I am by no means an authority but some interpretations make the whole "virgin" idea more of a symbolic one and no sexual intercourse occurs, at all. It is a far more complex and transcendent relationship than the carnal lustful one that some portray.

lol

Look @ the Mormon trying to dress up polygamy to be more appealing. Derp!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am by no means an authority but some interpretations make the whole "virgin" idea more of a symbolic one and no sexual intercourse occurs, at all. It is a far more complex and transcendent relationship than the carnal lustful one that some portray.

lol

Look @ the Mormon trying to dress up polygamy to be more appealing. Derp!

real things but not Human Some Human-Like Creatures Which only Purpose is Sex and If I had sex with it Will be Virgin Again poor Ladies they won't have it anything Even a small piece of a penis but her husband !! and may be not because he would be busy the Hoor Al-Ayn !! and if she died divorced or unmarried she won't have anything at all

and the thing which will bring JesusisAlive Here that Mohammad Will have sex with the Virgin Mary in Paradise 😄 even she will be Mohammad's Property