A crime against yourself%

\\\\\

In the Arabian Peninsula
This situation is normal
At that time
Aisha before the marriage of the Prophet
Associated with a person of the tribe before the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him
But the marriage did not complete
Therefore
Kfar
Quraish
Did not speak about it
Against
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him

You mean
Marriage of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Ms. Aisha, may Allah be pleased

Nabi speeches before puberty
And married after puberty

So can not marry young girls before puberty

Because mental sensations for the girl
Composed after puberty
God guided you to the right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD4AE16O2NU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3z9Fxgx5PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvsGPpwMXU0

\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
In the end, I reached the following conclusions:

1- Attraction between the sexes can occur in any circumstances, no matter how much men and women may deny that. The attraction may start within the bounds of sharee’ah and end up going beyond those bounds.

Even if a person protects himself (by marriage), he is not safe from the snares of the Shaytaan.

3- Even though a person may be able to guarantee himself and he works with the opposite sex within reasonable limits, he cannot guarantee the feelings of the other party.

Finally, there is nothing good in mixing and it does not bear fruit as they claim. On the contrary, it corrupts sound thinking.

1) The traps of Satan include:

a. Kufr (disbelief).

b. Innovations.

c. Following ones desires.

d. Taking and giving Islamic judgments without knowledge.

e. Stinginess and fear of poverty.

f. Anger.

g. Extravagance and negligence.

But God gives to man the blessings and forgive his sins.

Not a shame to go wrong , but a shame that insists your fault , so it divides scientists among the illiterate and ignorant , a big difference , illiterate man its container is empty, accept anything that is placed in it, educated illiterate is very easy, man pot itself empty accept you for anything , but a fool is which filled its container fallacies , and relationships are incorrect , not confirmed by reality , so there is great hardship in to convince him of the right , is stems from the rules is incorrect , the relationships are not confirmed by the fact, fool is the one who knows , but it does not work , including teaching , or is the one that involves concepts , and relationships , and perspectives wrong or incorrect ,

Allah Subhânahù wa Ta’âlâ mentions in the Holy Qur’an, “If any one does evil or wrongs his own soul but afterwards seeks Allah’s forgiveness, he will find Allah Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
(Qur’an, 4:110)

(“Every son of Adam makes mistakes, and the best ofthose who make mistakes are those who repent.”(Reported by al-Tirmidhi, no. 2499,
=====

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvf3Bprp_WM

Nine year olds, dude.

Originally posted by Robtard

I think from a medical standpoint circumcision is silly and not needed. It seems to be done mostly just out of tradition.

Originally posted by eninn

"Circumcision of newborn boys (I.e., within the first month of life) brings numerous health benefits, including:

1 – Protection against local infection in the penis, which may result from the presence of the foreskin, causing tightening of the foreskin, which may lead to retention of urine or infections of the glans (tip) of the penis – which require circumcision in order to treat these problems. In chronic cases, the child may be exposed to numerous diseases in the future, the most serious of which is cancer of the penis.

2 – [Protection against i]nfections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%.

In children, infection of the urethra is serious in some cases. In the study by Wisewell on 88 children who suffered infections of the urethra, in 36 % of them, the same bacteria was found in the blood also. Three of them contracted meningitis, and two suffered renal failure. Two others died as a result of the spread of the micro-organisms throughout the body.

mmm

If the above is true, it would appear that:

1. Circumcision is NOT "silly" from a medical standpoint.

2. There is a great deal of wisdom in some of the things dismissed as tradition.

Uncleanliness is the main cause of urinary tract infections. ie bacteria is allowed to form around the penile gland and it makes its way inside the urethra.

Teaching proper hygiene is a far more benign way to reducing UTIs than circumcision, if this is indeed the reason little boys are getting their junk whacked.

I also followed his "fact", it seems like a BS/made up number:

Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%. http://www.missionislam.com/health/circumcisionislam.html

Nothing is sourced on that page.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
mmm

If the above is true, it would appear that:

1. Circumcision is [b]NOT "silly" from a medical standpoint.

2. There is a great deal of wisdom in some of the things dismissed as tradition. [/B]

Circumcision is a crime though.

Originally posted by Robtard
Uncleanliness is the main cause of urinary tract infections. ie bacteria is allowed to form around the penile gland and it makes its way inside the urethra.

Teaching proper hygiene is a far more benign way to reducing UTIs than circumcision, if this is indeed the reason little boys are getting their junk whacked.

I also followed his "fact", it seems like a BS/made up number:

Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%. http://www.missionislam.com/health/circumcisionislam.html

Nothing is sourced on that page.

1. It's not exactly hard to find out information on this.
Google "circumcision" and "medical" on a line together and you get many hundreds of thousands of results.

2. On a subject like this, exact numbers aren't as instructive as general trends.
If the numbers were 85% and 15% instead of 95% and 5%, would it really be wise to dismiss the findings?

What, would you then just say,
"Oh, only 8 out of every 10 suffered for being uncircumcised"

or

"You're really only FIVE times more likely to get an infection (15x5=75) if you stay uncircumcised, so it's not worth it ..."?

That study would still be making a very strong case for circumcision even with lower numbers substituted.

3. There ARE numerous health benefits, relevant to the concerns of people today, brought about by circumcision.
Even religion neutral/medical heavy sites will tell you as much, despite beginning in legalese disclaiming ambivalence:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What has been the medical view of circumcision?

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

Currently, the practice of newborn circumcision is very common. It has been estimated that a majority of males in the United States are circumcised. This number varies depending upon ethnicity and religious affiliation.

Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a large decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future, and there is significant pressure for the AAP and ACOG to reconsider their positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm#circumcision_medical_pros_and_cons_facts

4. Circumcision done young is less complicated than circumcision done later in life.

5. Religions often "disguise" proper hygienic practices as ritual washings and observances.

6. With no foreskin there, proper hygiene is easier for most people to handle.

Lot's of "may decrease /lower" and a "circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)" and "there is still no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn"

The HIV does make some sense though, as part of the foreskin's job is to protect the penile gland, but in doing so, the gland doesn't toughen up as compared to penises that are circumcised, so it seems micro-tears where HIV infection can occur would be more prevalent in the uncut penis.

That seems like backwards thinking still. Better to teach safe-sex practices to lower the risk of HIV than to start mutilating penises. I'm also a firm believer in allowing the person to make that choice for themselves once they become of age.

Originally posted by Robtard

... circumcision ...

I'm ... a firm believer in allowing the person to make that choice for themselves once they become of age.

Why? Are you yourself uncircumcised?

Or did you get circumcision performed at a later age?

It's a VASTLY different experience at 30 years of age as opposed to 30 days of age ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Why? Are you yourself uncircumcised?

Or did you get circumcision performed at a later age?

It's a VASTLY different experience at 30 years of age as opposed to 30 [b]days of age ... [/B]

No need to have it done at all, we dont live in the stone age.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

It's a VASTLY different experience at 30 years of age as opposed to 30 [b]days of age ... [/B]

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Why? Are you yourself uncircumcised?

Or did you get circumcision performed at a later age?

It's a VASTLY different experience at 30 years of age as opposed to 30 [b]days of age ... [/B]

Because as a newborn the foreskin is partially attached to the penile (head) gland, so it's not a matter of just cutting, it's also a matter of peeling extremely sensitive skin away.

The only "benefit" having it done at birth as opposed to being an adult is that you won't remember the pain.

Or of course, you can just not do it and wash your dick when you shower or whatnot. But adults should be allowed to do with their own bodies as they wish.

*warning* Graphic

Shit makes me sick to my stomach: http://vimeo.com/22940047

man that's brutal

Originally posted by Robtard

as a newborn the foreskin is partially attached to the penile (head) gland, so it's not a matter of just cutting, it's also a matter of peeling extremely sensitive skin away.

The only "benefit" having it done at birth as opposed to being an adult is that you won't remember the pain ...

Got to admit, that video gave me a bit of pause ...

Foremost on my mind is how in the world anyone can remain calm with a baby squealing like that for the entire operation. Two is why they don't give that baby any anesthetic. Perhaps it's too dangerous when they're that young, though.
Three, unfortunately, is that GIVEN doctors can routinely perform operations like that, it's not really hard to imagine them performing abortions, which are even worse. Fourth, I'm wondering how in the world circumcision is and was done OUTSIDE of a professional health clinic, and, fifth is: How in the world did the practice get STARTED?

Perhaps the best proof of people's sincere belief in God is that they would, as ADULTS, subject themselves to the process ...

an even better proof of people's sincere belief in god is that they will blow themselves up with the assumption that he'll reward them afterwards.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because as a newborn the foreskin is partially attached to the penile (head) gland, so it's not a matter of just cutting, it's also a matter of peeling extremely sensitive skin away.

The only "benefit" having it done at birth as opposed to being an adult is that you won't remember the pain.

Or of course, you can just not do it and wash your dick when you shower or whatnot. But adults should be allowed to do with their own bodies as they wish.

*warning* Graphic

Shit makes me sick to my stomach: http://vimeo.com/22940047

If you've seen a baby you know the nervous system is underdevelopped and he doesn't feel pain the way we do. I don't mean to say it's not painful though, just nitpicking.

Originally posted by Bentley
If you've seen a baby you know the nervous system is underdevelopped and he doesn't feel pain the way we do. I don't mean to say it's not painful though, just nitpicking.

Right.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because as a newborn the foreskin is partially attached to the penile (head) gland, so it's not a matter of just cutting, it's also a matter of peeling extremely sensitive skin away.

The only "benefit" having it done at birth as opposed to being an adult is that you won't remember the pain.

Or of course, you can just not do it and wash your dick when you shower or whatnot. But adults should be allowed to do with their own bodies as they wish.

*warning* Graphic

Shit makes me sick to my stomach: http://vimeo.com/22940047

Agreed!

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Got to admit, that video gave me a bit of pause ...

Foremost on my mind is how in the world anyone can remain calm with a baby squealing like that for the entire operation. Two is why they don't give that baby any anesthetic. Perhaps it's too dangerous when they're that young, though.
Three, unfortunately, is that GIVEN doctors can routinely perform operations like that, it's not really hard to imagine them performing abortions, which are even worse. Fourth, I'm wondering how in the world circumcision is and was done OUTSIDE of a professional health clinic, and, fifth is: How in the world did the practice get STARTED?

Perhaps the best proof of people's sincere belief in God is that they would, as ADULTS, subject themselves to the process ...

I couldn't watch most of it, ****s with my mind/emotions too much. Had to skip around.

I've been to two bris, it's really nothing like what happens in hospitals. For one, they wait 8 days (not sure if this has any affect of the penis/pain) and they get the baby drunk by feeding him tiny amounts of wine, so all you hear is a few seconds of short cries and it's done rather quick. Apples to oranges comparison to what you hear in that vid.

Not saying this makes it okay, but from a psychological standpoint, I didn't get stressed out and utterly uncomfortable from the cries of the infant, like I do from hospital circumcision vids.

edit: It's also performed in a celebration type of environment, with drinks and delicious food, so that probably helps too.

Originally posted by Robtard

they get the baby drunk by feeding him tiny amounts of wine, so all you hear is a few seconds of short cries and it's done rather quick. Apples to oranges comparison to what you hear in that vid ...

Your friends might be relatively progressive, for what I read on Wikipedia says it should ideally be done straight:

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

😕

Having said that, if ever people were justified in giving babies alcohol,
it'd be tough finding a more warranted occasion ...

Originally posted by Robtard
Right.

Indeed 👆