Genital Mutilation [Western Hypocrisy?]

[Ipland]

Yes, it is. It's mutilating a baby without their consent, whichever way you put it.

It's not an excuse.

How is it not?

[Trotza]

Yes, it is. It's mutilating a baby without their consent, whichever way you put it.

It's not an excuse.

Well it sure isn't justification.

[Fartsniffage]

What the Holy Qur'an says on circumcision: http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptio ... ision.html

Who cares?

[Ipland]

What the Holy Qur'an says on circumcision: http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptio ... ision.html

Who cares?

Exactly.

[Crockerland]

What the Holy Qur'an says on circumcision: http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptio ... ision.html

What the Holy Qur'an says on fucking anyone besides your wives... and sex slaves: https://quran.com/33/50
What the Holy Qur'an says on interaction with atheists: https://quran.com/9/29
What the Holy Qur'an says about having friends of other faiths: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=51

The Qur'an is most definitely not a moral compass.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What the Holy Qur'an says on circumcision: http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptio ... ision.html

What the Holy Qur'an says on fucking anyone besides your wives... and sex slaves: https://quran.com/33/50
What the Holy Qur'an says on interaction with atheists: https://quran.com/9/29
What the Holy Qur'an says about having friends of other faiths: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=51

The Qur'an is most definitely not a moral compass.

1: What? I don't understand what you're getting at.
2: Ok, so?
3: So you take literally one translation out of seven and think that's a good argument?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What the Holy Qur'an says on circumcision: http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptio ... ision.html

Who cares?

The faithful.

[Ipland]

Who cares?

The faithful.

Yeah. Using a book mostly nobody believes in to validate something is never going to validate your points

[Jordkloden]

Why you gotta cut the foreskin off? Like, in what reality are urinary tract infections such a danger that it warrants that?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Ok, I now understand what you're getting at Crockerland and you are totally wrong. Did you not read "...if she gives herself..."

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The faithful.

Yeah. Using a book mostly nobody believes in to validate something is never going to validate your points

Not those who disbelieve, no.

[Ponoxien]

Do so written as raising parlors spirits mr elderly. Made late in of high left hold. Carried females of up highest calling. Limits marked led silent dining her she far. Sir but elegance marriage dwelling likewise position old pleasure men. Dissimilar themselves simplicity no of contrasted as. Delay great day hours men. Stuff front to do allow to asked he.

Ferrars all spirits his imagine effects amongst neither. It bachelor cheerful of mistaken. Tore has sons put upon wife use bred seen. Its dissimilar invitation ten has discretion unreserved. Had you him humoured jointure ask expenses learning. Blush on in jokes sense do do. Brother hundred he assured reached on up no. On am nearer missed lovers. To it mother extent temper figure better.

[Crockerland]

What the Holy Qur'an says on fucking anyone besides your wives... and sex slaves: https://quran.com/33/50
What the Holy Qur'an says on interaction with atheists: https://quran.com/9/29
What the Holy Qur'an says about having friends of other faiths: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=51

The Qur'an is most definitely not a moral compass.

1: What? I don't understand what you're getting at.

It's the part where you're allowed to have fucking sex slaves.

2: Ok, so?

"It's just encouraging the murder of anyone who doesn't believe in Allah or the last day and doesn't follow Islamic law, what's the big deal right"

3: So you take literally one translation out of seven and think that's a good argument?

Well, no, that's objectively, demonstrably not what I was doing, actually. If you bothered to read them, you'd know that the Pickthall and Arberry translations both say "friends", the Muhammad Sarwar translation says "intimate friends" and the Mohsin Khan translation says "Auliya", which is an even broader term which basically bars Muslims from any association with Jews and Christians.

[Praeotoria]

Pretty controversial topic, at least I think. Well anyways, I do not support male circumcision for as it does not allow the child to express their opinion against or for it. Modern equipment like the shower and other things can prevent issues that were the route of circumcision. The only reason you really need it is for you to be similar to your ancestors, but even then it isn't worth it.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

1: What? I don't understand what you're getting at.

It's the part where you're allowed to have fucking sex slaves.

2: Ok, so?

"It's just encouraging the murder of anyone who doesn't believe in Allah or the last day and doesn't follow Islamic law, what's the big deal right"

3: So you take literally one translation out of seven and think that's a good argument?

Well, no, that's objectively, demonstrably not what I was doing, actually. If you bothered to read them, you'd know that the Pickthall and Arberry translations both say "friends", the Muhammad Sarwar translation says "intimate friends" and the Mohsin Khan translation says "Auliya", which is an even broader term which basically bars Muslims from any association with Jews and Christians.

Still means that there's a whole lot of other translations and that you can't use 1 or a few to make a point.
Also, if you read other ayateen on war, you'd see that you're wrong. That's why one shouldn't cherry-pick ayateen or parts of ayateen.

[Fartsniffage]

Who cares?

The faithful.

The faithful used to burn heretics. We grew out of that too.

[Crockerland]

It's the part where you're allowed to have fucking sex slaves.

"It's just encouraging the murder of anyone who doesn't believe in Allah or the last day and doesn't follow Islamic law, what's the big deal right"

Well, no, that's objectively, demonstrably not what I was doing, actually. If you bothered to read them, you'd know that the Pickthall and Arberry translations both say "friends", the Muhammad Sarwar translation says "intimate friends" and the Mohsin Khan translation says "Auliya", which is an even broader term which basically bars Muslims from any association with Jews and Christians.

Still means that there's a whole lot of other translations

2

and that you can't use 1 or a few to make a point.

In other words, you can get out of any criticism of Islam because every verse you don't like is mistranslated.

Also, if you read other ayateen on war, you'd see that you're wrong. That's why one shouldn't cherry-pick ayateen or parts of ayateen.

You know, I don't think I would.

[Vlamistaatti]

I guess to masses it doesn't feel like a present problem and as such are too lazy to do anything about it.

[Isyrannaea]

I'm against it until the person reaches the age of adulthood.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

In other words, you can get out of any criticism of Islam because every verse you don't like is mistranslated.

I LOVE the Holy Qur'an.

[Ipland]

In other words, you can get out of any criticism of Islam because every verse you don't like is mistranslated.

I LOVE the Holy Qur'an.

What? No one was asking if you did. He said that you aren't even addressing his points, only the "mistranslation".

[Brusia]

Equating male circumcision and female circumcision is absolutely ridiculous. Studies have shown that male circumcision "reduces risk of HIV, syphilis and chancroid", reduces the risk of UTIs, has a highly protective effect against invasive penile cancer, "is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners", and has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. (In fact, one study even found that "Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.")

On the other hand, female circumcision has no known beneficial effects and numerous adverse effects, leading to its condemnation by the WHO (which, incidentally, recommends that male circumcision "be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.")

[Trotza]

Equating male circumcision and female circumcision is absolutely ridiculous. Studies have shown that male circumcision "reduces risk of HIV, syphilis and chancroid", reduces the risk of UTIs, has a highly protective effect against invasive penile cancer, "is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners", and has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. (In fact, one study even found that "Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm.")

On the other hand, female circumcision has no known beneficial effects and numerous adverse effects, leading to its condemnation by the WHO (which, incidentally, recommends that male circumcision "be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.")

I see nothing here justifying permanently mutilating someones body without their consent, so that point still stands. It is causing a physical injury that will last the rest of a persons life, trying to pick benefits out of it doesn't change that it's a violation of bodily integrity.

[Brusia]

I see nothing here justifying permanently mutilating someones body without their consent, so that point still stands. It is causing a physical injury that will last the rest of a persons life, trying to pick benefits out of it doesn't change that it's a violation of bodily integrity.

So let me get this straight, you're saying the fact that "MC could avert 2.0 (1.1−3.8 ) million new HIV infections and 0.3 (0.1−0.5) million deaths over the next ten years in sub-Saharan Africa. In the ten years after that, it could avert a further 3.7 (1.9−7.5) million new HIV infections and 2.7 (1.5−5.3) million deaths" is completely irrelevant because it requires the removal of a small amount of skin (skin which, again, has zero health benefits, and which may well cause reduced penile sensitivity) from the penis?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I see nothing here justifying permanently mutilating someones body without their consent, so that point still stands. It is causing a physical injury that will last the rest of a persons life, trying to pick benefits out of it doesn't change that it's a violation of bodily integrity.

So let me get this straight, you're saying the fact that "MC could avert 2.0 (1.1−3.8 ) million new HIV infections and 0.3 (0.1−0.5) million deaths over the next ten years in sub-Saharan Africa. In the ten years after that, it could avert a further 3.7 (1.9−7.5) million new HIV infections and 2.7 (1.5−5.3) million deaths" is completely irrelevant because it requires the removal of a small amount of skin (skin which, again, has zero health benefits, and which may well cause reduced penile sensitivity) from the penis?

From http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptio ... on.html#s5
"Penile Cancer is a rare form of cancer that happens mostly to older men from age 40 and above, but most cases are in men aged 60 and over. In the UK, only 500 men are diagnosed with it each year. The rarity of this form of cancer shows when this figure is compared with 35,000 men diagnosed with prostates cancer each year(5) ! Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer. In the United States, most men with penile cancer are circumcised. However, does circumcision reduce the risk of penile cancer despite it being a very low risk cancer already? Basically, by removing a part of the penis in circumcision, a part of the penis is not there to develop cancer. This is the same as saying, by removing the liver, we eliminate liver cancer! It is obvious to a thinking person that this sort of prevention where healthy parts of the body with many functions is simply cut off is not a way to prevent a disease which has not even occurred, and moreover which has an extremely small chance of happening. Is it justified to surgically remove multi-functional foreskin of the male, and cause all the disadvantages we have identified without even the person's consent (babies)?

A recent study done by Wallerstein concluded that circumcision does not help reduce the risk of penile cancer as the rates of penile cancer in Japan, Norway and Sweden (countries with low rate of circumcision) was the same as United States' (which has a higher rate of circumcision) (6). In view of all that has been said, the 'Royal Australasian College of Physicians' and the 'American Medical Association' made a statement saying that carrying out infant circumcision with the hope of preventing penile cancer is not justified(7), with the 'American Cancer Society' also holding the same view."