Circumcision issue
-
Would you mind pointing them out, Wakas?
It sounded quite reasonable to me, but then I am not really that knowledgeable on the issue. I have researched female circumcision in depth, but since I'm not a man (and have no kids), male circumcision hasn't been high on my list of priorities so far.
peace
-
The anti-circumcision lobby is largely based upon anti-semiticim and systematically seeks to obcure evidence of how circumcision improves men's sexual health and genital hygine. Failure to practice circumcision is singly responsible for a large proportion of AIDs deaths in Africa over the past 2 decades.
http//www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/05/circumcicision-health-children
So, would you have your son circumcised?
The idea may horrify you. But what if you knew it could potentially save his life - and thousands of others? Special report by Alex RentonThey call it nyanji - the cut. On the dirt road to Magunga we stopped beside a smart blue pick-up truck full of school-uniformed boys. Were they going for the nyanji?
They all nodded. Some of the young teenagers giggled - but every one of them winced. Hands crept protectively towards crotches. But there was no getting away from it - every man across Luoland is being encouraged to go for a circumcision. As the promotional posters on the local health-clinic walls say "Cool jamaas - dudes - take care of their health." With the HIV-Aids infection rate running at 26% in this part of western Kenya, having your foreskin removed has been accepted as a potential lifesaver.
This is more momentous than the mere changing of the culture of an entire Kenyan tribe - no small task. It is the first practical action taken on the back of something the medical world has known with some certainty for 20 years but, bizarrely, failed to act on. Quite simply, circumcised men are around 60% less likely to contract HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. And of course, they are less likely to pass them on - and that has a huge effect on STD rates in women. Studies suggest that women whose long-term partners are circumcised are two to three times less likely to develop cervical cancer.
-
Peace
This is the most assinine argument I have heard from those who do endorse circumcision. Clean your genitals like you do you hands and there is no immunity to STDs.
Joe
You've got to take the world as it is and not as you want it to be. The fact is that people don't clean their genitals as often as they clean their hands. Most men in the west only wash their penis as often as they have a shower, or less often than that.
But even if you do follow Islamic tradition and wash your penis every time you urinate, the issue of STDs remains. You're at risk every time you sleep with a new partner (on your wedding night or otherwise), or when your existing partner is unfaithful to you.
How does it work? The head of the uncircumcised penis is a mucous membrane, just like the inside of the mouth or the vagina. The inner surface of the foreskin is rich in cells that viruses can target. When the foreskin is removed the skin keratinizes - hardens. The cells become more like ordinary skin, a much more effective barrier to infections. Essentially circumcision dramatically reduces the amount of the penis's surface area that is exposed to viruses and bacteria. There are other factors - uncircumcised men, if they don't regularly wash under the foreskin, will accumulate dirt and smegma. Viruses can incubate there. Tears in it are, I'm told, a common problem, especially during sex - these pose further infection risks. One friend who had a circumcision when he was 19, on medical advice, says that before the cut he used to "explode in a geyser of blood", often at the most embarrassing moments. (Now he tells me that putting on a condom is easier - and sex is more pleasurable.)
There is a very, very strong scientific basis for circumcision cutting rates of inflection with STDs -
A study of 2,000-plus men in India.
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3570223.stmIn Benin and Cameroon
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm8,000 men in Uganda and Kenya
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6176209.stm3,000 men in South Africa
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4719409.stmYou've just linked to a campaigning website, run by disgruntled ethnic Jews who hate their own religion because of the nasty practise of ritual circumcision by unqualified Rabbis. This makes them biased against all circumcision even when it's done by expert doctors for valid health purposes. These studies are the most powerful scientific evidence possible - double blind studies of thousands of subjects.
Religion and health come together on this issue because the religious teaching is based upon the need for personal hygiene in order to be spiritually as well as physically clean and healthy.
-
peace Leyna,
In brief
"no organisation in the world recommends this" - not according to what I've read, see Guardian article, WHO and UNAids apparently do in HIV-prone countries. And the medical position is currently being reconsidered in the USA.
For a seemingly objective approach
http//cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm"Nor is there any scientific proof that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases." - not according to CDC
"While this sounds promising, I agree with my colleague George Denniston, M.D., who said, "The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The "experiment" of using circumcision to stem HIV infection has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?"
- fallacious reasoning, ignores other factors, like-for-like comparison is difficult.
sexual benefit - no evidence cited, contradicts CDC. Conveniently discussed in her book.
As I said, this does not make the overall point correct or incorrect, but when info is given in such a way, concluding something is often difficult. My recommendation always is if you read an article/study and it does not backup factual statements with evidence, uses any kind of fallacious reasoning, or does not provide you with the necessary info to verify and/or refute what it has said, makes no mention of opposing viewpoints, or has a specific view it is trying to convince you of, then be very very cautious about forming conclusions from it. This also applies to articles on topics of The Quran.
-
Thanks, Wakas! peace
I was being aware that the article is biased and tries to convince the reader of a certain opinion. But I found it interesting because a lot of the other texts out there rather point out the real or supposed benefits without mentioning the possible disadvantages.
My recommendation always is if you read an article/study and it does not backup factual statements with evidence, uses any kind of fallacious reasoning, or does not provide you with the necessary info to verify and/or refute what it has said, makes no mention of opposing viewpoints, or has a specific view it is trying to convince you of, then be very very cautious about forming conclusions from it.
I fully agree on this, and that's what I usually try to do.
-
Peace
The fact is that people don't clean their genitals as often as they clean their hands. Most men in the west only wash their penis as often as they have a shower, or less often than that.
What I meant was that people should make it a routine to clean their genitals when they shower.
You've got to take the world as it is and not as you want it to be.
The world is how one sees it.
the issue of STDs remains
Okay.
You're at risk every time you sleep with a new partner
You being who exactly, only uncircumcised males?
when your existing partner is unfaithful to you
The existing partners of intact males exclusively?
A study of 2,000-plus men in India.
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
In Benin and Cameroon
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
8,000 men in Uganda and Kenya
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
3,000 men in South Africa
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
You've just linked to a campaigning website
One group's studies is anoter group's campaign.
Religion and health come together on this issue because the religious teaching is based upon the need for personal hygiene in order to be spiritually as well as physically clean and healthy.
The quran does not tell males to get circumcised. It may be wrong on this issue for not endorsing it. It may be right for not endorsing circumcision for all males.
Joe
-
The world is how one sees it.
I think the world is how God created it. See no evil, hear no evil doesn't work unless you're a teddy bear.
You being who exactly, only uncircumcised males?
The existing partners of intact males exclusively?
Circumcision makes the spread of disease less likely, try reading the links.
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
I'm pretty sure men in America also have penises. There's no shortage of STD infections in the USA - people sleeping around is part of the problem, but general health and hygiene are also a big factor in the spread of disease - not just aids but a very wide range of other viruses which are not fatal but are still very unpleasant and largely incurable - even if you don't show symptoms you can still infect your partner.
One group's studies is anoter group's campaign.
There's still a difference between campaigning and the scientific method. The links I gave were real science, using proper control groups with large sample sizes. These things matter, God gave us the capacity to use reason and think scientifically. Have you heard of Ibn al-Haytham?
-
Peace
makes the spread of disease less likely
Nice of you to admit the problem is still there.
try reading the links
Maybe you can return the favor.
men in America also have penises
Not all. Sex is not so black and white as some of us would like to have it.
the scientific method
I take all things with a grain of salt.
The links I gave were real science
Yes....
Have you heard of Ibn al-Haytham?
I have. Was he circumcised?
Joe
-
Hang on, you're accepting the science of circumcision preventing disease, but say it's not necessary in America because you don't think American men have a penis? Bizarre.
-
Peace
I did not accept anything but you can keep reading my words like it's a foreign tongue to you. Your post is dripping with frustration. I will say that I do disagree with you and your particular authorities. I leave you with this, that what convinces is not necessarily true.
Joe
-
I don't understand the point of your post Joe. Who do you consider my particular authorities - scientists in general? And what do you mean by "what convinces is not necessarily true" -surely that is a criticism of argument based upon emotion, which is what the anti-circumcision ideology is based upon, describing circumcision is hugely emotional terms like "mutilation" and the way they use logical fallacies, conflating religious practises with medical practises, and adult with child circumcision, to falsely attempt to portray it as dangerous.
-
In maldives all boys are circumsised. Very few girls are also circumcised.
-
The anti-circumcision lobby is largely based upon anti-semiticim and systematically seeks to obcure evidence of how circumcision improves men's sexual health and genital hygine. Failure to practice circumcision is singly responsible for a large proportion of AIDs deaths in Africa over the past 2 decades.
I hate to be a dick about it (pun intended), but if you believe circumcision is a good thing, you're actually not even really Muslim, because you are calling God a liar.
You will freely admit that the Quran states that God created humans in the perfect form
We have created people in the best form.
But then you say that Humans should be circumsized! Obviously you don't believe that humans are in the perfect form!
It doesn't make a whole ton of sense that Allah would say that humans were created perfect, and then go on to say that you need to chop off bits of a baby boy or else he can't be a true Muslim. Either his creation was perfect, and doesn't need to be changed, or it needs to be changed, and it wasn't perfect. Ya can't have both ways.
And of course, the Quran actually goes against this logic
4119 "I will misguide them and make them desire, and I will command them, so that they will mark the ears of the livestock, and I will command them so they will make change to God's creation." Whoever takes the devil as a supporter other than God, then he has indeed lost a great loss.
Hey, you know what ELSE lowers the infection rate of STDs??? Oh yeah, a CONDOM. Even if STD infection rates were lower (slightly) in circumcised males, that doesn't mean that God didn't want it that way. Obviously you don't trust the Quran, and you go against God and call him a liar. An uncircumcised penis also has MANY benefits, not to mention that in this day and age where people regularly bath, the hygiene isn't a big issue.
I would never take a knife to my kid's dick unless he asks for it, and I'll pull a bigger knife on anybody who tries to knife to mine. voodoo
-
That's a metaphor. God didn't actually fashion us from clay, he doesn't have hands, he isn't even a he. Our bodies actually evolved from lower life forms which needed a foreskin to protect their penis from abrasion because they hadn't invented underwear. He made our soul perfect, our body is only as good as our evolutionary environment.
Since compared with our ancestors, underwear is more common and so are STDs (not just HIV- most sex viruses like HPV and syphilis aren't stopped by a condom), it makes less sense to have a foreskin and more sense to get circumcised. I honestly don't think God cares whether or not we're circumcised. It's for our benefit, not God's. It makes us cleaner and less disease prone.
-
That's a metaphor. God didn't actually fashion us from clay, he doesn't have hands, he isn't even a he. Our bodies actually evolved from lower life forms which needed a foreskin to protect their penis from abrasion because they hadn't invented underwear. He made our soul perfect, our body is only as good as our evolutionary environment.
Since compared with our ancestors, underwear is more common and so are STDs (not just HIV- most sex viruses like HPV and syphilis aren't stopped by a condom), it makes less sense to have a foreskin and more sense to get circumcised. I honestly don't think God cares whether or not we're circumcised. It's for our benefit, not God's. It makes us cleaner and less disease prone.
So when God says that we are created in the perfect form, you're saying we're not actually in the best form, we need changes, and he was just lying??
What exactly is this "metaphor" supposed to mean then, if we were intended to have bits of our bodies cut off to make us in a better form?
Hmm?
-
God didn't say that, God doesn't have a mouth. It's in the Quran and the Quran says about itself that sections of it are symbolic, 37.
Of course our physical bodies are imperfect in many ways. Without deodorant our sweat turns into bad odour and we stink. We can get lice in our hair. If we don't brush our teeth we get toothache and have to pull them out. Lots of people have jaws too small so they need to get their wisdom teeth pulled out. Our bodies are very vulnerable to a wide range of diseases that we need vaccinations to avoid. Circumcision also protects us from some diseases and makes it easier to keep the penis clean. You know in some situations you can't wash every day, like if you're a soldier in a war, or if you are a refugee fleeing a war, you might have to go for weeks without access to water you can wash with. It's much better to not have to worry about mucus from your foreskin.
When we die our bodies really, really die. That's it for them. They don't continue. Death is final for our physical bodies. Only the soul survives with God's mercy.
-
God didn't say that, God doesn't have a mouth.
Um, last time I checked, God wrote the Quran, so if God wrote something in the Quran, it was indeed himself saying that. The Quran is God's mouth. I thought I was debating a Muslim, not a kaffir. My mistake...
It's in the Quran and the Quran says about itself that sections of it are symbolic, 37.
Wow, you really need to re-read 37, if that's the interpretation you derived from it.
37 He is the One who sent down to you the book, from which there are definite signs; they are the essence of the book; and others, which are multiple-meaning. As for those who have disease in their hearts, eager to cause confusion and eager to derive their interpretation, they will follow what is multiple-meaning from it. But none knows their meaning except God and those who are well founded in knowledge; they say, "We acknowledge it, all is from our Lord." None will remember except the people of intellect.
OK, first off let's look at what "multiple meaning" actually means It means that is has 2+ meanings, while having both simultaneously. You are claiming that God made a statement that DIDN'T MEAN WHAT HE CLEARLY SAID AT ALL, but meant something else entirely. Actually you are saying that when God made a clear statement, it actually meant the complete OPPOSITE of what he just said. That's not "multiple meaning", that's just a plain LIE.
You are in fact saying that God is lying.
Secondly, you are exactly this person being spoken about in the verse where it says "As for those who have disease in their hearts, eager to cause confusion and eager to derive their interpretation, they will follow what is multiple-meaning from it."
You are the one with disease in your heart, but I already knew that since you claim that God didn't even write the Quran.
