Facts on Circumcision
-
i think means those who keep ( rather than cover) their private parts from fornication and keep them to their husbands/wives or what thier right hands posses according to this verse
235
I know; I was just giving example to explain my point (please refer to my post)
Still it doesnt fit with the context , and as i mentioned it doesnt seems to be approved or encouraged by god.
As far as fitting with the context of the verse, I think it can fit; and if it does, thin, God does not approve nor encourage Circumcision (and that is what I'm trying to imply).
Peace Belal,
Did the god say that the Torah talked about in the great reading is the Old Testament? This is a baseless assumption.
Peace,
Ayman
Peace Ayman
I was told that the Old Testament is the Torah and the Bible is the Injeel. If you think otherwise, please let me know which books are the Torah and Injeel. -
Peace,
There's no rule in the Quran dictating that submitters must perform circumcision (khitaan) rituals. That's a manmade innovation that many sectarian Muslims have derived from the Jews... Allah never gives this command, and in fact, the scriptures state the opposite
"And I (alshaytaan/the devil) will mislead them, I will entice them, I will command them to mark the ears of livestock, and I will command them to distort the creation of Allah." Anyone who accepts the devil as a lord, instead of Allah, has incurred a profound loss. (4119)
Now, does this necessarily mean that Allah did not prescribe circumcision for the Israelites? No. We can't determine what their scriptures state in the Torah (and Tanakh) because they were written in Hebrew, and we don't have any of their original scriptural copies. However, we do know that physical circumcision is not prescribed in the Quran, which is complete, perfect, fully detailed, and it explains all things (Quran 6114-115; 1689; 638; 12111).
The Quran mentions the "ummiyoon"/people who haven't received a scripture as receiving the Quran, and they didn't know the previous scripture except through hearsay and conjecture (27. Since Muhammad was included as one of these people, called "alnabiya al-ummiya"/the gentile prophet (or the prophet who hasn't received a previous scripture), he was also included among those who didn't know the Tavrat and Injeel. Therefore, everything he learned about those books came in the form of the Quran; and as we know, the Quran doesn't mention anything about Abraham and his sons being "circumcised". So, since we should get all our religious guidance from the QURAN ALONE, we shouldn't view it as "obligatory" to circumcise males; rather, it's a matter of personal choice...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Why i have sensed otherwise ??? )
In my initial post, I may showed that I'm in favor of the circumcision due to the reference in the Old Testament; but then I realized that the translation of the Old testament can be misleading, and that is why I'm asking for an Expert help in Hebrew language. Moreover, I mentioned the verses in Quran in which the Arabic word "Ketan" (means circumcision in the Arabic dictionary) is not favored by God. Sorry for the confusion confused
-
Peace Belal,
So do you agree that the word "Khitaan" means circumcision?
The word "khitaan" doesn't necessarily mean circumcision, but this is one of the meanings that people use for the word, especially in relation to Israelite customs. So, in modern terminology, it could refer to the act of circumcision.
What do you think about its reference in verse 2-187 and 4-107.
The passage in 2187 would be completely inapplicable to circumcision, and it wouldn't even make sense in that context... Now, I guess, depending on your interpretation, you can translate 4107 as
And do not dispute about those who CIRCUMCISE themselves, for Allah does not love the often unfaithful, criminal. (4107)
The problem with this translation, though, is it implies that it is absolutely forbidden ("haraam" to circumcise our bodies, even to the point of saying that God doesn't love the circumcised ones. And this is not compatible with the scriptures either, since there's no scripture that actually forbids circumcision. Plus, this verse is not directly speaking about the Jews, who practice ritual circumcision ("brit milah" it could be speaking about anyone. Based on this, I think the current translation of "yakhtanoon" is correct. It's a Hebrew term that means "betray", and this is why many translators have cited it as "betray themselves" or "betray their souls". Referring to it as "circumcise their souls" wouldn't make any sense, and saying it means "circumcise themselves" gives the impression that circumcision is wrong, which is incorrect...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
What for a circumcision is necessary is the question? According to Quran Allah likes who are pure and Allah loves whoso maintains his purity; one way of physical purity is taking bath; and another way is ablution. We do not talk about mental purity here for circumcision is all about physical in nature. There is not at all any difficulty to clean up the foreskin of the male genital each time you urinate. Now if only we follow Allah and Quran where is the question of being dirty over there if you stick to your duty of maintaining your cleanliness? If you want to do away with your foreskin, it means you are so lazy to stay clean as per the decree in Quran. Circumcision is anti Quran!
.
-
Peace all
This in reference to Genesis 1710 that I posted earlier.
I did my own research in the translation and found the following
The Hebrew word "EMUL" is the word that is being translated to the English word circumcise. but when I copied the word and paste it in two different Hebrew to English translation tools (http//www.stars21.com/translator/hebrew_to_english.html & http//translate.google.com/) the resulted English word is "Against"Here were I found word by word Torah translation http//www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
Thus, The Torah, in its original hebrew language, does not call for circumcision but the translation does.
I hope that all of you not to ignore the Torah and Bible due to their translation, and use all your effort to study it in order to reveal the true meaning, as you are doing with Quran.
Peace
-
Peace,
What for a circumcision is necessary is the question? According to Quran Allah likes who are pure and Allah loves whoso maintains his purity; one way of physical purity is taking bath; and another way is ablution. We do not talk about mental purity here for circumcision is all about physical in nature. There is not at all any difficulty to clean up the foreskin of the male genital each time you urinate. Now if only we follow Allah and Quran where is the question of being dirty over there if you stick to your duty of maintaining your cleanliness? If you want to do away with your foreskin, it means you are so lazy to stay clean as per the decree in Quran. Circumcision is anti Quran!
.
Since body is perfect, is clipping toenails, beards, hair, warts, women shaving legs, eyebrows, etc., anti Quran?
-
Peace Belal,
This in reference to Genesis 1710 that I posted earlier.
I did my own research in the translation and found the following
The Hebrew word "EMUL" is the word that is being translated to the English word circumcise. but when I copied the word and paste it in two different Hebrew to English translation tools (http//www.stars21.com/translator/hebrew_to_english.html & http//translate.google.com/) the resulted English word is "Against"Here were I found word by word Torah translation http//www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
Thus, The Torah, in its original hebrew language, does not call for circumcision but the translation does.
The Hebrew uses the word "emul", which literally means to cut off or cleanse. In this context, it's derived from the word "milaa/meela/milyah" (MLYa), which specifically refers to circumcision and purification. So, yes, this Hebrew text is definately calling for them to be circumcised... However, we don't know if this is the original text, or if this was something that was later added into the scriptures. This is not even the real Torah that the Quran refers to throughout the scriptures; this is the scholars' interpretations and ideologies regarding what the original scriptures were saying... Based on many Hebrew writings, the concept of circumcision was not added into the Torah until long after Moses died, and some say that it was added by the scribes and scholars, who based the scriptures on their beliefs and interpretations. Others say that other laws within the Torah actually forbid acts like circumcision. There's no way we can determine when this covenant of circumcision (or "brith milah" was written into the scriptures, since there's no discovered original copy of this Hebrew scripture in existence; the oldest ones are in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. These all came long after the original scripture (law of Moses) was said to be destroyed by the Babylonians during the Israelite exile... There are several Jewish sects that reject the concept of circumcision.
http//jewishcircumcision.org/
Others post their personal and scientific views on circumcision, even in relation to Judaism and Islam
http//www.circinfo.com/myths/myths_and_lies2.html
http//www.cirp.org/library/history/All in all, it doesn't really matter. The Quran doesn't reject the practice of circumcision, nor does it support it. Calling it "unquranic" is ridiculous, since the Quran doesn't mention anything about muslims rejecting or supporting the practice of circumcision. It's a personal choice, and it's at the discretion of the parents or the persons being circumcised. If GOD didn't forbid it, then it's not forbidden...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Belal,
The Hebrew uses the word "emul", which literally means to cut off or cleanse. In this context, it's derived from the word "milaa/meela/milyah" (MLYa), which specifically refers to circumcision and purification.
Peace
As we all know, Prophet Mohamed was not a Jew nor Christian, and therefore, He was not circumcised. Moreover, there is no Hadith nor a Quranic verse in which the prophet was ordered to be circumcised.
As far as the word "emul", literary, it does not refer to the act of cutting of the foreskin of the male private part; how would Ebrahim know that, when it was not known in his time, a simple word as Emul means a great deal of action. an action that requires a sophisticated medical operation and a special tools. How would Ebrahim would figure all that by himself using one word "Emul"?That was my thoughts about circumcision, which can be wrong.
May God lead us to his Light.
-
Pseudo,
Preserve the beauty in which a child is born! When it is born it is not delivered with long toenails, beards, hairs in odd places, warts etc. Therefore whoever grows all these without cutting and clipping, all of them are anti quran.
Since body is perfect, is clipping toenails, beards, hair, warts, women shaving legs, eyebrows, etc., anti Quran?
Peace.
. -
Peace,
As we all know, Prophet Mohamed was not a Jew nor Christian, and therefore, He was not circumcised. Moreover, there is no Hadith nor a Quranic verse in which the prophet was ordered to be circumcised.
This is FALSE. Although the Quran doesn't mention the practice of circumcision ("khitaan", the hadiths do speak of it as being the duty of all followers of Muhammad (muslimeen). For example, according to the book by Al-Shawkani ("Nayl al-Awtar", 1/184)
"What the Prophet (s.A.w.) means by Fitrah is that if these characteristics are followed by a man, he would be described as a man of Fitrah, which Allah (s.w.t.) has gifted his servants with, and encouraged them to follow, so that they attain a high degree of respectability and dignity."
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, "Five are the acts quite akin to fitrah circumcision, clipping or shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking or shaving the hair under the armpits, and clipping (or shaving) the moustache." (Reported in Bukhari & Muslim)
Also, according to the Quran, Muhammad was a follower of "almilaatu Ibraheem" (the religion of Abraham), and according to the hadiths, circumcision was definately part of Abraham's religion
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said "The Prophet Ibrahim circumcised himself when he was eighty years old and he circumcised himself with an axe." (Related by Bukhari, Muslim & Ahmad)
Ibn Abbas (r.a.) was asked "How old were you when the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) died?" He replied, "At that time I had been circumcised. At that time people did not circumcise the boys till they attained the age of puberty (Baligh)." (Bukhari)
Also
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) performed the Aqiqah of al-Hasan and al-Hussein (the prophet's grandsons) and circumcised them on the 7th day." (Related in al-Bayhaq & Tabarani)
"Circumcision is recommended to be performed on the seventh day of infancy-the day of Aqiqah." (Al-Majmu 1/303)
The hadiths absolutely mention circumcision is an obligatory ritual for all Muslim males, and not doing so is rejecting the true religion of Abraham, which, according to them, required males to be circumcised... Now, even though these are mentioned in the hadiths, those who take religious guidance from the QURAN ALONE shouldn't base their views of circumcision on these anyway. Rather, we should pay attention to the fact that the Quran doesn't mention circumcision at all. Yes, submission (and monotheism) is called the religion of Abraham. However, the Quran doesn't mention ANY of the prophets, even the Hebrews, being circumcised. Not Moses, not Jesus, not David, not Solomon, not Isaac or Ismail, not Jacob or Joseph, NONE OF THEM... I think this is strange, since during that period, according to the Bible, circumcision was widely practiced by the Jews are part of their covenant with GOD. So, why don't the scriptures mention any of them being circumcised?
Maybe circumcision was instituted much later, and scholars and scribes added it into the Pentateuch after the death of Jesus. Or maybe it wasn't significant enough for the Quran to mention it. Maybe it's only advised to the Israelites, not to the gentiles, the group in which Muhammad was a part... We don't know. All we know for sure is that the Quran doesn't mention it anywhere...
As far as the word "emul", literary, it does not refer to the act of cutting of the foreskin of the male private part; how would Ebrahim know that, when it was not known in his time, a simple word as Emul means a great deal of action. an action that requires a sophisticated medical operation and a special tools. How would Ebrahim would figure all that by himself using one word "Emul"?
In order to understand this, you have to understand the basis of Hebrew tales and traditions. For example, according to an Israelite traditional story, the first man circumcised was Adam. According to this story, Adam repented after he trangressed in the garden, and he sharpened a blade and tried to circumcise himself; but he didn't know what he was doing. So, GOD, seeing that Adam was about to accidentally chop off his "private part" (LOL), sent down the angel Gabriel to teach Adam how to properly circumcise himself in order to be acceptable to GOD. This knowledge was passed down through the generations, but it was never made obligatory until it was included as part of Abraham's covenant with GOD. By the time GOD instructed Abraham to be circumcised, Abraham was fully aware of what circumcision was... Again, this is a traditional Hebrew story, and we really don't know if it is factual or not; all we know for sure is that the Quran doesn't mention this story or anyone else's circumcision...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
This is FALSE. Although the Quran doesn't mention the practice of circumcision ("khitaan", the hadiths do speak of it as being the duty of all followers of Muhammad (muslimeen). For example, according to the book by Al-Shawkani ("Nayl al-Awtar", 1/184)
"What the Prophet (s.A.w.) means by Fitrah is that if these characteristics are followed by a man, he would be described as a man of Fitrah, which Allah (s.w.t.) has gifted his servants with, and encouraged them to follow, so that they attain a high degree of respectability and dignity."
Ahamed;
I'm saying there is no mentioning of Prophet Mohamed being circumcised.All the stories you mentioned are rummer (type of hadith). it seams that the Jews have picked this habit from the Egyptian while they were living in Egypt.
http//eastwindupchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/svegypt_wideweb__470x32901.jpg
-
Peace Belal,
I was told that the Old Testament is the Torah and the Bible is the Injeel. If you think otherwise, please let me know which books are the Torah and Injeel.
That is what we were all told but like many things we were told, this is baseless. Not only their books but the Jews and the Nasara themselves talked about in the great reading and who lived in the prophet's town had probably different beliefs to the average Jew and Christian of today. In fact, the word Christian ("Masi7i" never occurs in the great reading. Trinitarians (573) and Monophysites (572) are condemned as "kuffar" and are never described as "people of the book". So their book cannot be the "Injeel". Also, according to the great reading, Jesus brought the good news of a messenger named Ahmed to come after him. Yet in the New Testament there is no mention or even allusion to this Ahmed or a new prophet. Christians believe in the second coming but not in a new prophet. Also, according to the great reading, the Jews claimed that Ezra is the son of god and yet no Jewish sect we know of holds such belief. So again when the great reading talks about Jews and Nasara and Torah and Injeel, it refers to different people with different beliefs and books to what we know today.
As for your question about which books are the Torah and Injeel, the same exact question can be asked about the Zabour of David and the scripture ("su7uf" of Ibrahim, also mentioned in the great reading. The answer is the same in all those cases.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman and all
Ayman I hate to hijack the thread from its main point; but I will answer briefly to you comments.That is what we were all told but like many things we were told, this is baseless. Not only their books but the Jews and the Nasara themselves talked about in the great reading and who lived in the prophet's town had probably different beliefs to the average Jew and Christian of today.
that is not true, the Nassara called Jesus son of God during the prophet, and the Jews behaved hostile toward the prophet and their believe were the same as today.
In fact, the word Christian ("Masi7i" never occurs in the great reading.
Christians and Catholics and any other name are not only non Arabic names, but are names for the different sects of Nasara. As we all name, Sunies and shias are a perfect examples of Sects who carry the True Book without following it.
Also, according to the great reading, Jesus brought the good news of a messenger named Ahmed to come after him. Yet in the New Testament there is no mention or even allusion to this Ahmed or a new prophet.
Please watch this and the other parts for whereis truth in youtube and you will know that not all christian are the same and where in the bible prophet mohamed is mentioned.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wauGA82_hM&feature=channel
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UWXm6QaMdE&feature=channelPeace...I hope you will enjoy watching; and when finishing you will note the wisdom of knowing the three books.
-
That is what we were all told but like many things we were told, this is baseless. Not only their books but the Jews and the Nasara themselves talked about in the great reading and who lived in the prophet's town had probably different beliefs to the average Jew and Christian of today.
Yes early jews have way more different views than one now also same thing as christians
In fact, the word Christian ("Masi7i" never occurs in the great reading. Trinitarians (573) and Monophysites (572) are condemned as "kuffar" and are never described as "people of the book". So their book cannot be the "Injeel".
I can't read arabic so I don't know how verifiable is of what you just said, but qur'an came to confirm the gospel/torah actually I agree with you Injeel I would believe would be the words that jesus spoke in his ministry to jews...actually qur'an talked against a sect of christians that believed mary as a GOD(which I can't remember the sect name but there clearly spoken against in the qur'an)
Also, according to the great reading, Jesus brought the good news of a messenger named Ahmed to come after him. Yet in the New Testament there is no mention or even allusion to this Ahmed or a new prophet.
Actually there is, new testament writers just hide it..
http//www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htm
Christians believe in the second coming but not in a new prophet. Also, according to the great reading, the Jews claimed that Ezra is the son of god and yet no Jewish sect we know of holds such belief. So again when the great reading talks about Jews and Nasara and Torah and Injeel, it refers to different people with different beliefs and books to what we know today.
I'd have to correct you here, actually christians do believe in more prophets(Elijah is suppose to come back at the last days) + in bible it says "beware of false prophet" why would they beware of something that isn't suppose to come.
Umm, if I remember right, the original(maybe with an "s" at the end) old testament got destroyed when jews went into exile, and ezra was in charge of re-writing the old testament by memory. So basically there following what ezra could remember, which is why he might have gotten isaac and ishmael(for who got sacraficed) confused, so technically there following what ezra could remember....and if that's the case there taking him as a "god" if we can go there....
As for your question about which books are the Torah and Injeel, the same exact question can be asked about the Zabour of David and the scripture ("su7uf" of Ibrahim, also mentioned in the great reading. The answer is the same in all those cases.
I never heard of a 'scripture' of ibrahim, maybe I mis-interpreted what your were trying to say
The qur'an says it came to confirm previous scriptures...it can't really confirm something that doesn't exist...
Peace
-
Peace Belal,
that is not true, the Nassara called Jesus son of God during the prophet, and the Jews behaved hostile toward the prophet and their believe were the same as today.
The Jews that the prophet was addressing believed that Ezra was the son of the god (see 930) and none of the Jews today believe such a thing so either you think that 930 is false or what you are saying is false.
Christians and Catholics and any other name are not only non Arabic names, but are names for the different sects of Nasara. As we all name, Sunies and shias are a perfect examples of Sects who carry the True Book without following it.
Ask any Catholic and he will tell you that Catholics are a sect of Christians. They are not different sects. Catholics are Trinitarians and Trinitarians are described as "kuffar"/rejecters in the great reading. They are never described as Nasara. Nasara must be a group that didn't believe in a Trinity but believed in Jesus being a human son of god.
Please watch this and the other parts for whereis truth in youtube and you will know that not all christian are the same and where in the bible prophet mohamed is mentioned.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wauGA82_hM&feature=channel
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UWXm6QaMdE&feature=channel
Peace...I hope you will enjoy watching; and when finishing you will note the wisdom of knowing the three books.No thanks, but I don't want to waste my time watching missionary videos or assume that the Bible is equivalent to the Torah and Injeel talked about in the great reading based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Perhaps there are very few remnants from the Torah and Injeel in the Bible but the only way to identify those is that they are 100% confirmed by the great reading. Of course, this means that all we need is the great reading anyway.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace RT,
Yes early jews have way more different views than one now also same thing as christians
I totally agree. This is evident from the great reading. Since their beliefs were based on their books, so their books must have also been different.
I can't read arabic so I don't know how verifiable is of what you just said, but qur'an came to confirm the gospel/torah actually I agree with you Injeel I would believe would be the words that jesus spoke in his ministry to jews...actually qur'an talked against a sect of christians that believed mary as a GOD(which I can't remember the sect name but there clearly spoken against in the qur'an)
Yes, there were fringe Christian sects who idolized Mary and there is definitely continued idolization of Mary.
The Arabic word for Christian is "Masihi" and this word never occurs in the great reading.
Actually there is, new testament writers just hide it..
http//www.answering-christianity.com/prediction.htmI think that the real Injeel would have stated the news of the coming prophet unambiguously. So just the fact that one has to stretch and come up with all sorts of far and wide explanations to make it appear that this what the New Testament may be saying is an indication that this is not the real words of the Injeel that Jesus delivered.
I'd have to correct you here, actually christians do believe in more prophets(Elijah is suppose to come back at the last days) + in bible it says "beware of false prophet" why would they beware of something that isn't suppose to come.
Some would interpret this warning differently. As I said and you acknowledge, Christians believe in last days come backs and not in new prophets.
Umm, if I remember right, the original(maybe with an "s" at the end) old testament got destroyed when jews went into exile, and ezra was in charge of re-writing the old testament by memory. So basically there following what ezra could remember, which is why he might have gotten isaac and ishmael(for who got sacraficed) confused, so technically there following what ezra could remember....and if that's the case there taking him as a "god" if we can go there....
This is not what is indicated by 930, especially in light of the parallel drawn between Jesus and Ezra.
I never heard of a 'scripture' of ibrahim, maybe I mis-interpreted what your were trying to say
See 8719 which clearly indicates that Abraham was given a scripture exactly like Moses was given a scripture. How come people here are not clamoring for us to "note the wisdom of knowing the scripture of Abraham"?
The qur'an says it came to confirm previous scriptures...it can't really confirm something that doesn't exist...
Yes it can. In the same way that it confirms the scripture of Abraham that doesn't currently exist.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Belal,
The Jews that the prophet was addressing believed that Ezra was the son of the god (see 930) and none of the Jews today believe such a thing so either you think that 930 is false or what you are saying is false.
Peace
Ayman, every day a new sect emerges from Islam, Christianity and Judaism but the Book of God stays the same.
What you are trying to use as an evidence is not enough. The Jews whom believed that Ezra is the son of God is one of the sects who carry the Torah without knowledge; thus, you can not say that because the sects believe changed therefore, the Torah is different or changed.Ask any Catholic and he will tell you that Catholics are a sect of Christians. They are not different sects. Catholics are Trinitarians and Trinitarians are described as "kuffar"/rejecters in the great reading. They are never described as Nasara. Nasara must be a group that didn't believe in a Trinity but believed in Jesus being a human son of god.
What do you think about how God describes Suni or Shia? please note that Suni and shia carry the Quran.
By the way, you used the Jews example as an evidence; now, how about christian whom said Almashia son of God in the same verse 9-30, do they exist today? and if they do, therefore they are Nasara and not Christian, per 930.
Peace