Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Because quite simply sewing or female genital MUTILATION is pretty horrific.

How is Type I female circumcision more horrific than male?

How are a few stitches worse than cutting - at least stitching is reversible where cutting isn't.

I'm curious, is your opposition to female procedures based on your views on men and women in society - that it's more acceptable to perform unnecessary procedures on guys because of gender roles and masculinity than it is about a level headed look at how these types of procedures are actually so different?

It's extremely harmful to a woman and can cause all sorts of problems.

I hope you're actually aware of what Type I female circumcision actually is - it's the analogous procedure to male circumcision - the removal to partial removal of the clitoral hood. If it is painful or desensitizing for females, then it is just as much for males - and clearly, since male circumcision was adopted in the US for that reason, there does seem to be some evidence that both male and female (Type 1) circumcision have that effect.

Sewing is hardly hygienic is it and completely unnecessary and the point of it is what? Once again 'man's need to control women and deny them enjoyment.

That's what being discussed if you read the thread. Apparently, the 'point' of male circumcision is that Muslims believe their religion tells them to perform a procedure on infants. So I don't know how to answer your question than to say there is no point for either practice. Duh.

With circumcision, I do believe that it's cleaner and prevents certain problems and afterall it is only excess skin, that men do not need.

Go learn basic anatomy and come back to explain to me the difference between foreskin and the clitoral hood.

As far as cleanliness goes, basic hygienic practices cancel out any reason to have the procedure done. Everyone in the West has access to running water on a semi regular basis. And nothing you said explains why the procedure needs to be done on people who cannot give their consent.

I don't think you can even compare the two.

I think you should read up on the terms being discussed and read the posts in a thread before commenting.

I do believe that it's cleaner and prevents certain problems

Hold on a minute.

You 'do believe'?

So you're not even sure but your default belief is that it's ok to cut male infants?

Do you have any idea, based on everything you previously said about female circumcision, how incredibly dumb your comment is?

So eh, in summary, you are calling Jews and Muslims 'dumb' for believing that God was wise and had a good reason to require males to be circumcised.

I've detailed why it is logical for us - primarily it is because God asked us to do it, and secondly because the advantages are there, and the disadvantages are few.

You asked why it is not therefore logical to condone female circumcision. I answered that directly - it doesn't meet the criteria above - certainly not the primary one.

Now, if God himself (as you believe Jesus is God) was circumcised - is it not strange that you are arguing that God was wrong or dumb to have had the procedure done on Himself? (I presume you believe that God could have prevented His circumcision if he was wrong).

Cheers,
Shafique

I've detailed why it is logical for us - primarily it is because God asked us to do it

That's not a 'logical' reason for why society should perform unnecessary procedures on infants. I think that's obvious and doesn't need an explanation.

Did a five year old take over your computer?

We're going back to what I said about how religious fundamentalists like yourself think. I'm well aware that *you* believe this should be done because of bronze age commands but we're talking about what secular societies should allow.

and secondly because the advantages are there, and the disadvantages are few.

There are no clear medical advantages for routine circumcision in modern society.

And you have not explained why genital cutting cannot wait until the time when the person going through the procedure is mature enough to decide on his own if the benefits outweigh any risk.

Clearly given how few elective circumcisions there are, most adult males are of the opinion that these alleged 'benefits' are not worth a painful operation.

I answered that directly - it doesn't meet the criteria above - certainly not the primary one.

Wait...what is this criteria again? The non-existent medical benefits to male circumcision or that female cutting is not prescribed in two religions?

You do realize not everyone accepts your primary reason that things should be done because what scripture says. Modern society does not function that way.

(and I'm amazed this needs an explanation)

Now, if God himself (as you believe Jesus is God) was circumcised - is it not strange that you are arguing that God was wrong or dumb to have had the procedure done on Himself? (I presume you believe that God could have prevented His circumcision if he was wrong).

Jesus was also baptized. Do you Muslims believe in baptism?

Jesus was also crucified. Do you want to be crucified?

Seriously, I could go on and on with examples illustrating how your line of thinking is unbelievably stupid.

It's a moot point. No one besides you and other religious crazies would use scripture as 'proofs' for how society should operate. Again, your thinking isn't logical, it's religious fanaticism.

This thread is not about Baptism or crucifixion. I've detailed the secondary reason for Muslims and Jews to routinely circumcise males - that there are some advantages and the disadvantages are fewer. Your problem is that this view is shared by many doctors who DO recommend routine circumcision. I am not an advocate of it being compulsory, but rather it should be indeed be a valid parental choice.

My question TO YOU was related to the logic of someone who believes God was circumcised taking a stance that circumcision is dumb.

Cheers,
Shafique

Sorry, unlike Jesus' baptism, was the circumcision voluntary?



Anyways, you're free to use scripture as 'proofs' for why routine circumcision should be practiced in secular states.

I figure most will ignore such reasoning and even those who support infant circumcision have never used your arguments.

Thanks for allowing me to use scripture for the primary reason for circumcision. Are you going to steadfastly ignore that the secondary reasons make the decision logical?

Now, explain to me again why YOU believe God was circumcised, and are arguing here that Muslims and Jews are dumb for allowing it to be done.

Surely God would/could have stopped Himself from being circumcised if it was really 'dumb'.

Please explain your logic.

Cheers,
Shafique

Are you against ear piercing infants?

No medical benefit there (there's no medical benefit for male circumcision, but you've chosen to ignore that).

If you do not oppose ear piercing infants, then on what grounds can you say it's not ok to perform type 1 female circumcision on infants or genital sewing?

You know, this is basic logic, after all.

Sorry if I didn't see an explanation for why the 'secondary explanations' required a needless procedure to be done on infants to make it logical - as opposed to people of age getting it done.

Then of course we go back to why parents who want their daughters sewn/cut for cultural/religious reasons can't have the operation done as long as there is no severe adverse effect to sewing/cutting infants.

Surely God would/could have stopped Himself from being circumcised if it was really 'dumb'.

In your world, I'm sure that makes sense.

Surely God must have also stopped anyone from telling Jesus something wrong because that would be really dumb for Jesus to hear something that's incorrect.

Surely God must have prevented anyone from serving Jesus bad food....

Surely God must have provided Jesus with donkeys or wine whenever Jesus needed donkeys and wine....

Sorry, I'm not sure you explained your logic clearly for opposing a procedure that you believe God underwent Himself. Please run that by me again. You do believe God was circumcised, but you still think that Jews and Muslims are dumb for doing this.

Is this just another one of your illogical beliefs?


I explained quite patiently that the secondary reason Jews and Muslims do male circumcision shows that it is NOT pointless or without benefit. The clear logic is that God asked Muslims and Jews to perform this procedure that additionally conveys some advantages and few disadvantages.

Just because you don't agree that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages doesn't make the procedure pointless.

Cheers,
Shafique

You do believe God was circumcised, but you still think that Jews and Muslims are dumb for doing this.

I do believe Jesus was served bad food. I also believe God did not prevent Jesus from being served bad food. And I also believe that I would not want to be served bad food even in light of the above two statements being true.

Is that so hard to understand?

Is this just another one of your illogical beliefs?

Sure, whatever you need to tell yourself.

Just because you don't agree that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages doesn't make the procedure pointless.

Sorry, how is it more or less pointless than female genital sewing or cutting?

You do realize that 'because God says so' is not a logical argument, right?

I'm not asking about Jesus and food.

I'm asking for YOUR logic concerning God being circumcised, and then calling Muslim and Jews 'dumb' for carrying out this procedure.

Your non-answer is indeed unfathomable as an answer to this question. (And trying your best to ignore that we do have logical primary AND secondary reasons for circumcision is getting tiresome.)

Cheers,
Shafique

Your non-answer is indeed unfathomable as an answer to this question. (And trying your best to ignore that we do have logical primary AND secondary reasons for circumcision is getting tiresome.)

I explained why religious reasons for circumcising infants in a secular society are irrelevant. Your explanation does not explain WHY HOSPITALS SHOULD PERFORM THE PROCEDURE. It only addresses why parents would want the cutting done.

That was one of the dumbest and poorly crafted arguments I've read in favor of circumcision. Even pro-infant circumcision advocates have never expressed why hospitals should cut male infants for those reasons.

But what's interesting is that you concede non-Jewish/Muslim families who opt to have their infant sons circumcised do not have a 'logical' primary reason for the genital cutting - yet you've said you do not support female infant genital cutting or sewing for that reason.

So why can parents who are not religious have their infant sons circumcised but parents with infant girls cannot have their daughters cut or sewn?

You're still avoiding the question posed to you (by so blatantly moving goal posts, it is not funny).

I'm asking for YOUR logic concerning God being circumcised, and then calling Muslim and Jews 'dumb' for carrying out this procedure.

I refer you to my, Chocs etc previous answers concerning genital sewing and male circumcision. The arguments and answers haven't changed.

Your squirming is getting unbearable to behold. Why don't you just answer the question?

Cheers,
Shafique

I have answered the question and parodied the ridiculousness of your point.

The bottom line is there is no *logical* reason to say female cutting (Type 1 female circumcision) or sewing should not be allowed if male circumcision is.

Now you're imagining you answered the question? C'mon eh, this excuse would embarrass all your friends.

We've already given you the logic behind why we don't agree with your view.

What you haven't done is explain why you think it is dumb for Jews and Muslims to be circumcised when you believe God Himself was circumcised. Where is your logic on this point? (Talking about food or baptism is not answering the question).

Cheers,
Shafique

Is allah circumcised?

Nice to see you down here FD. Eh is avoiding the place, and herve has still to answer why he gave a selective Quranic quote without a reference, and appears to have left out a whole verse.. but whilst we wait for their return, let's see what enlightened point you want to make...

Hmm..

Flying Dutchman wrote:Is allah circumcised?

Ok, let me assume it is a genuine question.

Firstly, the Quran is silent on the matter. It does talk of God's hands - but they are normally taken to be figurative.

The Quran does clearly state that God has not taken the form of a man, so in that regard, the point is moot. He doesn't have a physical body.

That said, the Bible does say that God took the form of man. Twice at least. Once when He appeared to Abraham, in the OT, and then as Jesus (according to NT). We know that Jesus was circumcised, and Christians believe him to be God. I'm not sure whether the Bible says that God's first appearance as man he was circumcised. I suspect the OT is silent on this point.

See - no name calling required. You were interested in the Answer weren't you?

Cheers,
Shafique

Please don't confuse your inability to answer questions logically with claiming others are avoiding your questions.

No one has been able to provide even the slightest reason why female infants can't be sewn up if male infants are cut up.

I called your argument dumb and got tired "arguing" with someone without any basic common sense.

You're the one who is confused eh. I suggest you read the opening pages again and see the reasons people gave to disagree with your thread title's supposition.

Now we've moved on to the question why you think Muslims and Jews are dumb for having male circumcission as a rite, whilst you believe that God himself was circumcised.

Cheers,
Shafique

Now we've moved on to the question why you think Muslims and Jews are dumb for having male circumcission as a rite, whilst you believe that God himself was circumcised.

I've called your argument dumb, nice try.

I suggest you read the opening pages again and see the reasons people gave to disagree with your thread title's supposition.

Every so called reason has been addressed and didn't deal with why female sewing should be illegal if male cutting is legal.

Just say you're embarrassed to call Muslims and Jews dumb and yet hold the belief that God Himself was circumcised.

You believe God was circumcised, Muslims and Jews follow this same practice. We don't agree that female genital sewing meets the same logical criteria.

Cheers,
Shafique

Just say you're embarrassed to call Muslims and Jews dumb and yet hold the belief that God Himself was circumcised.

Please, stop being an idiot.

I called your line of reasoning dumb.

You believe God was circumcised, Muslims and Jews follow this same practice. We don't agree that female genital sewing meets the same logical criteria.

Let me know what your brilliant argument has to do with why female sewing should be illegal if male cutting is legal.

I'm still waiting for your brilliant argument why circumcision is dumb when carried out by Muslims and Jews, and yet you believe God was circumcised.

If you want to sew up your daughter and wish it to be legal, go ahead. The rest of us have told you why male circumcision is not dumb, but logical, and why female circumcision doesn't meet the same criteria. You, bizarely, are arguing that female sewing be also be allowed. That's just weird.

But I sense a back pedal coming along.

God himself was circumcised, you believe. Therefore it is logical and not dumb to be circumcised? Or is God illogical and dumb?

Which is it?

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm still waiting for your brilliant argument why circumcision is dumb when carried out by Muslims and Jews, and yet you believe God was circumcised.

I explained why it's dumb for the state to say one form of genital modification is "ok" but the other isn't.

You, bizarely, are arguing that female sewing be also be allowed. That's just weird.

It's based on the logical reasons I've given. Try reading the thread.

You call the logical reasons why Muslims and Jews circumcise male children 'dumb' - but yet believe God himself was circumcised. Why is that?

Did you not read the logical reasons why God, Jews and Muslims are circumcised?

We don't agree with your logic about female sewing - so any conclusions you reach from your logic, will not be reached by us.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf sinciere request, will you stop feeding the troll and let him wither away already. Its been over two years now and he still likes a good drubbing since the first day he walked in here, I know you dont want to let go of your play thing but I think its high time to let him go now. Lead him towards the light at the end of tunnel shaf I know you can do it !

Did you not read the logical reasons why God, Jews and Muslims are circumcised?

I never asked nor is this thread about the religious reasons for why Muslims and Jews circumcise male infants.

You call the logical reasons why Muslims and Jews circumcise male children 'dumb'

I called your arguments in this thread dumb. Go back and read posts instead of making up arguments no poster has made.

-- Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:02 pm --

desertdudeshj wrote:Shaf sinciere request, will you stop feeding the troll and let him wither away already. Its been over two years now and he still likes a good drubbing since the first day he walked in here, I know you dont want to let go of your play thing but I think its high time to let him go now. Lead him towards the light at the end of tunnel shaf I know you can do it !

You keep saying others get a drubbing but your barely comprehensible posts seem like someone's taken a golf club to your head every time you attempt to scratch out more than a few words.

eh - you're not getting anyone to agree with your logic.

May I suggest you turn your attention to the unanswered questions awaiting your attention - eg your new religion where Hindus don't go to hell, but are 'damned' and 'condemned'. (The question was where do they go, in your new religion?)

Cheers,
Shafique

Are you daft? The OP is a rhetorical question.

If you allow one, then you allow another.

If one is banned, then the other should be as well.

It's as simple as that.

You not understanding logical arguments doesn't change the fact there is no reason why female sewing should be illegal if male circumcision isn't.

eh - I answered you directly here:
philosophy-dubai/circumcision-logical-why-isn-genital-sewing-t47567-15.html#p388724

Moving on..
Looks like FD's question was a 'smash and grab' question.

But I am intrigued - what does the Bible say about God when he appeared to Abraham as a man? Was He circumcised then or not? (Not a rhetorical question - and addressed to anyone who knows)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:But I am intrigued - what does the Bible say about God when he appeared to Abraham as a man? Was He circumcised then or not? (Not a rhetorical question - and addressed to anyone who knows)

God Almighty takes many forms Shaf... Circumcised, and alah natural

Let’s analyse your theory of evolution:
The foreskin was intended to protect the male appendage in the absence of clothing. Good theory so far.
It became redundant once 'modern' man started wearing clothes and therefore should be removed.
I agree with it possibly being redundant, but do not agree that this justifies its removal. I have another theory, but before I get to that,
We do not need our tonsils, but they are not removed unless they continually become infected.
We do not need our appendix, but it isn't removed unless necessary.
We do not need our wisdom teeth, but they are not removed unless they cause pain.
We do not need hair, so why not just shave it all off, or have a total back, crack, sack, body wax/laser treatment.

It is more likely, that rather than Shaf's vestigial appendages theory, this is in fact a vestigial belief that has become itself redundant more recently.
It is more likely that poor personal hygiene previously necessitated the need for removal of the foreskin.
This is no longer a problem for most of us.
There are other examples of vestigial beliefs. Eating poorly cooked meat, esp. pork, necessitated the need to remove it from the diet. This is no longer a problem. Although, pork remains one of the more 'toxic' meats on the menu, it won't kill you overnight as it did during the dawn of Islam.

We both agree that the foreskin is possibly redundant, but I don’t see any need for its removal, other than for purely religious reasons. Then again, if it isn’t in the Quran, there is no ‘need’ for it is there?

If only Mohammed had known that uncircumcised men are more sensitive under the foreskin and feel more pleasure, perhaps he would have had second thoughts.
Oh that’s right, He was of course thinking of females after all.
Less sensitivity results in longer staying power, and therefore more pleasure for the female who generally takes longer to achieve orgasm.

Which leads me to the next hit and run question. Do female orgasms exist in Islam?