Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

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?

Yes they do.

(As for the previous points, you'll note that I gave the primary and secondary reasons for the logic of male circumcission - and that my explanation of vestigial nature of the foreskin was just a thought I had that makes sense to me.).

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Yes they do.

In the Quran??

shafique wrote:(As for the previous points, you'll note that I gave the primary and secondary reasons for the logic of male circumcission - and that my explanation of vestigial nature of the foreskin was just a thought I had that makes sense to me.)

If it isn't in the Quran, you don't need to do it, so your primary reason is null and void.

How to pray is not in the Quran. Does that mean we don't have to pray in the way we do 5 times a day?
(The details are in Sunnah - what the Prophet did and taught people to do - and Hadith - what the Prophet instructed. After the Quran, sunnah is next then Hadith)

However, as the extract below shows - Quranic verses and Hadith are there..

"Women shall have rights similar to the rights upon them; according to what is equitable and just; and men have a degree of advantage over them." (Quran, 2:216)

They do indeed! This passage of the Holy Quran was revealed in connection with the rights of women following a divorce, but it also has a general sense. One basic right of every person taking on a contract never to have sex other than with their own legitimate partner is that each spouse should therefore provide sexual fulfillment (imta') to the other, as part of the bargain.
...
It is not acceptable for a Muslim man just to satisfy himself while ignoring his wife's needs. Experts agree that the basic psychological need of a man is respect, while that of a woman is love. Neither respect nor love are things that can be forced--they have to be worked for, and earned. The Prophet (s) stated that in one's sexual intimacy with one's life partner there is sadaqa (worship through giving):

God's Messenger(s) said: "In the sexual act of each of you there is a sadaqa." The Companions replied: "0 Messenger of God! When one of us fulfils his sexual desire, will he be given a reward for that?" And he said, "Do you not think that were he to act upon it unlawfully, he would be sinning? Likewise, if he acts upon it lawfully he will be rewarded." (Muslim)

This hadith only makes sense if the sexual act is raised above the mere animal level.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/ruqaiyyah03.htm

Also - one of the valid grounds for divorce for a woman is that the husband doesn't satisfy her in bed. Therefore, the answer to your question was 'yes'.


Cheers,
Shafique