Infant Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation without Consent

[PointOfViewGun]

You repeatedly ignored the point I have made that destroys your argument. A practice does not have to be universal for the something to be consider a practice of that religion. Sharia is Islamic religious law, and as long as just one major school of of Sharia law recommends FGM, then FGM is an Islam religious practice and it is a lie to say that Islam has nothing to do with the practice of FGM as you repeatedly do.

You persist in a fallacy, that a practice has to be performed by all members of that religion for it to be a practice of the religion. For example, not every Christian gets married, but that does not mean that the Christian marriage ceremony isn't a Christian rite, as your logic says. Not every Catholic gives up something for lent, but still we can say giving up something for lent is a Catholic practice, even if not all Catholics observe this.

It is you that defy all logic. If FGM was an Indonesia practice, then non-Muslim Indonesian would practice FGM, but they don't FGM is a Muslim Indonesia practice
A practice is a religious practice if the reason people do it. That is the case of FGM. Muslims perform FGM because Muslims think FGM is an Islamic religious duty. Maybe not all Muslims, but many Muslims do perform FGM strictly because they regard it as an Islamic religious duty and that makes FGM an Islamic practice. FGM being required in some schools of Sharia, Muslim clerics supporting FGM in the largest Muslim country, and opinion polls of Muslims prove that FGM is an Islamic religious practice, and the stated reasons perform is their Islamic religious belief, not local customs .

As far as Africa Christian bringing FGM to Indonesia, that completely laughable speculation, thay has no basis in reality, and just arises from your denial of Islamic responsibility

There is nothing in the Quran about make circumcision, but all Muslims practice it. Something does not have to be in the Quran or even in the Hadith for it nevertheless to be Islamic.

That statement is completely untue. Major text Sharia law recommends FGM, so what you say is not true. I already gave examples of Sharia law. To assert that works like the "Reliance of the Traveller" are not major Islamic text would be a lie, aa well as asserting that text of Sharia law.

Also, there are a number of Islamic Sunnah that talk about females being circumcized

https://sunnah.com/adab/53

Irrelevant, since I never said that FGM was practice by all Muslims. FGM is not practiced by the majority of the world, but of those who practice FGM, the majority are Muslims, and the reason many of the Muslims practice FGM is their Islamic religion.

Contrary to what you try to assert, Indonesia is not sone fringe Muslim country. To complain about me bringing up Indonesia but for to bring up Nigeria, which is not the world's largest Christian and where Christian leaders are not advocating the practice is really a case of hypocrisy.

Please pay attention to what we argue and within what context we argue them. Otherwise, it appears that you're projecting... I have not ignored your claim that for some practice to be attributed to a particular religion it doesn't need to be universal. I didn't even argue that it had to be universal. That's your invention. You kept banking on that note to ignore what I actually argued; which was the fact that practice of FGM is only present in a fraction of the Muslim community. Notice how you bank on Indonesia but ignore next three countries with the Muslim populations in the world. Interestingly, you even shy away from quoting that part of my post. So, let me repeat, while the practice is widespread in Indonesia, it is confined to small minorities (as in less than 1-2%) in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh that house over half a billion Muslims. That shows us that its not an Islamic practice but an Indonesian practice. You could say it's an Indonesian Islamic practice if you can't live without using the word "Islamic" in there. What made it there was not Islam itself, however, but of local practices by Muslims from a different area. As I said, if the right kind of Christians established a strong foothold in Indonesia compared to the right kind of Muslims then you could easily have FGM as an Indonesian "Christian" practice there.

Earlier you brought up the claim that there is "no major Christian religious documents recommends FGM as an religious obligation" which I responded by pointing out the same for Islam. You are taking an issue out of that. Now, that's hypocrisy. Meanwhile, you continue to use the term "Sharia" incorrectly as you ignore my attempts to explain it. Moreover, you incorrectly attack the fact that no major Islamic text, being the Quran and Hadith (the most trusted 6 books), which are the sources for Sharia laws, recommends FGM. Even in many of the weak Hadiths the practice is merely mentioned in passing with no recommendation or veneration.

If the reason for Muslims practicing FGM is their religion you have to explain why it doesn't apply to most Muslims. Somehow the idea that most of those that practice FGM are Muslims means that its an Islamic practice by nature, but when most Muslims do not practice it you call it irrelevant. Pretty much yes, Indonesia is some fringe country when it comes to FGM which is not a mainstream practice by Muslims. In fact, likely accounting to about half the FGM cases in the world while only making up about 10% of the overall Muslim population it is the very definition of an outlier.

Then you talk about Nigeria as if its mentioned within the same context with Indonesia. Amazing argumentation standards you're using there...

[Common Soldier]

Please pay attention to what we argue and within what context we argue them. Otherwise, it appears that you're projecting... I have not ignored your claim that for some practice to be attributed to a particular religion it doesn't need to be universal.

If you accept that a practice does not have to be universal to nevertheless still be a practice of Islam, then all your arguments really are invalid and irrelevant..

The fact that most Muslims don't practice has no bearing on the fact that FGM is a practice of Islam for many Muslims, as I have repeatedly shown.

The fact the argument you repeatedly resort to is that FGM is only practiced by s fraction of Muslims demonstrated that you are being dishonest here, otherwise you would use a different argument. But have repeatedly made false claims, such as no major text of Islam promotes female circumcision, which I have shown to be false. Sharia and Sunnah both qualify as major text of Islam

I didn't even argue that it had to be universal. That's your invention.

The fact you repeatedly used the argument that only a fraction of Muslims practice to counter my claim, and that since Muslims in other parts of the world fo not practice FGM, the practice of FGM in Indonesia cannot be an Islamic one proves what you are saying is not true. Your actions and arguments are claiming that since FGM is not universally practiced anong Muslims, it is not Islamic

You kept banking on that note to ignore what I actually argued; which was the fact that practice of FGM is only present in a fraction of the Muslim community.

I harp on Indonesia because it demonstrates, contrary to you claims, it proves the practice of FGM is one of Islam, at least for Indonesia. And since Indonesia is the largest Muslim country, it is not an insignificant fraction of Muslims that practice FGM for Islamic religious reasons.

Notice how you bank on Indonesia but ignore next three countries with the Muslim populations in the world.

It is you that repeating ignore the example of Indonesia. I did not ignore the other 3 countries you mention, I just pointed they were irrelevant to the debate.

FGM is only practiced by a tiny fraction of the world's population. According to your defective logic, FGM therefore is not a problem. That is not the case, even though only a fraction of the world practices FGM it is still a major problem.

And Muslims account for a disproportionately large percentage of those who practice FGM, and the reason many, most of these Muslims practice FGM is Islam. It us Islam, not just local cultural practices as you and many Muslims lying claim (By saying FGM is an Indonesian and not Muslim practice you are making that lie.)

Interestingly, you even shy away from quoting that part of my post.

I did not shy away from it, I just found them irrelevant.

What is interesting is that you did not respond to when I pointed you false claims that no major text of Islam promotes FGM. I gave links to both Sunnah and text of Sharia law, both which are major text of Islam.


So, let

As I said, if the right kind of Christians established a strong foothold in Indonesia compared to the right kind of Muslims then you could easily have FGM as an Indonesian "Christian" practice there.

And I repeat, your speculations are baseless and have no justification. Unlike among Muslims, where FGM is a religious practice, done for religious reasons, FGM among those African Christians who practice it is not religious. There is no reason to expect that African Christians would be able to impose their cultural practices on Indonesians. Muslims did not succeed in imposing Muslim languages or other non Islamic cultural practices on the Indonesians. Muslims were able to impose FGM on Indonesia because it was a practice of Islam, and was supported and still is by religious leaders of Islam

Earlier you brought up the claim that there is "no major Christian religious documents recommends FGM as an religious obligation" which I responded by pointing out the same for Islam. You are taking an issue out of that. Now, that's hypocrisy.

You are one guilty of hypocrisy and dishonesty. I did point out several major Islamic documents of Islam that supported FGM, while you have not done the same for Christianity, because you cannot. Text of Sharia law, such "Reliance of the Traveller" and of the Sunnah, which I even provided a link to, are major text of Islam. Countering truth with false claims as you did does not counter what I say

Meanwhile, you continue to use the term "Sharia" incorrectly as you ignore my attempts to explain it.

You have not made any attempt to explain "Sharia'. It cannot be denied that Sharia is Islamic religious law, nor that Muslims obey Sharia as part of their belief in Islam .

It is a lie to say Sharia is not part of the Islam religion, or that Sharia does not influence large numbers of Muslims

Moreover, you incorrectly attack the fact that no major Islamic text, being the Quran and Hadith (the most trusted 6 books), which are the sources for Sharia laws,
recommends FGM. Even in many of the weak Hadiths the practice is merely mentioned in passing with no recommendation or veneration.

We have already established that a practice can be part of the religion of Islam even if it is not mentioned in the Quran. And schools of Sharia make FGM obligatory, not just recommended as you claim. And there are hadiths that do recommend FGM. The mete fact that hadith repeatedly recognized the practice of FGM without condemning it gives role models to encourage Muslim women to practice FGM.

The fact is that FGM is disproportionately by Myslims is precisely because if these major text of Islam such as Reliance of the Traveller and the Sunnah. You accuse these Sunnahs as being weak, without providing any proof to back up your claim.

Here are examples of Islam support for FGM

https://fgmtruth.wordpress.com/2018/...atwas-for-fgm/

https://gellerreport.com/2017/09/mus...-islamic.html/

Paste https://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...86909?mode=amp

[PointOfViewGun]

If you accept that a practice does not have to be universal to nevertheless still be a practice of Islam, then all your arguments really are invalid and irrelevant..
The fact that most Muslims don't practice has no bearing on the fact that FGM is a practice of Islam for many Muslims, as I have repeatedly shown.
The fact the argument you repeatedly resort to is that FGM is only practiced by s fraction of Muslims demonstrated that you are being dishonest here, otherwise you would use a different argument. But have repeatedly made false claims, such as no major text of Islam promotes female circumcision, which I have shown to be false. Sharia and Sunnah both qualify as major text of Islam
The fact you repeatedly used the argument that only a fraction of Muslims practice to counter my claim, and that since Muslims in other parts of the world fo not practice FGM, the practice of FGM in Indonesia cannot be an Islamic one proves what you are saying is not true. Your actions and arguments are claiming that since FGM is not universally practiced anong Muslims, it is not Islamic
I harp on Indonesia because it demonstrates, contrary to you claims, it proves the practice of FGM is one of Islam, at least for Indonesia. And since Indonesia is the largest Muslim country, it is not an insignificant fraction of Muslims that practice FGM for Islamic religious reasons.
It is you that repeating ignore the example of Indonesia. I did not ignore the other 3 countries you mention, I just pointed they were irrelevant to the debate.
FGM is only practiced by a tiny fraction of the world's population. According to your defective logic, FGM therefore is not a problem. That is not the case, even though only a fraction of the world practices FGM it is still a major problem.
And Muslims account for a disproportionately large percentage of those who practice FGM, and the reason many, most of these Muslims practice FGM is Islam. It us Islam, not just local cultural practices as you and many Muslims lying claim (By saying FGM is an Indonesian and not Muslim practice you are making that lie.)
I did not shy away from it, I just found them irrelevant.
What is interesting is that you did not respond to when I pointed you false claims that no major text of Islam promotes FGM. I gave links to both Sunnah and text of Sharia law, both which are major text of Islam.
So, let
And I repeat, your speculations are baseless and have no justification. Unlike among Muslims, where FGM is a religious practice, done for religious reasons, FGM among those African Christians who practice it is not religious. There is no reason to expect that African Christians would be able to impose their cultural practices on Indonesians. Muslims did not succeed in imposing Muslim languages or other non Islamic cultural practices on the Indonesians. Muslims were able to impose FGM on Indonesia because it was a practice of Islam, and was supported and still is by religious leaders of Islam
You are one guilty of hypocrisy and dishonesty. I did point out several major Islamic documents of Islam that supported FGM, while you have not done the same for Christianity, because you cannot. Text of Sharia law, such "Reliance of the Traveller" and of the Sunnah, which I even provided a link to, are major text of Islam. Countering truth with false claims as you did does not counter what I say
You have not made any attempt to explain "Sharia'. It cannot be denied that Sharia is Islamic religious law, nor that Muslims obey Sharia as part of their belief in Islam .
It is a lie to say Sharia is not part of the Islam religion, or that Sharia does not influence large numbers of Muslims
We have already established that a practice can be part of the religion of Islam even if it is not mentioned in the Quran. And schools of Sharia make FGM obligatory, not just recommended as you claim. And there are hadiths that do recommend FGM. The mete fact that hadith repeatedly recognized the practice of FGM without condemning it gives role models to encourage Muslim women to practice FGM.
The fact is that FGM is disproportionately by Myslims is precisely because if these major text of Islam such as Reliance of the Traveller and the Sunnah. You accuse these Sunnahs as being weak, without providing any proof to back up your claim.
Here are examples of Islam support for FGM
https://fgmtruth.wordpress.com/2018/...atwas-for-fgm/
https://gellerreport.com/2017/09/mus...-islamic.html/
Paste https://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...86909?mode=amp

Sigh... So many fallacies... So much falsehood... You seem to be banking too much on your opinion to pass them as facts which is what makes these statements embarrassing. Accepting that a practice doesn't need to be practiced by every member of a group to be a practice attributed to that group in general doesn't make anything I said less valid. Can't say much more about that since you're not providing any logic for your claims. However, similarly, just because some Muslims eat pork doesn't make eating pork a practice that can be attributed to Muslims. It is a fact that only a fraction of the world's Muslim population practices FGM. It is a fact that no major Islamic text prescribes it. Sunnah and Sharia by themselves are not texts to begin with. They're not singular collection of texts like the Bible or the Quran. Sharia merely means religious law and Sunnah means stories revolving around Muhammad and his family. There is no singular Sharia or Sunnah. There are different collections of Sunnah textualized in the Hadith books. 6 of those books are regarded as trust worthy. They don't have FGM prescribed in them. The Hadith stories you linked to are from other books and many of them have weak classification for dubious authenticity. Even then most of them merely mentions existence of circumcision in general. You have shown no major text so far. You've only made claims about it while showing irrelevant Hadith entries from weak sources.

You attribute way too many arguments that I never made. A new one is that I'm ignoring Indonesia. Just because you can not sit well with my response of it doesn't mean you can claim that I've ignored it. Similarly, you claim that I ignored your Sunnah and Sharia examples. I didn't. You gave one link to a bunch of Hadith stories from weak sources that at best mentioned existence of circumcision. I addressed this already directly in my previous post. Meanwhile, you gave no sources on Sharia. Sigh... This is futile. You do you.

[Common Soldier]

It is a dishonest denial to assert that Islam has nothing to do with FGM.
* It is common in around 30 Muslim countries
* According to reliable Muslim scholarship, Muhammad looked favorably on FGM, hence it FGM made its way into Sharia law
* Most of Islam regards Islam as honorable, and a large minority make FGM obligatory. Few Muslims, even though they oppose it, seek tonk outright ban it, because Muhammad made it sunnah.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Semitic_languages

Despite Muslims and apologist for Islam claims, Islam has a lot to do with FGM. Muslim apologists claim that FGM is just cultural is a lie.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinio...-with-religion

By failing to be honest, and admit the truth, it lessons tge effectiveness of the campaign against FGM.

Everyone, Muslim apologist included, agrees that male circumcision is part of Islam, despite not being called out in the Quran. The only reason that apologist for Islam don't admit that for FGM is because FGM is not looked on favorably by people today. If male circumcision was regarded in as negative light as FGM, apologist fot Islam would be denying male circumcision was Islamic just as they deny FGM as Islamic.

But most, even if they don't think it has any benefit, do not think male circumcision is harmful, while they do regard FGM as harmful. Only a few, like the creator of this thread, regard male circumcision as harmful in the same way as FGM. An honest person would recognize that the claim religion has nothing to do with FGM is false, just as a claim religion had nothing to do with male circumcision would be false.

[basics]

I cannot fathom how a parent could let this happen to their little daughters. It's a barbaric thing to do with girls and yet no-one has come up with a purpose for it that's legitimate. It would appear that circumcision in boys has no ill effects yet in girls it has and for what must they suffer these?

[Gromovnik]

Yeah, mutilating boys is really great. What could possibly go wrong?

[basics]

Yeah, mutilating boys is really great. What could possibly go wrong?

Gromovnik,

I never said that mutilating boys was great. What I did say was that I know of no Jewish boy and I knew quite a few, who ever complained about them being circumcised.

[enoch]

The bible says to mutilate boys so it is godly. By early Christian doctrine (think what Jesus and the Disciples believed) uncircumcised males are NOT Christian.

[basics]

The bible says to mutilate boys so it is godly. By early Christian doctrine (think what Jesus and the Disciples believed) uncircumcised males are NOT Christian.

enoch,

That's strange because Mark's mother was one of the female followers of Jesus and yet she was not Jewish any more than Mark was. And then there was the Centurian whom Jesus found to have more faith in Him than all the Jews. And then came Doctor Luke who investigated through talking with the disciples and Mary to find that salvation was for everyone who believed, Jew and Gentile. Now why would that be? Simply because all the saints up to Abraham were accounted to be righteous before God and yet none of them were Jews.

[Gromovnik]

Gromovnik,

I never said that mutilating boys was great. What I did say was that I know of no Jewish boy and I knew quite a few, who ever complained about them being circumcised.

1. That's just your anecdote, you fooling around with Jewish boys proves absolutely nothing;
2. Internalised abuse is a thing.

[enoch]

enoch,

That's strange because Mark's mother was one of the female followers of Jesus and yet she was not Jewish any more than Mark was. And then there was the Centurian whom Jesus found to have more faith in Him than all the Jews. And then came Doctor Luke who investigated through talking with the disciples and Mary to find that salvation was for everyone who believed, Jew and Gentile. Now why would that be? Simply because all the saints up to Abraham were accounted to be righteous before God and yet none of them were Jews.

Mark was likely of the Tribe of Judah is the consensus opinion but it is debated. The arguments for jew are FAR stronger than for not jew.

Anyway, no where in the NT does it state that the laws concerning circumcision from the OT no longer apply.

[basics]

enoch,

Those that are still under Law will no doubt if Jewish and religious still practise this ritual but then what about all the Jews who are atheist and perhaps were not circumcised? The New Testament writer Paul states that circumcision of the flesh is meaningless as we find by him taking the leadership to task about it, why? Because it was only a forerunning sign for the blood of Christ shed at Calvary. In other words it was only a covering sign to mark out the Jews from other peoples.

[Gromovnik]

So why did the ancient Egyptians practise circumcision thousands of years before Judaism existed?

[basics]

So why did the ancient Egyptians practise circumcision thousands of years before Judaism existed?

Gromovnik,

Since God instituted the ritual to define a Jew then all the other peoples who adopted the practise must have followed on from them. God doesn't copy anyone. The so-called experts are wrong in their calculations.

[Common Soldier]

Gromovnik,

Since God instituted the ritual to define a Jew then all the other peoples who adopted the practise must have followed on from them. God doesn't copy anyone. The so-called experts are wrong in their calculations.

I don't see why God could not have implemented a practice that others used. Abraham might have been familiar with circumcision if the Egyptians practiced it, and having Abraham perform a practice that he was already was familiar with and indicated some kind of religious dedication would be something I think God would do.

[basics]

Common Soldier,

I can only go by what God's word tells me and up until Abraham there was no inclination that circumcision was used by any other peoples. We do know that violence ruled everywhere meaning lots of bloodletting but the cutting of the foreskin to the Jews was a sign of the Covenant that God made with that people. We know that life is in the blood and we know that a man and woman when joined together are one so the woman in the marriage was covered by the blood shed in circumcision by her Jewish husband. So why the penis? Because that portion of the male body introduced new life and was a sign that in the blood of Jesus Christ eternal new life became a surety when He shed His blood on that cross at Calvary. The dots are all connected because from the very fall of man into sin God had already ordained that that was how it would be.

[Gromovnik]

Gromovnik,

Since God instituted the ritual to define a Jew then all the other peoples who adopted the practise must have followed on from them. God doesn't copy anyone. The so-called experts are wrong in their calculations.

So virtually all egyptologists in the world are wrong, but some random guy on the internet is right? Seems legit.

[Common Soldier]

Common Soldier,

I can only go by what God's word tells me and up until Abraham there was no inclination that circumcision was used by any other peoples. We do know that violence ruled everywhere meaning lots of bloodletting but the cutting of the foreskin to the Jews was a sign of the Covenant that God made with that people. We know that life is in the blood and we know that a man and woman when joined together are one so the woman in the marriage was covered by the blood shed in circumcision by her Jewish husband. So why the penis? Because that portion of the male body introduced new life and was a sign that in the blood of Jesus Christ eternal new life became a surety when He shed His blood on that cross at Calvary. The dots are all connected because from the very fall of man into sin God had already ordained that that was how it would be.

Can you show me where in the Bible circumcision had never been practiced before? Genesis 17 says nothing about circumcision never being practiced before that I can tell.

[basics]

Common Soldier,

The Bible does not say anywhere that circumcision was practised or not practised before God instituted it for the Jews. Had it been common then why did the Jews not practise it as they had plenty contact with other peoples? I mean why would it take God to borrow a ritual from other people when He is God and Sovereign of all? Surely He is not a God Who jumps on someone elses bandwagon.

[Axalon]

The Bible does not say anywhere that circumcision was practised or not practised before God instituted it for the Jews. Had it been common then why did the Jews not practise it as they had plenty contact with other peoples? I mean why would it take God to borrow a ritual from other people when He is God and Sovereign of all? Surely He is not a God Who jumps on someone elses bandwagon.

I’ll throw in a question on that…

IF the Hebrew god is - all-knowing and omnipotent in the first place - why would it come up with the solution that every male-child should be circumcised/"corrected" by humans (it’s creations) to begin with? Why not just create the (supposedly) desired form of male humans to begin with? Why even involve and rely on humans at all in all that - when the overall solution is so obvious - make them circumcised and “correct” by default in the first place. It simply does not make sense not to do that - as the divine power to make such "corrections" is already there. To me, it is nothing short of moronic to rely on humans to deal with and “correct” the gods mistake and/or alterations on male-newborns in the first place… It does not add up...

- A