The Mail & Muslims

storygirl · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:06 am

Althea wrote:

I thought FGM was more 'popular' in parts of Africa? I assume the second comment you quoted, Rob, is referring to Islam.

As for male circumcision, isn't that a completely different kettle of fish? I know the Jewish do it because, aside from religious reasons, they see it as a health thing. I think. Unless it goes wrong, there's nothing particularly bad about it.

FGM is horrible, though. Absolutely horrible.

Actually many circumcised men feel they are mutilated, I am as opposed to it except for medical reasons as I am to FGM.

Althea · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:42 am

storygirl wrote:

Actually many circumcised men feel they are mutilated, I am as opposed to it except for medical reasons as I am to FGM.

Fair enough, I can see the logic in that.

TOONARMY · **Joined:** Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:18 am **Posts:** 396

lord_kobel wrote:

Althea wrote:

Unless it goes wrong, there's nothing particularly bad about it.

It can cause medical and sexual problems. It's not as bad as FGM, but there's still virtually no good reason to do it.

So there virtualy as bad as each other then?. Tbh I think they should both be banned "Takes Daily Mail hat off"

lord_kobel · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:22 pm

As far as I'm aware, FGM never has a good reason behind it, whereas circumcision can sometimes be needed medically.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:27 pm

Yep. FGM is a totally unnecessary, barbaric practice. Male circumcision can sometimes be needed because of discomfort etc.

Unless you're a United Statesian where it's totally necessary to pad out the obstetrician's bill at the end of your largely unnecessarily long hospital stay.

Jewish and Muslim circumcision probably comes from the same roots as kosher and halal food rules - that is, living in a Middle Eastern climate before the advent of modern medicine and shit.
Perhaps someone who knows about these things could elaborate?

oboogie · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:09 pm

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Unless you're a United Statesian where it's totally necessary to pad out the obstetrician's bill at the end of your largely unnecessarily long hospital stay.

Jewish and Muslim circumcision probably comes from the same roots as kosher and halal food rules - that is, living in a Middle Eastern climate before the advent of modern medicine and shit.
Perhaps someone who knows about these things could elaborate?

I'm no expert but that's certainly what I've always understood. Hot dry climate? Lack of water for washing? Hold the boy down whilst I fetch my scissors.

Why the Septics do it I've no idea. The Jewish influence? Or money as you suggest?

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:24 pm

Abrahamics do it as a sacrifice, any hygiene benefits are coincidental...

Did you see the stories about rabbis in NY who were killing babies - after they had circumcised the babies they were stopping the bleeding by sucking the baby's penis. No only is that highly suspect, it is very unhygenic, and some kids died.

It was excused because it's a religious practice...

oboogie · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:32 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

It was excused because it's a religious practice...

Well that's alright then. :roll:

storygirl · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:44 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Abrahamics do it as a sacrifice, any hygiene benefits are coincidental...

Did you see the stories about rabbis in NY who were killing babies - after they had circumcised the babies they were stopping the bleeding by sucking the baby's penis. No only is that highly suspect, it is very unhygenic, and some kids died.

It was excused because it's a religious practice...

The original circumcisions described in the bible were of adult men, so I doubt it had anything to do with hygiene as was as you say about blood sacrifice and marking themselves as elect. Rather like tribal scarification which still goes on today.

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7321

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Yep. FGM is a totally unnecessary, barbaric practice. Male circumcision can sometimes be needed because of discomfort etc.

Unless you're a United Statesian where it's totally necessary to pad out the obstetrician's bill at the end of your largely unnecessarily long hospital stay.

Jewish and Muslim circumcision probably comes from the same roots as kosher and halal food rules - that is, living in a Middle Eastern climate before the advent of modern medicine and shit.
Perhaps someone who knows about these things could elaborate?

Can't speak on the Abrahamic origins (and I'd be interested to know when and why Christians dropped it).
However it apparently took off in US medicine following 1943.
The American army landed in North Africa and apparently suffered a sudden outbreak of foreskin related discomfort.

I've no medical details, maybe problems maintaining hygene with water in short supply and a lot of dust.
It may be that similar problems popularised the procedure with semitic peoples in the mists of time.

The Ancient Egyptians also practiced it, and it was popular in Australia till quite recently.
The only link between all these places I see is arid conditions, and not being able to rely on the old chap getting a daily immersion.

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7321

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Abrahamics do it as a sacrifice, any hygiene benefits are coincidental...

Did you see the stories about rabbis in NY who were killing babies - after they had circumcised the babies they were stopping the bleeding by sucking the baby's penis. No only is that highly suspect, it is very unhygenic, and some kids died.

It was excused because it's a religious practice...

That what Father O'Hanrahan told me too.

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:12 pm

Bones McCoy wrote:

Can't speak on the Abrahamic origins (and I'd be interested to know when and why Christians dropped it).
However it apparently took off in US medicine following 1943.
The American army landed in North Africa and apparently suffered a sudden outbreak of foreskin related discomfort.

I've no medical details, maybe problems maintaining hygene with water in short supply and a lot of dust.
It may be that similar problems popularised the procedure with semitic peoples in the mists of time.

The Ancient Egyptians also practiced it, and it was popular in Australia till quite recently.
The only link between all these places I see is arid conditions, and not being able to rely on the old chap getting a daily immersion.

I was thinking that the medical/hygiene aspect predates any religious "offering" or whatnot. Religions have a habit of taking something practical and using it for their own ends.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:30 pm

The question of circumcision for Christians was central to the development of the church in the 1st century.
The church in Jerusalem, dominated by disciples and relatives of Jesus (all of whom were Jewish) saw Christ as the fulfilment of the old testament - a bit like Muslims see him, and Mohamed. So to them, in order to be a Christian, one had to be a Jew first, which for men meant the blood sacrifice of circumcision. Which is a serious business for an adult, and so they made very few Gentile converts.
The church outside Palestine was led by Paul of Tarsus. He was preaching to the Gentiles almost exclusively, so he had to make the new church amenable to Greek and Roman ideas. Hence virgin birth, elements of Sol Invictus , resurrection and no circumcision. This proved to be the popular option.

storygirl · **Posted:** Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:59 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

The question of circumcision for Christians was central to the development of the church in the 1st century.
The church in Jerusalem, dominated by disciples and relatives of Jesus (all of whom were Jewish) saw Christ as the fulfilment of the old testament - a bit like Muslims see him, and Mohamed. So to them, in order to be a Christian, one had to be a Jew first, which for men meant the blood sacrifice of circumcision. Which is a serious business for an adult, and so they made very few Gentile converts.
The church outside Palestine was led by Paul of Tarsus. He was preaching to the Gentiles almost exclusively, so he had to make the new church amenable to Greek and Roman ideas. Hence virgin birth, elements of Sol Invictus , resurrection and no circumcision. This proved to be the popular option.

I was just about to post this, large parts of the Acts of the Apostles are a debate about the need to observe Jewish law, or not. Its the same reasons the need to eat kosher was dropped . I can bore you all with the theology but I think you would rather I didn't

oboogie · **Posted:** Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:00 pm

Five men arrested in Luton on terrorism charges
They don't say who these men are but at the end of the article we have this:

Quote:

The raids come the same week that mass killer Anders Breivik, on trial for the massacre of 77 people, told a Norwegian court that Muslims want sharia law in 'places like Luton'.

So we not only have an association of "terrorist" with "Muslim", but we also have 'evidence' that Breivik was right all along.

I would laugh so hard if the five turned out to be Tommy Throbbincock and four fat sweaty skinheads.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1sxSifskL

The Mail & Muslims

Who is online