Questions Posed By Non-Muslims need urgent help!!!

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Greetings Callum,
I don't have that much time so I'm just going to respond to some of your main points here and make my post a little bit more brief (maybe that's a good thing )

You can use me to sharpen your debating skills (which are very good, I might add). On another forum I got told off for "hijacking" a thread arguing about George W Bush with another person.

Thanks for your nice comments. Don't worry, I'm enjoying this discussion.

I would ask this question: Who says life has to have a purpose? It's certainly not obvious to me that this must be the case.

You are indeed representing the position of most atheists that there is no purpose in life. Despite the fact that such a belief is problematic for all those who are sufferring around the world and wonder at the reason behind their sufferring, and for those who wonder at the goals of humanity, and for those who believe that we are more than a mass of chemical reactions, I would like to focus on whether such a belief is plausible or not.

The purpose is the reason for which something came into existence, and continues to exist. To deny any purpose in life is to say that the cause of our existence was purely accidental. (I would rather discuss this point in greater detail in a thread on the existence of God)

It logically follows that as we have come into existence by accident, there is no significance to our existence and therefore no action of ours can cause either harm or good. It may be percieved as harmful or good by those around us, but in the grand scheme of the universe, it makes no difference, it is neutral. Hence, according to such a view there is absoloutely nothing wrong with exploiting others for one's own benefits as any pain and suffering experienced by others is as insignificant and meaningless as their pleasure and joy. Such a philosophy can be disastrous for humanity. It aids in understanding the staggering statistics on suicides and homicides in the world, but particularly in materialist societies.

There are two kinds of living thing in the world, plants and animals.

Are you grouping archaebacteria, protists, eubacteria, and fungi with plants?

I believe the purpose of life for humans (I would rather call it the aim of life) is the same as the purpose of life for whales, horses, and other animals: to survive and reproduce.

Now you seem reluctant about your previous position that there is no purpose in life so you cite the evolutionary aim in life. Yet survival is not a purpose as mentioned in the referred article which said "living is not an end by itself". Survival means continuing to live, so the purpose of life is to continue to live? Its analogous to saying that the purpose of a light is to keep it on.

This could include making friends and getting on with people - useful skills for surival.

Sure, social skills can get you a better job and lifestyle, but it could just as easily decrease your chances of survival. It's influence on one's life is as unpredicatable as life itself.

As I said before, the idea that the purpose of life is a mystery does not upset me at all.

Now you resign to the position that you simply do not know the purpose of your existence, and consequently you know not whether you are fulfilling the purpose of your existence or not.

but I think you will find that most atheists applaud the moral systems of Islam, Christianity and other religions.

This was the point I was referring to that I found rare, not the banking position. I have found most atheists to be much more skeptical of religion and doubtful of any system built on faith in God. It is agnostics that usually hold position similar to yours. Perhaps you will find that your uncertainty makes you more of an agnostic?

Can I also point out that the moral codes of most religions are, at heart, very similar in content?

Very true, and in Islam this is understood because all Prophets were originally sent with the same message of Islam (submission to the One God), yet deviations crept in amongst their religions, gradually giving rise to the other religions we find which are understood to be the result of diversions from the Islam.

Perhaps there are some cases where what you say is true, but I believe that someone calling themselves an atheist and then assuming they can behave selfishly and immorally has got completely the wrong idea. Most serious, philosophical atheists would see no reason to abandon the moral codes at the heart of religion.

I think this is because in this stage in history, these atheists are still heavily influenced by religion, living in a society heavily influenced by religion. Yet, you cannot deny that as atheism/secularism increases in North America, the concept of subjective morality becomes more and more evident and society is continuously progressing towards what people of faith see as immoral. Perhaps what you may find in society 20 years from now would be so immoral that atheists of today would be shocked, but for people living in that future age, it will be the norm.

I do not believe these issues have an impact on morality, as long as they do not harm others.

What about harming themselves? Is suicide immoral? Are drugs not prolonged suicide?

Education on drugs is something that is badly needed all over the world.

I think education has little to do with it now. I know hundreds of people who know all the effects of drugs yet they continue their drug abuse. And when I talk about drugs being on the rise, I'm not talking about anything in moderation, I am talking about the things which detroy one's life and shatter their very sense of reality. That's on the rise. Drug abuse.

With regard to nudity, again I am liberal. People should be free to go to nudist beaches if they wish (as they do in huge numbers all over Europe, particularly in Germany), also, people should be free to view pornography if they wish. The one proviso that I would have about nudity is that it should be allowed only in controlled areas - not in the street, in full public view for example.

Again, you miss the point I'm making on the subject. I'm not talking about the nudity of a person in a secluded area, in a seperate beach, in their bedrooms, in their washrooms, etc. I am talking about nudity in the open, on the street, in public. I am talking about society becoming a nudist colony.

Would you have a problem with that vision? Would you find such a society acceptable to live in?

Your last point is fascinating - would a society where nudity and drugs are rife be productive for humanity? Well, why not? Look at the ancient Greeks. That society was actually far more liberal than I would like on these issues, and yet I cannot think of a society that has done more for civilization.

The greeks also had rigid laws governing their conduct in public and they had many etiquettes as well. To suggest that they lived the wild promiscuous lifestyle would be highly inaccurate.

Even in society today, at least professionals recognize a certain lifestyle as "lower-class" when it includes high levels of nudity and drugs. It is considered below the people at the top of society.

Perhaps we are judging by different criteria, but I'm afraid I don't understand you here. A children's film, with a U certificate (in Britain that is) is very unlikely to include drugs or nudity. In fact, I can state categorically that it would not include such things. A film for people aged 15 and over, maybe.

With respect to children, since the growing trends go against the content in children's films, we find that children's films slowly begin to contain some of the material which would not have been found in such films decades ago, or the children's films lose popularity and they begin to watch the same popular films with immoral content.

Either way, they are being desensitized. Adults are being desensitized. What someone finds on TV today would shock a person living in the west only a few decades ago. There are video games coming out that have begun to feature complete nudity and drugs. I think this trend should worry anyone with a sense of concern for the welfare of humanity.

I should point out that I have a philosophy degree, and that the initial arguments regarding a creator/deity presented in this article are so old, and have been refuted so many times by so many eminent philosophers (Kant, Hume, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Russell to name but five), that it is just impossible to take them seriously.

I didn't refer the article to you for its discussion on the existence of God, but rather for its discussion on the purpose of existence from an Islamic perspective. Naturally, any article on the purpose of life would have to touch on the issue of God's existence but it does not go into much depth.

And I agree that the arguments from 'intelligent design' are familiar to everyone by now, they are nothing new. I would prefer to dicuss the existence of God in a seperate thread which I will create after this post.

I am sorry if this sounds offensive

No offense taken,

One of the arguments used seems to me to prove just the opposite of what the author intends - this is the point that all human civilizations throughout history have believed in a god, gods or a creator of some sort. This surely shows the limitless capacity of human ingenuity, not that there therefore must be a god. Baal, Ra, Zeus and many others are gods that are now "dead" i.e. people do not believe in them any more. Could this be the future of the gods that people believe in today?

Actually, this argument is very important to the discussion, and I have used it myself in my discussions with atheists. The argument is that human beings have basically always accepted the existence of a single superior being since the dawn of humanity. This belief itself would be difficult to explain by atheits and many argue that human beings have progressed from superstition to polytheism to monotheism, yet I have explained in other discussions why this is not plausible.

Also, I must point out one factual inaccuracy in the article - the author speaks of "Buddhist gods". In fact Buddhism is an atheistic religion - Buddhists do not believe in any gods at all. The first that he mentions is "Gautama". This is the surname of the first Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama is his full name). Buddha was not a god, but a man.

I agree, you are correct. However, the Islamic understanding of "god" or Ilah is actually anything which is worshipped (thus the Qur'an often describes people who have made their lusts their Ilah) so according to an Islamic understanding the author is correct as well.

Can you see the problem here? The person who wrote this has very little genuine understanding of science if he believes these two statements are true. He incorrectly describes the Big Bang as a "widely accepted phenomenon". It is in fact a theory, just like evolution, only there is far less evidence for it. There is plenty of evidence for an expanding universe, but the Big Bang at the beginning is little more than a speculation. It is also relatively controversial among scientists, unlike evolution.

The quote on evolution is undoubtedly inaccurate. However, the quote on the Big Bang is referring to a collection of theories which share the notion of a Big Bang. The majority of theories supported by scientists are actually modifications of the Big Bang theory. As the wikipedia online encyclopedia states in its discussion of difficulties with the Big Bang theory:

Though such aspects of standard cosmology remain inadequately explained, the vast majority of astronomers and physicists accept that the close agreement between Big Bang theory and observation have firmly established all the basic parts of the theory.​

So I beg to differ on your point that the Big Bange theory is not established.

Regards

 

[ruunraho]

i thin you're right brother

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Callum,
I don't have that much time so I'm just going to respond to some of your main points here and make my post a little bit more brief (maybe that's a good thing )

Absolutely.

The purpose is the reason for which something came into existence, and continues to exist. To deny any purpose in life is to say that the cause of our existence was purely accidental. (I would rather discuss this point in greater detail in a thread on the existence of God)

Yes, this point belongs in a different thread.

It logically follows that as we have come into existence by accident, there is no significance to our existence and therefore no action of ours can cause either harm or good. It may be percieved as harmful or good by those around us, but in the grand scheme of the universe, it makes no difference, it is neutral. Hence, according to such a view there is absoloutely nothing wrong with exploiting others for one's own benefits as any pain and suffering experienced by others is as insignificant and meaningless as their pleasure and joy.

I disagree with this point. I try to behave morally, as I think everyone does, but when I do, I do it solely with consideration for others on this planet, not due to some supposed higher purpose. Even on this view there is clearly something wrong with behaving immorally - it harms others. I think that is all that is necessary on this point.

Are you grouping archaebacteria, protists, eubacteria, and fungi with plants?

Good point! I forgot about these microorganisms and such like.

Now you seem reluctant about your previous position that there is no purpose in life so you cite the evolutionary aim in life. Yet survival is not a purpose as mentioned in the referred article which said "living is not an end by itself". Survival means continuing to live, so the purpose of life is to continue to live? Its analogous to saying that the purpose of a light is to keep it on.

Yes, from the Darwinist point of view, the aim of life is continuing to live. Beyond that, it is a mystery.

This was the point I was referring to that I found rare, not the banking position. I have found most atheists to be much more skeptical of religion and doubtful of any system built on faith in God. It is agnostics that usually hold position similar to yours. Perhaps you will find that your uncertainty makes you more of an agnostic?

But moral systems do not have to be built on faith in God. Buddhists, for example, share many of the moral tenets of theistic religions. The point is that morality is not necessarily God-dependent. I'm not sure that the point about agnostics vs. atheists re: morality is that clear-cut, as I'm sure you would acknowledge. I have been an atheist from quite a young age, and I can assure that I am entirely sceptical about all religions! However, as I have said, this should not have any impact on moral beliefs.

I think this is because in this stage in history, these atheists are still heavily influenced by religion, living in a society heavily influenced by religion. Yet, you cannot deny that as atheism/secularism increases in North America, the concept of subjective morality becomes more and more evident and society is continuously progressing towards what people of faith see as immoral. Perhaps what you may find in society 20 years from now would be so immoral that atheists of today would be shocked, but for people living in that future age, it will be the norm.

Perhaps subjective morality is on the rise, but I think that people who assume that by being atheists they can then invent their own morality have not thought about their beliefs very carefully. I would also say that N. America is a much more religious area than Europe. In the Western world, creationist views are very rare outside the USA, and Christian fundamentalists are far more common in the USA than anywhere else.

What about harming themselves? Is suicide immoral? Are drugs not prolonged suicide?

I'm not actually sure that suicide is immoral. In some cases, yes, in others, no. (I do know, however, that suicide is forbidden in Islam.)

I think education has little to do with it now. I know hundreds of people who know all the effects of drugs yet they continue their drug abuse. And when I talk about drugs being on the rise, I'm not talking about anything in moderation, I am talking about the things which detroy one's life and shatter their very sense of reality. That's on the rise. Drug abuse.

Well, fair enough. People who use drugs to this extent have clearly lost control.

Again, you miss the point I'm making on the subject. I'm not talking about the nudity of a person in a secluded area, in a seperate beach, in their bedrooms, in their washrooms, etc. I am talking about nudity in the open, on the street, in public. I am talking about society becoming a nudist colony.

Would you have a problem with that vision? Would you find such a society acceptable to live in?

I would not find such a society acceptable, but I would dipute the claim that Western society is headed in this direction. (Btw, I don't count women in short skirts or bikinis as nudity. I live in England, and I've never seen anyone walking around the street naked. It's too cold!)

The greeks also had rigid laws governing their conduct in public and they had many etiquettes as well. To suggest that they lived the wild promiscuous lifestyle would be highly inaccurate.

They did have their rules of etiquette, but they were not averse to conducting their Olympic games in the nude. They considered the naked body a thing of beauty, which accounts for all the naked statues and sculptures we find from ancient Greece. I would not say that they led wildly promiscuous lives, but their sexual morals were very different from those of the modern world - Eastern or Western. For instance, many (perhaps most) adult Greek males were what we would now call paedophiles. They considered sex with a woman to be purely functional, to reproduce, but for pleasure they preferred young boys.

Even in society today, at least professionals recognize a certain lifestyle as "lower-class" when it includes high levels of nudity and drugs. It is considered below the people at the top of society.

I would dispute this claim with regard to drugs. Cocaine use is far more prevalent among the upper classes, certainly in the UK. It has long been regarded as a "posh" drug, and only recently has it become affordable for people with less money.

With respect to children, since the growing trends go against the content in children's films, we find that children's films slowly begin to contain some of the material which would not have been found in such films decades ago, or the children's films lose popularity and they begin to watch the same popular films with immoral content.

Perhaps, but nudity or drugs? I haven't seen any of these things in a children's film.

Either way, they are being desensitized. Adults are being desensitized. What someone finds on TV today would shock a person living in the west only a few decades ago. There are video games coming out that have begun to feature complete nudity and drugs. I think this trend should worry anyone with a sense of concern for the welfare of humanity.

I see your point, but I still think that adults should be allowed to make up their own minds what they choose to watch. I would draw the line at anything deliberately hateful, though.

I didn't refer the article to you for its discussion on the existence of God, but rather for its discussion on the purpose of existence from an Islamic perspective. Naturally, any article on the purpose of life would have to touch on the issue of God's existence but it does not go into much depth.

And I agree that the arguments from 'intelligent design' are familiar to everyone by now, they are nothing new. I would prefer to dicuss the existence of God in a seperate thread which I will create after this post.

OK, see you there!

Actually, this argument is very important to the discussion, and I have used it myself in my discussions with atheists. The argument is that human beings have basically always accepted the existence of a single superior being since the dawn of humanity. This belief itself would be difficult to explain by atheits and many argue that human beings have progressed from superstition to polytheism to monotheism, yet I have explained in other discussions why this is not plausible.

Not all cultures had one superior god, some cultures had many gods; I will need to look out for your discussion of polytheism - is it on this board?

I agree, you are correct. However, the Islamic understanding of "god" or Ilah is actually anything which is worshipped (thus the Qur'an often describes people who have made their lusts their Ilah) so according to an Islamic understanding the author is correct as well.

OK, I see there is a special use of this word. However, I think I'm right in saying that Buddha is more respected than worshipped. In the Zen Buddhist tradition (which always has to be different!) the idea of worshipping Buddha is actively discouraged. There is a famous quote from a Zen master: "If you see the Buddha, kill him!"

The quote on evolution is undoubtedly inaccurate. However, the quote on the Big Bang is referring to a collection of theories which share the notion of a Big Bang. The majority of theories supported by scientists are actually modifications of the Big Bang theory. As the wikipedia online encyclopedia states in its discussion of difficulties with the Big Bang theory:

Though such aspects of standard cosmology remain inadequately explained, the vast majority of astronomers and physicists accept that the close agreement between Big Bang theory and observation have firmly established all the basic parts of the theory.​

So I beg to differ on your point that the Big Bange theory is not established.

OK, perhaps I was exaggerating, but the Big Bang is still a "best guess", with far less evidence for it than evolution. Astronomers agree on it because there is currently no better theory, not because they believe it must be true.

This is proving to be a most fruitful discussion from my side - I am learning things about the Islamic perspective that I had never considered before. Thank you!

Regards

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Callum,

I disagree with this point. I try to behave morally, as I think everyone does, but when I do, I do it solely with consideration for others on this planet, not due to some supposed higher purpose. Even on this view there is clearly something wrong with behaving immorally - it harms others. I think that is all that is necessary on this point.

Who defines what is moral and immoral?
And, what about harming oneself?
And what if harming others brings some benefit to oneself?

These are dangerous questions that indicate the direction in which many atheists head.

Yes, from the Darwinist point of view, the aim of life is continuing to live. Beyond that, it is a mystery.

Now that you've accepted that you don't know the purpose of life, are you willing to embark on a journey to discover the purpose - A discovery that could completely revolutionize your life and change your outlook on the world? It is a discovery that will grant the innerpeace that people hunt for throughout their lives yet they fail to find it in material pleasures.

But moral systems do not have to be built on faith in God. Buddhists, for example, share many of the moral tenets of theistic religions.

I was not referring only to God, but the spiritual concepts associated with faith in God. Although Buddhism is silent on the existence of God, its philosophy directs its followers to alleviate suffering in order to make reality more clear.

If one believes there is no purpose to their daily life, there is no long term significance to their actions, it begins to bend morality to suit themselves. There is no fear of accountability, only of the justice system built on traditional religious values. But everything is changing with secularism.

Perhaps subjective morality is on the rise, but I think that people who assume that by being atheists they can then invent their own morality have not thought about their beliefs very carefully.

Which beliefs? What is wrong with such a view from an atheistic perspective?

I'm not actually sure that suicide is immoral. In some cases, yes, in others, no.

This explains why suicides are becoming so common in secular countries. Not knowing the purpose to one's existence easily leads to wishing to end one's existence in times of suffering. This is why I feel that secularism is a step backward for humanity and civilization. Atheists are unable to find inner peace.

Morality defines good and bad behaviour. Do you think that suicide is good behaviour i.e. moral? Believing the termination of one's life to be acceptable is an admission that life is meaningless.

I would not find such a society acceptable, but I would dipute the claim that Western society is headed in this direction.

Although I would have thought that such a thing is self-evident, I will temporarily ignore the case of the west and focus merely on the society that you find unacceptable.

Why do you find such a society unacceptable? Would you consider it immoral? What problems do you see with such a society? If you knew of a society like that, what would that say to you about the kind of people who live there? Good things or bad things?

You make an interesting comment:

(Btw, I don't count women in short skirts or bikinis as nudity.

Who decides what nudity is? Here you are making the distinction between what may be a few inches of cloth, yet society has continually reduced that amount of cloth, producing clothing that is more and more revealing. Eventually there won't be any clothing.

But my main point is that you seem to agree that there should be some kinds of limits and restrictions for an acceptable society, yet you determine these limits based on your whims, not any solid criteria. You have been desenstized to a certain level of nudity, which you no longer consider bad, yet anything beyond that you would find unacceptable. It's safe to say that there are people who have been desensitived even more than you, and would find higher levels of nudity acceptable.

We find a problem now. The atheist is in need of the same definite standards which he had previously rejected. He has rejected his guide and now he finds himself lost as to the direction society should take. And gradually, the direction is influenced by personal desires and lusts, and the standards drop lower and lower.

This is the case when the creation attempts to decide what it best for itself. But only the Creator knows what the optimal conditions are for the creation's success.

I would not say that they led wildly promiscuous lives, but their sexual morals were very different from those of the modern world - Eastern or Western.

In which case, I don't think they can be used as an example of a productive society that has abandoned all etiquettes.

OK, see you there!

Thread is here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=4111

Not all cultures had one superior god, some cultures had many gods; I will need to look out for your discussion of polytheism - is it on this board?

It was on another board, but I quoted it on this board here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showpost.php?p=46010&postcount=24

If you would like to respond to my points made in the above post, you may do so in this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=3115

To conclude, I would say that the problem for an atheist is that they will never be able to attain success in their lives since they have no idea what true succes is, and most are not even concerned with finding out what it is. All they can achieve is temporary pleasure, which is meaningless once they return to the earth.

Unfortunately, there are many great people who are atheists, and all that they would need for true fulfillment and inner peace is the sense of purpose that the Qur'an inspires in human beings.

Regards

 

[jitty]

A scientific view of the matter is provided by islamonline.net:

The hygienic value of circumcision has today been generally conceded, and some physicians recommend the operation as a routine measure for all male infants, it is part of the routine of bathing an uncircumcised boy, to draw back the foreskin and sponge the head of the penis. This is for general cleanliness and also to remove pasty white secretion called smegma, which accumulates under the foreskin and may lead to local irritation unless it is regularly cleansed. Whenever a new born is found to have a tight foreskin (phimosis), the physician usually recommends circumcision.

​

There is also the Medical Benefits from Circumcision by Dr. Brian J. Morris, from Circ-Online

Surely this is biased as it is a qoute from an islamic source?

For the record, the qoute is full of errors. An uncircumcised boy does not have to have the foreskin drawn back to clean it. In fact doctors highly discourage this among parents. It is parents who think it needs cleaning. Infact, after about the age of 6 it automatically begins to retract as it becomes seperated from the glans.

There may be benefits to circumcision, but surely if it was the way nature intended who are we to take it off?

I believe was carried out in the middleeast where tempertures were high and there were desert like conditions. Water was a scarce resource, and cleaning the foreskin daily was difficult. So it was recommended to take it off. And now it has become a worldwide phenomenon because it was carried out by a prophet.

However in modern society there is no need for it. Infact there are many more advantages of having a foreskin, than for not.

There is a small chance that a child may suffer from phimosis (1%) However circumcision is not the real answer. It is common misconception to think it is. Doctors can prescribe special creams that will help loosen the foreskin. Circumcision is carried out by doctors as the easy way out.

In the UK and Europe and other parts of the world (apart from islamic countries) the majority of males are uncircumcised - natural --- the way god intended.

 

[Mohsin]

The article was based on non-uslamic sources, go to http://www.circinfo.com/, it's from a non-muslim site.

 

[jitty]

"Circumcision, or removal of the foreskin, is an operation of great antiquity. As a magical or initiation rite it was introduced independently by aboriginal tribes in Australia, Africa and the Americas. Circumcision was practised by the Egyptians of 3,000 B.C., at first as a privilege of the nobility, but it later became the custom for all males. Presumably what started as a religious rite was found to be a useful hygienic measure in a hot climate. The Jews learned from the Egyptians and incorporated ritual circumcision into their religion and later the Moslem faith adopted the same custom. In more recent history there are records of the operation being performed for abnormalities of the foreskin which interfered with passing water or sexual intercourse."

http://www.circinfo.com/guide_to_decision/index.html

So its a custom. A ritual. Nothing to do with Islam.

 

[jitty]

If God is so great why did he create foreskin? Why do all male mamals in the animal kingdom have foreskins?

 

[Muezzin]

If God is so great why did he create foreskin? Why do all male mamals in the animal kingdom have foreskins?

Freud would have something to say about this

By the way, circumsicion has various physical benefits. I'll not breach forum rules by posting them here explicitly. Google's good for stuff like that.

And the author of the article you quoted can't spell 'Muslim'.

 

[jitty]

"physical benefits" aside, why is it carried out? Just because the prophet did so? Is that the reason? Cos it doesnt make sense to do it for "physical benefits"

There are many more advanatages of having it.

And what is the answer to my above question? if od is so great why not make us born without a foreskin? It serves its purpose scientifically, so why did god not create us without one? and why all mamals have foreskin?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi Jitty,
The main reason why Muslims circumcise is because it is the command of God. We believe this life is a test, and God gives us simple commands to follow - if we obey we will be rewarded. Circumcision is prescribed in Islam for males, in fact it is a tradition amongst all the abrahamic faiths. It was not simply a cultural custom that was 'picked up'.

Regards

 

[jitty]

Hi Jitty,
The main reason why Muslims circumcise is because it is the command of God. We believe this life is a test, and God gives us simple commands to follow - if we obey we will be rewarded. Circumcision is prescribed in Islam for males, in fact it is a tradition amongst all the abrahamic faiths. It was not simply a cultural custom that was 'picked up'.

Regards

So god purposely gave man foreskin only to have to take it off again? What is the point in this? Why not make man born without it? Is it nessasary just to give man it so god can make a command that it has to be taken off?

 

[Muezzin]

So god purposely gave man foreskin only to have to take it off again? What is the point in this? Why not make man born without it? Is it nessasary just to give man it so god can make a command that it has to be taken off?

Is your hair cut short? Do you shave?

God gave men hair and beards, and yet a lot of men shave and cut their hair short. So what was your argument again?

 

[MetSudaisTwice]

salam
lol bro, mashallah that is true
you have finger nails, but why do you still need to cut them?
wasalam

 

[jitty]

Is your hair cut short? Do you shave?

God gave men hair and beards, and yet a lot of men shave and cut their hair short. So what was your argument again?

We have hair yes and it grows back. Foreskin once taken off does not - so whats your point?

Dirt builds up under the nails. Should we take them off completly to prevent this?

 

[Muezzin]

We have hair yes and it grows back. Foreskin once taken off does not - so whats your point?

The umbilical cord, once removed, does not grow back either.

Dirt builds up under the nails. Should we take them off completly to prevent this?

Feel free.

 

[jitty]

The umbilical cord, once removed, does not grow back either.

The umblicial cord needs to be cut off to allow the baby to be seperated from its mother. Even if it isnt cut off it will eventually seperate by itself from the child - foreskin does not. Most mamals who have new young are also born in the same way, they also have a umbilical cord which needs to be removed. It serves no purpose in nature.

Feel free.

Im not circumcised, but since you probably are, feel free :uuh:

 

[~Raindrop~]

Feel free.

lol!!

 

[Muezzin]

The umblicial cord needs to be cut off to allow the baby to be seperated from its mother. Even if it isnt cut off it will eventually seperate by itself from the child - foreskin does not. Most mamals who have new young are also born in the same way, they also have a umbilical cord which needs to be removed. It serves no purpose in nature.

So, essentially, what you're saying is circumscision is unnaturual.

Let's look at nature. Mammals walk around naked. Some fight each other in mating ceremonies, and a lot defecate wherever they please.

Do you think God intended humans to behave like this? Granted, some do, but I'm not counting the weirdos.

 

[jitty]

So, essentially, what you're saying is circumscision is unnaturual.

Let's look at nature. Mammals walk around naked. Some fight each other in mating ceremonies, and a lot defecate wherever they please.

Do you think God intended humans to behave like this? Granted, some do, but I'm not counting the weirdos.

Mamals do not walk around naked. God has given them their own forms of protection from the elements. For example, polar bears have really thick fur to protect it from arktic conditions.

Humans are a much more advanced form of animal. But in essence they remain the same as other animals. When they come out from the womb, all mamals have the foreskin. It is there the way god intended. It was there for a reason.

So yes I am saying circumcision is unnatural. Why? Do you not agree considering the above?