Quote:
| An unforunately recently-turned atheist (from muslim) friend of mine was talking to me about circumcision and how it's against human rights and causes unnecessary deaths etc. |
"Circumcision of newborn boys (I.e., within the first month of life) brings numerous health benefits, including:
1 – Protection against local infection in the penis,
which may result from the presence of the foreskin, causing tightening
of the foreskin, which may lead to retention of urine or infections of
the glans (tip) of the penis – which require circumcision
in order to treat these problems. In chronic cases, the child may be
exposed to numerous diseases in the future, the most serious of which is
cancer of the penis.
2 – Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%.
In children, infection of the urethra is serious in some cases. In the study by Wisewell on 88 children who suffered infections of the urethra, in 36 % of them, the same bacteria was found in the blood also. Three of them contracted meningitis, and two suffered renal failure. Two others died as a result of the spread of the micro-organisms throughout the body.
3 – Protection against cancer of the penis: the studies agree that cancer of the penis is almost non-existent among circumcised men, whereas the rate among uncircumcised men is not insignificant. In the US the rate of penile cancer among circumcised men is zero, whilst among uncircumcised men it is 2.2 in every 100,000 of the uncircumcised population. As most of the inhabitants of the US are circumcised, the cases of this cancer there are between 750 and 1000 per year. If the population were not circumcised, the number of cases would reach 3000. In countries where boys are not circumcised, such as China, Uganda and Puerto Rico, penile cancer represents between 12-22 % of all cancers found in men; this is a very high percentage.
4 – Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Researchers found that the STDs which are transmitted via sexual contact (usually because of fornication/adultery and homosexuality) spread more among those who are not circumcised, especially herpes, soft chancres, syphilis, candida, gonorrhea and genital warts.
There are numerous modern studies which confirm that circumcision reduces the possibility of contracting AIDS when compared to their uncircumcised counterparts. But that does not rule out the possibility of a circumcised man contracting AIDS as the result of sexual contact with a person who has AIDS. Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee'ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and homosexuality).
5 – Protection of wives against cervical cancer. Researchers have noted that the wives of circumcised men have less risk of getting cervical cancer than the wives of uncircumcised men.
Health Benefits taken from: al-Khitaan, p. 76, by Dr. Muhammad al-Baar.
2 – Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%.
In children, infection of the urethra is serious in some cases. In the study by Wisewell on 88 children who suffered infections of the urethra, in 36 % of them, the same bacteria was found in the blood also. Three of them contracted meningitis, and two suffered renal failure. Two others died as a result of the spread of the micro-organisms throughout the body.
3 – Protection against cancer of the penis: the studies agree that cancer of the penis is almost non-existent among circumcised men, whereas the rate among uncircumcised men is not insignificant. In the US the rate of penile cancer among circumcised men is zero, whilst among uncircumcised men it is 2.2 in every 100,000 of the uncircumcised population. As most of the inhabitants of the US are circumcised, the cases of this cancer there are between 750 and 1000 per year. If the population were not circumcised, the number of cases would reach 3000. In countries where boys are not circumcised, such as China, Uganda and Puerto Rico, penile cancer represents between 12-22 % of all cancers found in men; this is a very high percentage.
4 – Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Researchers found that the STDs which are transmitted via sexual contact (usually because of fornication/adultery and homosexuality) spread more among those who are not circumcised, especially herpes, soft chancres, syphilis, candida, gonorrhea and genital warts.
There are numerous modern studies which confirm that circumcision reduces the possibility of contracting AIDS when compared to their uncircumcised counterparts. But that does not rule out the possibility of a circumcised man contracting AIDS as the result of sexual contact with a person who has AIDS. Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee'ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and homosexuality).
5 – Protection of wives against cervical cancer. Researchers have noted that the wives of circumcised men have less risk of getting cervical cancer than the wives of uncircumcised men.
Health Benefits taken from: al-Khitaan, p. 76, by Dr. Muhammad al-Baar.
Circumcision 'does not curb sex'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7174929.stm
Look also
Why Circumcision?
Why Circumcision? [6122] -Customs and Symbols - Understanding Islam
Male Circumcision in Islam
CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal
Circumcision
Circumcision
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7174929.stm
Look also
Why Circumcision?
Why Circumcision? [6122] -Customs and Symbols - Understanding Islam
Male Circumcision in Islam
CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal
Circumcision
Circumcision
why created circumcised?
Quote:
| ولذلك : ولما كان شرع الله وفطرته للناس لا يأتيان إلا بخير : فقد جاءت سنن الفطرة التي أمر بها الله أنبياءه يبلغونها للناس : كانت لا تقف على حدود نص الآيات .. وإنما كانت موافقة لكل خير ٍ: شرعا ًوخلقا ًوطبا ًودينا ً!!!.. |
Quote:
| وأما قوله تعالى: لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا الْإِنْسَانَ فِي أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍ {التين: 4} فمعناه ـ كما قال البغوي في تفسيره : أي
أعدل قامة وأحسن صورة، وذلك أنه خلق كل حيوان منكبًا على وجهه إلا
الإنسان خلقه مديد القامة، يتناول مأكوله بيده، مُزَينَّا بالعقل
والتمييز. اهـ. وقال السعدي: أي تام الخلق، متناسب الأعضاء، منتصب القامة، لم يفقد مما يحتاج إليه ظاهرًا أو باطنًا شيئًا اهـ. وهناك قول آخر ذكره الطبري فقال: وقال آخرون: بل معنى ذلك: لقد خلقنا الإنسان، فبلغنا به استواء شبابه وجلده وقوّته، وهو أحسن ما يكون، وأعدل ما يكون وأقومه. اهـ. فأي تناقض بين هذا وبين شريعة الإسلام السمحة في إزالة ما يشوه الخلقة ويضر الإنسان، وهو ما يعرف بسنن الفطرة، فقد قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: الفطرة خمس: الختان والاستحداد وقص الشارب وتقليم الأظفار ونتف الآباط. متفق عليه |
For sunnah rejectors, Read:
The Authority of Sunnah by Mufti Taqi Usmani (http://www.defending-islam.com/page238.html)
The Fallacies of Anti Hadith Arguments By Shah Shahidullah Faridi (http://www.defending-islam.com/page236.html)
http://www.defending-islam.com/page415.html
http://www.answering-christianity.co..._quranists.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16801824/Status-of-the-Sunnah-in-Islaam-Answering-Quranists
The Authority of Sunnah by Mufti Taqi Usmani (http://www.defending-islam.com/page238.html)
The Fallacies of Anti Hadith Arguments By Shah Shahidullah Faridi (http://www.defending-islam.com/page236.html)
http://www.defending-islam.com/page415.html
http://www.answering-christianity.co..._quranists.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16801824/Status-of-the-Sunnah-in-Islaam-Answering-Quranists
http://answeringsubmission.wordpress.com/
The Sect that splitted up .. Hadith Rejectors
Some arguments by hadith rejectors/critiques
The Sect that splitted up .. Hadith Rejectors
Some arguments by hadith rejectors/critiques
Circumcision should be offered 'like vaccines' to the parents of baby boys, new study
- The health benefits of male circumcision 'outweigh the risks 100 to one'
- Half of uncircumcised men develop a health problem as a result, it is claimed
- It would be 'unethical' not to offer it to the parents of all baby boys, the researchers state
By Daily Mail Reporter; April 2014
Circumcision should be offered to babies the same way that vaccinations are, an academic has claimed.
The health benefits of male circumcision far outweigh the risks by more than 100 to one, according to Professor Brian Morris.
His study found that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised men will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin.
Circumcision should be offered to babies the same way that vaccinations are, an academic has claimed.
The health benefits of male circumcision far outweigh the risks by more than 100 to one, according to Professor Brian Morris.
His study found that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised men will contract an adverse medical condition caused by their foreskin.
Parents of boys should be offered circumcision for their sons just as they are offered vaccines, a study has claimed
The joint Australian and American research team said their findings add considerable weight to the latest American Academy of Paediatrics policy that supports education and access for infant male circumcision.
Circumcision rates for babies in the U.S. have fallen from a high of 83 per cent in the 1960s to 77 per cent today.
Study leader Brian Morris, Professor Emeritus in the School of Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney, who worked with colleagues in Florida and Minnesota, said: ‘There seemed to be two major reasons for the fall.
‘One is a result of demographic changes, with the rise in the Hispanic population.
‘Hispanic families tend to be less familiar with the custom, making them less likely to circumcise their baby boys.
‘The other is the current absence of Medicaid coverage for the poor in 18 U.S. states. In those states, circumcision is 24 per cent lower.’
He added: ‘The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy.
‘Delay puts the child's health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen.’
He said in infancy, the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidneys.
Professor Morris and co-investigator Dr Tom Wiswell, of the Centre for Neonatal Care in Orlando, Florida, showed last year that over the lifetime, UTIs affect one in three uncircumcised males.
Professor Morris, with Dr John Krieger, of the Department of Urology at the University of Washington in Seattle, showed that there is no adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure.
This helped dispel one myth perpetuated by opponents of the procedure.
Prof Morris added: ‘Taken together, the new findings should send a strong message to medical practitioners, professional bodies, educators, policy makers, governments, and insurers to promote this safe, simple procedure, best done in infancy under local anaesthesia and to increase access and third party coverage, especially for poor families, who tend to suffer most from foreskin-related diseases.
‘Infant circumcision has, moreover, been shown to be cost saving.’
The study was published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
The joint Australian and American research team said their findings add considerable weight to the latest American Academy of Paediatrics policy that supports education and access for infant male circumcision.
Circumcision rates for babies in the U.S. have fallen from a high of 83 per cent in the 1960s to 77 per cent today.
Study leader Brian Morris, Professor Emeritus in the School of Medical Sciences at the University of Sydney, who worked with colleagues in Florida and Minnesota, said: ‘There seemed to be two major reasons for the fall.
‘One is a result of demographic changes, with the rise in the Hispanic population.
‘Hispanic families tend to be less familiar with the custom, making them less likely to circumcise their baby boys.
‘The other is the current absence of Medicaid coverage for the poor in 18 U.S. states. In those states, circumcision is 24 per cent lower.’
He added: ‘The new findings now show that infant circumcision should be regarded as equivalent to childhood vaccination and that as such it would be unethical not to routinely offer parents circumcision for their baby boy.
‘Delay puts the child's health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen.’
He said in infancy, the strongest immediate benefit is protection against urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can damage the kidneys.
Professor Morris and co-investigator Dr Tom Wiswell, of the Centre for Neonatal Care in Orlando, Florida, showed last year that over the lifetime, UTIs affect one in three uncircumcised males.
Professor Morris, with Dr John Krieger, of the Department of Urology at the University of Washington in Seattle, showed that there is no adverse effect of circumcision on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure.
This helped dispel one myth perpetuated by opponents of the procedure.
Prof Morris added: ‘Taken together, the new findings should send a strong message to medical practitioners, professional bodies, educators, policy makers, governments, and insurers to promote this safe, simple procedure, best done in infancy under local anaesthesia and to increase access and third party coverage, especially for poor families, who tend to suffer most from foreskin-related diseases.
‘Infant circumcision has, moreover, been shown to be cost saving.’
The study was published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment