₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
All that you seem to know of the circumcision idea is pretty much born of some of the same ignorance that plagues other's. Look, that book clearly explained to all who will honestly read it that the issue of circumcision applies only to those who are associated with God's Old Law of Moses, particularly the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the children of Israel, to whom God gave the LQ of Moses to - The National Constitution of the state He constituted of them - Deuteronomy 30 vs 15 - 20.
The Law itself was given, as the National Constitution to the Jewish Nation living in the Land.
Abraham, and his servants, were a part of that Covenant given that they too resided in the land of Canaan, and so God's instructions to Abraham was that, a reveal that were included in the Covenant.

However, Nigerians are not included in that Covenant since they do not live in the land of Canaan or among the jews and so all Nigerians who circumcise their kids do not do so in obedience to God but against God since they assume God foolish for not including them in the Covenant which He made.

So, by blindly attacking the books content, what you reveal is that you are pretty much working under similar delusion as those you pretend to care for.

So you are saying tithing that Nigerians do also is against the bible, since it is not referring to them right.

Rashduct4luv:
Sorry, can you show where women were told to have a covering (like scarf as you opined) and how it was practiced during the time of the Prophet?

And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not display their adornment [Zeenah] except only that which [ordinarily] appears thereof and to draw their headcovers [Khumur] over their chests and not display their adornment [i.e., beauty] except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their female slaves, their women [i.e., their sisters in Islam], or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O Believers, in order that you might succeed." [Quran 24:31]

From the above quaranic verse, there is no mention of any hijab or burqa only head cover (covering ) was mentioned.

Kobojunkie:
The problem isn't the content of the book but ignorance and foolishness on the part of those who engage in these rituals , so why insist that the book is the problem?

According to you, religion claims to be a guide to morality but the book never really presents itself as such, so why are you calling for the book to be burned?

Classic case of putting words into my mouth to say what you want it to mean.

Moreover if the book wasn't there, there will be no beliefs

You refuse to counter the points I put forth e.g circumcision.

2.

Definitely.

It was never written explicitly.
Women were told to have a covering ( a scarf should do) not necessarily hijab or worst burqa.

I saw a woman walking with burqa with her face completely closed . I wonder how she was even seeing and breathing, she will be walking and a bike will nearly hit her.

ISSUE 1 : Circumcision

Religious ritual since the dawn of time has
insisted on snatching children from the cradle and taking sharp stones
or knives to their pudenda.

In some animist and Muslim societies, it is
the female babies who suffer the worst, with the excision of the labia
and the clitoris. This practice is sometimes postponed to adolescence and, as earlier described, accompanied by infibulation, or the sewing up of the vagina with only a small aperture for the passage of blood
and urine( Female genital mutilation).

The aim is clear—to kill or dull the girl’s sexual instinct and destroy the temptation to experiment with any man save the one
to whom she will be given (and who will have the privilege of rending those threads on the dreaded nuptial night). Meanwhile, she will be
taught that her monthly visitation of blood is a curse (all religions have expressed a horror of it, and many still prohibit menstruating women from attending service) and that she is an unclean vessel.


In other cultures, notably the “Judeo-Christian,” it is the sexual mutilation of small boys that is insisted upon. (For some reason, little girls can be Jewish without genital alteration: it is useless to look for
consistency in the covenants that people believe they have made with
god.) Here, the original motives appear to be twofold.

The shedding of blood—which is insisted upon at circumcision ceremonies—is most
probably a symbolic survival from the animal and human sacrifices which were such a feature of the gore-soaked landscape of the OldTestament. By adhering to the practice, parents could offer to sacrifice a part of the child as a stand-in for the whole. Objections to interference with something that god must have designed with care—the
human penis—were overcome by the invented dogma that Adam was born circumcised and in the image of god. Indeed, it is argued
by some rabbis that Moses, too, was born circumcised, though this
claim may result from the fact that his own circumcision is nowhere
mentioned in the Pentateuch.


The second purpose—very unambivalently stated by Maimonides—
was the same as for girls: the destruction as far as possible of the pleasurable side of sexual intercourse. Here is what the sage tells us in his Guide to the Perplexed:


With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my
opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse
and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity
be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.
It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective
congenitally. . . . How can natural things be defective so that they
need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know
how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is
defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.


The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. . . . The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty
of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to
bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.
Maimonides did not seem particularly impressed by the promise
(made to Abraham in Genesis 17) that circumcision would lead to his
having a vast progeny at the age of ninety-nine.

Abraham’s decision to circumcise his slaves as well as his male household was a side issue or perhaps an effect of enthusiasm, since these non-Jews were not part of the covenant. But he did circumcise his son Ishmael, who was
then thirteen. (Ishmael only had to part with his foreskin: his younger brother Isaac—oddly described as Abraham’s “only” son in Genesis
22—was circumcised when he was eight days old but later offered as
a sacrifice in his whole person.)


Maimonides also argued that circumcision would be a means of
reinforcing ethnic solidarity, and he laid particular stress on the need
to perform the operation on babies rather than on those who had
reached the age of reason:

[I]The first [argument] is that if the child were let alone until he grew up, he would sometimes not perform it. The second is that
a child does not suffer as much pain as a grown-up man because his membrane is still soft and his imagination weak; for a grownup man would regard the thing, which he would imagine before it occurred, as terrible and hard. The third is that the parents of a
child that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. . . . [I]
Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father’s love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative
form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon
whom this commandment is imposed.
In ordinary words, Maimonides is perfectly aware that, if not supposedly mandated by god, this hideous procedure would, even in the most devout parent—he stipulates only a father—create a natural revulsion in favor of the child. But he represses this insight in favor of “divine” law.


In more recent times, some pseudosecular arguments have been adduced for male circumcision. It has been argued that the process is
more hygienic for the male and thus more healthy for females in helping them avoid, for example, cervical cancer. Medicine has exploded these claims, or else revealed them as problems which can just as easily be solved by a “loosening” of the foreskin. Full excision, originally ordered by god as the blood price for the promised future massacre
of the Canaanites, is now exposed for what it is—a mutilation of a
powerless infant with the aim of ruining its future sex life. The connection between religious barbarism and sexual repression could not be plainer than when it is “marked in the flesh.” Who can count the
number of lives that have been made miserable in this way, especially
since Christian doctors began to adopt ancient Jewish folklore in their hospitals? And who can bear to read the medical textbooks and histories which calmly record the number of boy babies who died from infection after their eighth day, or who suffered gross and unbearable dysfunction and disfigurement?
The record of syphilitic and other
infection, from rotting rabbinical teeth or other rabbinical indiscretions, or of clumsy slitting of the urethra and sometimes a vein, is
simply dreadful. And it is permitted in New York in 2006! If religion
and its arrogance were not involved, no healthy society would permit this primitive amputation, or allow any surgery to be practiced on the Instruments without the full and informed consent of the person
concerned.


Religion despite claiming to be a guide to morality had done alot of immoral things.

There has been countless record of barbarism in religion which is as a results of using primitive contents of religious books in our modern world.


In essence religion needs to be in par with 21st century challenges.

Hello nairalanders this is my first topic.

Its nice to be here