Court stops circumcision.

Well, I'm reliably informed that you're for same-sex marriage, which is still pretty damn liberal for a Muslim person (no offence).

How much does IL tell you about me lool

but in general I believe parents should be able to decide whether or not to have their male child circumcised.

Circumcision is practised in Christianity and Judaism too, not just Islam. The only religion that completely condones it is Sikhism. The only difference is that nowadays there aren't many Christians who do undergo circumcision. It's funny though how differently everyone would be viewing this if circumcision was still practised regularly in a religion like Christianity.
Parents should be allowed to decide whether their child is circumcised because there are clear health benefits. Non-circumcised men are twice as likely to contract and spread STDs as those who are circumcised. That's common knowledge so I don't know why people get so defensive and disregard the health benefits when these are facts that you can find on any medical website like webmd.
It can't be compared to FGM at all because FGM is done with malicious intent - to stop young women from developing too fast and from engaging in sex before marriage. Unlike male circumcision which is done because of the obvious health and hygiene benefits, there are no benefits of FGM.
And if male circumcision was anything as bad as FGM, do you really think the NHS would be allowed to carry it out?

Disagree with it and find it abhorrent and degrading

It's the definition of hypocrisy because you find the genital mutilation of females abhorrent, but the genital mutilation of males fine.

It doesn't matter if that's the only negative effect, it's still mutilation. That argument could be used for all sorts of things, such as raping babies and because they won't remember it it will therefore have no negative effect etc.

The point is, if there are no benefits then why do it?

The case of the non-muslim British-born mother versus the muslim Algerian-born father in Britain at a time when the western world and the muslim world are at war.

No, I don't think so. FGM is carried out purely to deprive girls of sexual pleasure and discourage them for engaging in sexual activity before marriage.

It has many negative effects and frequently results in girls having difficulty in passing urine, infections,continuous severe pain etc..

There are no health benefits of FGM. With male circumcision, there is still some debate regarding whether or not it has health benefits. Some health sources report there are, others say otherwise. There are hardly any negative effects on health, and it's so commonly practiced and even offered as part of some health care programmes.

Have you not read the preceding pages?
Everything that you claim has been refuted, with references.
Yours argument is based on misinformation and fallacies, perpetuated by religious/cultural apologists.

But you support the same procudure when carried out on males.
Why is that?

Are they? When did this happen?
Do the people of Canada know that they are at war with Indonesia?
Why does Britain have so many trade deals with KSA, when we are at war?
And I guess that all those footballers are going to have to find somewhere else to spend their money now that Dubai is a war zone.

The reason why the court sided with the mother and child is because it was the humane and civilised thing to do.
That is all.

How is it hypocritical? And yes I was brought up in a Muslim household.

The only negative effect of circumcision is that it results in decreased sensitivity, but this is only minimal as circumsised men are still able to enjoy sex and feel sensations etc.. If this is the only drawback then like I said if a parent choses to circumsise their child then that's fine.

You can continue calling my opinion disgraceful and hypocritical I don't really care. I was tagged in this thread by someone wanting to know my opinion and I shared it.

And your reasons are unsatisfactory. As I expected, you come from a religion that thinks it's OK so can't really say I'm surprised.

Yes, that argument CAN be used for all sorts of things and I provided an example of it. The fact it had to do with memory is irrelevant as the basic reason was the one that you gave as a justification: that there are no negative effects.

Ridiculous argument, professionals don't recognise any real health benefits which is why the NHS does not offer the procedure for cultural or religious reasons. If you're saying there are health benefits then the burden of proof is on you to show this and not use the quite frankly shocking argument of 'some benefits may be discovered in the future so let's continue doing it.'

I don't view the two as the same or comparable.

Well we're bombing aren't we. Russia is bombing. France is bombing. The USA is bombing.

If it is that simple and the court sided with her totally removed for the socio-cultural context then why do we not see more such cases from a wider array of backgrounds. Significantly, why have their been no serious attempts to illegalise circumcision. It is a part of catholicism after all and there are plenty of catholics in the UK.

May I suggest that the socio-cultural context is one in which the international arms trade and war for profit are normalised. A context within which these wars aren't discussed and the populace are programmed to believe in cultural superiority.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of negative effects in raping a baby. Simple logic should tell you this, and rape itself is an evil act and is illegal, so no it's not a valid comparison.

Bombing the "Muslim World"? Really?
I think you'll find that it is essentially just areas controlled by ISIS, and we are constantly told that they are "Not Muslims".

And that's the first time that I've heard Russia referred to as "the West"!

I don't understand. Does that mean that Britain is at war with Saudi Arabia, or not?

One of the reasons for the ruling was that the socio-cultural views of the mother took precedence over those of the father, obviously.
And I don't know if you have noticed, but there has neen a move away from automatic acceptance of MGM as a matter of course, both socio-culturally and legally. It is only a matter of time until is is illegal below the age of 16.

You may.

Glad to see the courts exercising some common sense and thinking of the welfare of children rather than religious privilege.
This should always be the case, even if both parents agree.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/19/muslim-man-loses-high-court-bid-to-have-sons-circumcised

There are civilians living there. Obviously I was not referring to the whole of the muslim world - a lot of it is still very obedient however Saudi is decreasingly compliment with US wishes. Look out for a regime change. Russia was clearly an outlying example; the purpose of the list was to state nations currently conducting bombing campaigns in Syria specifically.

Circumcision doesnt hurt anyone though (i am circumcised, and it hasnt made my life any better or worse). Why are your jimmies getting rustled about some little kid's penis?

Ah! So when you said "The western world is at war with the Muslim world", you actually meant "selected countries are bombing ISIS positions in Syria".

OK, cool.
I agree with you.