[pharmacologist30]

A court in Cologne has ruled that circumcising young children for religious reasons causes grievous bodily harm and is illegal, even with parental consent. Jewish and Muslim organizations have blasted the decision.

The regional court in the western city of Cologne ruled on Tuesday that child circumcision constituted "illegal bodily harm," even with parental consent. In the verdict, the court said that the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents."

The case came about after a four-year-old Muslim boy's circumcision led to complications and he checked back into hospital days later with severe bleeding. Prosecutors then charged the physician - identified under German media law only as Dr. K. - who carried out the operation at the parents' request with grievous bodily harm.

The court also acquitted the doctor, however, saying that he did not know the procedure was illegal so it would have been a miscarriage of justice to sentence him. This verdict, unless it is overturned at appeal in a higher court, would likely serve as precedent in future cases, making future guilty verdicts possible.

"A child's body is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision," the court said. "This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later about his own religious affiliation."

Jewish group says verdict attacks religious freedom

Dieter Graumann, the president of the German Central Council of Jews, said that the verdict was "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in religious communities' right to self-determination." The book of Genesis instructs believers that men should be circumcised.

"Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries," Graumann said. "This religious right is respected in every part of the world."

He called on the government to clarify Tuesday's ruling and to protect religious freedom from attack.

The World Health Organization estimates that roughly one third of men in the world are circumcised. Many are Muslims or Jews circumcised for religious reasons, but some parents also choose to circumcise their boys on health and hygiene grounds. The court also said that circumcision on medical grounds was not illegal. http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=22705

Holm Putzke, a professor of penology – the study of the punishment of crime – from the University of Passau, told the German news agency DPA that the ruling would set a legal precedent and would act as a warning. "The ruling is not binding for other courts, but it will have the effect of a warning signal." He added while Dr K had been let off, from now on no doctor would be able to claim that he or she did not know it was forbidden.

He said unlike politicians who have long faced pressure to deal with the issue, "the court did not allow itself to be scared off by charges of antisemitism or religious intolerance".

Demir predicted a ban in Germany would lead to a rise in "circumcision tourism in neighbouring countries in Europe".

[Andrew1978]

Muslims from Germany should seriously consider hijrah.

Why is the efficacy of a medical issue being decided by a lawyer or a judge? We already know the benefits of circumcision and how it dramatically reduces STDs and genital infections, especially those associated with poor hygiene. Should vaccinations be banned as well since some people regard them to be useless?

[duexjepevef]

Beside, Is it d side effect of.? http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...hlight=Germany

[bF8CCmmr]

The thing that came to my mind is that these are desperate attempts, desperate last attempts, at trying to claw back Europe from the immigrant (read Muslim) population it soooo desperately needs.

I think they can continue flailing, just like their economy, while we continue at the steady, even pace we've been going at (insha'Allah improving day-by-day)... patiently persevering and insha'Allah the tide will turn and we'll be the ones making the laws.

[Q: is it that circumcision is illegal or is it that circumcising children is illegal? Not everyone will leave the country to get their sons circumcised... some will have it done secretly and perhaps by unqualified people and that could actually create a greater health hazard... how did lawmakers deal with this probability?]

[Imiweevierm]

Wow, so this is not just a problem for the Muslims, but for the Jews as well. Is this there plan to stop the flood of Muslims coming into Europe?

ps: Anyone else find it ironic that this is happening in Germany of all countries?

[bF8CCmmr]

Germany has an over-inflated sense of power (money) and importance in the region... they are way too dependent on their own workforce but also of the economies of the area - is this their way of admitting it? What do they hope to achieve? "Look son, we saved you from a decision there was no turning back from... you're welcome"????

[Karensmith]

this is why islam and secularism cannot coexist.
but then again people may point out as to how secularism is actually saving islam in india.
let me explain. in india there is a huge muslim population that is still a minority. yet the muslims contest elections and are in parliament and have successfully molded the constitution so that muslim population's basic rights are not violated.
they use the shoulder of secularism because the other option - extremist hindu religious doctrine based constitution - will effectively signal a mass pogrom for the muslims.

in germany there are two political fronts - just like in most non-muslim secular democracies : the left and the right (the conservatives and the liberals). the right is generally against immigration and islamization of society (openly) and invoke nationalism from the indigenous population. the left is less vocal against immigration and talks more about respecting all religions.
now this is all in theory and press releases. in practice both left and right know that islamic values are a threat to their self-made, misguided destructive values. and they work actively towards eliminating this 'threat' from their society (with the right taking the lead) and from other countries as well. it is not surprising they all are part of the ISAF operating in afghanistan.

so why cannot something like india where secularism is actually a safeguard for muslims, happen in some country like germany ? the thing is in germany the other option to the current government is not a hindu extremist group but the Left Party (merkel is from christian democratic union - CDU - and merkel cabinet comprises of a 'grand coalition' between social democrats and christian democrats). a further example: in france, the 'other' group is the nationalist rightists. and both parties are secular. yet for the right's anti-immigration policies i dont see many muslims siding with them. so the answer is: the muslims are not a large population in germany to make up a significant portion of the parliament to be able to legislate laws that prevent rulings like these from being passed. in india, such rulings according tot he constitution would automatically be prevented by simply showing the opposing party the constitution (which after years of toil can now help the indian muslims).

yet the base question remains. does secularism inherently oppose religion? the answer is an unequivocal yes. other religions may argue over this as they have changed their laws to suit the law of the lands. but not islam, and never islam in sha Allah. hence that is why we are opposed by the secularists so much. we just do not budge. a clear cut example of secular opposing religion is this . in india of all places. you see there is no question of islamic banking being 'harmful' to economy. you will notice they are opposing it because it is based on Muslim religious texts. and hence a religious commandment. same was in france. they showed concern that halal meat was mistakenly fed to the french. can they produce any evidence that there is something unhealthy about halal meat? no. they opposed it because it is based on a muslim religous text.

so this shows that while secularism can, and is preventing, the 'massacre' of muslims in india because of Hindutva the reason secularism is working is because in its absence the 'religion' that will come into power is hindu. yet the secularists will oppose any law (as shown by above link) which is based on a religious text. so secularism in india can provide 'safety' muslims in terms of the literal meaning and also on social and economic terms - yet it will not allow muslims to govern themselves with their own laws.

in UK the shariah courts are seemingly contrary to this where muslims are given the choice to settle their own issues via shariah. but it is different from calling for muslims to bank the islamic way which could threaten their riba profits. hence secularism is a compromise in india where it saves them from hindu extremists. and in secular western democracies perhaps the correct term to use is that liberals are less harmful to muslims than conservatives. yet both are secular. so if one wishes to do an india in germany, britain or france then both will oppose it in the same way because of their allergy to religion. in india the constitution prevents such allergies to be made into laws. while in germany there is no protection. yet the allergy is present in both countries. how long can indian muslims keep thm at bay?


now does the example of india means secularism can help muslim countries? the answer is an unequivocal no. because the religion of Islam that the muslim secularists are replacing in govt is not barbaric. it is the only true religion remaining and the only way the world can achieve world peace. the arguments we give against hindu extremists do not apply on shariah. the rights of minorities and the safety of minorities are more in shariah than any western democracy. you just have to dig beneath the picture to figure that out.
if muslims continue to support western democracy and continue voting for secular parties in muslim lands they welcome such ridiculous rulings in their country: a day might come then when circumcision is banned in pakistan because the liberals say so.

(any mistakes in govt facts i provided from germany, britan and india are welcome to be pointed out)

[JohnTruels]

Reality is that its a universal problem. Every religion or ideology would want to have all people under its own law. A Muslims government in India would want to enforce shariah on the Hindu population. That's why I prefer the community based non-monolithic state where each community stick to their own laws and courts. It would take a miracle for secular liberal non-muslims with a significant strong population to ever live in a state where shariah is enforced on them.

Apocalyptically speaking, when Gog Magog would be wipped out of earth then only would islamic order and golden age be achieved in totality.

[Karensmith]

Reality is that its a universal problem. Every religion or ideology would want to have all people under its own law. A Muslims government in India would want to enforce shariah on the Hindu population. That's why I prefer the community based non-monolithic state where each community stick to their own laws and courts. It would take a miracle for secular liberal non-muslims with a significant strong population to ever live in a state where shariah is enforced on them.

Apocalyptically speaking, when Gog Magog would be wipped out of earth then only would islamic order and golden age be achieved in totality.

there can never be a muslim government in india that can even think of implementing shariah fully.so this should not be even discussed.
in muslim countries if shariah is implemented fully it does not force all religions to become muslims. if you read what shariah actually stipulates for non-muslims you will find it to be quite relaxed. but you are correct in saying the liberal muslims will have a big problem accepting shariah.
i'll come back with more on this, once i have finished al ahkam al sultaniyya.

[gambleingsites]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-7893302.html

Dieter Graumann, the President of Germany’s Central Council of Jews denounced the ruling today as “outrageous and insensitive”. He described it as an “unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination” and demanded that parliament intervene to “protect religious freedom”. Aiman Mazyek of the Central Council of Muslims said the ruling was both “inadmissible” and “outrageous

[HomePageOEMfreeSOFTWARE]

وعليكم السلام
Angela Merkel intervenes over court ban on circumcision of young boys

Angela Merkel’s spokesman has promised Germany's Jewish and Muslim communities they will be free to carry out circumcision on young boys, despite a court ban that has raised concerns about religious freedom.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...n-circumcision

والسلام