Ruling on changing the name of a disbeliever who has embraced Islam and on his circumcision

The question: His final question states: If a disbeliever embraces Islam, is he required to change his name? And if he is an old man who was not purified (circumcised) when he was young because he was a disbeliever, what should be done with him, if you please?
The answer: If his name is not good, it is prescribed for him to change his name after Islam. Also, changing it gives a clear and apparent impression of his transition to Islam, and that he has moved to Islam; because he asks about the reasons for the change, people will know that he has embraced Islam. Also, in most cases, their names in disbelief may not be appropriate, so he changes it to Islamic names: such as Saleh, Ahmad, Abdullah, Abd al-Rahman, Muhammad, and the like. As for if his name is a form of worship to other than Allah, like Abd al-Masih, or Abd al-Zahra, or Abd Musa, or Abd Isa, this must be changed, because worship is not for anyone but Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). So if his name is a form of worship to other than Allah, it is obligatory that it be changed to Abdullah or Abd al-Rahman or the like. As for if it is not a form of worship to other than Allah, but are names known among the disbelievers and are the custom of the disbelievers, then it is better to change them and it is more preferable to change them to Islamic names.
As for circumcision, it is more preferable that he be circumcised even if he is old, but through a skilled and knowledgeable doctor. He should be circumcised, and a group of scholars say: It is obligatory for him to be circumcised. Some scholars hold that it is obligatory for him to be circumcised if there is no danger. As for if the doctor says: There is danger in it, then there is no obligation and it is dropped. But if the doctor says: There is no harm in his circumcision and no blame in it, and no danger in it, then he is circumcised. This is what he should do, and it is a confirmed recommended practice or obligatory according to a group of scholars. So if it is facilitated for him to be circumcised and he is old without danger, this is the better, more preferable, and most cautious course. As for if there is hardship in it, or some doctors say: There is danger in it, then no, there is no need for it and it is dropped. And if his circumcision might be a cause of his repulsion from Islam, then it is not mentioned and not explained to him, and it is left; because his entry into Islam is a great blessing even if he is not circumcised. So it is not befitting that he be presented with anything that repels him from Islam. But if he enters Islam and settles in Islam, then it is looked at afterwards. If his circumcision is facilitated without hardship and without danger, this is better and more cautious. And if it is not facilitated, it is left. Yes.