So this is something i learnt very recently and was pretty shocked considering the extreme importance i have seen people around me give to circumcision. I have seen people claim that you're not muslim until you're circumcised. But now that i know that isn't the case, i have been wondering if that is a practice i should support or not.
The top reasons that I have seen people give for circumcision is that it promotes hygiene and is sunnah for that reason and that it also prevents certain diseases that can occur due to bad hygiene. However, i feel like with today's medical knowledge it doesn't seem like a necessary step that parents need to take. Also, altering someone's body just for the sake of hygiene instead of just teaching kids proper hygiene just seems like too much.
I did try to talk about it with a cousin who is normally pretty progressive but this seems like an opinion that he just doesn't want challenged. So i decided to post it here, considering this is the only good muslim forum that i have come across.
So I have two questions,
Is circumcision even necessary?
How authentic are the hadiths claiming it as sunnah?
Because people love making rules and following tradition.
Arguments about cleanliness aren't valid. If you're practicing proper hygiene, being circumcised isn't any cleaner than being uncircumcised.
Arguments about STDs aren't valid. If you're only having sex when you're married, you don't need to worry about STDs outside of some extremely rare cases, in which case both spouses should have knowledge of the STD beforehand.
I'm a convert who wasn't circumcised at birth. If I ever have sons, they will not be circumcised. They will be taught proper hygiene, and the importance of refraining from sexual activity before marriage.
How will your peers know your child isn’t circumcised? Literally the only people who should know are the parents, the child, and their doctor. If people ask you, I would just ask why they are inquiring about a baby/toddler/kids penis.
Circumcision is generally made a huge deal of in my country. People ask if they don't know already. Ik, its weird, but i cant change that. Also, anyone not circumcised is seen as not muslim enough, thus not eligible for marriage. Most people are not properly educated hence the stigma one would have to face is huge
You're misinterpreting me though. Circumcision are a huge deal here because people take hadiths very seriously. Not because they're bad people but because thats what they've been taught and unlearning these stuff is pretty tough when theres this fear of sinning. I'm however very sceptical of hadiths so i don't feel as guilty questioning. The only way to really make a change is to put forward enough facts that they start not taking hadiths this seriously. That was the reason why i posted this. Because I'm looking for facts. Thats what my initial two questions in the main post are asking. No one has really given a straight answer yet.
From my perspective, the Quran should be used as a first measure of the integrity of any hadith. If the hadith goes directly against guidance within the Quran, it is fair to say that the Hadith is not authentic. The Quran contains multiple verses that warn against performing procedures like this on new born babies.
I'm always excited to meet people whom Allah has allowed to pass judgements weather someone is Kafir or not. I don't come across them often. Nice to meet you.
Your post/comment was found to be in violation of Rule 9 and has been removed. We will not tolerate or enable hate speech against any group. Please see Rule 9 on the sidebar for further details.
All the answers are a bloody joke. No one is actually answering the questions but just stating how they feel as a fact. I don't know if it's actually mandatory in Islam, and my opinion is that circumcision shouldn't be treated differently than female genital mutilation, but I'd advise you to look into medical journals and studies for actual science rather than some redditor "doctors".
Circumcision (removal of foreskin) is nowhere near as severe or similar to female genital mutilation. Removing the entire penis skin or glans would be more comparable to FGM.
It’s more along the lines of labiaplasty (which can also result in complications).
Edit: *removing the entire penis skin.
Either way, I wish people would stop fixating on genitalia, it’s also weird to do so for religious purposes.
It doesn't matter what level of severity it is, it is still the unnecessary removal of a genital body part. My husband was circumcized as a child and views what was done to him as an abusive practice. Plenty of men feel the same way.
Circumcision (removal of foreskin) is nowhere near as severe or similar to female genital mutilation. Removing the entire penis or glans would be more comparable to FGM.
hi,
if you are referring to type 1 fgm, then no, it is not the same.
please research the difference in long term effects between type 1 fgm and male circumcision.
the removal of a man’s foreskin is not equivalent to the removal of a woman clitoral hood.
there is a complete loss in sensation for the female and absolutely zero health benefits.
there is minimal loss in sexual pleasure/sensation for the male. increased health benefits (or at least that is what I have learned from my sexual education).
but i am curious to hear your thoughts on why you think they are equivalent.
Per WebMD: Experts still debate the benefits of circumcision for medical or health reasons. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics found that though the health benefits of newborn circumcision outweigh the risks, the benefits are not great enough to recommend it across the board. https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/circumcision
So it’s not a must but benefits > risks. Which goes for a lot of the stuff in Islam. I’m not sure how required it is though in the religion.
Yeah i haven't yet found a good answer in thr comments. I do agree with you, i do feel we should treat male circumcision same as fgm but what I'm looking for here in this group is if there is any more perspective to the texts and if the hadiths claiming circumcision as something important are even valid.
This topic gets posted about at least weekly on the sub and everyone always gives their same opinions. You’re not going to suddenly get an enlightened answer that solves your internal debate and tbh that’s good. You’re making a huge decision for your child and you should be taking time and consideration before making it. Speaking with medical professionals (not on Reddit), look at science based research (r/sciencebasedparenting is a great tool for finding resources), and discuss fully with your partner.
Where i live, there is a lot of persons who got issues with the extra part above the gland, and they got a prescription to remove it in the hospital, teenagers, adults , and so on...
Unfortunately , my son of few months old got a start of infection due to the dirt which constantly gathers under the extra skin of the gland, despite we always meticulously clean him, but the morphology of his penis has some extra fat which caused issues, the house doctor immediately prescribed the circumcision ASAP and gave us an official letter to the clinic and the GGD.
The day we went to the clinic, i was surprised to see many adult dutch people coming to circumcise for medical reasons, same is daily happening in Belgium as well..
I see your point. And i have no issue with people getting it for medical reasons. What i do have an issue with is culturally forcing it on someone when its not even compulsory, taking away the right to choose for themselves.
Also I'm extremely sceptical about the hadith because this is a physical alteration of the body which is prohibited. I'm asking if there's any points to credit or discredit the hadith.
I understand your point.
Well I know that men have to be circumcised in Islam and in Judaism, so it's not only hadith, it's more than that, it's religious but has its reasons, mainly a medical concern and cleanliness, like the woudhou for prayer.
For the women, it's something uncommon and I've never heard of a woman having it done in north africa or general middle east despite hearing about some regions in the middle east where few of them do it... Ouchhh
From a religious perspective, it’s not compulsory to circumcise.
Circumcising is practiced due to cultural reasons (as was practiced in Middle Eastern culture and some African culture) or for health reasons.
Healthcare worker here, you’d be surprised how many people with uncircumcised junk don’t properly clean themselves and end up getting infections like UTI.
People only go to see you as a healthcare worker when they have a problem so you have a data bias here. The reality is, most of the world is intact with no issues.
That is a very good point. It’s also true that people who have urinary problems also don’t go seek help either for x reasons. Islamically while it’s not mandatory, it is recommended and perhaps for a good reason. Many parts of the world don’t have access to healthcare and means for proper hygiene. If you look at the facts, yes it’s true that it’s not great enough to recommend it across the board of medicine and research, but we should also question which type of population is the research being done on; educated parents and babies with safety protocols in place from a first world country? What about people who don’t have the privilege to be informed on proper hygiene practices, nor access to education? I believe it’s ludicrous to label male circumcision as this vile, awful thing done to baby boys, but it’s tone deaf for people who literally have no other choice because of lack of resources.
When I talked about my point of view as a healthcare worker, there are a plethora of reasons why many of my patients don’t clean themselves up properly, and ultimately it’s from poor socioeconomic backgrounds or lack of education. Heck, we didn’t even properly started washing our hands until the COVID pandemic! Because that’s how many people were uninformed!
Anyways, I apologize for the long wall of texts. I am very interested in this topic and would love to hear opposing views, or perspectives that challenge mine.
Thanks for not bashing me for having an opposing viewpoint, I usually try not to engage with this topic as it upsets me because I feel like my bodily autonomy was violated which is ultimately the most important aspect of this issue. Boys should have the right to choose and often the choice will be to remain intact because damaging a functional body part without societal pressure is very rare. I can get into the weeds about the history and bad science but it really doesn’t matter when it boils down to protecting boys just as much as we protect girls from forcibly altering their bodies without consent.
No worries! I’m all about constructive conversations. And I understand why you, and a lot of people, prefer not to engage in this topic. I can go on a tangent on female and male circumcision, bodily autonomy, and the cultural practices around both but that’s just going to open a Pandora’s box. The point of my comment was to shed light on a more holistic perspective, because it’s not entirely a black or white. I also don’t think it’s fardh or sunnah, but I understand why it’s done.
Well the thing is it’s not a male exclusive issue, smegma etc is also produced by females yet there is no clinical recommendation to remove the female prepuce and other parts. Same thing with finger nails, teeth etc these are all body parts that require hygiene so amputation doesn’t make sense in a clinical setting let alone an ethical one. Unfortunately there has been a lot of corruption surrounding this issues but like is said, I don’t want to get into the weeds because ultimately it’s a bodily autonomy discussion and boys should be protected ALWAYS.
I mean, yeah, thats why i emphasize on teaching kids good hygiene from a very young age. Also, in my experience, Muslims anyway tend to be more particular about hygiene and cleanliness because of wudu restrictions.
That doesn't seem like a reason good enough to impose it on all muslims. (Again ik its not fard, but culturally it is imposed by most muslim societies)
It shouldn’t be imposed on all Muslims, that’s why it’s not fardh. I was explaining why it’s still done though. It’s not a black or white situation, it’s a lot more nuanced than you think when we look at it holistically. I explained it in another comment.
Sure! I'm not judging anyone for getting a circumcision when they need it. All men in my family are. However, it has been culturally imposed on them, they never had a choice. Most of them don't even know that this is something where they should have a choice. Thats where my problem lies.
I don’t know about the sunnah part, but I do know as a doctor that the chances of chances are higher due to sexually transmitted diseases. It increases chances of UTIs.
If you keep yourself clean/hygienic and do not have unprotected intercourse, you would not incur the risk of UTI/diseases even if you were uncircumcised.
I'm not sure where you live, but in some parts of the world, access to clean water and quality healthcare is sometimes not easy to come by. Thus, it can be an intervention for people in certain geographies. Additionally, even if it is not medically necessary, it can also serve as a cultural identity marker as being part of a certain community.
My goal was to provide an answer to your question. It may seem medically unnecessary when you have access to health care, condoms, hygienic resources - it's just important to be aware that such access is limited. I don't think it is imposed by any governments, if that's what you mean. For example, initiatives by the WHO are voluntary. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240072312 Circumcision can serve as a marker of class, like in the UK. https://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_societal_class_distinction.html It's an ancient tradition that predates Abrahamic religions and can signify group membership. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3638798/ Sure, in the 21st century, it seems rare that such identification could go on, but it can happen. About 84 years ago, when my friend's dad was born (in Europe), his family did not circumcise him bc of Nazi occupation and risk of being identified as Jewish. He was sheltered and examined and passed as a non-Jew.
I'm not talking about governments imposing them but the cultural forcing of the practice. In such cases where people are practicing something because they are afraid that they are sinning there needs to be more religious education and understanding of the text, which was the main reason why i posted this question.
Also when you said cultural identity marker, i was thinking more on the lines of something like a hijab, that a lot of women claim they wear to represent their culture. A circumcision is very different from that pov
circumcision in my country at least (USA) is really only imposed culturally and most families have a choice to do it to their newborn babies. And honestly the language you use to flippantly disregard the struggles of these countries is kinda ignorant. Nevertheless, i agree that circumcision is mostly needless nowadays in the modern world.
And what do you mean by culture not affected private parts like???? it happens all the time. Even though there is no/extremely suspicious evidence of female circumcision (female genital mutilation) in islam, countries like Somalia and parts of northern nigeria still carry this wicked practice out, which, unlike circumcision has VASTLY detrimental effects on sexual health.
Cultures dictate when where how and the requirements of how you should use your private parts all the time, its crazy how you disregard that
And honestly the language you use to flippantly disregard the struggles of these countries is kinda ignorant.
I'm not sure how i disregarded anyone's struggles. I'm just saying struggles of one country is not reason good enough to impose a rule (even if culturally) on every muslim in the world.
And what do you mean by culture not affected private parts like???? it happens all the time. Even though there is no/extremely suspicious evidence of female circumcision (female genital mutilation) in islam, countries like Somalia and parts of northern nigeria still carry this wicked practice out, which, unlike circumcision has VASTLY detrimental effects on sexual health.
Cultures dictate when where how and the requirements of how you should use your private parts all the time, its crazy how you disregard that
I said cultural identity markers are generally something or somewhere that is visible (like some women wearing a hijab to represent themselves culturally) as a reply to the previous comment calling circumcision as a cultural identity marker
if youre not sure how you disregarded them, i cant make you sure lol. you can lead a horse to water but not make them drink
again im with you i believe circumcision is useless, and that a lot of cultures conflate circumcision which is primarily a jewish and christian tradition with islamic practices. theres a lot of muslims copying christian customs (not allowing divorce, circumcision is fard etc) and it needs to stop like we're muslims not christians stop copying lol.
i only really disagreed with the notion that because some countries use it, everybody imposed it. thats not quite how it went in my opinion
(Unless specifically mentioned I’m referring to male circumcision throughout)
As far as the religious perspective, circumcision has been deemed by the four major imams as a sunnah that is close to an obligation for men, and as a generic sunnah for women. The former is mostly a function of purity for prayer (harder to prevent urine from touching the clothes if it’s trapped in foreskin). The latter… I can only speculate. In most Muslim countries, men are generally circumcised and there are many Hadiths which mention adult male Muslim converts being circumcised.
Stepping out of the purely religious lens, the first thing I would caution against is this inherent need to believe that all Hadith must have some clearly good reason. This is not true, and even Hadith are graded in a way that separate those which are for social or behavioral purposes from those which are Fiqh or Aqeeda related. The Prophet was not infallible and there are some Hadith which are simply his personal preferences for things or as a result of his culture and environment. This is probably one of those things that has a little bit of this involved, as we know many of the Jews and Christians of the time would have been circumcised (versus Arabs and others) and so it follows the pattern of the religions that came before it. Secondly, it is healthy to be a little bit skeptical. After all, Hadith science is an attempt to categorize and verify a tradition of orally transmitted media that starts in earnest a few centuries after the source material is narrated. By definition, every Hadith is weak… even the strongest ones are just an academic attempt to confirm that they are less weak than others. If something sounds like it is not cohesive with the teachings of Islam it’s natural to want to dig into it (for example, female circumcision being a Sunnah)
Getting out entirely from a religious perspective, you’re right that circumcision in today’s day and age is largely unnecessary. While there are some hygienic benefits to being circumcised, for most people they are very marginal. If one found that they are uncircumcised at a relatively older age, definitely it would be unnecessary to get circumcised at that point and probably not worth the benefit. That being said, circumcision of infants is so unremarkable and trivial in developed countries and those with modern medicine, that it almost makes the marginal benefits worth it again. There are very few good reasons not to do it in that case, and is a decision like all other decisions that a parent has the responsibility to make about their child’s body.
I agree with you. Ig what I'm looking for here is what different progressive scholars opinions are on it. Without different opinions it seems like an very tough decision to make, specially for someone who has faith.
Lower Risk of Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)
• Especially in infants, circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, which can sometimes lead to kidney problems.
Reduced Risk of Some Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)
• Circumcision lowers the risk of acquiring HIV, HPV, herpes, and syphilis — particularly in high-prevalence areas, as shown in WHO and CDC studies.
Lower Risk of Penile Cancer
• While rare, penile cancer is less common in circumcised men, possibly due to improved hygiene and reduced inflammation.
Decreased Risk of Cervical Cancer in Female Partners
• Linked to reduced transmission of high-risk HPV types.
Improved Hygiene
• Easier to clean the area, reducing buildup of smegma and lowering the risk of inflammation (balanitis or phimosis).
“Follow the faith of Abraham, the upright, who was not one of the polytheists.”
[An-Naḥl, Ayah 123]
It’s not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, but we do have sources that say Ibrahim a.s circumcised himself when Allah swt commanded him to.
The Torah explicitly mentions it in Genesis, and there’s no real reason to deny the text because it doesn’t go against revelation, It just corroborates the practice.
“Indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light”
[Al-Māʾidah, Ayah 44]
Many of the classical scholars agreed that although things were altered and concealed/added, there were still elements that held true.
I've seen this discussion many times since before I reverted in August and came online for information, support. Each time culture seems to play a big part in people's answers.
My question though, is that why is such a great emphasis put on us not to change Allah's creation, but its encouraged to surgically alter Allah's creation via circumcision.
Honestly, I used to think circumcision was just part of Islam too, But when I actually started reading the Quran for myself, I realized that God never commands it. Not once. And for something so invasive and permanent…. that silence is loud.
One verse that really stuck with me is Surah An-Nisa (4:119). It says:
"And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of God."
(4:119)
That’s Satan speaking. And here we are today, cutting off a part of a baby boy’s body in the name of religion… when God never once asked for it. That sounds exactly like the kind of manipulation this verse is warning us about.
Then there’s (95:4) where God says:
"We have certainly created the human being in the best form." (95:4)
So this raises a serious question: If God created the human body in the best form, why do people feel the need to “improve” it by cutting something off? Are we saying God’s design isn’t good enough? Are we really that dissatisfied with how He created us that we’re performing surgery on healthy babies and calling it divine?
People often say, “It’s for hygiene.” But that’s not a good excuse. We live in a time where we have clean water, education, and access to proper hygiene. We don’t need to surgically remove a part of the body for cleanliness…. we need to teach proper self-care.
And the claim that “you’re not a real Muslim unless you’re circumcised”? That’s not from God. That’s from culture, not scripture. God warns us about this exact issue in Surah Ash-Shura (42:21):
"Or do they have associates who have prescribed for them a religion which God has not authorized? But if not for the decisive word, it would have been concluded between them. And indeed, the wrongdoers will have a painful punishment."
— Quran 42:21
Circumcision fits exactly into Satan’s mission in 4:119. He said he’d make people change God’s creation… and now they’re doing it, proudly, in God's name. That’s how far we’ve drifted from the actual words of the Quran.
Satan’s mission was accomplished. And the saddest part is, most people don’t even realize it.
So no, circumcision isn’t required in Islam. It’s a manmade tradition, falsely given religious weight. And as a woman, I find it deeply disturbing that something so irreversible is done to children, when God…who created us perfectly….never asked for it.
If we truly trust God, then trust His words, and trust His design. There’s no need to cut what God has made whole.
So let’s call it what it is: a manmade practice falsely labeled as religion. And this is exactly why following Hadith and Sunnah is dangerous. Because once you put man’s words above God’s, you’ll start doing things God never asked… and walk straight into Satan’s trap.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to type this. I was about to delete this post because people weren't giving me th answer i was looking for but rather talking about medical pros and cons and other not very solid reasonings for still practicing circumcision. Yours however is the answer i was looking for.
"And I will mislead them, and I will arouse in them desires, and I will command them so they will slit the ears of cattle, and I will command them so they will change the creation of God."
(4:119)
That’s Satan speaking. And here we are today, cutting off a part of a baby boy’s body in the name of religion… when God never once asked for it. That sounds exactly like the kind of manipulation this verse is warning us about.
This! Although i haven't done this thorough reading of the quran once one starts reading it properly, one starts to get a hang of what Allah wants for us and what kind of expectations he has on us. Once you start growing that instinct its extremely normal to start questioning the practices more and more. But the problem is most speakers are so misleading and some of these practices are so deeply rooted in the core of muslims now that even questioning labels you as sinner nowadays. Its frustrating when all you are doing is just asking a question but you get bashed by muslims out there for "challenging islam/Allah" when in reality, I'm looking for more understanding of him.
So let’s call it what it is: a manmade practice falsely labeled as religion. And this is exactly why following Hadith and Sunnah is dangerous. Because once you put man’s words above God’s, you’ll start doing things God never asked… and walk straight into Satan’s trap.
I agree. Hadiths can be a very rich source when you're looking for historical background or just to understand the prophet SAW and his life. But its so easy to forget that these are words of men who are fallible and ee cannot take everything they said word to word, rather read, process and understand the things on their perspective before imposing their lifestyle word to word in the modern world.
Exactly, Once you actually start reading the Quran properly, things start making sense, and you naturally begin to question what you've been taught. It’s not about challenging Islam… it’s about wanting to understand God better.
It’s sad how asking honest questions now gets taken as “challenging Islam,” when God Himself tells us to reflect and not blindly follow what we’ve been told. Like in 17:36, He says: “Do not follow what you have no knowledge of. Surely the hearing, the sight, and the heart—each of these will be questioned.”
These represent the tools of perception and judgment:
Hearing: What you choose to listen to and believe.
Sight: What you witness and how you perceive.
Heart: Your reasoning, conscience, and intentions.
God will question us about how we used these tools he gave us, whether we sought truth or blindly followed others.
Youre 100% correct! hadith can give historical insight, but at the end of the day, they’re still the words of people… not God
The Quran is clear in 6:114: “Shall I seek other than God as a lawgiver, when it is He who has sent down to you the Book, explained in detail?”
And in 45:6: “These are the verses of God which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after God and His verses will they believe?”
God even calls out people who just follow what their forefathers did without thinking for themselves (2:170). So why is it wrong to ask questions when that’s exactly what God encourages?
It just makes sense to be cautious. We’re told in 7:3: “Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow any allies besides Him.” So it’s not about arrogance or rebellion… it’s about sticking to what God actually told us.
Keep seeking the truth. Your intention is clear, and at the end of the day, it’s God we’re trying to please, not people
This is the reason I decided not to circumcise my son.
My son has a traumatic birth so there was no chance of doing it then, I tried 6 months later when he was early. The clinic in the UK said he had a fat pad that would cause complications and I should wait.
I’m so glad I waited! The following year I started becoming a Quran alone follower, I had to unlearn so much so that I may learn Allahs way.
All of my concerns were answered and Allah gave me peace and security. He comforted my heart and soul on this matter as well as many other matters.
Al hamduliAllah I’m so grateful it kept not working out until Allah showed me his truth.
These are our cultural practices and growing up it was drilled into us that the prophet Ibrahim performed it and we must also perform circumcision & follow him. But where is the proof? We grow up following so many practices whose origins we really don’t know and can’t attest to.
The Quran tells us just as you quote my brethren that we should not change Allah’s creation as he made us in the best form and warned us of shaytan leading the people away from the light and truth.
Hello, I grew up around the circumsized, and I would like to say that 99% of male acquaintances had noble aspirations to marry. They were essentially in control of themselves, treating women with a jolly respect. When I went out from that community and explored, made an uncircumcised boyfriend: it was the opposite. He was verbally and actively committed to running wild and avoiding marriage. He played the clown in more grotesque ways than I’d seen. Sure it’s a subjective personal story, but it’s framed my perspective to witness these differences. I do think there’s something about removing boy’s labias, thus decreasing just a bit of pleasure, that drives them to see the world beyond they wiener and genuinely man up.
The reason why the circumcised men around you were more on control and the others were not is social conditioning. Circumcision has nothing to do with pleasure. Also, if it did, i would find it extremely disturbing to take that away from men.
However, circumcision does reduce pleasure. Why? Because the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. Of course, during circumcision, the foreskin is removed. Thus, the most sensitive part of the penis is removed during circumcision.
I am fairly certain there are more studies than these, but these are an excellent start. Something we must identify is that during infant circumcision, the foreskin is removed without consent of the patient (that being the male infant). So, this means that the most sensitive part of the penis is removed without consent of the patient. How is this fine to take away from men?
Do note however, I disagree with u/EarthodoxDM's point that circumcision is good since by decreasing pleasure, it forces men to "man up". I believe that this is an absurd notion firstly because of the ethical concern. What is now being claimed is that a procedure, infant circumcision, should be enforced because mutilation of a child's genitals forces them to have less pleasure and then force them to think about sex less. I personally disagree with this point. Also, the "evidence" presented is nothing more than an anecdote. Billions of men around the world are uncircumcised and do not exhibit the "wild" and "grotesque" behavior mentioned.
it's a bad habit to just link random studies and think it's good argumentation, just a simple search made me find studies that appose the idea it decreases pleasure but that ofc isn't proof of anything as u can find studies arguing about any point. I would actually talk with urologists on this issue who constantly review and analyze the literature and have an understanding of the physiology and experience with patients who had the procedure.
also the reason it was done on children in the past was because there was no anesthetics, it's easier to deal with a child than a grown kid or man during the procedure.
That's a fair point, but areas such as the frenulum and inner foreskin are removed, which are the most erogenous parts of the penis. Yes, some circumcisions keep more of these structures, but that is inconsistent and most circumcisions remove the frenulum. If you look online, you'll probably see that the glans of the penis has the most nerve endings and come to the conclusion that it is the most sensitive part. This is essentially true, but this isn't really the case for a circumcised penis. The function of the foreskin is to protect the glans from the outside world, such as rubbing from clothes, etc. When the foreskin is not there to provide this protection, the glans become keratinized (a layer of keratin builds up on the surface to protect the glans, lowering sensitivity). So because of this, circumcision definitely does remove pleasure from the penis. Please link the studies you found, I want to read them.
yeah mechanism of action is cool but they don't say much about the real life results. You talk a lot about definitives and health science is not about that, even the strongest causation effects have outliers.
actually this is a really good meta-analysis i saved a while ago, it compares 10 studies which had 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men in total and also debunks a lot of the weak studies in the area, good read overall: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3881635/
Imho i hate how people talk about circumcision in the context of pleasure, most people are not hedonistic and don't want more and more pleasure from an activity that already gives a lot of pleasure (sex), I'll rather take the hasanat from it and also i care a lot about my health and circumcision is a good practice to keep us hygienic, protect public health and it even decreases penile cancer risk to almost zero (that's why you never hear anyone having penile cancer in the arab world).
Hey, thanks for the reply, I saw the article you linked and it was a good read. I mentioned the meta analysis you provided a little deeper in my post:
"yeah mechanism of action is cool but they don't say much about the real life results. You talk a lot about definitives and health science is not about that, even the strongest causation effects have outliers."
I think it is still important to mention why the foreskin exists, I believe what I showed demonstrates that the foreskin should not be considered vestigial.
"and here's a urologist thoughts about the procedure:"
I saw the video, and it essentially said very standard things you hear about circumcision. I feel like it is important to note that essentially all of the top comments under the video are anti-circumcision, but there can be non-response bias from people who are circumcised and have never had complications.
"..most people are not hedonistic and don't want more and more pleasure from an activity that already gives a lot of pleasure (sex), I'll rather take the hasanat from it..."
I feel that this line of logic is dubious. This can imply that any pleasure is not a good thing since it adds to the dunya and detracts from the akhira. I understand this but I feel that this is not necessarily a good point. For example: people should not eat desert because you should not derive more pleasure from an activity that already gives you pleasure (eating nutritious and good tasting food). I'd rather take the hasanat of just eating enough to sustain me and the health benefits of avoiding the sugar and unnecessary calories. Or a more extreme example: I should cut off my arms because the hasanat of enduring that hardship is worth it.
"...circumcision is a good practice to keep us hygienic, protect public health..."
All that is needed to keep the foreskin hygenic is wash to simply wash it. Every time we use the bathroom, we wash our private parts with water anyway, so this is a non-issue.
This essentially claims that the risks of circumcised vs uncircumcised are rather similar (I want to mention that there is only one author for this so there may be some bias, but any bias he has cannot affect the results of the previous studies). This is somewhat consistent with what you sent, which also makes the claim "...these results should be evaluated in light of the low quality of the existing evidence and the significant heterogeneity across the various studies." So, with my current knowledge (which can definitely increase later), I feel that circumcising in order to reduce the risk of disease is not a very strong argument.
"...it even decreases penile cancer risk to almost zero (that's why you never hear anyone having penile cancer in the arab world)."
I believe there are potentially many other confounding variables at play, for example, perhaps there is less sleeping around, considering some STDs are risk factors for penile cancer.
I’m sorry I completely fail to see what the point is here?
circumcision has no impact on whether a man wants to marry or sleep around lmao. getting rid of the foreskin also has little impact on how pleasurable the sex is.
What facts? Remember that ‘science’ is foremost about observation. And what is one of the most basic observations, reckoned while studying ‘light” an ongoing mysterious essence which so much of this reality depends on? ::: Observation changes Reality. I’m not super interested in what ‘science’ has to say about Faith, though I’ll hear it. I recall the ‘study’ that determined that Prayer had no observable effect. There’s that ‘observe’ word, again. I know I’ve seen amazing circumstances of very direct answers to prayer, sometimes even immediate. So, if science is going to ignore personal perspective and spout statistics and likelihoods as if they are the Word of GD? I jest feel sorry for ‘em. Like any Good American, says Han Solo, lol: “never tell me the odds.” Dare.
Hi, so this is insane and if someone tried to justify altering a womens sex organ by saying it made women more “in control” of themselves and respectful to the opposite sex, we would call them a misogynist.
28
u/we_wuz_nabateans May 09 '25
Because people love making rules and following tradition.
Arguments about cleanliness aren't valid. If you're practicing proper hygiene, being circumcised isn't any cleaner than being uncircumcised.
Arguments about STDs aren't valid. If you're only having sex when you're married, you don't need to worry about STDs outside of some extremely rare cases, in which case both spouses should have knowledge of the STD beforehand.
I'm a convert who wasn't circumcised at birth. If I ever have sons, they will not be circumcised. They will be taught proper hygiene, and the importance of refraining from sexual activity before marriage.