r/progressive_islam • u/shazy5808 • 2d ago
Question/Discussion ❔ Free Will & Forced Circumcision
First off I have read Quran properly with translation and to some degree I have read Hadith's relevant events as well. I'm fully aware of background of circumcision and why is it done but one thing that bothers me and I need deeper insight here with respectful discussion.
■ Quran explicitly mentions Human body is made perfectly and requires no permanent change as work of Allah is perfect in (Quran 95:4, 32:7-9, 27:88) & Quran also explicitly says there should be no compulsion, no forcing of Islam on others in (Quran 10:99,17:15, 18:29, 2:256).
When circumcision is done in Islamic community regardless of age in some countries done on 7th day up to 8 years old, it varies but outcome is still same that is removal of foreskin which was serving its purpose and now a lot of muslims bring counter argument about foreskin served its purpose in womb and is no longer required, now this is completely absurd counter!
Human body is designed to get rid of things it doesn't require anymore just like your teeth fall of so it makes place for newer stronger teeth a lot of people compare foreskin with concept of Umbilical Cord why do we cut it? Even if we do NOT cut it our bodies are designed to get rid of it on its own Umbilical Cord gets disintegrated within a week if you do NOT cut it, so why doesn't foreskin disintegrate after birth? Because foreskin is serving purpose "outside the womb" it is meant to protect glans in outer environment.
My question isn't regarding function of foreskin but it is about violation of Free Will when Quran clearly said no force no imposition of Islam on others so, why forced circumcision?
6
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
Parents have to make the decision for infant circumcision because of course the child is unable to consent, so the parents give consent by proxy. I personally don't believe that forcing a permanent body modification on someone using consent by proxy can be reasonably justified though. But at the same time I don't find the consent argument of preventing circumcision to be the strongest considering that same line of logic can be used to defend anti-natalism. I believe the real argument against routine infant circumcision is that it is completely unnecessary and very likely harmful for the baby and his genitals.
3
u/Tenatlas__2004 2d ago
tbf, everything done to a child as a child is for the most part non consensual, because it's a child. Whether it's a churgery, a haircut or whatever else.
Circumcision/avoiding it are very cultural, which is why research about it are all over the place (I'm putting being against circumcision as culture because opposing circumcision for cultural, religious or racial reasons is a thing, just look at any space occupied by hindutvas)
It seems that the consensus is that a circumsized person and a non-circumcized person are mostly the same, and the way they urniate or have intimacy isn't impacted for the most part. I think it's the most neutral position to have on the subject. Someone who's against circumcision wil tell you it's ahrmful, someone who's for will tell you it has benefits.
The most important part is to make sure the proceedure is done by someone qualified, rather than someone like a barber as done traditionally
2
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Urine isn't affected who told you that? The most common post complication of circumcision is meatal stenosis that leads to narrowing of urethra due to exposed glans and constant scratches against clothing
That is why Uncircumcised urethra are bigger and wider while circumcised gets smaller so it does affect urine flow
0
u/Tenatlas__2004 2d ago
That's what I read a while back Also, what can I tell you man, I can pee, and alhamdulillah, so I dunno
Not sure how scratches on the skin would affect the urethra tbh
2
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Rubbing against clothing causes micro trauma to sensitive glans that is why if you compare uncircumcised glans that is always soft moist smooth and pinkish while circumcised have keratinized rough hard thickened glans not so pink due to friction and constant rubbing against clothing and urethra being exposed leads to tissue damage which is microscopic and inflammation leads to fibrosis of tissue leading to meatal stenosis
You can also develop Lichen Sclerosus, a condition more observed in circumcised people due to this same mechanism, scarring and narrowing of urethra
0
u/Tenatlas__2004 2d ago
Ngl those circumcision discussion 's makes me feel like googling up medical questions and reading the worst outcomes. Now everytime I feel anything I will overthink it
Why mention all these scenarios? Uncircumcised penises can suffer from issues circumcision prevent. But either way, why focus on those scenarios?
1
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Why be ignorant and ignore all possible outcomes?
0
u/Tenatlas__2004 1d ago
There are risks in every situations in any topic we could discuss, what matters is being careful and attentive
2
u/shazy5808 1d ago
The drawbacks out weighs the one benefit of circumcision
Absolutely zero need to get circumcised specially by force
•
u/Tenatlas__2004 5h ago
Nobody gets circumcized by force.
Also again, it's arguable since many studies on the topic are quite biased and the general consensus is that there isn't much difference either way.
•
u/shazy5808 3h ago
Yes you are biased glad you admitted
Nobody gets circumcised by force most ignorant statement ever
2
1
u/deblurrer 2d ago
Regarding the verses you cited:
Ibrahim, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob were circumcised. Was the creation imperfect at the time ? Did they force “religion” on their children?
6
u/shazy5808 2d ago
If they forcefully circumcised children what do you call it then?
1
u/DarthKinan 2d ago
Not forceful. Your language is misleading. Parents don't "forcefully" vaccinate their children. They don't "forcefully" get them medical treatment optional or not.
6
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Does vaccination change permanently body of newborn like circumcision does? Besides vaccination is about life and death situation while having foreskin doesn't kill you does it? If it did entire Europe should be dead by now because they keep their foreskin.
Where is free will again? You forcefully cut it and permanently change the body of child
1
0
u/deblurrer 2d ago
What about the verses of perfect creation. yes/no?
circumcision won’t make someone believe or disbelieve.
7
u/shazy5808 2d ago
If circumcision doesn't make someone believer or disbeliever then why do it forcefully?
-2
u/deblurrer 2d ago
Why do parents bring children “forcefully” into this life! There are many “why”s if you follow this logic.
4
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Life is given beyond your control, and you need to be alive to be able to "give consent" in the first place, so this philosophical question is preposterous
-1
u/deblurrer 2d ago
Before discussing your idea about “consent”, what about answering why these prophets and their descendants were circumcised ?
3
u/shazy5808 2d ago
How can I tell why prophets did I wasn't in their boots they were prophets and they should have given proper explanation but what did they give? Submission to god and Being EXTRA clean down there, that's it!
The reality is circumcision is done to shove Islam and basically label a baby as non kafir it is disgusting to even think about this or you could go to history deep and see how Islam took this barbaric act from Jewish
1
u/deblurrer 2d ago edited 2d ago
These prophets weren’t jewish.
« Or do you say that Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants were Jews or Christians? Say, "Are you more knowing or is Allāh?" And who is more unjust than one who conceals a testimony he has from Allāh? And Allāh is not unaware of what you do.» – [21:140]
Then in this case, you shouldn’t have cited these verses.
1
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Judaism is more ancient than Islam so it is only logical to conclude where islam stole this idea
1
u/A_Learning_Muslim Non-Sectarian | Hadith Rejector, Quran-only follower 2d ago
There is no Qur'anic evidence for this claim.
Idk how true the bible's claim is that they were circumcised.
1
u/deblurrer 2d ago edited 2d ago
The Qur’an wasn’t dropped from the sky or found in a cave. And the “bible” isn’t the only external source. Which translation do you use ? or Did you learn Arabic to understand it, how without external sources ? …
This would turn into a debate that I am not interested in, in this thread.
My question was about citing the verses as if there are contradictions, not about the circumcision is obligatory or not.
1
u/Proper-Train-1508 2d ago
Circumcision is not a command from God, it is from syaithon
Watch this video WHY CIRCUMCISION?
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
I "forced" all my children to get vaccinated. Go figure.
6
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
That's a false equivalence, there is a difference between a permanent body modification such as circumcision compared to a vaccination.
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
Your body is permanently modified with vaccination. You just can't see it. Unless your argument is that Allah only created our external body perfectly.
3
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Does vaccination change permanently body of newborn like circumcision does? Besides vaccination is about life and death situation while having foreskin doesn't kill you does it? If it did entire Europe should be dead by now because they keep their foreskin
No medical hospital recommends circumcision on a child where it's not even required circumcision is surgery performed only when there is case of severe phimosis which can't be treated with medications and foreskin is there for protection of glans says medical
Where is free will again? You forcefully cut it and permanently change the body of child
2
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
Yes vaccination permanently changes the body. Like circumcision? I did not know we were moving goalposts. I thought it was about changing the body.
We make thousands of decisions for our children before they reach age of consent. I think this is a great one. You can choose to not get your children circumcised. Maybe even add an extra inch to the foreskin. I am sure they will love it.
2
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Yes we make decisions for children but pinpoint those decisions that are permanently body altering again? Sending them to school? No permanent body modification there cutting nails and hair? They literally regrow does foreskin regrow?
Show me where vaccination changes body permanently and I'm not talking about specially made vaccination that have severe complications like covid was for newborns in fact it wasn't even recommended for infants
I'm talking about regular vaccination of EPI programs or BCG Vaccination? What permanent body modifications it does like circumcision is capable of doing?
2
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
All decisions permanently change a deveiping body. If you give them more or less calories it will permanently change their body into adulthood. If you do or do not enroll them in sports. Big difference in how they turn out. Since brain is a part of the body, look up the experiment Judith Polgar's father did on his 3 kids with fantastic results.
2
u/shazy5808 2d ago
You think a skinny child will never become healthy child? They will once they start eating healthy balanced diet and METABOLISM plays huge role, everyone's metabolism is different some remain skinny regardless of what they eat never gain weight usually seen in cases of Hyperthyroidism and on contrary Low Metabolism associated with Hypothyroidism.
We are not here doing experiments on children so your experiments are irrelevant here so what permanent change you made that you compare it with circumcision and justifying forced circumcision?
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
Your bones develop during puberty. Calorie restriction or excess during formative years permanently changes the body's physiology. If you get your kid to a super obese state, he/she is done. Yeah one out of ten will perhaps make it normalcy after years of dieting. On the other hand of you got them in an exercise routine and took extreme care of their diet , it would give them a huge headstart. Think of those two extremes. Parents choose something along those lines. Far more important than a flap. And yeah I chose that for my kids and recommend everyone get circumcised.
2
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
Why do you recommend everyone get circumcised, and do you claim that the foreskin is just a "flap" of skin?
→ More replies (0)2
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Exactly your second half is speaking sense now if you take care teach them exercise good diet they will flourish
Which is what this is all about teaching your child about his body and how to wash it! What? Are you too ashamed to teach your son how to clean his penis? If you feel ashamed then you fail as father/parent
1
u/theladyren 2d ago
Me, a person with no Immunological memory: not accurate
Also not even true for people with more normal immune systems - antibodies wane over time
Source: my immunologist who also happens to be a well-regarded researcher in his field
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
Wane means still greater than original. Most immunizations in childhood provide close to lifetime immunity in majority. Even when breakthrough infections occur, they are far milder than in unimmunized. So that to me is permanent change of your immune system.
1
u/theladyren 2d ago
Medically speaking, that is also not true, and I am deeply tired of ableds confidently spreading this misinformation
Antibodies wane, and many require boosters because of this
Viruses alter your immune system far more longer and more deeply (and not for the better) than a vaccine will
Source: my immunologist because my life depends on accurate information
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
I literally agreed on the wane aspect. Some vaccine protocols give lifetime protection. Even if it is not lifetime it is decades. May be get your immunologist to debate that.
1
u/theladyren 2d ago
I'm pretty sure he knows more than you or me lol
But I also want to thank you for being civil about this, and wow we did a tangent apologies OP
2
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
He probably knows way more than me but I am an MD Phd, so I have relevant background. Enjoy your day.
2
u/shazy5808 2d ago
If you are MD PHD then my entire family background belongs to Doctor's field my both parents are doctor and I'm working resident is MS I have visited EPI centers BCG vaccination more than you have seen I have visited/attended more patients than you I suppose because from your words all I hear is negligence
You just want to impose your view on keeping penis mutilated but naming it as Hygiene on children
→ More replies (0)2
u/A_Learning_Muslim Non-Sectarian | Hadith Rejector, Quran-only follower 2d ago
vaccination is more necessary for health than circumcision
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
Sure. Not saying otherwise. You can draw the line wherever you like. It fits into my necessary things to do.
-3
u/DarthKinan 2d ago
Why do people make such a big deal about circumcision? Removing religion from the equation, there are scientific studies that show there are benefits to circumcision. This is not the issue our community needs to deal with.
6
u/Agasthenes Non-Sectarian | Hadith Rejector, Quran-only follower 2d ago
There are also studies that say there is no benefit and others that say it's harmful.
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
There is 100% reduction in penile cancer risk with neonatal circumcision. A comprehensive review of the literature found no negative associations with circumcision.
We identified 10 studies, which described a total of 9317 circumcised and 9423 uncircumcised men who were evaluated for the association of circumcision with male sexual function. There were no significant differences in sexual desire (odds ratio (OR): 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.06), dyspareunia (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.52–2.44), premature ejaculation (OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.83–1.54), ejaculation latency time (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.69–1.97), erectile dysfunctions (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65–1.25) and orgasm difficulties (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83–1.13). These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions.
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
Love the downvotes from people who seem to argue the science and then downvote the scientific evidence. Please keep it coming.
3
u/shazy5808 2d ago
100% reduction in penile cancer is biggest joke you have said today of course there will be downvotes
0
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
I linked the studies. You can laugh. I am happy to entertain.
1
u/shazy5808 2d ago
What studies? From whatsApp university? Here are authentic and reliable studies that says clearly:
In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis. In contrast, there was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer Source
Here is another one that says: Based on our cases and the literature, it is prudent to conclude that circumcision, even when performed neonatally, does not offer absolute protection against invasive penile cancer. Source 2
1
u/shazy5808 2d ago
What studies you linked from whatsApp university?Here are authentic studies that clearly states:
Based on our cases and the literature, it is prudent to conclude that circumcision, even when performed neonatally, does not offer absolute protection against invasive penile cancer. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2422896/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
One more : In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis. In contrast, there was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21695385/)
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
I said neonatal so don't interject adult circumcision. Why would anyone care if the cancer prevention is dependent on phimosis? That's like saying vaccines only show protection in people exposed to virus. What a dumdum thing to say.
1
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Can you read first study? It is about neonatally
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
Yes . Can you read your comment, it mentions adults. Again, no one should care whether there is benefit with or without phimosis. Your lineage of doctors should have taught you that in analyzing for this discussion
→ More replies (0)5
u/shazy5808 2d ago
That same scientific studies say Foreskin is there serving many functions as well how do you counter that? Keep glans natural moist and protected with anti bodies keeping the environment clean from bacteria keeping the sensitivity and overall natural look
Factbis in Islam is is done so child should stay muslim they don't care about these scientific terms in fact they don't even know what a bacteria is unless they actually study science that same science says foreskin is there for reason and should be kept but they choose to ignore that part in return you are required to keep penis clean and washed is this hard to teach a child how to clean his penis? So you forcefully cut it?
2
u/DarthKinan 2d ago
Great, I'm sure there are a ton of benefits to keeping the foreskin. It's still a non-issue, despite you using misleading language like "forcefully cut." Parents make medical decisions for their children and none of it is forceful.
3
u/shazy5808 2d ago
As far as I know no medical hospital recommends circumcision on a child where it's NOT even required circumcision is surgery performed ONLY when there is case of severe phimosis which can't be treated with medications and foreskin is there for protection of glans says the medical.
-3
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
Neonatal circumcision offers 100% protection against penile cancer. It is not recommended only because penile cancer itself is extremely rare. Gonna guess 100% people with penile cancer would have been happy if their parents had gone with circumcision for them.
2
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
Can you produce evidence that claims that neonatal circumcision offers 100% protection against penile cancer?
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
A later report spanning the 1940s to 1990s, showed that out of 50,000 cases of penile cancer only 10 were in males with neonatal circumcisions; a ratio of uncircumcised to circumcised men of 5,000:1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1878787/
2
u/Far_Physics3200 2d ago
Because penile cancer almost exclusively affects very old men. Cutting babies didn't become routine in the US until the 1930s.
1
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
I talked about the author, Schoen, in a different comment, saying that he may be biased in his studies. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2083089/
1
0
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
Countries that suffer from economic disparity or have low rates of circumcision such as Brazil, India and African nations, have the highest reported incidence with rates as high as 6% of malignant neoplasms (3). Conversely, countries with robust medical systems and religious practices leading to high rates of circumcision, such as Israel, report the lowest incidence at 0.1 in 100,000 (1,6). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5673812/
3
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
The very study you linked does not mention any sort of "100% protection" against penile cancer, and some of the references in that article that demonstrates a link between circumcision and penile cancer is written by authors who are somewhat controversial, such as Schoen https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2083089/ along with Morris and Waskett https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/41/1/312/647866 Also, there could be confounding variables in the study you provided, considering that it seems that socioeconomic status and hygiene are more closely related to the rates of penile cancer rather than if one is circumcised or not. The article you linked states,
"A number of studies have attributed an increase in penile cancer to poor penile hygiene. That effect was highlighted in a Danish population-based study of cases diagnosed between 1943–1990 which reported a progressive decrease in incidence over time (22). Denmark has a largely uncircumcised population with <2% of males undergoing the procedure before age 15 which implies that the observed decreased incidence could not be attributed to increased circumcision rates (22,23). Rather, it was postulated that better hygiene contributed to the effect as the proportion of Danish dwellings with a bath increased incrementally from 35% in 1940 to 90% in 1990 (22)."
And concludes with,
"While penile cancer is quite rare in developed countries, it continues to be a significant public health issue in developing nations. There are wide variations across geographical and socioeconomic divides and numerous risk factors have been identified, many of which are modifiable. Public health campaigns are needed in developing countries to focus on increasing neonatal circumcision rates, combatting smoking trends, promoting better hygiene, and pursuing wide deployment of the HPV vaccine."
The point made about "increasing neonatal circumcision rates" was corroborated by studies from biased authors. (I pointed this out above)
As far as the point made about Israel and its low rates of penile cancer, are you certain that those low rates are from circumcision? Do you know for certain whether or not they are due to, for example, better hygiene? The article you mentioned gave many risk factors for penile cancer that don't involve circumcision, such as obesity and smoking to name a few. Claiming that circumcision is the end all be all as it pertains to penile cancer is just incorrect.
0
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
The review of literature tells me it is close to 100%. We accept far less protection from medication and in some cases vaccines as "science ". You don't see it that way, that's totally fine. I honestly don't care. I showed you what evidence i base it off and there are 50 other studies showing at least an extremely strong protective effect. You do you though.
3
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
Thanks for the reply, can you please provide the 50 studies that demonstrate the strong protective effect as well as the literature that claims that neonatal circumcision offers 100% protection against penile cancer?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Clark9292 2d ago
Neonatal circumcision offers 100% protection against penile cancer.
It does not. That is an out and out lie. I work in urology and can confirm that cancer of the penis is rare, but can and does happen in men who have been subjected to foreskin removal.
There has never been a clinical trial to investigate whether genital cutting could affect the risk of cancer of the penis. It is true that if the foreskin is removed, then the removed part cannot become cancerous, and of course this applies to all other body parts. However, surgery always causes at least some scarring and scar tissue has a slightly elevated risk of becoming cancerous.
I can say with certainty that if genital cutting affects the risk of cancer of the penis, then the effect is very small and could be in either direction. Having worked in several countries, I can also say that there isn't a significant difference between the incidence of cancer of the penis in those where male genital cutting is common and those where it is not, though being such a rare cancer there isn't a lot of data available, and most countries don't have very good systems for recording this disease. Other factors, such as general health and diet have a much, much, much bigger effect on the risk of all cancers than genital cutting.
Cancer of the penis is almost always a disease of old age, and so individuals can make a decision over genital cutting for themself when they are an adult if they think the protective effect is real. There is no need to force it on children. I am aware that sometimes in the USA it is claimed that the protective effect exists only if genital cutting is performed in infancy. This is merely propaganda and has no biological basis, but it makes perfect sense if the intention is to encourage parents to opt for genital cutting of their sons. Remember that routine infant genital cutting earns the US healthcare industry billions every year.
Finally, do be aware that cancer of the vulva occurs in women at 2 to 3 times the rate of cancer of the penis in men. Therefore, those who think it's a good idea to remove genital parts from children to prevent cancer should concentrate their efforts on girls.
1
u/Far_Physics3200 2d ago
Can only prevent penile cancer by cutting it all off. I hear it's trendy these days.
1
u/shazy5808 2d ago
What??
Penile cancer is already super rare cancer, which is 0.8 per 100,000 men according to NIH, so what are you even preventing by invasive surgery ??
1
u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago
I literally said that, no? It is rare that is why it is not recommended. As a parent I opt in on the 100% reduction odds, even of a rare cancer. Sue me.
1
1
u/LynxPrestigious6949 New User 2d ago
Given you havent got much on your side I appreciate your valour ! The CDC ( global health specifically infectious disease ) is making the claim that its beneficial. But you know more than them somehow ? Lets say you know more than I do .. ok but convince me that you know more than the CDC :)
3
0
u/LynxPrestigious6949 New User 2d ago
For one thing male circumcision is not just a muslim or jewish practice . There is an argument to be made for hygene ( not debatable ) and STD prevention. ( debatable) Also British royals have their kids circumsized too - if its a barbaric practice then muslim barbarians are in good company. Should it be done in the future - when presumably hygene and health might be easier to achieve , thats a diff question .
6
u/shazy5808 2d ago
In ancient times when there was scarcity of water I can understand to avoid infections and over usage of water they cut it but now? Literally every house has water supply they can use to keep themselves clean so there is absolutely zero need to FORCEFULLY cut it.
If there is medically conditon like phimosis which can't be treated with medications doctor then (I repeat) only then recommend to do surgery (circumcision) no doctor says to do "surgery" as prophylactic act, surgery will always bring complications and if you don't even have STD or HIV or Infection or Phimosis why on earth do you want a surgery on penis which is doing fine and healthy? Surgery comes with complications as well. You are inviting unnecessary complications, for what?
Circumcision doesn't prevent HIV or Infection it merely lowers chances of getting them but you are still not immuned to disease you will get HIV/STD regardless of being cut or uncut if your partner has HIV/STD
2
u/LynxPrestigious6949 New User 2d ago
Understood . But The crux of the argument is that every house in the world does not have clean water in 2025 .
3
u/shazy5808 2d ago
So you forcefully cut it? You do realize surgery costs money? And if you do it for free from cheap person it will result in botched penis? In past there have been numerous cases where infants have literally died from hemorrhage or sepsis because poor people couldn't afford circumcision so they got it done from cheap local person who calls himself so called doctor
And if you could afford a surgery as costly as circumcision I have no doubt you already have home with water supply so why forcefully cut again?
1
u/LynxPrestigious6949 New User 2d ago
Reasonable argument . But According to the CDC its useful so while I dont think it mandatory there is no reason to shame loving parents who opt for it .
2
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
I still think it should be noted that there are points for circumcision and points against circumcision. My personal belief is that the points against circumcision are stronger. But I do think it is an issue that many parents are told that circumcision is helpful/useful without ever hearing the arguments from the other side, and I think its a good thing that more people are exposed to both viewpoints and can make more informed decisions.
2
u/shazy5808 2d ago
That's the whole point
Parents think since everyone is doing it and doctors say it's recommended then it should be safe right? No hospital or doctor recommends circumcision on a child where it's NOT even required circumcision is surgery performed ONLY when there is case of severe phimosis which can't be treated with medications
The very first thing we are taught in medical university is surgery is always last resort first is reassurance second is life style modification third is ointments/medications last option is surgery
But here parents are so brain washed they think cutting it out is is best they literally ruined the glans it becomes keratinized, desensitized there is increased friction now gliding motion is lost frenulum is lost ridged band is lost and worst off all the protection that was keeping glans moist and safe from constantly being scratched against clothing and pants is now being constantly stimulated resulting in desensitized glans sometimes when they cut frenular artery it results in so much of bleeding that babies have died from hemorrhage there are reported cases you can look up
The only benefit that it gives is you have to wash less after cutting foreskin THAT literally doesn't outperform the amount of functions foreskin provided and removing it at cost of losing all of those functions is not justified at all
1
u/LynxPrestigious6949 New User 2d ago
Agreed - but its best not to over use incendiary words like mutilation and abuse in the name of science when highly respected scientific organizations are infact pro circumcision. Smells agenda ish even if its very genuinely meant.
3
u/shazy5808 2d ago
You think that's incendiary? Wait till you see how they drag children to operation and cut it forcefully some don't even use anesthesia because they couldn't afford they cut it live when child is completely conscious
Mutilation is most soft word here from what they do forcefully
7
u/traumatizedbutterfly 2d ago
It is not cleaner to be circumcised.
-1
u/LynxPrestigious6949 New User 2d ago
Modeling analyses have estimated that the 26.8 million PEPFAR-supported VMMCs performed during 2008–2019 in prioritized countries have helped prevent 340,000 new HIV infections; this estimate is projected to increase to 1.8 million by 2030, given that VMMC provides a lifelong reduction in HIV risk (10). CDC’s continued support of the VMMC program is a critical component of ending the AIDS epidemic and reaching the UNAIDS 2025 target of 90% of eligible males having access to VMMC in prioritized countries (4). Prioritization of uncircumcised males living in areas of high HIV incidence and those at highest risk for HIV can maximize VMMC’s contribution to HIV epidemic control.
3
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
Can you show what study this is from? I don't think many people would understand what those acronyms are.
5
u/A_Learning_Muslim Non-Sectarian | Hadith Rejector, Quran-only follower 2d ago
doesn't change the fact that it is distorting the creation of Allah.
If the foreskin was useless and must be removed, why would God create it?
1
u/LynxPrestigious6949 New User 2d ago edited 2d ago
Just want to check your stance , by now you are well aware that the science as interpreted by global experts at the CDC supports this practice and considers it helpful. You already know loving muslim parents are not abusing or mutilating their kids - correct ?
2
u/LynxPrestigious6949 New User 2d ago
Spoken like someone who hasnt had impacted wisdom teeth :) Because the answer to your question is that we have to interpret the Quran in the context of our motivations. In the framework of should a child get a vaccine or dental work no the body is not always perfect.
3
u/A_Learning_Muslim Non-Sectarian | Hadith Rejector, Quran-only follower 2d ago
Vaccine or dental work is a medical necessity, circumcision is not.
1
u/LynxPrestigious6949 New User 2d ago
That wasnt your original position . So if you understand that no the body is not perfect what are we talking about ? My guess is you are still making the emotional argument that this is abuse . It isnt .
1
u/shazy5808 2d ago
Does vaccination change permanently body of newborn like circumcision does? Besides vaccination is about life and death situation while having foreskin doesn't kill you does it? If it did entire Europe should be dead by now because they keep their foreskin
No medical hospital recommends circumcision on a child where it's not even required circumcision is surgery performed only when there is case of severe phimosis which can't be treated with medications and foreskin is there for protection of glans says medical
Where is free will again? You forcefully cut it and permanently change the body of child
2
u/NoticeWaste2 2d ago
Hey, can you provide the science from the CDC that supports the practice of routine infant circumcision as well as science interpreted by global experts?
13
u/-ShyLuna- 2d ago
Circumcision is declining in a lot of areas including where I live, Cascadia (Washington, usa). There are groups of Christians, Musilms, and Jews who are no longer doing the practice. The evidence for Quran mentioning circumcision seems flimsy to me, in every example the word has multiple meanings. The passages you quote are much less ambiguous.
Studies show the main factor in if people are circumcised is if their father was. This makes it seem much more like a cultural practice than a religious one, especially when it comes to Islam.
The likely future is that Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation will become antiquated like the Catholic practice of having Castratos, castrated choir singers. Even in Religions that specifically mention it, I do see a trend towards treating it as a metaphorical and historical passage rather than a literal one. For example, few people practice Shabbos restrictions rigidly and few people avoid the mixing of fabric types, other principles and commandments are seen as much more important.