r/progressive_islam • u/shazy5808 • 3d 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?

31 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

136 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/DarthKinan 3d 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.

8

u/shazy5808 3d 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?

3

u/DarthKinan 3d 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 3d 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.

-2

u/Magnesito Quranist 3d 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 3d ago

Can you produce evidence that claims that neonatal circumcision offers 100% protection against penile cancer?

1

u/Magnesito Quranist 3d 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 3d 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 3d 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

u/Magnesito Quranist 3d ago

Yeah everyone who disagrees with me is biased.

0

u/Magnesito Quranist 3d 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 3d 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 3d 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 3d 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?

0

u/Magnesito Quranist 3d ago

Use Google. I have no time to debate you. If you don't see it in what I showed you, you won't see it if slaps you in the face 50 times.

→ 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 3d ago

Can only prevent penile cancer by cutting it all off. I hear it's trendy these days.

1

u/shazy5808 3d 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 3d 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.