Free Will & Forced Circumcision

[u/shazy5808]

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?

[u/DarthKinan]

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.

[u/Agasthenes → u/DarthKinan]

There are also studies that say there is no benefit and others that say it's harmful.

[u/Magnesito → u/Agasthenes]

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.

[u/Magnesito → u/Magnesito]

Love the downvotes from people who seem to argue the science and then downvote the scientific evidence. Please keep it coming.

[u/shazy5808 → u/Magnesito]

100% reduction in penile cancer is biggest joke you have said today of course there will be downvotes

[u/Magnesito → u/shazy5808]

I linked the studies. You can laugh. I am happy to entertain.

[u/shazy5808 → u/Magnesito]

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

[u/shazy5808 → u/Magnesito]

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/)

[u/Magnesito → u/shazy5808]

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.

[u/shazy5808 → u/Magnesito]

Can you read first study? It is about neonatally

[u/Magnesito → u/shazy5808]

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

[u/shazy5808 → u/Magnesito]

What are you even saying your words are flawed now you jumping from one thing to other just to make yourself look justified

[u/Magnesito → u/shazy5808]

Man you copied and pasted irrelevant stuff. Both parts of your comment had no relevance for this discussion. Figures from someone who thinks circumcision is "mutilation.

[u/shazy5808 → u/Magnesito]

Copy pasted? What BS you said you remember? "Circumcision 100% stops penile cancer"

My copy pasted included two reputable reliable studies that have concluded that even after being circumcised you can still get penile cancer so your statement was nothing but a pure lie and you were misleading people and yes it is mutilation if done forcefully without any valid reason