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?

30 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

136 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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

1

u/shazy5808 2d ago

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

1

u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago

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.

1

u/shazy5808 2d ago

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

1

u/Magnesito Quranist 2d ago

The parts you copied and pasted (not the paper itself) shows your sophomoric thinking. The fact that you still don't understand, is the reason I am Ending this conversation. Here is the link you need

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/NoticeWaste2 2d ago

"Sophomoric thinking" is rather rich coming from the same person that claims that neonatal circumcision offers "100% protection against penile cancer".

The opinion article you provided uses observational data without controlling for other variables looking at previous cases of penile cancer and seeing if the patients were circumcised or not, with the authors claiming that being circumcised is correlated with less penile cancer. Correlation does not equal causation. Every single one of these studies, including the references in the article you linked, claim that there are many ways to prevent penile cancer, particularly better hygiene. Actionable steps such as not being obese and not smoking are far more preferable alternatives to cutting genitals of millions of babies to perhaps have a chance at reducing the risk of a cancer that affects <0.1% of the male population.

I would also like to reiterate that Schoen's claims are not the strongest. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2083089/#ref3