Why do you care what I decide to do to my son's penis when he is born?

[Anonymous]

I think it is funny that once again, posters think the whole thread is written by one person, who is just preoccupied.

[Anonymous]

jindc wrote:Ah this is the thread I was accused of starting? Pu-lease. I own my topics and am one of like 5 people who ever sign in, I just don't come on here often anymore. I genuinely don't care about this topic, but now I'm all over the European anti-Islamic issue! This is fascinating!
But please, this car wreck isn't my fault! Sheesh.

What is the European anti-Islamic issue? Anti-Muslim sentiment exists in all of the Western world (especially post-9/11), and it is not the reason Europeans don't circumcise. I said it MAY play a role in the recent efforts in Germany to outlaw circumcision, but I am not sure about that nor do I have any evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How your sons will thank you when they find out how popular their uncircumcised junk is to the ladies/girls. Very painful for an adult to fix this. Thanks, mom !!

Please don't generalize all women/ladies/girls as unfavorable of uncircumcised penis'. You have no idea what the majority of female's in the world prefer. I for one had never been with a man who was uncircumcised until my husband and I have tell you, I had no idea what I was missing but it's so much better in many ways to me. His son is also not and I agree with him that it helped him weed out the shallow women and he's glad it will for his son to. Before him I was one of the women who would have said, "chop away! that's what's normal right?" I'm so glad he showed me the other side.

We are having a son and I'm sure you can guess what we're choosing not to do. I'll be glad that his penis doesn't determine his popularity with the ladies.

Maybe your husband is just a better lover than the other men you've been with. Once the foreskin retracts on an erect non circ'd penis, it is pretty much the same as a circ'd penis. How is it better in so many ways for you? What were you missing before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do I care? I care because it is an inhumane practice to do this routinely to newborn boys.

Do I raise it with you? No. But if it comes up, I will not sugarcoat my dismay.

How do I know? Like others have said, when you've had kids you'll realize that at some point you see pretty much all your friends changing diapers in front of you or helping with potty training. Other times, people mention it.

What happens then? I will notice your son's stubby scarred penis and I will flinch. I will try not to do this noticeably for your sake because, what's done is done, and for all I know you may now be better informed and regret it (like my in-laws). But I will feel sympathy for your child, just as I would if you mistreated him in another way.

I will think less of you. I will wonder how you came to that decision, as an educated, smart woman, who I obviously share some values with or we wouldn't be friends. I will feel a little sorry for you too. Because you are either willfully ignorant and have followed what you perceive to be the fashion and had cosmetic surgery on your newborn boy, or you are delusional and have believed the very scant and disputed evidence on the topic without having done any full research into the cultural basis of this.

And then, I feel thankful that I wasn't railroaded into doing this, by a husband, by a doctor, by in-laws or by society. I feel thankful that my boys each have their whole penis and that neither of them will feel bad about this as they get older. I feel bad that at some point, be it 5 or 10, 15 or 20 years from now, when this waning practice is widely believed as archaic you will realize that you made the wrong decision, that you were on the wrong side of this issue and that you will regret it.

I feel sorry for you and hope you find a new obsession. You are free to do as you wish with your child. Keep your oppressive opinion, your eyes off our sons' penises. I find your comments to be in line with someone who is used to being able to oppress people.

God bless you and I hope you get help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Local religious leaders in Africa are actually working with humanitarian leaders to spread the word that female circumcision in NOT a part of the Islamic religion. Please educate yourself before you try to educate others. You are spreading incorrect information.

ACTUALLY, "what a few Muslims in Africa believe" does not equal "what Islam prescribes", otherwise these religious leaders would be working to spread the word everywhere, not just in Africa. If Islam prescribed female circumcision, what is your theory on why Muslims elsewhere don't do it?

If you have scriptural proof that Islam prescribes female circumcision, please post quotation. Learn to read an argument thoroughly before you critique it.

Let's break it down again.

Lady, did you even read what I wrote? I was supporting what PP was saying about female circumcison NOT being a part of Islam. The poster she quoted posted incorrect information that it was.

There are tribes in Africa under the notion that it is a part of their religion and humanitarian workers are working with local religious leaders to spread the word that it is not. They are having success in stopping female circumcision because of it.
I apologize. When I read "you're spreading incorrect information", I thought you were referring to my comment directly above. It seems we are saying the same thing.


Praise be to Allaah.
We do not know of any hadeeth in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ordered that his wives or daughters be circumcised, but it is narrated that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) advised a woman who did circumcision in Madeenah as to the proper way of circumcision. It was narrated by Abu Dawood (5271), al-Tabaraani in al-Awsat, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu’ab from Umm ‘Atiyyah al-Ansaariyyah that a woman used to do circumcision in Madeenah, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her: “Do not go to the extreme in cutting; that is better for the woman and more liked by the husband.” This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

According to another report: “Take only a little and do not go to extremes.”

It is also indicated by the general meaning of the evidence that has been narrated concerning circumcision, such as the hadeeth in al-Bukhaari (5891) and Muslim (527) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him): I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”

In Saheeh Muslim (349) it is narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When a man sits between the four parts (arms and legs of his wife) and the two circumcised parts meet, then ghusl is obligatory.”

According to a report narrated by al-Tirmidhi (109) and elsewhere: “When the two circumcised parts meet…”

Al-Bukhaari used this phrase as a chapter heading.

Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: What is meant by this metaphor is the circumcised parts of the man and the woman.

Female circumcision is done by cutting a small part of the skin that looks like a rooster’s comb, above the exit of the urethra. The Sunnah is not to cut all of it, but rather a part of it. Al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (19/28).

The Shaafa’is, the Hanbalis according to the well-known view of their madhhab, and others are of the view that circumcising women is obligatory. Many scholars are of the view that it is not obligatory in the case of women; rather it is Sunnah and is an honour for them.

But we would like to point out here that it has medical benefits to which attention should be paid, regardless of the difference of opinion among the scholars as to whether it is obligatory or mustahabb. This has been discussed in the answer to question no. 45528.

And Allaah knows best.

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82859/circumcision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we have millions of men running around now who are extremely scarred? It is interesting that rarely do fathers get so very hysterical about this issue, but the mother sure do! Quite odd to be that obsessed with your child's and other children's genitalia.

This is what I think every time I see one of these threads. Considering the vast majority of grown men...even teens...have been circd in this society, you would think there would be very known epidemic problems based in what the anti-circ team is saying. I have yet to hear of one grown man express any trauma over their circumcisions.

No one is saying that millions experience long term trauma. They are saying that they have been scarred and that part of their penis has been removed for cosmetic reasons and that it is not justifiable to put a newborn baby who is unable to consent through this process. Many men express regret that this was done to them and that number will only increase as the procedure becomes less common and as your children become the unusual ones (just like in the rest of the world).

This is primarily a women's board, that is why the majority of people posting here are women.

Just wondering, are you extremely religious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

WTF? there are no/very few Jews in Germany because of the Holocaust. That brings anti-Semite to a new level.

You're an idiot. The PP wrote "Germany today", not 70 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we have millions of men running around now who are extremely scarred? It is interesting that rarely do fathers get so very hysterical about this issue, but the mother sure do! Quite odd to be that obsessed with your child's and other children's genitalia.

This is what I think every time I see one of these threads. Considering the vast majority of grown men...even teens...have been circd in this society, you would think there would be very known epidemic problems based in what the anti-circ team is saying. I have yet to hear of one grown man express any trauma over their circumcisions.

No one is saying that millions experience long term trauma. They are saying that they have been scarred and that part of their penis has been removed for cosmetic reasons and that it is not justifiable to put a newborn baby who is unable to consent through this process. Many men express regret that this was done to them and that number will only increase as the procedure becomes less common and as your children become the unusual ones (just like in the rest of the world).

This is primarily a women's board, that is why the majority of people posting here are women.

Just wondering, are you extremely religious?

I'm not religious at all. What does that have to do with my post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

WTF? there are no/very few Jews in Germany because of the Holocaust. That brings anti-Semite to a new level.

You're an idiot. The PP wrote "Germany today", not 70 years ago.

Why, thank you and bless your heart! This is the country that just outlawed circumcism: anti Jewish at all Germany?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

WTF? there are no/very few Jews in Germany because of the Holocaust. That brings anti-Semite to a new level.

You're an idiot. The PP wrote "Germany today", not 70 years ago.

Why, thank you and bless your heart! This is the country that just outlawed circumcism: anti Jewish at all Germany?

Please do your research: http://www.dw.de/circumcision-remains-legal-in-germany/a-16399336
In any case, I would have supported the ban but not because I might be some raging anti Semite, but because it's a barbaric practice no matter who does it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and don't forget "mutilator'!

The majority of Americans still circumcise. The rates in my neck of the woods are about 85 percent.

Mutilator is not an insult. It is an adjective describing to mutilate. If you don't have a dictionary, I'm sure you can find an online definition.

It's a noun.

[Anonymous]

Uh, I know my words, but since you don't, here's a definition. (And yes, mutilator is a noun, not an adjective. Yeesh!)

World English Dictionary
mutilate (?mju?t??le?t)

— vb
1. to deprive of a limb, essential part, etc; maim; dismember
2. to mar, expurgate, or damage (a text, book, etc)

[C16: from Latin mutil?re to cut off; related to mutilus maimed]

muti'lation

— n

'mutilative

— adj

'mutilator

— n



Clearly this is a loaded term that doesn't remotely describe circumcision, a simple medical procedure practiced for tens of thousands of years before the drama mamas got involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, I know my words, but since you don't, here's a definition. (And yes, mutilator is a noun, not an adjective. Yeesh!)

World English Dictionary
mutilate (?mju?t??le?t)

— vb
1. to deprive of a limb, essential part, etc; maim; dismember
2. to mar, expurgate, or damage (a text, book, etc)

[C16: from Latin mutil?re to cut off; related to mutilus maimed]

muti'lation

— n

'mutilative

— adj

'mutilator

— n



Clearly this is a loaded term that doesn't remotely describe circumcision, a simple medical procedure practiced for tens of thousands of years before the drama mamas got involved.

Tens of thousands of years? You have evidence regarding prehistoric times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

WTF? there are no/very few Jews in Germany because of the Holocaust. That brings anti-Semite to a new level.

You're an idiot. The PP wrote "Germany today", not 70 years ago.

Why, thank you and bless your heart! This is the country that just outlawed circumcism: anti Jewish at all Germany?

As PP said, they didn't outlaw it, you are misinformed. And frankly, the only reason they didn't is because they were afraid to be cast as anti-Jewish, even if that was not at all the drive behind the legal motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Local religious leaders in Africa are actually working with humanitarian leaders to spread the word that female circumcision in NOT a part of the Islamic religion. Please educate yourself before you try to educate others. You are spreading incorrect information.

ACTUALLY, "what a few Muslims in Africa believe" does not equal "what Islam prescribes", otherwise these religious leaders would be working to spread the word everywhere, not just in Africa. If Islam prescribed female circumcision, what is your theory on why Muslims elsewhere don't do it?

If you have scriptural proof that Islam prescribes female circumcision, please post quotation. Learn to read an argument thoroughly before you critique it.

Let's break it down again.

Lady, did you even read what I wrote? I was supporting what PP was saying about female circumcison NOT being a part of Islam. The poster she quoted posted incorrect information that it was.

There are tribes in Africa under the notion that it is a part of their religion and humanitarian workers are working with local religious leaders to spread the word that it is not. They are having success in stopping female circumcision because of it.

I apologize. When I read "you're spreading incorrect information", I thought you were referring to my comment directly above. It seems we are saying the same thing.


Praise be to Allaah.
We do not know of any hadeeth in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ordered that his wives or daughters be circumcised, but it is narrated that he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) advised a woman who did circumcision in Madeenah as to the proper way of circumcision. It was narrated by Abu Dawood (5271), al-Tabaraani in al-Awsat, and al-Bayhaqi in al-Shu’ab from Umm ‘Atiyyah al-Ansaariyyah that a woman used to do circumcision in Madeenah, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to her: “Do not go to the extreme in cutting; that is better for the woman and more liked by the husband.” This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

According to another report: “Take only a little and do not go to extremes.”

It is also indicated by the general meaning of the evidence that has been narrated concerning circumcision, such as the hadeeth in al-Bukhaari (5891) and Muslim (527) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him): I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”

In Saheeh Muslim (349) it is narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When a man sits between the four parts (arms and legs of his wife) and the two circumcised parts meet, then ghusl is obligatory.”

According to a report narrated by al-Tirmidhi (109) and elsewhere: “When the two circumcised parts meet…”

Al-Bukhaari used this phrase as a chapter heading.

Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: What is meant by this metaphor is the circumcised parts of the man and the woman.

Female circumcision is done by cutting a small part of the skin that looks like a rooster’s comb, above the exit of the urethra. The Sunnah is not to cut all of it, but rather a part of it. Al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (19/28).

The Shaafa’is, the Hanbalis according to the well-known view of their madhhab, and others are of the view that circumcising women is obligatory. Many scholars are of the view that it is not obligatory in the case of women; rather it is Sunnah and is an honour for them.

But we would like to point out here that it has medical benefits to which attention should be paid, regardless of the difference of opinion among the scholars as to whether it is obligatory or mustahabb. This has been discussed in the answer to question no. 45528.

And Allaah knows best.

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82859/circumcision


I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "scriptural". I'll make it easy for you:

In the Quran=scriptural
Not in the Quran=not scriptural