Male circumcision in Islam

[Silver]

As we all know, practically all muslim men are circumcised.

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, " The fitrah consists of 5 things: clipping or shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking or shaving the hair under the armpits and trimming the moustache." (Reported in Bukhari & Muslim)

So circumcision in Islam is practiced for hygenic reasons and unlike jews muslims don't circumcise because of God's covenant with Abraham. So to become a muslim it is not required of a man to be circumcised...

I am a supporter of male circumcision because I think it is cleaner: it helps prevent STDs, infections, unwanted odors...etc.

Some argue that there is no proof that circumcision is more hygenic and that we should not mutilate the human body because that is the way God created men and why would there be a foreskin if it was not necessary?
They say that a man can simply wash and clean himself well and the presence of the foreskin would not be a problem.

What is your opinion on this subject?

[Hamayun]

My opinion is if its not needed to be a Muslim then I wish I hadn't gone through all that pain.

Allah created us a certain way so why change it?

[Chuck]

Allah created us a certain way so why change it?

That is the way life is. You struggle to become better, so I don't understand why people want to take the easy road with religion. To keep healthy you have to maintain a certain lifestyle, which is difficult than unhealthy lifestyle. It is like investment and return.

All five things mentioned for fitrah, if you notice, are good for basic hygiene.

[Malaikah]

Some argue that there is no proof that circumcision is more hygenic and that we should not mutilate the human body because that is the way God created men and why would there be a foreskin if it was not necessary?

That is such an odd thing to say, considering it is God Himself who instructed that men be circumcised!

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hamayun]

Sorry if I sound ignorant but is it mentioned clearly anywhere that we need to be circumcised?

[Silver]

That is such an odd thing to say, considering it is God Himself who instructed that men be circumcised!

I've heard this from a lot of people.

[doorster]

:sl:

I believe it is a Sunnat-e-Ibrahimi

:w:

[Chuck]

Some argue that there is no proof that circumcision is more hygenic and that we should not mutilate the human body because that is the way God created men and why would there be a foreskin if it was not necessary?
They say that a man can simply wash and clean himself well and the presence of the foreskin would not be a problem.

What is your opinion on this subject?

(1) Commandment doesn't need proof. Do you need any proof to pray?

(2) People try to justify with the knowledge they have but that is wrong approach. They can try to understand it more, and don't expect anything more than that. For example, in sub-sahara africa which is plagued by AIDs, muslims communities have been not affected by AIDs much, one factor behind that is considered circumcision. That is not full explanation behind the commandment, but it is not difficult to understand that it may have worldly benefits. It might be gift of God to the believers. But this should not be reason to follow the commandment.

[TLCTugger]

Sorry if I sound ignorant but is it mentioned clearly anywhere that we need to be circumcised?

Genital cutting is not mentioned in the Glorious Qur'an.

The Qur'an reveals that nothing is left out of the Qur'an:

- 6:114 Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained ? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.

The Qur'an says that creation is perfect and needs no alteration:

- 3:191 Our Lord, you have not created all this in vain! Glory to you! Protect us from the punishment of the fire.

- 15:28-29 Your Lord said to the angels, "I am creating a human being from aged mud, like the potter's clay. Once I perfect him, and blow into him from My spirit, you shall fall prostrate before him."

- 32:7 He is the One who perfected everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay.

- 82:7-8 The One who created you, designed you, and perfected you. In whatever design He chose, He constructed it.

- 95:4 We created man in the best design.

I say leave him perfect; leave him intact. He can decide at any age later whether to alter his own body.

[S_87]

Genital cutting is not mentioned in the Glorious Qur'an.

The Qur'an reveals that nothing is left out of the Qur'an:


I say leave him perfect; leave him intact. He can decide at any age later whether to alter his own body.

As muslims we follow the Quran and sunnah. Muhammed :arabic5: was the perfect example of how to follow the Quran.

Its best to get it down young, the older the harder.
Id say first couple of months get it over and done with.

And to the original question, my opinion is whether there are medical things proven or not doesnt concern me. The hadiths regarding it are sufficient for me and it wouldnt have been something recommended if there was no benifit in it.

[islamirama]

:sl:

I believe it is a Sunnat-e-Ibrahimi

:w:

:w:

Male circumcision is among the rites of Islaam and is part of the fitrah, or the innate disposition and natural character and instinct of the human creation, and is from the religion of Ibrahim (peace be upon him). Allaah has said (interpretation of the meaning): "Then we revealed to you (the command) to follow the pure and uncorrupted religion of Ibrahim."

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

"The Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) was circumcisized when he was eighty years old." (Al-Bukhari, Vol 6/p. 388, Al-Salfiyya printing).

Male circumcision is obligatory for the Muslim male if he is able to do it. If, however, he is unable, whether due to fear of injury or if a respected and authoritative doctor has told him he will experience profuse bleeding which may make his life miserable, then the obligation for cirumcision is waived and he does not commit a sin by not having it done.

It is not permissible under any circumstance for the issue to become a hindrance for a person wanting to accept Islaam. The validity of one's acceptance of Islaam is not dependent on his performance of circumcision and it is valid for one to adopt Islaam even if he has not had himself circumcized

http://islamqa.com/en/ref/463/circumcision

[SubhanAllah!]

:sl:

Excerpt from Islamqa.com

Al-Tabari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer: “Fitrah: the deen (way or religion) of Allaah.”...

This word (fitrah) was also mentioned in the hadeeth narrated by Abu Hurayrah who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Five things are part of the fitrah: removing the pubic hair, circumcision, trimming the moustache, plucking the armpit hairs, and trimming the nails.” (Reported by al-jamaa’ah )

What is meant by these five things being part of the fitrah is that when they are done, this is in accordance with the natural pattern on which Allaah made mankind and urged them to follow, so that they will be better and more perfect… This is the ancient sunnah (way) which was followed by all the Prophets and which was enjoined by all the laws they brought. It is a natural and innate way. (Al-Shawkaani, Nayl al-Awtaar, Baab Sunan al-Fitrah).

Here are links to some more information about circumcision in Islam:
http://islamqa.com/en/search/circumc...AllWords/t,q,a

In Summary:

Fitrah: The deen (way or religion) of Allah.
Circumcision is part of the fitrah, meaning the way Allah intended it to be.

Imagine if you 'left' your nails the way they were. How long would they grow? And how dirty they would get? And how much discomfort they would cause? But Allah intended us to strive for purity and adhere to Allah's prescribed way.

Hope that helped.
:w:

[KAding]

It always confused me that seemingly God created us one way and then wants us to alter our bodies by cutting into them.

I suppose it is somekind of 'test' whether we are willing to follow his commands? But then again, circumcision is usually performed when one is still very young, meaning one can't consent to it. Abit weird 'test' that.

Oh well. I gotta say I'm surpised to hear that Muslims shave their pubic and armpit hair, didn't know that. Seeing how they love their facial hair, I just assumed that extended to other parts of the body as well!

[Thinker]

:sl:

Excerpt from Islamqa.com

Al-Tabari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer: “Fitrah: the deen (way or religion) of Allaah.”...

This word (fitrah) was also mentioned in the hadeeth narrated by Abu Hurayrah who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Five things are part of the fitrah: removing the pubic hair, circumcision, trimming the moustache, plucking the armpit hairs, and trimming the nails.” (Reported by al-jamaa’ah )

What is meant by these five things being part of the fitrah is that when they are done, this is in accordance with the natural pattern on which Allaah made mankind and urged them to follow, so that they will be better and more perfect… This is the ancient sunnah (way) which was followed by all the Prophets and which was enjoined by all the laws they brought. It is a natural and innate way. (Al-Shawkaani, Nayl al-Awtaar, Baab Sunan al-Fitrah).

Here are links to some more information about circumcision in Islam:
http://islamqa.com/en/search/circumc...AllWords/t,q,a

In Summary:

Fitrah: The deen (way or religion) of Allah.
Circumcision is part of the fitrah, meaning the way Allah intended it to be.

Imagine if you 'left' your nails the way they were. How long would they grow? And how dirty they would get? And how much discomfort they would cause? But Allah intended us to strive for purity and adhere to Allah's prescribed way.
:w:

Cutting your nails - the analogy is lost on me !!!

[جوري]

hygiene isn't an alteration of the body.. your natural state would be stinky, if you were left in your own sweat and refuse.. you came from the midst of amniotic fluid which is basically your own fetal urine that you were ingesting along with sloughed off skin that you were desquamating in utero , and that is fine, but say you'd aspirate on meconium the first mucoid feces also naturally produced by your body, you'd be in bad shape.. two pediatricians will be trying hard to insert a small suction tube to get it out of you...

as for the analogy of finger nails, I personally got it.. you wouldn't let them grow and grow untrimmed, yes that indeed would also be natural, but also disgusting .. circumcision is very useful is stopping things such as "Smegma" from accumulating under the glans and causing some serious problems as well as pathological Phimosis, uncircumcised infants suffer urinary tract infections of a ratio of 10~1. Yes, I am aware that UTI's happen in a small percentage to begin with, but, why take your chances?

Anyhow... yes I am still sick with the flu, so I don't want to protract this topic, actually with or without the flu, I wouldn't want to protract this topic. it is done when you are a few days of age, and you have no memory of it, and now they implement the usage of anesthetics so there is really nothing to complain about!

oh, and it is a religious obligation-- that is enough of a reason.. if your religion appeals to your reason!

cheers

[SubhanAllah!]

It always confused me that seemingly God created us one way and then wants us to alter our bodies by cutting into them.

I suppose it is somekind of 'test' whether we are willing to follow his commands? But then again, circumcision is usually performed when one is still very young, meaning one can't consent to it. Abit weird 'test' that.

Oh well. I gotta say I'm surpised to hear that Muslims shave their pubic and armpit hair, didn't know that. Seeing how they love their facial hair, I just assumed that extended to other parts of the body as well!

Hey there,

When you are being circumcised you are not cutting into the body exactly, it is cutting around the foreskin to remove it. It is a surgical operation like a tonsil removal.

You are correct in the sense that it is a test for those who need to get it done at an older age or even for the parents who have to get it done for their children. The infants are spared from this test so if you ask them about it, they will say that they are happy and didn't have to deal with it.

Shaving pubic and armpit hair is very hygienic correct?

Take care!

[Suhaib Jobst]

As Salam Alaykum,

I found this page while doing a web search and decided to join the forum so that I could post here (in the future, I will also browse other topics and contribute as necessary, insha'Allah). This current subject is pertinent to me, as I am a convert to Islam - been Muslim for seven years - and intact (not circumcised), given my ethnic background. I realize this is a subject where many brothers and sisters have strong opinions, but I ask them to consider the following observations:

Muslims are agreed that all human beings were created upon the Fitra, or natural state of disposition. Islam has no concept of Original Sin or notion that human beings are born sinful or impure. Quite the opposite! Were we not created in the best design, according to Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) in the Qur'an (15:28-29, 32:7, 82:7-8, 95:4)? So let us examine the evidence about Fitra. I notice that the hadith which mentions circumcision as one of the acts of Fitra is oft-quoted. But what about those ahadith with different expressions?

“Five things are included in the fitra: trimming the moustache, cutting the nails, shaving the pubic hair, plucking the armpits, and using the siwak (arak stick for cleaning the teeth).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Adab al-Mufrad)

"Ten are the acts according to Fitra: clipping moustache, letting the beard grow, using the tooth-stick, snuffing water in the nose, cutting the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the hair under the armpits, shaving the pubes and cleaning one's private parts with water." The narrator said: "I have forgotten the tenth, but it may have been rinsing the mouth." (Sahih Muslim, Book #2, Hadith #502. Also reported by Ahmad, al-Nasa'i, and at-Tirmidhi)

Notice that in these two versions, the latter of which describes ten acts of fitra rather than five, circumcision is not even mentioned. So why quote one to the exclusion of the others? Notice that the last two ahadith describe six characteristics not mentioned in the first hadith: Istinja', using the siwak, growing the beard, snuffing water up the nose, washing the finger joints, and rinsing the mouth. So I ask my brothers and sisters to look at the context.

The Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) mentioned various things on different occasions, whenever it served a specific purpose. Circumcision was taken for granted because it was part of Arab culture. Look for example at the hadith where the envoys from Quraish are interrogated by the Byzantine emperor Heraclius, who is told that the Arabs circumcised like the Hebrews. It must be seen in this cultural light and not as an a priori extension into Islamic law, a matter which I shall discuss further insha'Allah.

Arguably, the most important of the above would be Istinja', which is necessary for the validity of Salat. In fact, Salat is invalid without the proper Istinja', at least according to my Maliki madhhab. There is a logical distinction that should be made between mean and end. Being intact, I can confirm that it is not hard at all to practice istinja': it only takes a matter of seconds, just like other body parts need to be washed. Therefore, using the "hygiene" argument to justify circumcision seems to be a weak excuse to project one's own cultural traditions onto the religion, attempting to make the Arab culture and Islam absolutely synonymous.

Wudhu is the act of purification for Salat, and is likewise wajib for the validity of Salat. In fact a strong opinion in my madhhab is that deliberately praying without wudhu is an act of kufr! So if we examine the above characteristics of Fitra, the Sunna mentions snuffing water in the nose, washing the finger joints, and rinsing the mouth. The end is purification, whether it is Wudhu or Istinja' or even the various acts of spiritual cleanliness (such as al-Arkan al-Khamsa, each of which likewise symbolizes an act of spiritual purification). What does it matter about the mean towards that end?

The alleged "scientific" or "health" benefits likewise should be avoided, as such theories are representative of our limitations as human beings; we are not perfect and infinite. Statistics can be used to justify either side of a given position and I have likewise seen convincing evidence used by the Intactivist movement in this regard. However, I would like to steer clear of such arguments of "health" since we are examining circumcision strictly from the religious perspective.

Given that this is my first post here, and that it is already quite lengthy, I would like to conclude with some quotes from some great Islamic scholars. No sane or intelligent Muslim would dispute the knowledge and piety of these great scholars. What is significant is that each of them explicitly ruled that circumcision was not Wajib or even an issue raised in da'wa, yet somehow some modern-day individuals pretend to know better than them. I do look forward to feedback on this issue, as it is my intention to open up free dialogue on the matter....

"That all peoples, white and black, Romans, Persians and Abbysinians accepted Islam in the time of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and none of them were investigated concerning circumcision." - Al-Hasan al-Basri

"It has been narrated from Al-Hasan that he allowed adult converts to Islam relaxation in getting themselves circumcised. He did not see any harm in their being uncircumcised. He did not see anything wrong with their being called as witnesses or their slaughtering animals or their going for Hajj or their offering prayers." (Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr, Al-Tamheed)

"If a male adult embraces Islam and feels apprehensive about circumcision, it is waived in his case, since ablution, ghusl or grand ablution, and other obligations are waived in his case if he feels any of these is hazardous. It makes then more sense for circumcision to be waived in such a case." (Imam Ibn Qudama, Al-Mughni)

After the conversion of many people stopped the revenues from Jizya, Jarrah the governor in Khurasan, advised that circumcision be adopted as the religious test for true acceptance of Islam. However, Khalifa Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (rahimahullah) - whom scholars have regarded both as the fifth of the Khulafa ar-Rashidun and the Mujaddid of the first Hijri century - replied in a letter: "Allah sent Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to summon men [to Islam] and not to circumcise." (Ibn Jarir At-Tabari, Annales, vol. II, p. 1354)

Wa Alaykum as-Salam

[Azy]

circumcision is very useful is stopping things such as "Smegma" from accumulating under the glans and causing some serious problems as well as pathological Phimosis, uncircumcised infants suffer urinary tract infections of a ratio of 10~1. Yes, I am aware that UTI's happen in a small percentage to begin with, but, why take your chances?

It would be nice if you could comment on the OP's assertion that circumcision prevents STDs.

[Suhaib Jobst]

circumcision is very useful is stopping things such as "Smegma" from accumulating under the glans and causing some serious problems as well as pathological Phimosis, uncircumcised infants suffer urinary tract infections of a ratio of 10~1. Yes, I am aware that UTI's happen in a small percentage to begin with, but, why take your chances?

This "problem" is overstated and exaggerated. The problem is still rare and remedied by simple hygiene. Circumcision is no guarantee against it, as one study found they are actually just as likely to encounter it as intact men: the issue is not the foreskin or lack thereof, but rather simple hygiene. It is quite comparable to earwax, yet I don't hear people advocating cutting off ears to forestall the possibility of earwax! I mean this is ridiculous, as most cultures do not practice circumcision and they don't suffer from some epidemic of smegma.

As for the argument about pathological Phimosis, the simple remedy is not to retract the infant's foreskin but rather it will naturally retract in a short period of time. Infants require much care and this would extend to other aspects, as their bodies in general are still developing. One must treat them with the utmost of care. Let us look at Finland as an example:

"The Finnish National Board of Health provided national case records for the year 1970 for both phimosis and paraphimosis. A total of 409 cases was reported for males 15 years and older,which represents only 2/100ths of 1% (0.023%) of the total male population in that age group. This means that 99.97% did NOT develop a problem. Moreover, according to Finnish authorities, only a fraction of the reported cases required surgery - a number too small to reliably estimate" (Edward Wallerstein, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy, p. 128).

As for UTIs, Australian and Israeli studies found that circumcision is no guarantee against them. Studies also found that for every circumcision that prevents it, there are 194 that do not so how is circumcision some magical guarantee against it? Likewise, it is more common in girls than boys but we don't see anyone suggesting FGM as a "remedy", so why the double standard? The only variable is not circumcision, but rather catheterisation - i.e., yet another problem that can be remedied by simple hygiene. UTIs are easily treated with antibiotics.

You concluded your post with an interesting statement: "If your religion appeals to your reason". Indeed, we are urged to use our logic and reason. Yet it is interesting you ask "why take your chances?" If we were to look at all possible illnesses that could occur, and alter the given body parts as a safeguard against their potentiality, then what body part would be left intact? I mean seriously, there are illnesses which affect all parts of the body and I don't see this same "logic" applied consistently.

I regret that in their insistence on looking at the means, or rather of accepting their own cultural status (which is fine) and projecting it as given from the religious standpoint (a notion I simply reject), some are neglecting the end which is to meet Islamic or basic human hygiene requirements. All intact men can affirm that there is no problem with simple cleaning. Why is there not some dreadful epidemic in most countries of the world if the lack of circumcision is somehow the cause of these medical problems? Certainly, then there are other factors to blame.

[symori]

say YES to circumcision!
hmm...anyone dare to say no?

[Chuck]

Br. Suhaib why you are so huffed and puffed? Btw, you analogy is incorrect. Earwax is inside ear hole and it prevents ear infections. Better would be nails and accumulated dirt under the nails.

[Azy]

That is such an odd thing to say, considering it is God Himself who instructed that men be circumcised!

Where in the Quran does it state that men should be circumcised?

[Suhaib Jobst]

Where in the Quran does it state that men should be circumcised?

Exactly! Based on what I have seen, it it justified with selective interpretations of ahadith and cultural projection. However, it is telling that those who consider it as wajib or even recommended feel the need to buttress their arguments with alleged "scientific" or "health" reasons, which indicates they know there is no solid religious evidence for circumcision.

On the contrary, Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) says in the Holy Qur'an that He created us in a state of perfection and that we exhibit the beauty of creation. How is this synonymous with claiming that circumcision is either wajib or recommended? Why is it so hard to get some other Muslims to see it in this way?

[Zafran]

salaam

In the OT it was a sign of the convenat with God.

thats the way nations before us saw it.

peace.

[Suhaib Jobst]

In the OT it was a sign of the convenat with God. thats the way nations before us saw it.

Wa Alaykum as-Salam,

That was the Hebrew view, but the message of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) superseded and abrogated the previous messages, so there is no automatic carry-over into Islam.

Second, you say "nations" but refer only to the Semitic nations as if those were the only nations which received a prophetic heritage. But does not the Qur'an indicate at several places that prophets were sent to every tribe and nation on earth?

Yet, circumcision was not known in most early cultures and these obviously include those to which various prophets were sent. If this was a universal aspect of the Divine Message, then why was it not practiced in these cultures?

I guess this problem stems too much from looking at the prophetic heritage as Semitic, forgetting that it is really a Universal message with remnants that survive in every culture. To make the ancient Hebrews synonymous with all followers of early prophets, seems too Judeo-centric.

Talmudists claim that the belief in One God was created by the early Hebrews and all others took it from them, ignoring the remnants of this belief which existed in nearly every culture (i.e., such as the Egyptian Akhenaton as one example). The common thread to all early prophetic messages was this belief in One God and such universal concepts as doing good and righteous deeds, but in other matters these messages reflected their cultures. Wa Allahu A'lam.

[alcurad]

^second original argument, it doesn't have much evidence for being considered wajib although it does have health benefits etc.

[Zafran]

Wa Alaykum as-Salam,

That was the Hebrew view, but the message of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) superseded and abrogated the previous messages, so there is no automatic carry-over into Islam.


Second, you say "nations" but refer only to the Semitic nations as if those were the only nations which received a prophetic heritage. But does not the Qur'an indicate at several places that prophets were sent to every tribe and nation on earth?


Yet, circumcision was not known in most early cultures and these obviously include those to which various prophets were sent. If this was a universal aspect of the Divine Message, then why was it not practiced in these cultures?


I guess this problem stems too much from looking at the prophetic heritage as Semitic, forgetting that it is really a Universal message with remnants that survive in every culture. To make the ancient Hebrews synonymous with all followers of early prophets, seems too Judeo-centric.

Talmudists claim that the belief in One God was created by the early Hebrews and all others took it from them, ignoring the remnants of this belief which existed in nearly every culture (i.e., such as the Egyptian Akhenaton as one example). The common thread to all early prophetic messages was this belief in One God and such universal concepts as doing good and righteous deeds, but in other matters these messages reflected their cultures. Wa Allahu A'lam.

salaam
Prophet Muhhammd pbuh himself was circumicised - and ofcourse there are hadiths on it.

Abhrahm is a father many nations - Issac pbuh was circumcised (the father of the Jews) and Ishmeal pbuh was circumcised the father of the arabs pbut - both were prophtes.

it was parcticed by the arabs before prophet Muhammad pbuh.

Its true its not seen as a wajib- But the main argument is hygiene and that its a sign of the fitrah.

peace

[Zafran]

salaam

and the arabs and Jews are not actaully the only people to be circumcized

Its shows that arabs, Jews, north african (including ancient Egypt) people and even the Aztecs, Abrogineis in Austaralia were doing it - intresting.

http://www.circinfo.net/who_in_the_w...rcumcised.html

http://www.circinfo.net/history_and_recent_trends.html


peace.

[Suhaib Jobst]

Wa Alaykum as-Salam,

second original argument, it doesn't have much evidence for being considered wajib although it does have health benefits etc.

All the claims about "health benefits" leave much room for dispute and there are strong health evidences which the intactivist movement uses against circumcision, just as much as proponents use some to support their case. This is why I don't like to use such "evidences" except my own personal experience and the recorded experience of other men who are uncircumcised, as well as the general trends in societies where the practice is non-existent or otherwise rare. It is telling that these societies do not suffer from epidemics or even a prevalence of the fears used to justify this practice.

We can affirm that there are no complications in simply cleaning: it all takes a matter of seconds in one's normal bathing routine. Circumcision has no bearing on this, but rather the important thing is simple hygiene. Istinja' is stressed in our religion and the presence of foreskin is no impediment against this. The only ones who claim otherwise are those who have only known circumcision and want to justify their own practice of it, but they simply know no better of other experiences.

I have a general problem with using "health" or "scientific" claims to justify any practice which one wants to see sanctioned by religion. Being products of human limitations, such theories or statistics are prone to fluctuation, modifications, and changes. One can use all the statistics one wants but should realize that the person with the opposite view will have another set of statistics to support their view! Do we really want to hinge religious arguments on limited human theories? This could have adverse effects on da'wa and even harm the iman of the weaker Muslims.

Prophet Muhhammd pbuh himself was circumicised - and ofcourse there are hadiths on it.

I don't know if this was true, but I read in one story of seera that he was born without a foreskin, a rare condition which some infants have. But I am not sure about this and those familiar with the broad subject of seera can perhaps shed some more light. In any case, the Arabs practiced it so it would be taken for granted that it was done. What does it prove? Imam Muslim in his Sahih also mentions how Jibril (alaihi sallam) once descended to earth and extracted a blood-clot from the heart of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), washing it with the water of Zamzam and then restoring the heart in its place, thereby symbolizing his purification. Obviously this was a supernatural event, so how would your argument apply here?

The issue is that the Sunna is a broad term which refers to the practice of the Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam). But there are different categories and classifications, as the science of ahadith makes clear. There were some personal likes or dislikes which he had that are based on aspects other than religion, and of course these are not part of the Sunna which we should follow. There were some acts where he indicated it is permissible to do contrary than his personal example, such as when he allowed the Sahaba to eat lizard-meat while he refrained from doing so.

Like I said circumcision was practiced by the Arabs so the practice was obviously taken for granted. But there is no evidence that the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) considered it a binding religious duty. When calling the people to Islam, including the non-Arabs who did not practice it - such as the Persians and Byzantines, it was certainly not high on his list of priorities. He called the people to the worship of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala), to live moral and righteous lives, and to the correct belief.

On one instance, a Bedouin came to him and asked if he fulfiled al-Arkan al-Khamsa, would he be granted Janna, to which the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) responded in the affirmative! The basis of Islamic belief is the Usul al-Din (Six Fundamentals), and the basis of Islamic practice are the Five Pillars. Where is one's belief or practice of Islam contingent on the practice of circumcision? I believe that the priorities are obvious and those which are not priorities but rather left to the private decision of the individual, are likewise evident. As for your other points....

[Suhaib Jobst]

Abhrahm is a father many nations - Issac pbuh was circumcised (the father of the Jews) and Ishmeal pbuh was circumcised the father of the arabs pbut - both were prophets.

The basis of their message, and certainly the example which we follow, is evidently the belief and worship of One God, without associating partners with Him. The practice was called for him to separate himself from his people, as he was a prophet and the spiritual progenitor of many nations (as you have stated), by a physical representation of his devotion to Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala). At the same time, the message of Islam superseded and abrogated the earlier message, so there is no automatic carrying-over of their practices into Islam. The Arabs and most Semitic peoples to whom Islam was first received followed the practice themselves and took it for granted, but certainly an issue was not made when it came to da'wa. So why make it one now?

its a sign of the fitrah.

Already answered that one, but in case you haven't read my posts on the matter I shall rehash these points. Using this argument begs the rejoinder: the males are born with foreskin, so is this not their natural state of disposition? How would you view this in relation to the explicit ayat of the Qur'an (15:28-29, 32:7, 82:7-8, 95:4)?

There are at least three ahadith which mention the "characteristics of fitra", two of which mention five while the other mentions ten. Only one of them mentions circumcision. If this is such a primary issue in our Din, why was it not consistently stressed? Could it be that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) had far graver issues to attend to, namely those which affected their spiritual state? Most of the characteristics mentioned are acts which are part of wudhu, and the ahadith describing wudhu clarify the specifics. But where are the equivalent ahadith on the current matter?

Its shows that arabs, Jews, north african (including ancient Egypt) people and even the Aztecs, Abrogineis in Austaralia were doing it - intresting.

First, the site is one that is pro-circumcision: like I said, advocates of one issue will naturally use every proof they can find to support their own position. I could very well mention an opposing site (one on whose "Islam" section I have contributed to, btw) - www.circumstitions.com/ . Even the site you link to claims "34% of men are circumcised": I don't use the status of the majority 66% as some argument against the practice.

Obviously it is indeed practiced by most Arabs and Jews. As for ancient Egypt, it was introduced around 3100BC by invading Semitic tribes and was not an indigenous practice of the Hamites. This is proven by the fact that, contrary to your inclusion of "North Africans" on the list, it was not known to all Berber tribes but only introduced on a wider scale by later Arab invasions (and I have read in one book that some tribes even today don't practice it, wa Allahu A'lam).

The practice was done by these limited number of peoples, but generally around the world was non-existent. Most peoples of the world DID NOT practice circumcision. So what is your point? I ask this respectfully, because I don't understand how brothers who admit it is not wajib then come to effectively argue that it is based on apologetics. Why not respect this ruling, i.e. it not being wajib?

Wa Alaykum as-Salam

[Zafran]

Salaam

first of all you asked me about nations -so i told you about the nations before us (Abhraham, Ishmeal, Issac pbut)

secodanly i admit and this is true in Islam that circumcision is not wajib but is highly Recommended. The way you argue is as if its an absolute no no - which it isnt.

your clearly against circumscion God knows why as the main idea of Circumcision in Islam is hygiene and that it is a sign of Fitrah but NOT wajib yet Recommended

It is also sunnat Ibrahim and is one of the sunnat of the prophet Muhammad pbuh that is highly Recommended By ulema.

http://www.convertingtoislam.com/circum.html

http://www.missionislam.com/health/c...sionislam.html

although this site is answering christainty it has views of classical scholars and how they viewed circumcision - intresting information - it gives alot of fatwas from a lot of scholars

http://www.answering-christianity.co...rcumcision.htm


peace

[Suhaib Jobst]

Wa Alaykum as-Salam,

With all due respect brother Zafran, I already answered each of the claims you made but you obviously have your mind made up on this issue and will naturally seek to discount my proofs. If you actually take the time out to read through my previous posts, you will see that I answered each of these claims, so why rehash them like they haven't already been answered?

As for being "against circumcision", I will admit that it is simply illogical and strange to me. However, most of the Muslim peoples view it as a part of their culture so I respect that just I respect other aspects of their traditions. But it is coercive and done against the consent of the individual, so I just wish people would think about the ethical considerations rather than claiming (in my view, falsely) that it is part of religion.

I live in a country (United States) where a majority of infant males are routinely circumcised (although the practice was never absolutely universal and is gradually declining), so I am not singling out the practice of the Muslim cultures. In fact, I will give you one thing which is that the practice of the latter is better justified than the former since it is done at a later age and not at the most sensitive time which is infancy.

I am devoted to Islam with every fiber of my being, but the manner in which some brothers and sisters want to justify this practice simply runs contrary to my reason and logic. I would like to do my small part, as one individual, to open this issue up for free debate throughout the Umma. I have a problem whenever people want to project their cultural traditions into Islam, whether it is this issue or countless other issues. Wa Allahu A'lam.

[Zafran]

salaam

I mean you do know that that male circumcision is not only part of peoples culture but also part of the Islamic tradition and the main view is that it is highly Recommended in the Islamic tradtion.

I saw your "evedince" but does it show that circumcison is absolute no?- did you read the links i gave you atleast the last one and see how Islam and circumcision is higly Recommended. Thats not a a cultural assertion but part of the Islamic tradition - the mainstream view is that - Its not Wajib but highly reccomanded - is it not?


peace.

[Suhaib Jobst]

Wa Alaykum as-Salam,

I mean you do know that that male circumcision is not only part of peoples culture but also part of the Islamic tradition and the main view is that it is highly Recommended in the Islamic tradtion.

The Islamic da'wa first took root in many areas where the practice was already done. It was indeed practiced by the earlier Semitic prophets, so it is natural that in an effort to demonstrate their continuity with this tradition in the eyes of the Jews and Christians it was necessary to show that one was doing the same practice as the line of Abraham (alaihi sallam).

This is how a cultural tradition became taken for granted as an "Islamic tradition", although the four scholarly quotes I cited earlier demonstrate that this was not sanctioned by the Shari'a or even a factor in da'wa. That at least two of the earliest scholars whose status in Islamic ilm and taqwa is indisputable - Sayyidina Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz and Imam Al-Hasan al-Basri - held such a view really puts this issue in broader perspective.

The corollary is that, in admitting that it is not wajib yet consistently arguing that it is "recommended", using a limited interpretation of certain "evidences", you are in effect negating your own admission!

did you read the links i gave you atleast the last one and see how Islam and circumcision is higly Recommended.

I read the links, including the last one. The problem with this last one was its heavy reliance on "Salafi" scholars, whom I reject for answers to religious matters (and this coming from one who was a "Salafi" for four years). The Hanbali madhhab is the strictest on the issue of circumcision, and these scholars in Saudi Arabia are at least nominal followers of this school. So their absolute insistence on it is a given, except that it is a mere rehashing of the "fitra" argument which I already discussed - nothing new.

Fatawa on the matter from ************** have a more balanced perspective and do not make absolute assumptions like these rulings from the Lajna ad-Da'ima and Islamqa. And notice that the author of the article uses the same old "hygiene" arguments, another issue which I have already answered in the previous posts. You may take my views or reject them, but here they are for one to freely consider. Wa Allahu A'lam.

[Zafran]

salaam

actaully not all were salafi scholars - Imam Nawwi and Ibn Hajer are not just Salafi scholars futhermore the last fatwa sunnipath is defintly anti salafi anyway. I'm also sure the 4 Madhabs also put it as Recommended atleast on a classical level. Furthermore Wajib is one below fard - Circimcision is seen to be Mustahabb below wajib. Thats what i mean. You do know that - thats why i'm saying its not wajib but Mustahabb(reccomanded). I dont think there is single scholar (classical) that ever saw circumcision as lower then Mustahabb unless in specific circumstances.

although there are scholars who have called it wajib too.

peace.

[جوري]

It would be nice if you could comment on the OP's assertion that circumcision prevents STDs.

There is no correlation between STD's and circumcision..
I commented of my own knowledge and interest and little to do with original assertion. I hope that is OK?

Circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. If it means nothing to you then you can go with your foreskin it isn't a crime, unless your own partner finds it appalling.. it is rather your individual preference.

All I needed to cover from a 'medical stand point' I have in brief.. it is mildly beneficial as opposed to going without, You can keep your foreskin and live a normal life' it is an individual choice, and for those following Abrahamic faith excluding Christians it is an obligation.. that is all that needs to be said!

Have a wonderful day!

[Suhaib Jobst]

Circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham.

This was part of the covenant of the earlier nations. The message of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) abrogated those previous customs except those which were carried over into the Qur'an. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an, so it is no longer part of any covenant between Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) and the creation.

I have already answered the points about the alleged justifications from the hadith, points which one may either accept or reject. But please don't repeat all these tired old points about circumcision being more "hygienic" or necessary because Ibrahim (alaihi sallam) practiced it.

If it means nothing to you then you can go with your foreskin it isn't a crime, unless your own partner finds it appalling.. it is rather your individual preference.

Why even make it an issue then? Should it not be left up to the individual to decide on their own, when they have reached the age of consent? There is no compulsion in the Deen, yet some persist in projecting their cultural practices and traditions into the Deen that I accepted and which I love. This is what I have a problem with.

All I needed to cover from a 'medical stand point' I have in brief.. it is mildly beneficial as opposed to going without, You can keep your foreskin and live a normal life' it is an individual choice, and for those following Abrahamic faith excluding Christians it is an obligation.. that is all that needs to be said!

How would you know that it is "mildly beneficial as opposed to going without"? As a sister would this not be beyond your personal scope of knowledge? I am a male so you don't see me commenting on what is best for women. Everyone knows best about their own body.

[جوري]

This was part of the covenant of the earlier nations. The message of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) abrogated those previous customs except those which were carried over into the Qur'an. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an, so it is no longer part of any covenant between Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) and the creation.

I have already answered the points about the alleged justifications from the hadith, points which one may either accept or reject. But please don't repeat all these tired old points about circumcision being more "hygienic" or necessary because Ibrahim (alaihi sallam) practiced it.

We are not a Quran only sect, and in the Quran Allah SWT so states 'Follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright in Faith'." 16:123

Now, You'll forgive that I didn't read your first post to have bothered with the second, if you don't like what I have written you may simply skip over it? Further where have I stated that circumcision is necessary? I believe I have stated and I quote

.. circumcision is very useful is stopping things such as "Smegma" from accumulating under the glans and causing some serious problems as well as pathological Phimosis, uncircumcised infants suffer urinary tract infections of a ratio of 10~1. Yes, I am aware that UTI's happen in a small percentage to begin with,

mildly beneficial and covered briefly the topics of where it may be deemed beneficial on my very first post (see quote) and superimpose on the first page! I asserted it as a religious obligation as in (implied a responsibility) but not a compulsion in keeping with the covenant and we are on the path of Abraham if you'll read the Quran ( see above)-- that is if no harm will be incurred (an ex. bleeding diathesis) hence favored but not imposed!

Male circumcision is among the rites of Islam and is part of the (in Arabic): fitrah, or the innate disposition and natural character and instinct of the human creation.

As-Shawkani said in his book Nayl al-Awtar (1/184):
"What the Prophet (s.A.w.) means by Fitrah is that if these characteristics are followed by a man, he would be described as a man of Fitrah, which Allah (s.w.t.) has gifted his servants with, and encouraged them to follow, so that they attain a high degree of respectability and dignity."

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, "Five are the acts quite akin to fitrah: Circumcision, clipping or shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking or shaving the hair under the armpits and clipping (or shaving) the moustache." (Reported in Bukhari & Muslim)
Allah ordered Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to follow the religion of Ibrahim (peace be upon him). When Allah says:

"Then We inspired you: 'Follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright in Faith'."

(Qur'an 16:123)

And part of the religion of Ibrahim is circumcision.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "The Prophet Ibrahim circumcised himself when he was eighty years old and he circumcised himself with an axe." (Related by Bukhari, Muslim & Ahmad.)
Ibn Abbas (r.a.) was asked "How old were you when the Prophet died?" He replied, "At that time I had been circumcised. At that time people did not circumcise the boys till they attained the age of puberty (Baligh)." (Bukhari)
Most Fuqaha' (Islamic Jurists) say that circumcision is obligatory upon the men and this is the opinion of Jumhur (the majority of the scholars). If it were not obligatory, then Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) would not have troubled himself at such a later stage of his life.
The Time for Circumcision:

During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) circumcision was done for boys at the time of their Aqiqah (It's a traditional celebration for the birth of a child which involves the sacrifice of an animal in thanks to Allah. That's the short answer) as reported in al-Bayhaq.

Other Ahadith mention it being done later. The details here are not important but it goes without saying that this minor operation is easier on a baby than it is on an older boy. If it is essential, circumcision can be delayed for practical reasons, but it would be sensible to perform circumcision before the boy starts praying regularly due to practical purposes of simplifying Taharah, or being clean.
Abdullah Ibn Jabir (r.a.) and Aisha (r.a.) said:

"The Prophet (peace be upon him) performed the Aqiqah of al-Hasan and al-Hussein (the prophets grandsons) and circumcised them on the 7th. Day." (Related in al-Bayhaq & Tabarani)

Imam Nawawi says:
"circumcision is recommended to be performed on the seventh day of infancy-the day of Aqiqah (Al-Majmu 1/303)

Muhammad (peace be upon him)


http://www.missionislam.com/health/c...sionislam.html

Why even make it an issue then? Should it not be left up to the individual to decide on their own, when they have reached the age of consent? There is no compulsion in the Deen, yet some persist in projecting their cultural practices and traditions into the Deen that I accepted and which I love. This is what I have a problem with.

? I think the one making an issue of it is your person further suggested by your adamant need to quote me and incorrectly inset statements where I have neither addressed nor asserted half of what you have attributed as said by my person? my post was a direct response to 'AZY' querying a correlation between STD's and circumcision, which I have denied a link to! Again, if you don't like what I have written or wish to see something in what I have written that wasn't actually there, or feel emasculated by a female response of the subject matter and want to justify something to your own person in the process by a public crusade then I suggest you deal with it in your own private time?!

How would you know that it is "mildly beneficial as opposed to going without"? As a sister would this not be beyond your personal scope of knowledge? I am a male so you don't see me commenting on what is best for women. Everyone knows best about their own body.

it isn't beyond my scope of knowledge given that I am a medical doctor, what are your qualifications both theologically and medically?-- as I am always open to amend my beliefs from people of knowledge!
and lastly, where in any of my posts did I assert 'this is best for your body'? I challenge you to quote me making such an assertion! Please don't feel so free take the liberty to inset statements that I didn't actually make! If nothing else it detracts from your own credibility!

all the best

[Whatsthepoint]

Circumcision is a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. If it means nothing to you then you can go with your foreskin it isn't a crime, unless your own partner finds it appalling.. it is rather your individual preference

Wyh isn't it don in adulthood? I mean, as a voluntary sign of the covenant?

[جوري]

Wyh isn't it don in adulthood? I mean, as a voluntary sign of the covenant?

That is the recommendation, see above as I have amended my post!

[Suhaib Jobst]

We are not a Quran only sect, and in the Quran Allah SWT so states 'Follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright in Faith'."

I never advocated rejecting the Ahadith and Sunna, or that we should only follow the Qur'an. My point is that there are some ahadith which speak on social issues, that should be read in their historical and social context. I am referring only to a few specific matters, such as how some distorting of ahadith have been used to justify many cultural practices.

These should be read logically, according to their historical context and judged upon the precepts of the Qur'an, but also read according to other more authentic ahadith of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) which provide this broader context. One of these is the hadith where the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) told a group of men that they know best their worldly matters. We all have our own perspectives drawn from our worldly experiences, which is my point exactly.

As for following the Millat of Ibrahim (alaihi sallam) - the actual word used in this context and not the modern term "religion"; our Deen is best described as a transcendent life-transaction, not a theological concept - is this not worshipping only the One Creator? Wa Allahu A'lam.

I think the one making an issue of it is your person further suggested by your adamant need to quote me and incorrectly inset statements where I have neither addressed nor asserted half of what you have attributed as said by my person.

Then I would fully respect that, but my point was that you continue to argue the same points which others have already made. You have pasted and cut from the same "Mission Islam" article which is most cited when this topic comes up. Again, I gave my interpretation of these "evidences" and one can either take or reject it. Wa Allahu A'lam.

I think the one making an issue of it is your person further suggested by your adamant need to quote me and incorrectly inset statements where I have neither addressed nor asserted half of what you have attributed.

I believe if one reads what I wrote, they could see that I did nothing of the sort. But if it came across like that, then I do humbly apologize to you. As for me making an issue of it, if you could read the hateful comments given to me as negative reputation then you would know there are some who get emotional over this issue and do not have the same fairness as you.

feel emasculated by a female response of the subject matter and want to justify something to your own person in the process by a public crusade then I suggest you deal with it in your own private time?!

Are you not making false assertions about me even after crying foul over me allegedly doing the same? Those who feel emasculated are those who compensate for their own insecurities by dictating what they think is best for women. My point was exactly the opposite: I am secure enough that I care to focus on my own person and don't have to concern myself with whether others are living according to certain standards. It is the *******s and other puritans who have these emasculated insecurities, not a secure and dignified Muslim like myself.

it isn't beyond my scope of knowledge given that I am a medical doctor, what are your qualifications both theologically and medically?-- as I am always open to amend my beliefs from people of knowledge!

The problem with this argument is that: (1) I am speaking about one's personal experience. We all come from unique and different experiences, from which we draw our conclusions. (2) If you want to bring the same old "scientific" arguments into the debate, then why not be consistent and admit how the vast majority of medical establishments have either held the practice as unnecessary on this basis or even presented arguments against it?

So obviously bringing your status as a doctor and using against my admittedly lower social status, is irrelevant, as you probably know there are differences within the medical community. My problem is when some brothers and sisters argue for circumcision using "scientific" and "hygienic" assertions, ignoring the experiences of those who are intact, who can attest that these claims are false.

I assure you that I am not obsessive over this issue. In my seven years as a Muslim, it has hardly even come up for consideration. I was never pressured to have it done on me and it has not affected my spiritual ties with other Muslims.

I have a large collection of writings of which 99% is concerned with other subjects. But this issue was my primary purpose to discuss on this forum. I have nothing to prove to any other human being, as my only concern is my personal standing before my Creator and with concentrating on my own quest for spiritual perfection, insha'Allah.