Male circumcision in Islam

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That was the Hebrew view, but the message of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) superseded and abrogated the previous messages, so there is no automatic carry-over into Islam.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