Circumcision issue
-
Hi smmirza peace
Some solutions I was thinking of were to tell her parents/her/my parents that the boy can decide on his own when he reaches the 18 age. I am in the U.S. so it's not like they can force the issue. Did anyone else come across a similar situation?
Not personally, but I know several Muslim women who chose to not have their sons circumsized. Personally, I'd make the same decision if I was to have a kid.
As you know, there is nothing in the Qur'an which requires this, but many Muslims insist it is very important. What is your wife-to-be's stance on the issue? Have you talked those things through? And why should her parents / your parents play a role in this decision?
-
Hi smmirza peace
Not personally, but I know several Muslim women who chose to not have their sons circumsized. Personally, I'd make the same decision if I was to have a kid.
As you know, there is nothing in the Qur'an which requires this, but many Muslims insist it is very important. What is your wife-to-be's stance on the issue? Have you talked those things through? And why should her parents / your parents play a role in this decision?
Well... I know someone who did not wish that her son be circumsised, and he remained uncircumcised until he reached the age of eight or something. Then the people around her pressured her into circumcising her son, saying that is the Islamic thing to do, and that he'd "perform better" latter in the future. Poor thing, she did not have the heart to do it but gave in because the pressure was too great s.
Anyway smmirza, I guess you should talk to your wife regarding circumcision. The wise thing to do is to let your kids decide on their own ). Personally, I wouldn't be able to watch my kid go through a painful process for something against his well, and not prescribed in the Qur'an.
Salaam.
-
We Need To Stop Circumcision
In the weeks ahead, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are likely to publish a recommendation that all infant boys undergo circumcision. This is a huge mistake. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that is painful and can lead to complications, including death. No organization in the world currently recommends this. Why should we routinely remove normal, functioning tissue from the genitals of little boys within days of their birth?
The vast majority of the world's men, including most Europeans and Scandinavians, are uncircumcised. And before 1900, circumcision was virtually nonexistent in the United States as well--except for Jewish and Muslim people, who've been performing circumcisions for thousands of years for religious reasons. Believe it or not, circumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation, similar to the way that female circumcision--the removal of the clitoris and labia--was promoted and continues to be advocated in some Muslim and African countries to control women's sexuality.
Routine female circumcision, which has been practiced in some cultures, is completely unacceptable. Few people would argue otherwise. In fact, the United Nations has issued a decree against it. Circumcision is a form of sexual abuse whether it's done to girls or boys. We justify male infant circumcision by pretending that the babies don't feel it because they're too young and it will have no consequences when they are older. This is not true. Women who experience memories of abuse in childhood know how deeply and painfully early experiences leave their marks in the body. Why wouldn't the same thing apply to boys?
In medical school, I was taught that babies couldn't feel when they were born and therefore wouldn't feel their circumcision. Why was it, then, that when I strapped their little arms and legs down on the board (called a "circumstraint", they were often perfectly calm; then when I started cutting their foreskin, they screamed loudly, with cries that broke my heart? For years, in some hospitals, surgery on infants has been carried out without anesthesia because of this misconception!
Medical Myths
From the 1980s through today, as the tide has been turning against male circumcision, misleading medical information has begun to surface (yet again) in support of circumcision. This information supports the belief that men with foreskins are more likely to get viral or bacterial infections and pass them on; that the foreskin is tender and thin, and therefore more prone to tiny cuts through which germs can be transmitted. New justifications, such as circumcision to prevent penile and cervical cancer, too often receive the blessing of the medical establishment. But these are justifications that science has been unable to support. Nor is there any scientific proof that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases.
This includes the recent studies done in Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda by Ronald H. Gray, a professor at Johns Hopkins University. He recently reported that men who were circumcised were less likely by half to contract HIV virus and less likely by one-third to become infected with HPV and herpes.
While this sounds promising, I agree with my colleague George Denniston, M.D., who said, "The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The "experiment" of using circumcision to stem HIV infection has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?"
Religious Reasons
Emotions run very high around the subject of circumcision, a perfect example of the strength and influence of first chakra cultural programming on our beliefs and emotions. This programming is so ingrained that many people cannot even discuss the subject of circumcision without guilt, denial, or other strong emotions. I know from years of experience that even addressing the subject of the baby boy's bodily integrity, choices, and pain isn't enough to change a belief that's been ingrained in the child's parents from their own birth.
Consciousness about circumcision is changing. And even some Jews, like Ron Goldman, Ph.D., in Boston, are rethinking the practice and modifying the traditional ceremony. The baby is blessed and sanctified according to Jewish tradition, however, the foreskin isn't fully removed. Instead, a tiny cut is made as a symbolic gesture after a topical anesthetic is administered. (Jewish boys circumcised by a mohel are always given a topical anesthetic before their circumcision, and the mohel does everything possible to keep the baby from feeling pain. Often, the babies are given a few drops of wine after the procedure for pain, too.) This allows the parents to practice their faith and adhere to tradition while protecting their child from a painful, medically-unnecessary procedure. This is far superior to what baby boys are subjected to in most hospitals. I know. I've done hundreds of circumcisions personally.
In the past when I did the procedure in the hospital, I would ask mothers to come into the nursery to comfort their babies while they were being circumcised, but they wouldn't do it. They couldn't stand the idea. I always made sure that I personally took the newly circumcised baby to his mother as soon as I was finished, so that she could comfort her child. I didn't want him wounded and then left alone in the nursery. The Jewish practice is very similar to what I used to do instinctively. The mohel gives the son to his mother immediately after the procedure and he strongly encourages her to nurse the baby. He also strongly suggests that she continue to comfort him as much as she can for the next few hours by holding him, and so forth.
Sexual Benefit
Circumcision also has profound implications for male sexuality. Studies document that the amount of pleasure a man can receive during intercourse is greater in uncircumcised males. That's because the male foreskin, like the clitoris, is richly innervated for maximum sexual pleasure. Sexual researchers have determined that men with the original configuration (with the foreskin) are more likely to feel the most pleasure when they make love in a certain way. Without getting into details here, as it turns out, this "natural" sex is more likely to enhance a woman's pleasure, too. I've written about this extensively in Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom.
Getting Involved
I hope you will consider supporting two organizations that are working to protect infant boys from unnecessary surgery. The first is Doctors Opposing Circumcision in Seattle, WA; the second is Intact America, a grass roots organization in Tarrytown, NY. The time has come for us to look at this common practice with fresh eyes and do what we can to stop this dangerous and unnecessary medical intervention.
http//www.huffingtonpost.com/christiane-northrup/we-need-to-stop-circumcis_b_470689.html
-
As you know, there is nothing in the Qur'an which requires this, but many Muslims insist it is very important. What is your wife-to-be's stance on the issue? Have you talked those things through? And why should her parents / your parents play a role in this decision?
Peace Leyna,
Actually I have not yet discussed this issue with her. I am a bit afraid & She is rational but I don't know how she will react to something like this. I agree a 100% that it should be the man's decision when he grows up and not ours. I will talk to her once we get closer to having to make a decision. -
Peace
I think avoiding something practical or that you feel is important is not the best policy. I agree with you that I'd leave it up to the kid to decide if he wants to be circumcised. I'm glad I'm not. In fact there are men who are circumcised who try foreskin restoration. So not all are pleased with the condition forced on them.
Joe
-
Would you mind pointing them out, Wakas?
It sounded quite reasonable to me, but then I am not really that knowledgeable on the issue. I have researched female circumcision in depth, but since I'm not a man (and have no kids), male circumcision hasn't been high on my list of priorities so far.
peace
-
The anti-circumcision lobby is largely based upon anti-semiticim and systematically seeks to obcure evidence of how circumcision improves men's sexual health and genital hygine. Failure to practice circumcision is singly responsible for a large proportion of AIDs deaths in Africa over the past 2 decades.
http//www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/05/circumcicision-health-children
So, would you have your son circumcised?
The idea may horrify you. But what if you knew it could potentially save his life - and thousands of others? Special report by Alex RentonThey call it nyanji - the cut. On the dirt road to Magunga we stopped beside a smart blue pick-up truck full of school-uniformed boys. Were they going for the nyanji?
They all nodded. Some of the young teenagers giggled - but every one of them winced. Hands crept protectively towards crotches. But there was no getting away from it - every man across Luoland is being encouraged to go for a circumcision. As the promotional posters on the local health-clinic walls say "Cool jamaas - dudes - take care of their health." With the HIV-Aids infection rate running at 26% in this part of western Kenya, having your foreskin removed has been accepted as a potential lifesaver.
This is more momentous than the mere changing of the culture of an entire Kenyan tribe - no small task. It is the first practical action taken on the back of something the medical world has known with some certainty for 20 years but, bizarrely, failed to act on. Quite simply, circumcised men are around 60% less likely to contract HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. And of course, they are less likely to pass them on - and that has a huge effect on STD rates in women. Studies suggest that women whose long-term partners are circumcised are two to three times less likely to develop cervical cancer.
-
Peace
This is the most assinine argument I have heard from those who do endorse circumcision. Clean your genitals like you do you hands and there is no immunity to STDs.
Joe
You've got to take the world as it is and not as you want it to be. The fact is that people don't clean their genitals as often as they clean their hands. Most men in the west only wash their penis as often as they have a shower, or less often than that.
But even if you do follow Islamic tradition and wash your penis every time you urinate, the issue of STDs remains. You're at risk every time you sleep with a new partner (on your wedding night or otherwise), or when your existing partner is unfaithful to you.
How does it work? The head of the uncircumcised penis is a mucous membrane, just like the inside of the mouth or the vagina. The inner surface of the foreskin is rich in cells that viruses can target. When the foreskin is removed the skin keratinizes - hardens. The cells become more like ordinary skin, a much more effective barrier to infections. Essentially circumcision dramatically reduces the amount of the penis's surface area that is exposed to viruses and bacteria. There are other factors - uncircumcised men, if they don't regularly wash under the foreskin, will accumulate dirt and smegma. Viruses can incubate there. Tears in it are, I'm told, a common problem, especially during sex - these pose further infection risks. One friend who had a circumcision when he was 19, on medical advice, says that before the cut he used to "explode in a geyser of blood", often at the most embarrassing moments. (Now he tells me that putting on a condom is easier - and sex is more pleasurable.)
There is a very, very strong scientific basis for circumcision cutting rates of inflection with STDs -
A study of 2,000-plus men in India.
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3570223.stmIn Benin and Cameroon
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm8,000 men in Uganda and Kenya
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6176209.stm3,000 men in South Africa
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4719409.stmYou've just linked to a campaigning website, run by disgruntled ethnic Jews who hate their own religion because of the nasty practise of ritual circumcision by unqualified Rabbis. This makes them biased against all circumcision even when it's done by expert doctors for valid health purposes. These studies are the most powerful scientific evidence possible - double blind studies of thousands of subjects.
Religion and health come together on this issue because the religious teaching is based upon the need for personal hygiene in order to be spiritually as well as physically clean and healthy.
-
peace Leyna,
In brief
"no organisation in the world recommends this" - not according to what I've read, see Guardian article, WHO and UNAids apparently do in HIV-prone countries. And the medical position is currently being reconsidered in the USA.
For a seemingly objective approach
http//cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm"Nor is there any scientific proof that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases." - not according to CDC
"While this sounds promising, I agree with my colleague George Denniston, M.D., who said, "The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The "experiment" of using circumcision to stem HIV infection has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?"
- fallacious reasoning, ignores other factors, like-for-like comparison is difficult.
sexual benefit - no evidence cited, contradicts CDC. Conveniently discussed in her book.
As I said, this does not make the overall point correct or incorrect, but when info is given in such a way, concluding something is often difficult. My recommendation always is if you read an article/study and it does not backup factual statements with evidence, uses any kind of fallacious reasoning, or does not provide you with the necessary info to verify and/or refute what it has said, makes no mention of opposing viewpoints, or has a specific view it is trying to convince you of, then be very very cautious about forming conclusions from it. This also applies to articles on topics of The Quran.
-
Thanks, Wakas! peace
I was being aware that the article is biased and tries to convince the reader of a certain opinion. But I found it interesting because a lot of the other texts out there rather point out the real or supposed benefits without mentioning the possible disadvantages.
My recommendation always is if you read an article/study and it does not backup factual statements with evidence, uses any kind of fallacious reasoning, or does not provide you with the necessary info to verify and/or refute what it has said, makes no mention of opposing viewpoints, or has a specific view it is trying to convince you of, then be very very cautious about forming conclusions from it.
I fully agree on this, and that's what I usually try to do.
-
Peace
The fact is that people don't clean their genitals as often as they clean their hands. Most men in the west only wash their penis as often as they have a shower, or less often than that.
What I meant was that people should make it a routine to clean their genitals when they shower.
You've got to take the world as it is and not as you want it to be.
The world is how one sees it.
the issue of STDs remains
Okay.
You're at risk every time you sleep with a new partner
You being who exactly, only uncircumcised males?
when your existing partner is unfaithful to you
The existing partners of intact males exclusively?
A study of 2,000-plus men in India.
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
In Benin and Cameroon
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
8,000 men in Uganda and Kenya
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
3,000 men in South Africa
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
You've just linked to a campaigning website
One group's studies is anoter group's campaign.
Religion and health come together on this issue because the religious teaching is based upon the need for personal hygiene in order to be spiritually as well as physically clean and healthy.
The quran does not tell males to get circumcised. It may be wrong on this issue for not endorsing it. It may be right for not endorsing circumcision for all males.
Joe
-
The world is how one sees it.
I think the world is how God created it. See no evil, hear no evil doesn't work unless you're a teddy bear.
You being who exactly, only uncircumcised males?
The existing partners of intact males exclusively?
Circumcision makes the spread of disease less likely, try reading the links.
And what of the men in America and their particular circumstances?
I'm pretty sure men in America also have penises. There's no shortage of STD infections in the USA - people sleeping around is part of the problem, but general health and hygiene are also a big factor in the spread of disease - not just aids but a very wide range of other viruses which are not fatal but are still very unpleasant and largely incurable - even if you don't show symptoms you can still infect your partner.
One group's studies is anoter group's campaign.
There's still a difference between campaigning and the scientific method. The links I gave were real science, using proper control groups with large sample sizes. These things matter, God gave us the capacity to use reason and think scientifically. Have you heard of Ibn al-Haytham?
-
Peace
makes the spread of disease less likely
Nice of you to admit the problem is still there.
try reading the links
Maybe you can return the favor.
men in America also have penises
Not all. Sex is not so black and white as some of us would like to have it.
the scientific method
I take all things with a grain of salt.
The links I gave were real science
Yes....
Have you heard of Ibn al-Haytham?
I have. Was he circumcised?
Joe
-
Hang on, you're accepting the science of circumcision preventing disease, but say it's not necessary in America because you don't think American men have a penis? Bizarre.
-
Peace
I did not accept anything but you can keep reading my words like it's a foreign tongue to you. Your post is dripping with frustration. I will say that I do disagree with you and your particular authorities. I leave you with this, that what convinces is not necessarily true.
Joe
