Did you or didnt you?

[Mister Noodle]

I just want to clarify the " religious " reasons for circumsision in Islam. Firstly it was a religious duty performed by prophet Ibraheem, which as muslims we are instructed to follow. Secondly because the skin that covers the forehead of the penis prevents water to reach the inside when cleansingit. When a Muslim prays they need to be clean and this includes that region of the body. It is stated in the Quran as a natural instinct in man ( which there are 5) which are : curcumsision, shaving of the pubic hair , trimming of the moustache, clipping\ cutting the nails and removing the hair from the armpits. These help with the cleanliness of the body in order to pray.

I really do not want to start a religious debate but i felt there was a need to explain my reasons for curcumsising my sons under "religious reasons"

Okay, couple of factual errors there.

First, circumcision is not mentioned in the Qu'ran. There's a searchable archive of the Qu'ran [url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/]here[/i] in three separate translations (along with the original Arabic), and I guarantee you will not find a single reference. (Or of course, look it up in your own Qu'ran).

As muslims, therefore, you're not actually instructed to follow Ibrahim's example in this. It is alleged that the Prophet recommended it (though the reliability of the relevant hadiths does vary), but there is no certainty that this was not simply his opinion. Certainly it was Mohammed's opinion that the clitorises of girls should be cut off (I'll dig up the actual hadith if you like) - if you deny that that is Allah's intention, then surely you should question the very same hadith that reommends the circumcision of males.

I therefore disagree that it's a definite religious requirement. According to Islam, the Quran was revealed in order to correct the ongoing corruption of scripture and religious practice known to man. If mankind already had it right, there would surely have been no need of it. Thus any religious prescription not confirmed in the Quran (and it does get into precise detail on the smallest of matters) cannot simply be assumed to be a true requirement. Who is to say that the reports of the requirement from Ibrahim's time were not merely another corruption that the Qu'ran was sent to correct?

Second, it's untrue that having a foreskin prevents water reaching anywhere at all. It retracts as easily as pushing back your sleeve to look at your watch, completely exposing the glans and underlying sulcus exactly as much as if you were circumcised. Washing in the shower, after urinating or after sexual activity is not impeded in any way.

Even if if you assume that circumcision was mandated at the time, you have to ask about the intent of the prescription. The only reason that makes sense was the inadequate hygiene at the time and the inadequate treatments available for phimosis and frenulum breve (which would indeed pose a hygiene problem). A bit of a one-size-fits-all approach, but understandable. With the development of running water and soap, however, and the development of medical techniques to actually fix the problem, you do have to ask if a just god would still require the most drastic and least specific approach to a potential problem that is becoming increasingly rare.

[Mum2Bug]

Okay, couple of factual errors there.

First, circumcision is not mentioned in the Qu'ran. There's a searchable archive of the Qu'ran [url=http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/]here[/i] in three separate translations (along with the original Arabic), and I guarantee you will not find a single reference. (Or of course, look it up in your own Qu'ran).

As muslims, therefore, you're not actually instructed to follow Ibrahim's example in this. It is alleged that the Prophet recommended it (though the reliability of the relevant hadiths does vary), but there is no certainty that this was not simply his opinion. Certainly it was Mohammed's opinion that the clitorises of girls should be cut off (I'll dig up the actual hadith if you like) - if you deny that that is Allah's intention, then surely you should question the very same hadith that reommends the circumcision of males.

I therefore disagree that it's a definite religious requirement. According to Islam, the Quran was revealed in order to correct the ongoing corruption of scripture and religious practice known to man. If mankind already had it right, there would surely have been no need of it. Thus any religious prescription not confirmed in the Quran (and it does get into precise detail on the smallest of matters) cannot simply be assumed to be a true requirement. Who is to say that the reports of the requirement from Ibrahim's time were not merely another corruption that the Qu'ran was sent to correct?

Second, it's untrue that having a foreskin prevents water reaching anywhere at all. It retracts as easily as pushing back your sleeve to look at your watch, completely exposing the glans and underlying sulcus exactly as much as if you were circumcised. Washing in the shower, after urinating or after sexual activity is not impeded in any way.

Even if if you assume that circumcision was mandated at the time, you have to ask about the intent of the prescription. The only reason that makes sense was the inadequate hygiene at the time and the inadequate treatments available for phimosis and frenulum breve (which would indeed pose a hygiene problem). A bit of a one-size-fits-all approach, but understandable. With the development of running water and soap, however, and the development of medical techniques to actually fix the problem, you do have to ask if a just god would still require the most drastic and least specific approach to a potential problem that is becoming increasingly rare.

This is supposed to be a forum about expressing peoples opinions on the choices they make for their kids, not a debate pn history. People have made the choice to circumcise for many reasons over the years and that is THEIR choice as a parent. Do we really need to have all of this thrown at us in a way to try to make us feel guilty about our choices?

[mumtok&z]

I said I didn't want to get into a debate and i meant it.

[mumtok&z]

This is supposed to be a forum about expressing peoples opinions on the choices they make for their kids, not a debate pn history. People have made the choice to circumcise for many reasons over the years and that is THEIR choice as a parent. Do we really need to have all of this thrown at us in a way to try to make us feel guilty about our choices?

I was about to say something along those lines too. Thank you deanne.

[Mum2Bug]

Your welcome mumtok&z. Expression of our views in a friendly manner is what this forum is about and i believe you were just asking for general opinions, of which many people gave

[reAllytee]

Mr N seriously !
I get so frustrated when people judge others on things & this really gets my goat up when someone starts telling another what their religion does or doesnt do, say, state.
Sorry but if you dont agree dont make a comment !
Plus the OP even asked for this to stay friendly & for no-one to judge so please try to keep it that way !

[Mamaduke]

...and here I was thinking Mr.N only had it in for the Christians!!

[Mister Noodle]

Mamaduke, I don't "have it in" for anyone.

Allyoo, I have a great deal of close personal experience with Islam, and I have done a *lot* of homework on the subject. Trust me when I say that I do actually know what I'm talking about here, and not only from reading the actual scripture involved, either.

Deanne, I'm doing no such thing. All I'm doing is pointing out that the issue is not as cut-and-dried as many assume - and that all but the most conservative possible interpretations would admit of a choice in the issue. This is not common knowledge, and in the face of actual factual error, it seems a shame for people not to make an informed choice. Aren't informed choices what this board is all about? How you turn this into "trying to make people feel guilty", I'm not sure. I certainly haven't got personal, emotional or heated.

Granted, this is a thread about past events, not the relative merits, so I'll leave it alone. But it is so frustrating when people take "actually, it says X" as an attack.

[Tam-I-Am]

okay, hold our horses for a second.

In answer to the OP - we dont' have a son, if we did, he would be remaining 'intact' unless there was some medical reason that would preclude this.

I also just wanted to say that I've read through all the posts on this thread. No-one has been attacked. Mr Noodle did not actually say anything like "You are wrong and your decision is disgusting". What he did say was something along the lines of "I believe you have been misinformed. The true facts of the situation are.....". This kind of statement is not, in actual fact, an attack - although I do believe that those posts did actually contain some inflamatory statments....

Yes, this is a thread for people to post their opinions in - so EVERYBODY should be able to post an opinion.

[Mischief]

Since this thread is getting a bit off topic and turning into a fight over religion (not its purpose) I'm going to close it down.

Thank you to everyone for their input.