Is Circumcision Compulsory in Islam? 5 Shocking Revelations
C.J Ahmed-21.04.2023
Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin in males and for females their r vrious definitions for it from removing the clitoral hood to the complete removal of the external genitalia which would amount to genital mutilation.There is no evidence fom the Quran or the authentic hadiths stating about circumcision nd only the word “Khitan” is use which means cutting. Circumcision is removing valuable tissue from the male and the female genitalia. There is a huge difference between circumcision and Khitaan. The shear brutality of forcing ones child in to the operation room to satisfy ones personal sadism is an unfortunate thing that not only deserves condemnation, but legal action against such perpetrators. Let me explain the difference between circumcision and Khitaan.
1. Circumcision vs Khitaan
Male Circumcision is the complete removal of the foreskin which comprises close to 50% of the skin in the male penis. Female circumcision is has no excepted definition and it could mean removing the outer tissue of the clitoris to completely removing the external genitalia of the female which includes the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris and other tissue leaving only a small opening for urination and the open wound being stitched shut. Female circumcision has been banned in almost all countries but male circumcision is widely and falsely promoted as having various health benefits which is based on flawed scientific research.
2.The real meaning of the word "Khitan"
The word "Khitan" or "Khatna" is wrongly interpreted as circumcision which is wrong and the real English meaning for khitan is genital cutting. The English word "cut" or "cutting" is derived from the Arabic word "Khitna" and circumcision is a totally different operation that was invented by extremist Christian and Jewish doctors in the west to stop children especially young boys from masturbating. Muslims who are ignoramuses have blindly accepted this evil operation thinking this is what was mentioned in hadiths.
Umm Atiya (Rali) narrated,
"A woman used to perform Khitan in Medina. The Prophet (Sal) said to her:
"Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband"
(Abu-Dawud-Graded Sahih by Albani)
In this hadith Khitan is light cutting of the female vagina and there is no mention of what needs to be cut. The hadiths mentioning circumcision is vague and has opened the door to various interpretations. The view that male circumcision is to remove the foreskin and female circumcision is to remove the rooster shaped skin that is hanging which includes a part of the labia minora is nothing but a false opinion which has no basis in Islam. Some Muslims are of the foolish opinion that removing the tissue surrounding the clitoris is what is mentioned in the hadith but no such thing was mentioned by the prophet (sal) in any authentic hadith. There is no mention on what needs to be cut in the male or female genitals and trying to come in to fiqh conclusions using assumptions is not only erroneous, but also dangerous to the life of a Muslim. There are numerous stories of children being traumatized due to being forcibly circumcised by parents who have no idea what they are doing. Blindly subjecting ones child in to a barbaric practice called circumcision which is a western invention where close to 50% of the penile skin known as the foreskin is removed to stop male children from masturbation. In Islam, evidenced is directly derived only using the Quran and the sahih hadith and for something to be practiced, there needs to be clear text from either the Quran or the authentic sunnah of the prophet (sal). Let me give you and example of praying salah. The prophet (sal) thought us every details on how to perform prayers and it is preserved in the authentic hadiths from placing the hands in takbeer to giving salam. In the Quran, Allah says the following about salah,
"Who believe in the Unseen, and are steadfast in Salah, and spend out of what We have provided them"
(Al-Quran-2:3)
Now, if someone comes and tells you that the meaning of this verse is to do Yoga, will you accept it? then how come a Muslim accept the false interpretation of western doctors and the kuffar that the word "khitna" mentioned in the hadiths is circumcision?.
The American academy of pediatrics (AAP) has come up with bizarre explanations to support the removal of the foreskin of the male sex organ and have stated that the f health benefits of male new born circumcision outweighs the risks (Source-WebMD-on November 13, 2018).
In the same article published in WebMD, there is a list of stupid points made in support of circumcision and they are,
1. A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
2. A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
3. Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
4. Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin)
5. Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Further, the same article that appeared in WebMD dated-November 13, 2018 mentions that circumcision helps keeps the end of the penis clean.
All of this are based on biased and false arguments which lack credible scientific research or are based only on a few trials.
3. The false HIV argument
The most famous argument in this list is the argument that circumcision protect males from sexually transmitted disease especially HIV. The research done among African males on the prevention of HIV has a conflict of interest. This research has been criticized in detail by researchers and doctors alike due to it's flawed methodology. The specific research which says that circumcision protects males from contacting sexually transmitted disease was done by circumcision advocates and has methodological flaws in it.
4. Does circumcision protect you from sexually transmitted diseases? No
The false argument that circumcision prevents sexual transmitted diseases such as AIDS is based on flawed research evidences that have been contested by eminent scientists and doctors. George hill executive secretary and George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H. of "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" said the following,
"This idea originated in the 1980s when the late Aaron J. Fink, M.D., proposed that circumcision could prevent HIV infection. Dr. Fink was a noted proponent of male circumcision. There seems to have been little science and a lot of promotion of male circumcision behind his claim.
Several early studies seemed to indicate that male circumcision had a protective effect against HIV infection. Later, the Rakai project identified viral load and genital ulcers as the primary determining factors in HIV infection. In addition to other previously identified methodological flaws, the early studies did not control for viral load, they cannot be considered to be scientifically valid.
Circumcision proponents have published several opinion pieces that argue that male circumcision prevents HIV infection. The authors, however, have been unsuccessful in convincing medical authorities of the value of circumcision in reducing HIV transmission/reception. The Council on Scientific Affairs of American Medical Association calls male circumcision a "non-therapeutic procedure" and said that "circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as 'protecting' against such infections."7 UNAIDS says that relying on male circumcision is "like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the gun instead of three.
The origin of the hypothesis that circumcision prevents HIV infection9,10 suggests that the true motivation of circumcision advocates may be the preservation of the outmoded practice of non-therapeutic male neonatal circumcision in North America, not the prevention of HIV infection in Africa and elsewhere.
Recent evidence shows male circumcision to be of no value in preventing HIV transmission reception in both heterosexual and homosexual contacts. The medical evidence now indicates that the statement, "male circumcision prevents HIV infection" should be regarded as a medical myth."
(BMJ 2002; 324 doi -Published 26 January 2002 Link https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-medical-myth)
The researches done in some parts of the word such as Africa to measure the prevalence of HIV among cut and uncut men is a flawed study which cannot be used to prove that circumcision helps in reducing AIDS let alone any sexually transmitted disease. There is scientific evidence suggesting the contrary. A research published by Carlos D. Rodrigueza and published in the journal of sexual medicine (VOLUME 9, ISSUE 11, P2933-2937, NOVEMBER 01, 2012-Link https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33809-1/fulltext) found that men who were circumcised had a higher prevalence of getting sexually transmitted infections than uncircumcised mn hence debunking the pro circumcision argument on its whole.
5. Hypocrisy in the western world.
With all the human rights campaigns carried out in the western world, it is unfortunate to see how hypocritical westerners view the issue of circumcision. Female circumcision has many forms. From cutting or pricking the clitoris to the complete removal of tissue from the external genitalia and stitching it with a small opening to only urinate, forced female circumcision is widely spread in many parts of the world and is a heinous crime similar to male circumcision. If you are a fair minded human being, you would find no difference in condemning circumcision irrespective of it is done to males or females but the shear hypocrisy of the western world is appalling. Lets take the example of the world health organization which has condemned any form of female circumcision as genital mutilation and claiming that a tiny "nick" of a girl violates the human rights as well as the fundamental rights but has shamelessly published a 132 page instruction manual on how to circumcise boys stating that male circumcision helps fight sexually transmitted infections (which is a blatant lie). The double standards is clear like day and night. It is very evident that female circumcision is consensually performed on patients due to cosmetic reasons. female circumcision was banned in the united states in the year 1997 but it is performed by cosmetic surgeons by various names. Labiaplasty is one such procedure where the labia majora or labia minora size is reduced for mainly aesthetic reasons. If female circumcision is banned then why are labiaplasty's being performed? The western world's ignorance is so severe they differentiate between consent and non consent. The other surgery that is widely performed on women and often with out her consent is known as "episiotomy". An episiotomy is a deep incision made between the vagina and the anal area to facilitate the birth of an infant. Episiotomy is also a form of genital cutting which could disfigure and scar the vaginal exterior as well as the area surrounding the anus as well. Episiotomies are common and are sometimes unnecessarily performed with out any consent. This procedure is also a form of genital mutilation if the western standards are applied but then why is it performed on unsuspecting pregnant women?. The biggest joke is that the WHO recommends episiotomies and gives a rate of 10% for the total deliveries. How come female circumcision of any form be genital mutilation but not an episiotomy?.
In conclusion Circumcision has no basis in Islam and Khitan is not an obligation.
Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin in males and for females their r vrious definitions for it from removing the clitoral hood to the complete removal of the external genitalia which would amount to genital mutilation.There is no evidence fom the Quran or the authentic hadiths stating about circumcision nd only the word “Khitan” is use which means cutting. Circumcision is removing valuable tissue from the male and the female genitalia. There is a huge difference between circumcision and Khitaan. The shear brutality of forcing ones child in to the operation room to satisfy ones personal sadism is an unfortunate thing that not only deserves condemnation, but legal action against such perpetrators. Let me explain the difference between circumcision and Khitaan.
1. Circumcision vs Khitaan
Male Circumcision is the complete removal of the foreskin which comprises close to 50% of the skin in the male penis. Female circumcision is has no excepted definition and it could mean removing the outer tissue of the clitoris to completely removing the external genitalia of the female which includes the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris and other tissue leaving only a small opening for urination and the open wound being stitched shut. Female circumcision has been banned in almost all countries but male circumcision is widely and falsely promoted as having various health benefits which is based on flawed scientific research.
2.The real meaning of the word "Khitan"
The word "Khitan" or "Khatna" is wrongly interpreted as circumcision which is wrong and the real English meaning for khitan is genital cutting. The English word "cut" or "cutting" is derived from the Arabic word "Khitna" and circumcision is a totally different operation that was invented by extremist Christian and Jewish doctors in the west to stop children especially young boys from masturbating. Muslims who are ignoramuses have blindly accepted this evil operation thinking this is what was mentioned in hadiths.
Umm Atiya (Rali) narrated,
"A woman used to perform Khitan in Medina. The Prophet (Sal) said to her:
"Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband"
(Abu-Dawud-Graded Sahih by Albani)
In this hadith Khitan is light cutting of the female vagina and there is no mention of what needs to be cut. The hadiths mentioning circumcision is vague and has opened the door to various interpretations. The view that male circumcision is to remove the foreskin and female circumcision is to remove the rooster shaped skin that is hanging which includes a part of the labia minora is nothing but a false opinion which has no basis in Islam. Some Muslims are of the foolish opinion that removing the tissue surrounding the clitoris is what is mentioned in the hadith but no such thing was mentioned by the prophet (sal) in any authentic hadith. There is no mention on what needs to be cut in the male or female genitals and trying to come in to fiqh conclusions using assumptions is not only erroneous, but also dangerous to the life of a Muslim. There are numerous stories of children being traumatized due to being forcibly circumcised by parents who have no idea what they are doing. Blindly subjecting ones child in to a barbaric practice called circumcision which is a western invention where close to 50% of the penile skin known as the foreskin is removed to stop male children from masturbation. In Islam, evidenced is directly derived only using the Quran and the sahih hadith and for something to be practiced, there needs to be clear text from either the Quran or the authentic sunnah of the prophet (sal). Let me give you and example of praying salah. The prophet (sal) thought us every details on how to perform prayers and it is preserved in the authentic hadiths from placing the hands in takbeer to giving salam. In the Quran, Allah says the following about salah,
"Who believe in the Unseen, and are steadfast in Salah, and spend out of what We have provided them"
(Al-Quran-2:3)
Now, if someone comes and tells you that the meaning of this verse is to do Yoga, will you accept it? then how come a Muslim accept the false interpretation of western doctors and the kuffar that the word "khitna" mentioned in the hadiths is circumcision?.
The American academy of pediatrics (AAP) has come up with bizarre explanations to support the removal of the foreskin of the male sex organ and have stated that the f health benefits of male new born circumcision outweighs the risks (Source-WebMD-on November 13, 2018).
In the same article published in WebMD, there is a list of stupid points made in support of circumcision and they are,
1. A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
2. A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
3. Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
4. Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin)
5. Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Further, the same article that appeared in WebMD dated-November 13, 2018 mentions that circumcision helps keeps the end of the penis clean.
All of this are based on biased and false arguments which lack credible scientific research or are based only on a few trials.
3. The false HIV argument
The most famous argument in this list is the argument that circumcision protect males from sexually transmitted disease especially HIV. The research done among African males on the prevention of HIV has a conflict of interest. This research has been criticized in detail by researchers and doctors alike due to it's flawed methodology. The specific research which says that circumcision protects males from contacting sexually transmitted disease was done by circumcision advocates and has methodological flaws in it.
4. Does circumcision protect you from sexually transmitted diseases? No
The false argument that circumcision prevents sexual transmitted diseases such as AIDS is based on flawed research evidences that have been contested by eminent scientists and doctors. George hill executive secretary and George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H. of "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" said the following,
"This idea originated in the 1980s when the late Aaron J. Fink, M.D., proposed that circumcision could prevent HIV infection. Dr. Fink was a noted proponent of male circumcision. There seems to have been little science and a lot of promotion of male circumcision behind his claim.
Several early studies seemed to indicate that male circumcision had a protective effect against HIV infection. Later, the Rakai project identified viral load and genital ulcers as the primary determining factors in HIV infection. In addition to other previously identified methodological flaws, the early studies did not control for viral load, they cannot be considered to be scientifically valid.
Circumcision proponents have published several opinion pieces that argue that male circumcision prevents HIV infection. The authors, however, have been unsuccessful in convincing medical authorities of the value of circumcision in reducing HIV transmission/reception. The Council on Scientific Affairs of American Medical Association calls male circumcision a "non-therapeutic procedure" and said that "circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as 'protecting' against such infections."7 UNAIDS says that relying on male circumcision is "like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the gun instead of three.
The origin of the hypothesis that circumcision prevents HIV infection9,10 suggests that the true motivation of circumcision advocates may be the preservation of the outmoded practice of non-therapeutic male neonatal circumcision in North America, not the prevention of HIV infection in Africa and elsewhere.
Recent evidence shows male circumcision to be of no value in preventing HIV transmission reception in both heterosexual and homosexual contacts. The medical evidence now indicates that the statement, "male circumcision prevents HIV infection" should be regarded as a medical myth."
(BMJ 2002; 324 doi -Published 26 January 2002 Link https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-medical-myth)
The researches done in some parts of the word such as Africa to measure the prevalence of HIV among cut and uncut men is a flawed study which cannot be used to prove that circumcision helps in reducing AIDS let alone any sexually transmitted disease. There is scientific evidence suggesting the contrary. A research published by Carlos D. Rodrigueza and published in the journal of sexual medicine (VOLUME 9, ISSUE 11, P2933-2937, NOVEMBER 01, 2012-Link https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33809-1/fulltext) found that men who were circumcised had a higher prevalence of getting sexually transmitted infections than uncircumcised mn hence debunking the pro circumcision argument on its whole.
5. Hypocrisy in the western world.
With all the human rights campaigns carried out in the western world, it is unfortunate to see how hypocritical westerners view the issue of circumcision. Female circumcision has many forms. From cutting or pricking the clitoris to the complete removal of tissue from the external genitalia and stitching it with a small opening to only urinate, forced female circumcision is widely spread in many parts of the world and is a heinous crime similar to male circumcision. If you are a fair minded human being, you would find no difference in condemning circumcision irrespective of it is done to males or females but the shear hypocrisy of the western world is appalling. Lets take the example of the world health organization which has condemned any form of female circumcision as genital mutilation and claiming that a tiny "nick" of a girl violates the human rights as well as the fundamental rights but has shamelessly published a 132 page instruction manual on how to circumcise boys stating that male circumcision helps fight sexually transmitted infections (which is a blatant lie). The double standards is clear like day and night. It is very evident that female circumcision is consensually performed on patients due to cosmetic reasons. female circumcision was banned in the united states in the year 1997 but it is performed by cosmetic surgeons by various names. Labiaplasty is one such procedure where the labia majora or labia minora size is reduced for mainly aesthetic reasons. If female circumcision is banned then why are labiaplasty's being performed? The western world's ignorance is so severe they differentiate between consent and non consent. The other surgery that is widely performed on women and often with out her consent is known as "episiotomy". An episiotomy is a deep incision made between the vagina and the anal area to facilitate the birth of an infant. Episiotomy is also a form of genital cutting which could disfigure and scar the vaginal exterior as well as the area surrounding the anus as well. Episiotomies are common and are sometimes unnecessarily performed with out any consent. This procedure is also a form of genital mutilation if the western standards are applied but then why is it performed on unsuspecting pregnant women?. The biggest joke is that the WHO recommends episiotomies and gives a rate of 10% for the total deliveries. How come female circumcision of any form be genital mutilation but not an episiotomy?.
In conclusion Circumcision has no basis in Islam and Khitan is not an obligation.