Where did "genital mutilation" for females come from? Is it allowed in Islam and Christianity?
The sections of this article are:
- Is it allowed in Islam?
- Circumcision of males is allowed, but genital
mutilation isn't!
- Allah Almighty honored
the intimacy between the husband and the wife.
- Genital mutilation for females came from and before the existence of the Jews'
Talmud.
- But Jesus did approve of Circumcision.
We have a clear contradiction between
Paul and Jesus!
- The Old Testament mentions only male genital mutilation.
- Some Christians sliced off their penises in the name of the Bible!
- What is the purpose of genital mutilation in the Talmud?
- Conclusion.
I was asked this question before: Is genital mutilation for females allowed in Islam? The answer is no, it is not. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him clearly prohibited mutilation or maiming of the body:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Yazid Al-Ansari: "The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Oppressions, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 654)"
Also Malik Muwatta may Allah Almighty rest his soul and be pleased with him taught that genital mutilation for men is not allowed in Islam. He was a famous scholar after our Prophet peace be upon him. He has compilations of many of the Sayings and teachings of our Prophet peace be upon him:
"Malik related to me that the generally agreed on way of
doing things amongst the community about an accident is that there is no blood-money until
the victim is better. If a man's bone, either a hand, or a foot, or
another part of his body, is broken accidentally and it heals and becomes sound
and returns to its form, there is no blood-money for it. If the limb is impaired or
there is a scar on it, there is blood-money for it according to the extent that it is
impaired.
..........
Malik said, 'The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that when
the doctor performs a circumcision and cuts off the glans, he must pay the full
blood-money. That is because it is an accident which the tribe is
responsible for, and the full blood money is payable for all that in which a doctor errs
or exceeds, when it is not intentional.' (Translation
of Malik's Muwatta, Blood-Money, Book 43, Number 43.5.4a)"
As you can see above from our Prophet's Saying, any type of body mutilation or maiming, even if it were a small tattoo is clearly prohibited in Islam. Surgical errors when dealing with the man's glans (a small rounded gland-like structure; especially that at the end of the penis or clitoris) are punishable. This clearly proves that intentional genital mutilation is prohibited in Islam.
Notice that Malik Muwatta was talking about circumcisions done to males only. No females were mentioned. Below we will see more proofs that circumcision in Islam is meant for males only.
I personally am not aware of any Muslim country that allows genital mutilation for females. But however, if you heard of Muslims practicing it in the third world countries, it is either a lie, or an old bad tradition that some people or tribes might still follow, even though their (originally pagan) traditions violate Islam's way of life and GOD Almighty's Laws.
So, if you are concerned about the Religion of Islam allowing such sick tradition, then please know that Islam prohibits it. If some Muslim people (I never heard of any myself) are still doing it, then this has nothing to do with Islam, and I am positively sure that they are NOT known to their governments or local authorities.
In Islam, we follow the laws of the Noble Quran, the Sayings of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and the teachings of the Islamic Scholars. If a situation or case is not addressed in neither the Noble Quran, or the Sayings of our beloved Prophet, then we follow the local verdicts of our Religious Authorities, where they would decide based upon the cultural and social situation and causes.
Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran:
"O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination. (The Noble Quran, 4:59)"
"When there comes to them some matter touching (Public) safety or fear, they divulge it. If they had only referred it to the Apostle, or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have Tested it from them (direct). Were it not for the Grace and Mercy of God unto you, all but a few of you would have fallen into the clutches of Satan. (The Noble Quran, 4:83)"
So according to the Noble Verses above, it is a must for us to follow the commands of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him and the teachings of Malik Muwatta, thus in this case, mutilation or maiming of any type to the human body is prohibited, and any surgical error in the circumcision operation to the glans is punishable.
Circumcision of males is allowed, but genital mutilation isn't!
A damage to the male's genital system to weaken his sexual desires (mutilation) is prohibited in Islam. Male circumcision, however, as it is done today for male babies at the hospitals where they remove the extra piece of skin and never harm the genital nervous system is allowed in Islam.
Let us look what Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him said:
Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, 'Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra (i.e., the tradition of Prophets): circumcision, shaving the pubic region, clipping the nails and cutting the moustaches short.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Dress, Volume 7, Book 72, Number 777)"
Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him referred to "circumcision" as a practice done to males only:
Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said 'The Prophet Abraham circumcised himself after he had passed the age of eighty years and he circumcised himself with an adze.'
Narrated Said bin Jubair: Ibn 'Abbas 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. Sa'id bin Jubair said, 'Ibn Abbas said, When the Prophet died, I had already been circumcised.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Asking Permission, Volume 8, Book 74, Number 313)"
Notice here in this narration that the act of circumcision was already known to be for the boys only. Malik Muwatta's teachings above seem to prove this point too. "...people did not circumcise the boys till they..." proves that Islamic circumcision is only limited to the males.
So far, we clearly saw that "circumcision" was allowed in Islam. But is the Islamic "circumcision" a genital mutilation like the Bible's?
As shown above in Prophet Muhammad's and Malik Muwatta's teachings, genital mutilation is prohibited in Islam. The following narration would further prove this claim to be true only if the narration was considered authentic:
Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: "A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband. (Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab), Book 41, Number 5251)"
"Umm Atiyyah" is an Arabic title for a female, which means "mother of Atiyyah". Quite honestly, this is a very weak narration, and I am not comfortable with it because the Saying seems to contradict the other Sayings that I provided, and the narrator was not a companion or a wife of our Prophet peace be upon him. Narrations from a "Sahih" ("authentic" in English) volume source such as "Sahih Bukhari" and "Sahih Muslim" and others are more authentic, because they all come from trustful resources (i.e., Companions or wives of the Prophet). Narrations from "Sunan Abu-Dawud" volume are not always authentic. Unless the narration from "Sunan Abu-Dawud" volume was narrated by a companion of our Prophet, there is no way it can be considered as a reliable source.
Just because some woman came out of no where and decided to narrate a Saying about our Prophet, doesn't make this Saying a valid one. Many so-called Sayings of our Prophet were marked "weak", and this is one of them for the reasons I mentioned.
Even if this narration was true, it still proves that Islam prohibits female genital mutilation, because here we clearly see that our beloved Prophet peace be upon him prohibited the destruction or the severe cutting of the male and female glans. A small and tiny piece from the female glans would be appropriate with the context of this Saying. If this Saying were authentic, it would still keep the woman's glans in a sexually satisfying condition for both the husband and the wife. It would certainly reduce the woman's sexual desires, hence allowing her to get sexually excited only when her husband is about to engage her to have sex with her. But it would never mutilate the woman's genital.
Even if our Prophet peace be upon him did indeed speak to Umm Atiyyah and talked to her about circumcision, there is no way to tell the exact narration. A word added or removed could change the entire meaning of the Saying! That is why it is important that a chain of narrators narrate the Sayings that they heard from our Prophet each at his own best. This way, it is possible for us to compare them and to see if they are related. But to take a Saying that is only backed up by one woman who was not close to our Prophet anyway is not acceptable by the Muslim scholars.
This Saying's credibility reminds me of the Bible's credibility, because the NIV Bible's Historians and Theologians admitted that the authors of the Books and Gospels of the Bible are unknown. Yet ironically, we see Christians consider the entire Bible as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty, when in reality the entire Bible is unreliable and very doubtful.
Muslims are careful to not accept any doubtful narrations about our Prophet. Allah Almighty warned us that the enemies of Islam will launch lies to weaken the Muslims' faith: "A section of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) say: Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam). (The Noble Quran, 3:72)"
To further prove this claim, let us look at this Saying from a "Sahih" ("authentic" in English) volume:
Narrated Um Salama: "Um Sulaim came to Allah's Apostle and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Verily, Allah does not feel shy to tell the truth. If a woman gets a nocturnal sexual discharge (has a wet dream), is it essential for her to take a bath? He replied, "Yes if she notices a discharge.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 142)"
This saying doesn't suggest that female genital mutilation was practiced among Muslims.
Below, you will see that Islam's definition of "Circumcision" is completely different than the Bible's definition, because you will see ample proofs that the Jews and Christians practiced what they called "circumcision" which was in reality genital mutilation to weaken the sexual desires by damaging the genital nervous system. You will also see how Jews practiced genital mutilation on females as well.
Allah Almighty honored the intimacy between the husband and the wife:
It is important to know that Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran mentioned that He created the men and women to marry and to love each others and to have intimacy:
"And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): Verily in that are Signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran, 30:21)"
"It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her (in love). When they are united, she bears a light burden and carries it about (unnoticed). When she grows heavy, they both pray to Allah their Lord, (saying): 'If Thou givest us a goodly child, we vow we shall (ever) be grateful.' (The Noble Quran, 7:189)"
"Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments. Allah knoweth what ye used to do secretly among yourselves;...(The Noble Quran, 2:187)"
How can female genital mutilation be allowed in the above Noble Verses? How can female genital mutilation be allowed in Islam?
Genital mutilation for females came from and before the existence of the Jews' Talmud:
This practice came before the Jews' existence and was religiously accepted by them. But the point I am trying to make here is that since this so called "Book of Talmud" is so holy to the Jews and is considered GOD Almighty's Inspirations to its Rabbis, then shouldn't contain material that is not harmful to humans? Genital mutilation for women is a harmful tradition, and unfortunately, it made it's way in the Talmud to later become a GOD inspired command that must be followed.
The Talmud today is the Jews' Holiest Scripture. It is this same sick book that allows for men to have sex with 3-year old girls. And it is the same book that allows genital mutilation for females. Let us see the proofs:
Courtesy of James E. Peron, Ed.D.
About author:
James E. Peron illuminates the development of circumcision in Jewish history from a minor procedure into a major mutilation, and how this most mutilating and injurious form of circumcision was accepted into medical practice [23].
His facts:
The Jews adopted circumcision as a religious ritual [6, 8,12,14], and preserved this prehistoric practice into modern times [8, 12, 14].
Many theories have been advanced to explain the origin of genital mutilation. One theory postulates that circumcision began as a way of "purifying" individuals and society by reducing sexuality and sexual pleasure. Human sexuality was seen as dirty or impure in some societies; hence cutting off the pleasure-producing parts was the obvious way to "purify" someone.
Periah: The laying bare of the glans. After performing "milah", the cutting back of the end of the infant's foreskin, a second step, periah was then performed. Periah consists of tearing and stripping back the remaining inner mucosal lining of the foreskin from the glans and then, by use of a sharp finger nail or implement, removing all of the inner mucosal tissue, including the excising and removal of the frenulum from the underside of the glans. The objective was to insure that no part of the remaining penile skin would rest against the glans corona. If any shreds of the mucosal foreskin tissue remained, or rejoined to the underside of the glans, the child was to be re-circumcised. This is a much more radical form of circumcision.
The Christians took a strong stand against circumcision in the first century. Christians rejected circumcision at the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) [12]. St. Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, taught parents that they should not circumcise their children (Acts 21:25). Also, Paul warned Titus to beware of the "circumcision group" (Titus 1:10-16).
The following are my personal notes:
But Jesus did approve of Circumcision. We have a clear contradiction between Paul and Jesus!
Below we well see how Paul contradicted himself regarding the issue of circumcision by approving it. Ok, so now Christians decided to follow Paul's contradicting commands regarding prohibiting circumcision. How about also following his commands when he ordered for Christians women to shut up in Churches:
"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 14:34)"
Today, we not only hear Christian women speak and cheer in Churches, but ironically, they also preach.
And to the female Christian Missionaries, how about not teaching the Bible at all to men!
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (From the NIV Bible, 1 Timothy 2:12)"
Please visit my article at Answering the Christian Feminists.
So my comment and response to Mr. James E. Peron above is, before you choose to be a selective hypocrite, how about teaching what you believe in 100% right as you would if there were no political restrictions. You can't be "politically correct" with humans who is at the same time a hypocrite in the Eyes of GOD Almighty and consider yourself a truthful Christian teacher, or give yourself the authority to teach your religion. I have yet to meet one Western Christian who has the guts to teach the Bible in it's full contents, without worrying about being politically incorrect.
Anyway, Paul contradicted himself regarding the issue of circumcision by approving it:
"Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.' Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. (From the NIV Bible, Romans 2:17-29)"
Above, we see that Paul did not prohibit circumcision, but preached that it is not physically necessary, even though his GOD, Jesus (as Trinitarian Christians believe) was circumcised as shown below without any objections from GOD toward Mary and Joseph. He said "Circumcision has value if you observe the law...", which clearly prove that he did not prohibit this genital mutilation act, and had no problem with it being practiced. He personally didn't like it, but he didn't prohibit it! He tried to prove that it takes more than a physical circumcision to be considered a Jew; "The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you..." As I said, Paul personally didn't like circumcision, but he didn't prohibit it.
Below we will see that Jesus had no problem with circumcision. Between Jesus and Paul, there is a clear contradiction in religious teaching. Paul had negative opinions with circumcision, while Jesus and the Father had no problem, and Jesus allowed it during his ministry and didn't negatively comment about it, and the Father saw no problem in circumcising Jesus.
Please visit Famous Theologians and Historians believe that Paul was not truthful.
Now, as to circumcision during Jesus' time, as I said Jesus had no problem with it and never even once prohibited it:
"Jesus said to them, 'I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.' (From the NIV Bible, John 7:21-24)"
By saying "Now if a child can be circumcised...", Jesus had no problem with circumcising children what so ever. In fact, he himself was circumcised:
"When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, 'Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.' So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told. On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. (From the NIV Bible, Luke 2:15-21)"
If Jesus the GOD as Trinitarian Christians falsely claim wanted to prohibit circumcision, or if GOD wanted to prohibit circumcision in the New Testament, then he would've inspired Mary and Joseph not to circumcise Jesus. As I said, Jesus never even once prohibited circumcision, even though circumcision back then was brutal and different than the circumcision of today done to the babies at the hospitals.
Perhaps Jesus' penis was all or mostly sliced off! Please visit Christians sliced off their penises in the name of the Bible. The Biblical circumcision as I said was brutal and is different than the Islamic one.
Perhaps maybe this is the reason why Jesus never got married. His sexual desires probably got weakened enough, that it physiologically effected him, or perhaps even his penis was all sliced off all together. There is no verse in the Bible that disputes this claim, especially after knowing that Christians did slice off their penises in the past in the name of the Bible before. As I showed you above and in the "What is the purpose of genital mutilation in the Talmud and Bible?" section below, circumcision back then was done to weaken the person's desires and ability for performing sex and enjoying sexual pleasure. It is equivalent to what we call today "genital mutilation".
And by the way, Jesus did approve of the Law that the Jews were following: "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 5:17-18)"
Below, we will see how the Law, which is in the Old Testament allowed circumcision which is "genital mutilation" in our definition today:
The Old Testament mentions only male genital mutilation:
As we clearly saw above, female genital mutilation was allowed in the Jewish Talmud. The Bible's Old Testament, however, only makes mention of male genital mutilation or circumcision (which is different than the circumcision done today to babies, because it damages the genital nervous system to weaken the sexual desires) and does not prohibit female genital circumcision or mutilation:
"This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 17:10)"
Genital circumcision was done by the Jews to be a way of "purifying" individuals and society by reducing sexuality and sexual pleasure as clearly shown in the "Genital mutilation for females came from and before the existence of the Jews' Talmud" section above, and it was clearly allowed in the Jewish Talmud. The Bible makes no mention of prohibiting genital circumcision or mutilation to females, even though it does have rules regarding women and what women are and are not allowed to do.
And since the New Testament clearly contradicts the Old Testament in this issue as we've seen in the "Genital mutilation for females came from and before the existence of the Jews' Talmud" section above, then it is quite obvious that the Bible had been corrupted and altered by man-made cultural laws.
Ironically, the Bible itself admits that it had been badly corrupted before. Let us look at what GOD Almighty said in the Bible:
"`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
The Revised Standard Version makes even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the Bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the Bible into a lie! See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death. The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.
Please visit The Bible was not even written by its original authors. See the proofs from the quotes of the Theologians and Historians of the NIV Bible's commentary itself.
Some Christians sliced off their penises in the name of the Bible!
Christians sliced off their penises in the name of the Bible.
What is the purpose of genital mutilation in the Talmud and Bible?
As we saw in the "Genital mutilation for females came from and before the existence of the Jews' Talmud" section above, genital mutilation or circumcision (as it was practiced by the Jews, which is different than what is done today in hospitals to babies) was done to weaken the sexual desires of both the males and the females. Let us look at further proofs from Jews and Christians regarding males and females genital mutilation:
"The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired...there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning." [27]
"If the male needs circumcision for cleanliness and hygiene, why not the female? The procedure is easy. The same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female." [28]
Bibliography:
1- Gairdner DA. The fate of the foreskin. BMJ 1949;2:1433-1437.
2- Preston EN. Whither the foreskin? A consideration of routine neonatal circumcision. JAMA 1970;213:1853-1858.
3- Paige, Karen Eriksen. The ritual of circumcision. Human Nature, pp 40-48, May 1978. (Link to www.noharmm.org)
4- James deMeo. The Geography of Genital Mutilations. The Truth Seeker, pp 9-13, July/August 1989. (Link to www.noharmm.org)
5- Montagu, Ashley. Mutilated Humanity. Presented at the Second International Symposium on Circumcision. San Francisco, California. April 30-May 3, 1991. (Link to www.nocirc.org)
6- Bigelow J, Ph.D., The Development of Circumcision in Judaism. In: Bigelow J., The Joy of Uncircumcising! Hourglass Book Publishing, Aptos, California 95001, 1992, 1995. (ISBN 0-934061-22-X) (out of print)
7- Voskuil, D, Ph.D. From Genetic Cosmology to Genital Cosmetics: Origin Theories of the Righting Rites of Male Circumcision. Presented at the Third International Symposium on Circumcision. University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, May 2225, 1994. (Link to www.nocirc.org)
8- Gollaher, David L. From ritual to science: The medical transformation of circumcision in America. Journal of Social History Volume 28 Number 1, p. 5-36 (Fall 1994).
9- McLaren, Carrie. Porn Flakes: Kellogg, Graham and the Crusade for Moral Fiber. (courtesy of STAYFREE! Homepage)
10- Warren J, Bigelow J. The case against circumcision. British Journal of Sexual Medicine, September/October 1994:6-8.
11- Circumcision. In: The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, 1997.
12- Moscucci, Oriana. Clitordectomy, Circumcision, and the Politics of Sexual Pleasure in Mid-Victorian Britain. Sexualities in Victorian Britain. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1996.
13- Circumcision. In: The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford 1997.
14- DeMeo, James. The Geography of Genital Mutilations. (Presented at the Fourth Symposium on Sexual Mutilations, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. August 9-11, 1996.) Published in: Sexual Mutilations, A Human Tragedy, Plenum Press, New York, 1997 (ISBN 0-306-45589-7). (link to www.nocirc.org)
15- Hodges FM. A short history of the institutionalization of involuntary sexual mutilations in the United States. in: Denniston GC, Milos MF (eds.), Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Publishing, 1997), pp. 17-40. (ISBN 0-306-45589-7)
16- Goldman Ronald, Ph.D., Origins and Background. In: Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective. Vanguard Publications, Boston, 1998. (ISBN 0-9644895-6-2)
17- Schultheiss D, Truss MC, Stief CG, Jonas U. Uncircumcision: a historical review of preputial restoration. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;101(7): 1990-1998.
18- Dunsmuir WD, Gordon EM. The history of circumcision. BJU International 1999; 83, Suppl. 1: 1-12.
19- Kim DS, Lee JY, Pang MG. Male circumcision: a Korean perspective. BJU International 1999; 83 Suppl. 1:28-33.
20- Brandes SB, McAninch. Surgical methods of restoring the prepuce: a critical review. BJU International 1999; 83 Suppl. 1:109-113.
21- Hodges FM. The history of phimosis from antiquity to the present. in: Denniston GC, Hodges MF, Milos MF (eds), Male and Female Circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice (New York/London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing, 1999), pp. 37-62.
22- Hodges FM. Phimosis in antiquity. World Journal of Urology 1999; 17(3):133-136.
23- Peron, James E.. Circumcision: Then and Now. Many Blessings 2000;III:41-42.
24- Gollaher, David A., Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery. New York: Basic Books, 2000. 253 pages. (ISBN: 0-465-04397-6)
25- Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision. July 6, 2000.
26- Hodges FM. The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme. Bull Hist Med 2001 Fall;75(3):375-405.
27- Moreh Nevuchim (The Guide for the Perplexed), p. 378 of the Dover edition 1956.
28- C.F. McDonald, MD, Milwaukee, WI, GP, vol.XVIII, no. 3, pp. 98-99, September 1958.
Conclusion:
Islam has restrictions on circumcision to prevent genital mutilation. The Bible and the Talmud don't have such restrictions. Islam has a punishment if surgical errors occur in the circumcision process, while the Bible and the Talmud don't.
Genital mutilation was practiced by Jews and Christians to reduce the sexual abilities of the person to keep him/her purified. There are absolutely no limits as to how much cutting should be allowed to the male's or female's glance in both the Bible and the Talmud.
It is highly doubtful that Islam allows female circumcision. Male and female genital mutilation is definitely prohibited in Islam. But cutting a small tiny piece from the female's glans which is not in anyway considered genital mutilation is by itself not allowed in Islam, even though some Muslims might rely on the highly doubtful Saying of our Prophet that I showed above to prove their point, even though I provided ample authentic Sayings and teachings that conflict with this doubtful Saying, and prove that only male circumcision (which is only removing the extra piece of skin on the penis and not touching the nervous system of the genital) is allowed in Islam.
Back to Ask me any question section.
Women in Islam V.S. Christianity.
Allah, Islam, Quran, Muhammad questions and answers.
What is the place of Jews, Christians and non-Muslims in Islam.
Christians sliced off their penises in the name of the Bible.
Please email me at Osama Abdallah
Back to either www.aol40.com or www.answering-christianity.com
Both sites are exactly the same
You are visitor number:
since 4/13/1999.
search words: tattoo maim pierce mutilate mutilation