The Great Debate: Male Circumcision

Male circumcision. It is one of those topics that is often hotly debated and has valid arguments on either side. Many people, especially in the West, argue male circumcision should be outlawed. Indeed some people are petitioning for an anti-circumcision bill in San Francisco.

Where do I stand? What is my personal opinion about male circumcision? Well, let’s just say, if I have sons insha’Allah, they will be circumcised.

Those who are against male circumcision have plenty of arguments as to why they feel that way. However, I think most of those arguments aren’t strong enough or don’t have enough merit to suggest it needs to be outlawed.

The first argument I want to touch upon is that it should be outlawed because female circumcision is illegal, at least in certain ‘civilized’ places. However, these is a very good reason why this is so.

A few months ago my cousin posted a joke on Facebook: ‘Hey, why should males be circumcised and not women? Because it takes a true man to get half his genital foreskin cut off. Haha!’ I couldn’t help but share with him an excerpt of a book I had read before which touched upon female circumcision. The book, written by Jean Sasson on behalf of a Saudi princess, is titled ‘Princess: A true Story of Life Behind the Veil in Saudi Arabic.’ Here is the part I shared with my cousin:

Kareem and I had not yet wed, and I was young, only sixteen years old. My mother had recently died, and Nura, as the eldest daughter, was instructed to answer my questions regarding female circumcision. I had not known until that time that Nura and our two sisters closest to her age had endured the horrific rite and as a result has been subjected to lifelong pain and suffering.

In Saudi Arabia’s not-so-distant past, circumcision of women had not been infrequent, with each tribe following a different custom. Just this past year, I had a book my son had purchased while in London. The book was titled ‘The Empty Quarter’ by St. John Philby, a respected British desert explorer. With assistance from my grandfather, Abdul Aziz al-Sa’ud, the founder and first kind of Saudi Arabia, St. John Philby carried out extensive explorations of Arabic in the 1930’s.

I had taken the book from my son’s room and derived great pleasure from reading this man’s history of the Arab tribes that make up the population of Saudi Arabic, until I came across a section of the book that told of the Englishman’s findings concerning female circumcision. I had imagined the brutalization of my own sisters and had cringed and cried out loud when reading about a conversation Philby had documented with the Arab men of the desert:

“Take is from me,” he said, “they let their women come to puberty with clitoris intact, and when a girl is to married, they make a feast for her circumcision a month or two before the wedding. It is only then that they circumcise them. This their women grow up more lustful than others, and fine women they are too and that hot! But then they remove everything, making them as smooth as smooth, to cool their ardor without reducing their desire. The girls are dealt with in their tents by women who know their business, and het a dollar or so for the job. They are expert with the scissors, the razor, and the needle, which are all used for the operation.”

I could not help wondering at this information. It struck me as strange that mean thought complete women as lustful, yet condoned the barbaric procedures performed on these women in order to ‘cool their ardor.’ From my own readings, I had learned that female circumcision caused women to dread any intimacy with their husbands, and I came to the conclusion that there is no rational thought or pattern when it comes to the mutilation of females.

While some tribes forbid circumcision of their women altogether, others excised the hood of the clitoris only. The cutting of the hood of the clitoris is the least common method, and is the only procedure that is analogous to male circumcision.

Then, there were those poor women who belonged to tribes in Arabia that removed all of the clitoris, along with the labia minora. This is the most common method of female circumcision and is comparable to removing the head of the man’s penis.

There is another, more atrocious and dangerous method of female circumcision, names pharaonic circumcision. This process is the most extreme, and after the rite is completed, a girl is left without a clitoris, labia minora, or labia majora. If such a procedure id done on a male, it would involve amputation of the penis and the scrotum around the testicles.”

The problem with comparing male and female circumcision is the difference. Male circumcision is straightforward and there is a universal procedure. It is defined as removal of the foreskin; all male circumcisions are carried out this way. However, there are several different types of female circumcision ranging in severity.

The form of female circumcision that is equitable to male circumcision happens to be the least common form. In other words, more than likely a girl undergoing the rite will lose more tissue than a male would. At least in the tribes of Saudi Arabia, the most common form is equitable to cutting off the head of the penis. I doubt any males are circumcised in such a way.

Another procedure, often termed female genital mutilation, is equitable to removing the majority of a male’s external genitalia; only his testicles would remain. I know this does not happen anywhere in the world. This procedure consists of removing the clitoris, labia minora and inner layers of the labia majora. Both sides of the vaginal opening are then sewn together almost completely, often leaving an opening the size of a pencil head or q-tip for the passage of urine or menstrual blood.

As mentioned in the section of the book I included above, the princess states how much suffering women go through because of being circumcised. They, including with her older sisters, fear intimate contact because of the pain caused by the mutilation. Intercourse becomes excruciating. The most severe form of female circumcision can even lead to infertility, and most women who’ve experienced it will rarely if ever, reach an orgasm. While male circumcision might lead to decreased sexual enjoyment for him, intercourse is still plenty pleasurable and far from painful.

Also, females are circumcised usually at an older age, such as around puberty or right before marriage. In most traditions, males are circumcised as newborns or within the first year of life. Some cultures do hold off male circumcision until puberty, but I believe most procedures happen at a relatively young age. The younger the child is, the less they will remember. The older they are, the more they will remember, the more they will understand, and the more terrifying and emotionally destructive the event will be.

Ultimately, the history of gender differences has protected the male from serious mutilation when it comes to circumcision. Female circumcision was designed to supposedly decrease the desire within women so men do not worry about their wives running off or lusting after someone else. Therefore, comparing male circumcision and female circumcision, thereby saying male circumcision should be outlawed because female circumcision is, does not make a very good argument.

Another argument that I touched upon in an earlier paragraph is that removing the male foreskin causes a decrease in pleasure when it comes to sexual intercourse. Now, I will agree that this is true. Past scientific experiments have indeed shown that men whose foreskin is still intact do have more pleasure. The foreskin allows a ‘gliding’ action which is more stimulating. With no foreskin, there cannot be such an action.

However, the reason I disregard this argument is summed up by a quote by Hunter S. Thompson: ‘You can’t miss what you never had.’ I’ve already pointed out that most males are circumcised at a young age. Even those who are circumcised later probably do not experience intercourse until some time after they are removed of their foreskin. Therefore they never experience what it is like to engage in intercourse with a foreskin. All they ever know is intercourse without a foreskin.

Simply put, a circumcised male is not really missing out on anything. Yes, he would possibly enjoy more with a foreskin, but in having it removed prior to becoming sexually active he experiences pleasure at the highest level possible for him.

A third argument against circumcision is that circumcision is a surgical procedure which carries several risks. These risks include damage to the urethra which could make it hard to pass urine and infections. Infections and blood infections can be very severe and life threatening. Also, there are the risks of anesthesia to take into count as well. But normally only a local anesthetic is used which carries minimal side effects.

Just like with the argument that circumcision can cause loss of sexual sensation, I will agree that there are dangerous associated with circumcision. It is a surgical procedure, and all such procedures do have at least minor possible side effects. Despite this, circumcision is performed on numerous baby boys around the world each year and side effects, especially serious side effects, are not terribly prevalent. Better techniques and increased attention to cleanliness means the dangers are decreasing. In the hands of a well-trained doctor, a baby undergoing circumcision is probably safer than someone undergoing another common procedure.

The last anti-circumcision argument I would like to speak about is that circumcision messes with the natural body. People ask, why would you remove part of the body as if it were cancer? They argue doctors are removing something that doesn’t really need to be removed.

Yet again, this is certainly true. The foreskin is not a birth defect or anything along those lines. But there is some debate about the foreskin and its purpose. Some scientists say it was a protection against grass and shrubs harming the glans before we humans wore clothes. Other say it plays a role during embryogenesis and the development of the distal end of the penis. Whatever the reason, I doubt any of them necessitate that the foreskin absolutely must remain after birth. It is not like the liver or kidneys, removal of which would surely lead to death.

With a few of the arguments against male circumcision out of the way, what about the arguments for circumcision?

Well, perhaps the main argument is hygiene. Without a foreskin, a man does not have to worry about cleaning under it regularly. However, those with a foreskin must clean beneath their foreskin. If he did not clean under it on a normal basis, material would begin to build up, attracting bacteria and creating a bad smell and an increased possibility of infection. But this issue can easily be avoided if a man takes good care of himself and keeps up his hygiene.

This cleanliness can lead to a decrease in the probability of penile cancer. Scientists believe a man with a foreskin who does not keep himself clean is at a higher risk of developing cancer. Again, this argument can be beaten out by simply maintaining one’s hygiene.

The last pro-circumcision argument I would like to touch upon is that studies have shown circumcision reduces the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea and HIV. Men who are circumcised are less likely to find themselves suffering from an STD than men who are not circumcised. However, the solution to this is simply practicing safe sex; either abstaining completely from intercourse with people one doesn’t know the health of or using condoms.

I am sure there are anti- and pro-circumcision arguments other than the very few I have listed. But I believe these are the most common points brought up when people discuss whether or not circumcision is okay or not.

I will not say circumcision is great and every male should be circumcised, nor will I say it is terrible and should be avoided at all costs. My views are pro-choice. If parents choose to circumcise their son, then so be it; if they decide not to, that’s fine too. Neither countries nor states nor cities should outlaw circumcision as many people practice it as a religious rite, including Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Males are regularly circumcised in Islam. It is one of the nine parts that make up something called fitrah. Fitrah is an Arabic term that translates roughly to disposition, nature, constitution, or instinct. The fitrah is considered the natural state of man, and the sunnan al-fitra are a collection of hygienic or cosmetic practices enjoined by the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalam.

Here is an example of a fatwa found on a website created specifically to answer questions about Islam:

Praise be to Allaah.

Circumcision is one of the characteristics of the fitrah (the natural state of man), and it is one of the symbols of the Muslims, because it is narrated in al-Saheehayn that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘The (characteristics of) the fitrah are five: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, trimming the moustache, cutting the fingernails and plucking the armpit hairs.’” So he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) started with circumcision and said that it is one of the characteristics of the fitrah.

Circumcision as prescribed by Islam involves cutting the foreskin covering the glans of the penis only. Those who flay the skin surrounding the penis or flay the entire penis, as is done in some savage countries, and claim in their ignorance that this is the circumcision prescribed in Islam, this is nothing but something prescribed by the Shaytaan and made attractive to the ignorant, and it is a torment to the one who is circumcised. It goes against the Sunnah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the Islamic sharee’ah which is based on ease and which enjoins preservation of life.

It is haraam for a number of reasons, including the following:

1- The Sunnah mentions cutting off the foreskin covering the glans of the penis only.

2- This is torture and mutilation, and the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade mutilation and torture of dumb beasts, committing outrages upon them or cutting off their limbs. It is more appropriate that tormenting the sons of Adam should be more forbidden, and a more serious sin.

3- This is contrary to the humanity and kindness encouraged by the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he said, “Allaah has decreed humanity in all things.”

4- This may lead to disease or death of the one who is circumcised, and that is not permissible because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“and do not throw yourselves into destruction” [al-Baqarah 2:195]

“And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another)” [al-Nisa’ 4:29]

Hence the scholars stated that it is not obligatory to circumcise an adult if there is the fear of any of these things happening to him.

With regard to bringing men and women together on a certain day to attend the circumcision and parade the child uncovered in front of them, this is haraam, because it involves uncovering the ‘awrah which Islam dictates should be covered, and forbade us to uncover it.

Similarly, mixing between men and women on this occasion is not permitted, because of the fitnah (temptation) involved and because it goes against the pure sharee’ah.

In the end, it is a choice parents have to make on their own. I do not think it is proper for the government to prevent Jews, Christians, Muslims, or anyone else from deciding to have their sons circumcised. Banning it would ultimately cause problems as people would continue to circumcise their sons, except in possibly unsanitary, unhealthy conditions. It is similar to the problems created by outlawing abortion.

Instead, it is better to inform parents about both sides of the discussion and let them go from there. Personally I would be a bit bothered if I learned I couldn’t circumcise my son simply because a secular government said I couldn’t. I am sure others would feel the same.

But what do you think? Should male circumcision be outlawed or should officials continue to allow it?