Circumcision: Science or Superstition?

“There is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised,” God commands Abraham , the Jewish patriarch (Genesis 17:11). “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Jesus revised guidance by saying circumcision of no avail (Romans 2:25-29).

All three Abrahamic faiths (less so for Christianity) believe in circumcision. It is believed that if the male child had no circumcision, something negative would happen to the boy or the child would not be “saved.” Contrary to such beliefs, circumcision is not a practice in Dharmic traditions. Hindu sages would probably have labeled it Himsa (violence).

The American Pediatric Association has not recommended universal newborn circumcision, though they have cited benefits over risks. Further, they have stated that the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families and that circumcision is an elective procedure. Most other international health authorities also have not recommended routine circumcision.

Benefit of circumcision has been cited for people living in unhygienic condition. However, there is no major medical issue noted for Japanese individuals, where the circumcision rate is less than 1%. Further, we are not aware of major issues for the millions of Hindus, especially those who are living in reasonably hygienic conditions. In the USA, the overall rate of circumcision is declining. For example, in the Western US, the rate of circumcision in newborns dropped in the last 32 years from 64% to 40%.

Benefit of circumcision has been cited in reducing HIV infection rates, however for an individual a condom will be far superior protector then being confident about your circumcision. A child born with defect on the foreskin (phimosis) should be appropriately treated. However, for others, to have foreskin on the penis is not a birth defect to be surgically corrected, rather the foreskin has abundant nerve endings designed to increase sexual sensation. Further, one study using 5552 men found that circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties (11% verses 4%) and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfillment (38% verses 28%). When in doubt, why give pain to a just born child? Why create doubt on God’s creation of skin over the penis?

One need to keep in mind that the painful procedure of circumcision done to a child is (1) done without his consent, (2) is a violation of his human right, and (3) may have negative psychological and emotional consequences. If in doubt about scientific merits, parents should let the child decide at an adult age about the circumcision.

Bottom line, for scientific merits, the jury is still out. If it is a matter of faith, an interfaith couple should decide whose faith will rule their married life.

Other reading materials:

A MUST watch video:

Danish Doctors’ Group Wants to End Circumcision for Boys

San Francisco Bay area: The latest figures indicate that 90% of San Francisco Bay Area infants leave the hospital after birth intact (without circumcision).

Jewish movements against circumcision: Beyond the Bris: Jewish Intactivist Parenting Blog; Ending Circumcision in the Jewish Community?; The Kindest Un-Cut Feminism, Judaism, and My Son’s Foreskin; Being rational about circumcision and Jewish observance; Alternative Rituals; A Jewish Woman Denounces Circumcision; Gonnen – Protect the Child; Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation; Jews Against Circumcision; Questioning Circumcision.

Islam prohibits circumcision: “Allah tells us that He has created human beings perfectly. This means when a baby leaves the mother’s womb, he or she is in the most perfect of shape down to the finest detail. Nothing needs alteration.”

Frisch et al., 2011: This new study in Denmark revealed that circumcision was associated with frequent organism diffuclties in men and with a variety of frequent sexual difficulties in women….

The Wall Street Journal Article: Here the author implies some benefits of circumcision. During sexual intercourse, the delicate foreskin may be cut and bruised leaving uncircumcised men more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis and herpes that spread through breaks in the skin. Further, the cuts may also make uncircumcised men more vulnerable to HIV infection. However, the circumcision is not a preferred method of preventing sexually transmitted diseases. A rational option is to simply use a condom because even circumcised penises get sexually transmitted diseases.

Protective Effect of Circumcision against Cancer of the Penis This article makes a strong case for benefit of male circumcision for a rare disease, the penile cancer. The rate of penile cancer in the USA (~70% circumcision) was 0.00081%. In the developing countried penile cancer rates are higher. Cases of penile cancer in India (0.002-0.01%) and Brazil (0.006-0.014%) are higher where most men are uncircumcised. However the rate of penile cancer in Denmark (2% circumcision) was lower compared to the USA. Amongs factors contributing to penile cancer, circumcision is the most determinant factor.

Wikipedia on Circumcision, a good source of general information.

Positions of medical associations:

The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures. (The CDC have not yet made any final recommendations regarding circumcision.)


The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP; September 2010) state that “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.”


The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted “Neonatal circumcision revisited” in 1996 and “Circumcision: Information for Parents” in November 2004. The 1996 position statement says that “circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed”, and the 2004 information to parents says: ‘Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social, or cultural reasons. […] After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.’


In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision “conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.” They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting.

United Kingdom

“Male circumcision that is performed for any reason other than physical clinical need is termed non-therapeutic (or sometimes “ritual”) circumcision. Some people ask for non-therapeutic circumcision for religious reasons, some to incorporate a child into a community, and some want their sons to be like their fathers. Circumcision is a defining feature of some faiths”.

The BMA stipulates that “competent children may decide for themselves; the wishes that children express must be taken into account; if parents disagree, non-therapeutic circumcision must not be carried out without the leave of a court; consent should be confirmed in writing”.

“In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.”

United States

The American Academy of Pediatrics (2012) stated: “After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.”

The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.

The circumcision debate

I have three young sons and thus far, not one of them has been circumcised—not out of choice but out of indecision. This circumcision issue has actually become a long-running debate between my husband and me. To cut or not to cut, that is the question.

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the penis’ foreskin. For some groups, like the Jews and the Moslems, circumcision is seen as a religious rite. Others see it as a boy’s passage to manhood circumcising young lads at the cusp of adolescence. Still others practice circumcision because of health reasons. We’ve enumerated the various reasons for and against this delicate practice.

You decide.

Issue: Circumcision alleviates phimosis


A good medical reason to perform a circumcision is phimosis, a rare external congenital condition, which involves an abnormal tightness at the tip of the foreskin. Phimosis may obstruct the stream of urine causing urine to dribble out or spray in different directions. Urine could also accumulate between the tight foreskin and glans making these organs susceptible to infection. Normal sexual development may prove difficult.


Phimosis is an extremely rare condition. What’s more, the foreskin protects the glans from urine, stool, and external irritation. Some concerned groups see circumcision as a cosmetic procedure like ear piercing or lip stretching.

Issue: Circumcision minimizes the occurrence of urinary tract infections


Several studies of male babies in the 1970s and 1980s conclude that uncircumcised infants and children have a significantly higher incidence of urinary tract infections than circumcised males. The studies assert that the removal of the foreskin facilitates genital hygiene and reduces contamination of the tip of the glans, thus reducing the chances of an ascending bladder or kidney infection.


The incidence of urinary tract infections among uncircumcised male babies is too minimal as to warrant circumcision for all. The best way to prevent infections is to practice proper hygiene habits. Furthermore, circumcision exposes the tip of the penis to urine-soaked diapers that may irritate the glans.

Issue: Uncircumcised men are more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases


During sexual intercourse, the delicate foreskin may be cut and bruised leaving uncircumcised men more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis and herpes that spread through breaks in the skin. The cuts may also make uncircumcised men more vulnerable to HIV infection.


Circumcision is not the real answer to prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Using condoms and limiting the number of sexual partners have proven to be more effective in reducing the occurrence of STD. Even circumcised penises get sexually transmitted diseases. There are a lot of other factors to consider including access to medical care, geographical location, lifestyle, race, and socioeconomic factors.

Issue: Circumcision eliminates the possibility of cancer of the penis.


Cancer of the penis occurs almost exclusively among uncircumcised men. Some doctors also believe that cancer of the uterine cervix is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.


The incidence of penile cancer is so low that routine newborn circumcision is not warranted. Other factors such as hygiene, family history, and sexual history are equally important in the incidence of penile cancer.

Further, asserting that females with circumcised partners have a lesser chance of contracting cervical cancer seems very far-fetched. There are weightier risk factors associated with cervical cancer such as age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners, possible viral transmission, family history, nutrition and hygiene.

Issue: Circumcision is a safe procedure.


Circumcision is a simple and safe procedure. Complications such as infection and bleeding are usually minor and preventable. Bleeding can be controlled with pressure or rarely, with a suture. Good hygiene will control infection. Marking how much skin to take off before doing the procedure ensures that the correct amount of foreskin is removed.


Circumcision is a potentially dangerous procedure. Excessive bleeding is the most frequent complication. Infections can occur. And if insufficient skin is removed, the end ring of the foreskin may heal by contracting and thickening, thus producing a phimosis.

Issue: Infants hardly feel the pain of circumcision.


The pain associated with circumcision lasts only for a few short minutes. Infants hardly feel it. Pacifiers seem to do the trick of alleviating the baby’s pain.


Infants do feel the pain especially those circumcised without anesthesia.

Issue: Circumcision is cost-effective.

It’s a cost-efficient procedure because it results to savings in a national scale by preventing penile cancer and eliminating the need for later, more costly, circumcision or phimosis and infection.


Some health insurers and welfare programs refuse to pay for or reimburse for a routine circumcision. In reality, the cost of neonatal circumcision far exceeds the benefits.

Issue: Boys want to look like other boys.


Since a lot of newborn males are still being circumcised, other boys want to look like the majority and like their fathers. Other boys might tease uncircumcised boys because the appearance of their genitals is different.


There are a lot more uncircumcised boys now than a few years ago.

Slice of life: the circumcision debate :
A Straight Dope Classic from Cecil’s Storehouse of Human Knowledge


Also read if in relations with a Christian: Hindu-Christian Marriage, Will Gandhi go to Hell since he was not Baptized?, Bible on Hindus?, Idol-Worshippers, I am a Christian mother, I converted without knowledge of my family, I am Christian getting married to a Hindu, Do all Christians go to Heaven?, Ignorent Molly trying to convert a Krishna believer to Christianity ..a video, Namastey London movie…intolerant Christians ..a video, All religions are not same, A Hindu America?, Why I am a Hindu?, A fundamentalist Christian, Why I came back to Hinduism?, Dharma is not the same as religion, Text book on How to convert Hindu Students to Christianity,

Also read if in relationship with a Muslim: Islamic Women Today, Muta, HRS, wife-beating, Muhammad, Hadith, Koran, Inter-race marriages, Hindu-Muslim marriages, Hindu girl/boy, Muslim girl/boy, Christian-Muslim marriages,

Be a friend on Facebook. Return to To share your experience, read.

32 Responses to “Circumcision: Science or Superstition?”

  1. DJ says:

    When a study or research is conducted we do not know about the bias of the person or institution performing it. So when a research claims that risk of HIV transmissions is reduced in circumcised males they blatantly overlook the fact that during the AIDS epidemic in USA 85% of the American males were circumcised. Which would make anyone question the intent of the study where claims are made of the reduced risk of HIV transmissions in males.
    Personally I feel that it is the decision of the individual himself. But claiming that it is the scientific and right way to go reminds me of the fox that lost its tail and told the other foxes what a great advantage it was till it got foxed itself.
    Human beings can live without many organs like appendix, kidney, colon which might be removed for medical reasons but if anyone claims that it would be the right thing to do to a newborn in order to avoid medical complicacies in future is outright ridiculous and insane.
    Lastly these were ideas and practices of a human beings who are at the least a millenia and a half behind the modern day humans and had no idea as to what kind of living conditions the inhabitants of other locales might be living in but science and medicines have developed since then. But we are not prepared to open our minds, get above our biases, utilize logic, process the scientific information and do away with what needs to be done away with.
    Hence, To chop off or not to chop off foreskins that is still the problem.

    • admin says:

      You have made great points, thank you for sharing your views.

    • mac says:

      Circumcison reduce the chances, doesn`t imply circumcision men will never have HIV, you must know that HIV doesn`t only enter through Penis, it can enter via various means into your body. So to believe 85% of them acquired through sexual intercourse is your imagination.

  2. Satyen says:

    Must watch the video to the end to see how much agony the baby is undergoing due to circumcision. I could not see it till the end. You guys try and see if you can.

  3. Mohammed says:

    Islam is the pure way of life,
    Puriness and cleanises is half the faith of islam
    Islam teach us to pure and clean for the people

    does circumisation is pure and clean?
    ofcourse yes, lets see how it is

    Besides submission to the Will of
    God, male circumcision is an important ritual aimed at improving cleanliness. Therefore, in Arabic, circumcision is also known as tahara , meaning purification or cleanliness.

    what is circumisation?
    Circumcision is the removal of a simple fold of skin (the `foreskin’ or `prepuce’) that covers the head (glans) of the un-erect penis.
    for more information plz visit :

    Benefit of circumcision:-
    Dr. Muhammad ‘Ali al-Baar (a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in the UK and a consultant to the Islamic Medicine department of the King Fahd
    Centre for Medical Research in the King Abdul Aziz University in Jeddah) says in his book al- Khitaan (Circumcision):
    “Circumcision of newborn boys (i.e.within the first month of life)
    brings numerous health benefits including:
    1 – Protection against local infection in the penis, which may result from the presence of the foreskin, causing tightening of the foreskin, which may lead to retention of urine or infections of the glans (tip) of the penis – which require circumcision in order to treat these problems. In chronic cases, the child may be exposed to numerous diseases in the future, the most serious of which is cancer of the penis.
    2 – Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra.
    In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised,
    whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%. In children, infection of the urethra is serious in some cases. In the study by Wisewell on 88 children who suffered infections of the urethra, in 36 % of them, the same bacteria was found in the blood
    also. Three of them contracted meningitis, and two suffered renal failure. Two others died as a result
    of the spread of the micro- organisms throughout the body.
    3 – Protection against cancer of the penis: the studies agree that cancer of the penis is almost non- existent among circumcised men, whereas the rate among uncircumcised men is not
    insignificant. In the US the rate of penile cancer among circumcised
    men is zero, whilst among uncircumcised men it is 2.2 in every 100,000 of the uncircumcised population. As most of the inhabitants of the US are circumcised, the cases of this cancer there are between 750 and
    1000 per year. If the population were not circumcised, the number of cases would reach 3000. In countries where boys are not circumcised, such as China, Uganda and Puerto Rico, penile
    cancer represents between 12-22 %
    of all cancers found in men; this is a very high percentage.
    4 – Sexually transmitted diseases
    (STDs). Researchers found that the
    STDs which are transmitted via sexual contact (usually because of fornication/adultery and homosexuality) spread more among those who are not circumcised, especially herpes, soft chancres, syphilis, candida, gonorrhea and genital warts. There are numerous modern studies which confirm that
    circumcision reduces the possibility of contracting AIDS when compared to their uncircumcised counterparts. But
    that does not rule out the possibility of a circumcised man contracting AIDS as the result of sexual contact with a person who has AIDS. Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is
    no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee’ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and
    5 – Protection of wives against cervical cancer. Researchers have
    noted that the wives of circumcised men have less risk of getting cervical cancer than the wives of uncircumcised men.

    From al-Khitaan , p. 76, by Dr.Muhammad al-Baar.
    And Allaah knows best.

    Reference: Professor Wisewell published in the American Family Doctor Magazine, issue no. 41, 1991 CE.

    Does islam against on circumisation?
    ofcoure not, let see

    Circumcision is an important part of the religion of Prophet Ibraheem (peace be upon him).
    The Prophet Ibraheem showed by his actions that he completely sumbitted himself to God’s will.
    Muslims follow the religion of Prophet Ibraheem (peace be upon him) and an important part of the religion of Ibraheem is circumcision.
    But in Islam circumcision is not a
    symbol of Allah’s covenant with

    There is no circumcision for females in Islam.
    ‘Female circumcision’ of the type practised by some people in
    certain countries and cultures is in fact a mutilation which is most strongly forbidden in Islam and it has nothing to do whatsoever
    with true teachings and values of Islam. There is no requirement of circumcision for females in Islam.

    Male infants, worldwide, are circumcised for various social,
    religious and/or medical reasons.
    Generally, the ritual of circumcision is traced back to the time of the greatest of prophets Ibraheem (peace be upon him)
    when Allah commanded him to circumcise himself, his son Ishmael and all his male family members, and he followed Allah’s order.
    Today Muslims are the largest religious nation to circumcise their male offspring. This ritual shows their belonging and closeness to their spiritual ancestor and the physical
    forefather, Prophet Ibraheem
    (peace be upon him).
    Because circumcision was also practised by all prophets,
    traditionally it has been in practice throughout the history among the followers of Prophet Ibraheem and establishes an
    Islamic connection to the ritual.
    Allah ordered the Prophet
    Muhammad (peace be upon him)
    to follow the religion of Ibraheem
    (peace be upon him).
    Allah says in the Holy Qur’an:
    “Then We inspired you: ‘Follow the religion of Ibraheem, the upright in Faith’.” [The Holy Qur’an 16:123]
    And an important part of the
    religion of Ibrahim is circumcision.

    The Prophet Ibraheem showed by
    his actions that he completely
    sumbitted himself to God’s will,
    and encouraged his family and
    household members to obey
    Allah’s commands without fail.
    The Prophet Muhammad (peace
    be upon him) said: “The Prophet
    Ibrahim circumcised himself when
    he was eighty years old.” [Related by Al-Bukhari, Muslim & Ahmad] But unlike the Jewish tradition, in
    Islam circumcision is not a
    symbol of Allah’s covenant with
    The Holy Qur’an does not impose
    an obligation on parents to
    circumcise their children, but the
    prophet Mohammed is reported to
    have stated that “Circumcision is
    a sunnah (customary or traditional) for the men. Most
    references to male circumcision occur in the examples and traditions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore the scholars strongly recommend
    circumcision for male.
    From this point of view,
    traditionally, adult male converts to Islam are encouraged to undergo the operation.
    Furthermore, besides submission to the Will of God, male circumcision is an important ritual aimed at improving
    cleanliness. Therefore, in Arabic,
    circumcision is also known as tahara , meaning purification or cleanliness.
    Islam strongly emphasises
    cleanliness and purification both
    spiritual and physical. The mental
    and spiritual purification cleanses
    the heart while the social and
    physical purification cleanses the
    body as in circumcision. It also
    indicate that circumcised males
    are regarded as more pure (clean)
    Although circumcision is not one
    of the Five Pillars of the Faith,
    which consist of: the profession of
    faith, daily prayer, fasting at
    Ramadan, giving money to the
    poor (charity), and the pilgrimage
    to Mecca. However, this ritual is
    an act of purification and
    connects the person to the
    Prophet Ibraheem (peace be upon
    him) and his religion, Islam.
    The Qur’an says: “Allah does not
    want to place burden on you.
    Rather, He wants to purify you
    and to complete His favours to
    you so that you may be grateful.” [The Holy Qur’an 5:7]
    The Hadith, the acts and the
    approvals of the Prophet
    Muhammad (peace be upon him)
    together constitute the Sunnah.
    This is the second source of
    Islamic Law.
    God says in the Holy Qur’an:
    “Verily in the Messenger of Allah
    you have a good example for
    anyone whose hope is in Allah
    and the Last Day, and who
    engages much in the praise of
    Allah.” [The Holy Qur’an 33:21]
    A Hadith related by Bukhari
    reads: “The practices related to
    Fitrah (the nature) are five:
    circumcision, shaving the pubic
    hair, trimming the moustache,
    cutting the nails and removing
    the hair of the armpits.”
    Circumcision, throughout history,
    has been thought to provide a
    measure of protection against
    infections of the foreskin.
    In fact these are general practices
    that humans have discovered by
    instinct to be good for them with
    or without organized religion.
    All the practices grouped under
    the fitrah
    (The Natural Way) heading
    indicate a certain understanding
    of the importance of hygiene that
    would have been evident to
    people living in any age, even
    without the dictates of any
    religious philosophy.

  4. mac says:

    …………….There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in high-risk populations.[10][32] Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows an absolute decrease in risk of 1.8% which is a relative decrease of between 38 percent and 66 percent over two years,[10] and in this population studies rate it cost effective.[11] Whether it is of benefit in developed countries is undetermined.[33]…………….

    Here is the wikipedia link which gives complete details about Circumcision

    • admin says:

      We are clearly aware of this but remember the critical word “high-risk populations”. For this reason, we have carefully worded our statement as ” a billion plus of uncircumcised Hindus around the World, especially living in reasonable hygienic conditions.”

      • mac says:

        what do you mean by `REASONABLE` hygenic, why not `COMPLETE` hygenic penis like jews, muslims, othodox chrsitians, coptic chrsitians americans, australians.

        • admin says:

          Circumcision does not mean no HIV infection or other health related issues. It just reduces probability. If HIV infection is a concern, refrain from illicit sex or simple use a condom. You are a science student so don’t dip your “why not `COMPLETE` hygenic penis” into HIV depot, you know that is a sure way to get HIV.

          Japanese who are living in clean healthy conditions don’t have some of issues noted in Afrikaners. Billion of Hindus are not circumcised and no major issue observed in people living in good healthy conditions. If circumcision is necessary, child pediatrician should advise the parents. Now more and more people in the West are preferring keeping God given gift on their son, rather than following superstitions.

  5. Satyen says:

    Circumcision, some facts:

    1.USA: dropped from 90% (50 years ago) to 45% at present.
    Reason of circumcision – 1) Like father like son and – 2) Doctors recommend as they are paid for the procedure
    2. Japan: Zero percent (No less developed country than USA)
    3. Europe, Canada and Australia: 90% (50 years ago) 25% at present
    4. Non Muslim Asia: Less than 1%
    5. South America: Less than 10%

    It shouldn’t be surprising to see the Christians and the Jews practicing circumcision as all the Abrahamics are supposed to follow this practice. The Jews started it and the Christians and the Muslims followed in that order. So, it’s not the Muslims who started this practice, but they carried on this practice passed on to them by their chronologically preceding religion. Traditionally, the reason is not medical but it’s the mark of their association with the God.

    With each passing year, more and more people are coming against this practice in North America and consider it as an inhuman and torturous practice. It’s also considered grossly and irreversibly disfiguring someone’s organ without his permission and before his adulthood. Mind it, once done, circumcision cannot be undone. The child will have to live all his life with it. Many of the adults are complaining against this when they grow up. So, whatever the remainder of the populace is practicing now is mostly less educated and traditional.

    None is under any obligation to accept the facts written above. My intention is to motivate others to do their own research and take decision based on the facts, not based on some malicious fiction. Those claiming to follow humanity, must wait until the child has attained adulthood and is in a position to decide his own course of life.

  6. Razia Baig says:

    Hello every one,

    Female circumcision, otherwise referred to as female genital mutilation by critics, involves surgery on a young woman’s clitoris, major and minor labia, and is considered a culturally significant practice in many African countries. The practice has a longstanding history, and is said to be one of the most significant rites of passage young women undergo. This, however, does not protect it from being considered by most of the world, myself included, as a brutal, inhumane act that destroys an important aspect of female sexuality.
    Unlike male circumcision, women who undergo this procedure experience compromises in their physical and sexual health. In the most extreme form of female circumcision, referred to as infibulation, the entire clitoris and most of the major and minor labia are completely removed, often with unsterilized scissors, razor blades, and other non-surgical cutting tools. Opponents of banning this practice state that it has important religious, marital, and health benefits. These claims, however, have largely been debunked through basic sociological, anthropological, and medical knowledge.

    The first claim of this practice is that it fulfills an important religious requirement. Most of the people practicing this ritual are Muslim, however the Koran makes no mention of removing components of female genitalia. The Koran says, “Reduce, but do not destroy,” but destruction is exactly what is happening to the genitals of young women in these countries. No commands were ever made by the Prophet that women need to be circumcised. I find this ironic-religion is referenced as the number one reason, yet the religion makes no mention of female circumcision to the extent that it is being carried out. This misinterpretation has resulted in crude mutilation with minimal religious relevance.

    The second claim is that it preserves group identity. This may be true, but that is only because it is considered a cultural norm. In these patriarchal societies, women are considered inferior by many of the men if they are not circumcised. Naturally, most women have come to see this as a requirement should they ever want to wed, thus perpetuating the perceived need to undergo the procedure. I see this as an example of how male domination, and the resulting female submission, has normalized a disabling, oppressive, medically unsafe act under the guise of a rite of passage.

    The third major claim is that the procedure helps to maintain cleanliness and health. This is simply not true. Due to a lack of health education in these countries, the cause-and-effect connection is not drawn in that surgically removing components of female genitalia actually compromises health: it leads to constant infection, reproductive complications, and, in many cases, death of the woman. I understand that our health education is more comprehensive and scientifically based in the Western world than in the African countries and cultures that practice female circumcision, but when there is resistance in the presence of such facts, which have been made available to these cultures, I see it as denial and reluctance to change based on preserving tradition.

    People who practice female circumcision fail to realize that removal of one’s genitals does not eliminate sexual desire or further marriage goals through its promise of chastity-it only eliminates the ability to have an orgasm. Desire to achieve sexual satisfaction does not diminish for the woman. In fact, many women end up having multiple partners due to the inability to achieve sexual gratification. In essence, female circumcision’s Western equivalent is Abstinence-Only Education, which is largely considered a failure. Additionally, preserving family honor is not a strong enough reason to protect this act from being banned. Many cultures used to perform mercy killings of their daughters under the excuse of restoring family honor, especially in the case of infidelity or other perceived atrocities, yet this is now banned as murder is illegal worldwide. Why can’t local governments advocate for the welfare of their women and ban this act as well?

    Opponents of banning female circumcision, such as those made by P. Masila Mutisya as featured in Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Human Sexuality, argue that prohibiting this rite of passage is an example of Western cultural imperialism. I wholeheartedly disagree-protecting the welfare of humans from dangerous, disabling surgical procedures is a humanitarian responsibility. The practitioners and countries who hold this ritual as culturally significant are misinformed about what it does to the female body, as most of their claims have been debunked by science and sexual knowledge-they are not criminals; they are simply operating from a medically naive standpoint.

    Mutisya also argues that Western culture is practically devoid of all rites of passage, with the exception of marriage and death rituals. This ethnocentric response undermines the Western culture and discredits humane rites of passage. It also fails to recognize many other healthy, humane rights of passage such as first haircuts, high school and college graduation, and Coming of Age ceremonies (Unitarian Universalism). Mutisya is attempting to argue that Western people cannot relate to the importance of these African rites of passage, yet he fails to realize that almost every culture has them in some form or another.

    While I do acknowledge the important passage female circumcision represents-the transition from a girl to a woman-I believe the practice does not take into account the welfare of the women. As the author in favor of prohibition says, “We all share common goals like the desirability of promoting people’s health, happiness, opportunities, and cooperation, and the wisdom of stopping…torture and exploitation. These common goals make up a world community (Kopelman, 1994).” What she means by this is that we need to assess and address the harm this procedure is causing to young women, put culture aside, and intervene. A ban on such practices will not have the effects that Mutisya says it will-it will not break a culture apart; it will allow compensatory rituals to be decided and instated by the practicing cultures that are more humane.

    Legally and ethically, I do believe female genital mutilation should be banned, but I am aware of the cultural need to recognize a female’s coming-of-age. Though I disagree with the practice, I am not strongly opposed to the pricking of the clitoris or labia as a means of recognizing a transition from adolescence to adulthood, so long as there are not any long-term effects, and that it is performed in a sanitary manner. The complete removal of the clitoris as in type 2 and 3 circumcision, however, is abusive, unnecessary, and needs to change. I am grateful for the efforts of human rights campaigns, but I strongly believe any change short of a ban needs to come from a prominent voice within the culture as outside influences have failed thus far.

    The legacy of female circumcision is not to be revered-it is to be challenged against modern ethical principles, changing worldviews, and humanitarian movements. Even the most conservative world religions have adapted to societal changes, so there is no reason practicing cultures should continue to perform these detrimental acts in the face of well-substantiated opposition. If practitioners of infibulation knew the facts and accepted the science, they would realize that it is not only failing to accomplish the goals it was originally intended to, it is compromising the health of a very important half of their population. I believe even the most patriarchal societies care about protecting the life of their women; the argument simply needs to be repackaged in a culturally sensitive way, and come from within, so that these humanitarian efforts can prevail

  7. Raffi says:

    You know what?
    You know what?!
    You know what?!!

    Screw Medical Corporate Science. Mutilation is wrong. Parents shouldn’t have a right on a sexual and urinary organ.

    Religion should be banned.

  8. SHILPA RANI says:


    They all had more than 1 wife. Except Lord RAMA every Hindu lord has more than one wife.


    God Shiva had two wives-Ganga and Parwati. It was while Shiva was frolicking and making love with Parwati in the forest in the form of elephants that Ganapati, the god with the head of an elephant was born. On another occasion when Shiva was frolicking with Parwati in the form of a monkey, Hanuman the monkey god was born.

    Once when Parwati was away, Shiva had sexual inter course with a woman called Madhura, who came to Kailas to worship him. On her return, Parwati saw her husband Shiva making love with Madhura, and she became a frog. When the period of the curse was over after twelve years, the frog took the form of Mandodari who became the wife of Ravana, the ten-headed king of Lanka. The sperm of Shiva which remained dormant in the womb of Mandodari when the was frog began to develop, and finally gave birth to Indrajit. Thus, the so-called son of Ravana-Indrajit of Lanka-was an intelligence son of Shiva.

  9. Poonam Nihilani says:

    One thing I want to tell U abt CIRCUMCISION that before my marriage I had a muslim Boyfriend,
    I had sex with my muslim boyfriend 4-5 times, when we used to do sex I used to enjoy a lot n very satisfied with him bcoz he had circumcision to his P***s, which my husband doesn’t have (circumcision) n I don’t enjoy much while doing sex with my husband bcoz he doesnt have circumcision,
    I still miss the enjoyment of sex with my BF,
    He used to say me that the circumcision will protect him from Aids etc diseases,
    So don’t ever tell anyone not to do circumcision, bcoz we women like circumcision P***s
    Understand ?

    • admin says:

      There are many factors involved in satisfaction in the sex life. An individual experience does not prove science, read this article This scientific study of 5552 subject found that…

      Age at first intercourse, perceived importance of a good sex life and current sexual activity differed little between circumcised and uncircumcised men or between women with circumcised and uncircumcised spouses. However, circumcised men reported more partners and were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors [11 vs 4%, OR(adj) = 3.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42-7.47], and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment (38 vs 28%, OR(adj) = 2.09; 95% CI 1.05-4.16) and frequent sexual function difficulties overall (31 vs 22%, OR(adj) = 3.26; 95% CI 1.15-9.27), notably orgasm difficulties (19 vs 14%, OR(adj) = 2.66; 95% CI 1.07-6.66) and dyspareunia (12 vs 3%, OR(adj) = 8.45; 95% CI 3.01-23.74). Findings were stable in several robustness analyses, including one restricted to non-Jews and non-Moslems.

      Further, sex is not as much as a mechanical but a mental game. It is possible that you may have failed in providing sex to your husband because while having sex with him, you were thinking of your former. Who knows even your husband was dreaming of his former?? If you are already married, it is not worth breaking the marriage just because your former was little better in sex. Instead, get phycological consultation and it will help gain more.

      Poonam, what are you recommending to our readers? Are you going to tell your daughter to have sex with at least 10 guys and then marry to the one who performs the best sex?

    • joseph says:

      I wholeheartedly agree with Poonam.Circumcision is essential for good, healthy and fulfilling sex.Once the man is circumcised its a boon both to him and his female partner.Girls should speak out in favour of it

    • joseph says:

      I wholeheartedly agree with Poonam.Circumcision is essential for good sex

  10. Dipak says:

    Read this, real barbaric tribal custom.

  11. Srinivas says:

    @ Mehboob,

    Read this:


    Pure medical research.

    Above report also says that so called health benefits are zero.

  12. Stephen says:

    I’m a medical student currently doing my pediatrics rotation. I am also a devout Christian and I believe that CIRCUMCISION IS IN NO WAY NECESSARY TO BE SAVED AND GO TO HEAVEN. So therefore I think, from a medical stand point it’s up to the parents to decide whether or not to circumcise their children.

    Biblical Perspective:
    Genesis 17:1-14 lays out why circumcision was necessary for Abraham’s descendants. Verses 26 of that chapter tells that Abraham was also circumcised the very day the received the covenant of circumcision (at the age of 99 years old according to verse 1 of the same chapter. However, the point that’s missed when people say that circumcision is necessary is that CIRCUMCISION ISN’T ENOUGH to get into heaven.

    The Bible says that God (Yaweh, the God of the Jews and Christians) is a perfect and holy (set apart) God, and because he is holy, he cannot be in the presence of sin (His perfect goodness can’t be in the direct presence of any evil or the evil would be destroyed, that’s why Adam and Eve, the first people, were banished from God’s presence in the paradise of the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3, specifically verse 23). So that means the only way to get to heaven is to be perfectly good. Unfortunately, no human being is perfectly good, and therefore by God’s perfect standard we all deserve to go to hell for any sin we’ve committed (Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23.)

    God gave the Jews the law of Moses (one of the Jewish prophets) so that they would know exactly what sins to avoid so that they also could be holy (Exodus 19:1-8). God knew that all of the Jews would sin at some point and so he gave them a system of offerings and sacrifices to atone (make payment) for their sinfulness. Some of these sacrifices were actual money (Exodus 30:11-16) and others were food or animals. Rather than that a imperfect person dying for their sin, a perfect animal could die in their place (Leviticus 1, specifically verses 4,5 and 10). Unfortunately, no herd of animals, no matter how big, could ever be enough for all the sins of even one person, let alone all the Jews or Gentiles (non-Jews) who came to learn about God and wanted to obey his laws and go to heaven (Hebrews 9 and 10, specifically 9:13 and 10:1-4). That’s why God found one perfect sacrifice, his own son Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man who lived a life without sin but still died, not to pay for his own sins but to pay for the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was more perfect than any lamb that could ever be sacrificed (Hebrews 9:14-15, 9:26-28, and 10:11-14). Believing in Jesus means realizing that you deserve to go to hell for your sins, humbly asking God to forgive your sins and believing that He is indeed able to forgive your sins because Jesus was punished in your place (Acts 2:14-41, specifically verses 38-39).

    So no one can get to heaven by good deeds alone or by keeping every commandment in the law of Moses because NO ONE EVER WILL OBEY EVERY COMMANDMENT IN THE LAW OF MOSES (Romans 3:9-20, specifically verse 20). So even if someone trying to keep the law of Moses were circumcised, if they had even one sin in their life they would be unworthy of going to heaven (Romans 2:25). THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO HEAVEN IS TO BE FORGIVEN BY BELIEVING THAT JESUS DIED FOR YOUR SINS (Acts 4:1-12, specifically verses 11-12).

    The Apostle Paul (a circumcised Jew who became one of the early Christian believers and one of the greatest missionaries) said that circumcision is unnecessary to go to heaven for that very reason. He said that ABRAHAM WAS JUSTIFIED (forgiven) by FAITH IN GOD, NOT BY GOOD WORKS OR CIRCUMCISION (Romans 4:1-12, specifically verses 9-11). Paul says that WHAT’S IMPORTANT IS CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART, which means believing in Jesus (Romans 2:26-29).

    Medical Perspective:

    If parents decide not to circumcise their newborn then they need to be very deliberate about keeping the head of the penis and the inner foreskin clean. Just the other day I say a boy with a bad case of ballanitis (an infection of the foreskin in which the foreskin and the tip of the penis were very red and painful; another complication of foreskin infection is called phimosis). If infections like that happen multiple times or go untreated then the inflammation can become scarring and lead to problems peeing and ejaculating. This requires surgical correction which is more complex and incapacitating than for a newborn (newborns can’t walk yet, so being really sore doesn’t impact their daily routine as much). The cosmetic outcome would also likely be worse if circumcision is performed after scarring and dysfunction has already occurred. So I’m not saying all parents have to circumcise their newborn, but I am saying that if you decide to leave your child uncircumcised, please be proactive in keeping his foreskin clean and teaching him how to do it himself once he’s old enough.

    One of the reasons the mom in the story above didn’t circumcise was because didn’t want to subject him to the pain. While, yes, it probably is extremely hard for a parent to watch their newborn baby cry under any conditions, let alone while subjecting them to a surgery only a few days outside the womb, we have to remember that baby’s respond to any unexpected or even mildly unpleasant situation by crying. When they’re hungry, sleepy, or messy they cry. When they get vaccinations or get circumcised they cry. When you merely lay a stethoscope on their chest to listen to their heart they often cry. Making a baby cry does not automatically equal a wrong-doing. Believe me, I feel terrible every time I swab a kids throat for strep or put an otoscope in their ear to see if they have an ear infection. The baby often doesn’t understand and so they flail and you have to have the parents hold them down against their will while you do what you think is best to help them. If we just gave out bubble gum flavored antibiotics (or any kind of antibiotics) to every kid that had a fever rather than vaccinating them to prevent infections and then checking their ears and throat to see if they really have an infection, if we just skipped the unpleasant medical interventions then antibiotics would no longer work as well and the kids would be worse off in the long run.

    I personally will probably circumcise my baby boys if I have any in the future. Yes, I recognize that there’s a risk of something going wrong during the surgery, I’m personally more worried about them not cleaning their foreskin properly or me forgetting to do so and then needing surgery later in life. I think my middleschooler would potentially be a lot more upset about needing to be circumcised than my infant would be routinely. While I understand that the risk of surgical complications during circumcision are low and the risk of infection in uncircumcised boys is low, and therefore their is a lot of debate about which way to go, this is how I personally feel. I think I would be doing my children a service by doing this. Let me know what you guys think.

  13. Mehboob says:

    Circumcision is a healthy practice and have been medically proved as well
    1. Circumcised reduces the risk of penile cancer. Penile cancer is highest in India and Brazil where circumcision is not practiced
    2. Recent report also shows that it reduces the risk of HIV.
    3. The most important reason is hygiene factor. Circumcision means that the Penis is dry, otherwise it remain wet and unclean.

    Female circumcision is not allowed as per all the major religions, but it is cultural practice in some African countries.
    All Prophets of Abrahmic religion were circumcised.

    • i-slam-islam says:

      ur as stupid and a loser as ur name, ur religion and ur rapist prophet …. why dont u pluck out nails of ur child to prevent dirt and bacteria from collecting under the nails. keep ur nose dry by surgically removing all mucosal membranes and the same for ur mouth. remove ur ear canal to prevent ear wax and the glands of the eye to prevent tears and sticky fluids within the eye. even though u people are highly uneducated and illiterate, u somehow selectively pick these scientific arguments as proofs to just forward ur beliefs – PATHETIC !!! nothing better expected.

      • SHILPA RANI says:


        They all had more than 1 wife. Except Lord RAMA every Hindu lord has more than one wife.

        I WILL EXPLAIN U about their Vulgarity about THEIR SEXUAL DESIRES.

        God Shiva had two wives-Ganga and Parwati. It was while Shiva was frolicking and making love with Parwati in the forest in the form of elephants that Ganapati, the god with the head of an elephant was born. On another occasion when Shiva was frolicking with Parwati in the form of a monkey, Hanuman the monkey god was born.

        Once when Parwati was away, Shiva had sexual inter course with a woman called Madhura, who came to Kailas to worship him. On her return, Parwati saw her husband Shiva making love with Madhura, and she became a frog. When the period of the curse was over after twelve years, the frog took the form of Mandodari who became the wife of Ravana, the ten-headed king of Lanka. The sperm of Shiva which remained dormant in the womb of Mandodari when the was frog began to develop, and finally gave birth to Indrajit. Thus, the so-called son of Ravana-Indrajit of Lanka-was an intelligence son of Shiva.

  14. admin says:

    There may be some scientific merits to the circumcision; however the parents should think of the risks and benefits of any surgery to a new born. Further, a Dharmic parent has to think of what is the real intention behind the recommendation of circumcision by someone else (religious belief, financial interest, etc.).

    As summarized here, no compelling argument could be made for circumcision. In other words, for scientific merits, flip a coin. American Academy of Pediatrics’ conclusion that “data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision” is sufficient now for scientific merits.

    If a surgeon tells you that your heart one artery is 50% blocked, you are at a 50% risk of heart attack and should go for a by-pass surgery NOW. Would you not go home and think for a while before deciding? What that surgeon or hospital may not have told you that 1) they have financial interest in performing the surgery, 2) there is no immediate risk this month and that 3) if you control your diet and increase exercise, the plaque may reduce over time and one could avoid a surgery. Likewise, why you would get into pressure from the hospital staff NOW when there is no compelling scientific merit to circumcision? Would not you take your son home intact and take weeks to think before cutting him?

    When it comes to “science,” one need to ask if the “Biblical Science” is being discussed here? The Abrahamics’ God told that 1) the Earth is the center of the Universe; 2) HE created the earth in 2+4 days and 3) every male shall be circumcised (1943 BCE). You may believe in the “other science” of 1) Galileo (was impressed for telling truth!!), 2) Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution (Origin of Species, 1859 CE) and 3) American Academy of Pediatrics’ conclusion (1999), respectively, over the God’s science.

    An interfaith couple has to be clear… the circumcision decision a matter of Science or Superstition? If a Dharmic spouse believes in scientific merits of circumcision, but do not want to support religious dogma of the Abrahamic partner; plan circumcision months after child birth and not link it to the BBS rituals.

    Jew-Hindu couples, read this

    • Reply to Beyond the Bris: Evolving Jewish Practices.

      Excellent point…to ignore pertinent new data is to suggest that XX (any religion) can’t withstand thoughtful inquiry. Below is a message for a JEW-HINDU COUPLE.


      Circumcision is not a practice in Hindu faith. Probably sages would have labeled it Himsa (violence). In America, a third of Hindus marry to Abrahamics ( We have seen many Jew-Hindu marriages. Probably most of these Hindu spouses allow their son circumcise because of arguments based on science from their Abrahamic spouse.

      Thought there are some scientific merits to circumcision, no compelling argument could be made. American Pediatric Association has not yet endorsed routine circumcision as beneficial to a male child. Further, there is no major medical issue noted for a billion plus of uncircumcised Hindus around the World. To have foreskin on the penis is not a birth defect to be surgically corrected, rather the foreskin has abundant nerve endings designed to increase sexual sensation. Bottom line, for scientific merits, juries are still out deciding. Only compelling reason left is the superstition or “can’t withstand thoughtful inquiry.”

      When it comes to “science,” one need to ask if the “Biblical Science” is being discussed here? The God told that 1) the Earth is the center of the Universe; 2) HE created the earth in 2+4 days and 3) every male shall be circumcised (1943 BCE). You may believe in the “other science” of 1) Galileo (was impressed for telling truth!!), 2) Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution (Origin of Species, 1859 CE) and 3) American Academy of Pediatrics’ conclusion (1999), respectively, over the God’s science.

      Many Hindus believe that a new car must go through some religious rituals, including breaking a coconut in front of the new car. If this is not done, something wrong will happen. Well, I decline to perform such rituals since I do not see any merit to it (other than I like coconut!!). Not accepting some superstitious beliefs does not prove I am less of a Hindu. The same way, why would a Jew may feel less a Jew if he is still 100% intact the way LORD God has sent him on this earth?

      Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs should challenge scientific merits posed by their gynecologist, hospital staff or an Abrahamic spouse. Think twice before submitting to someone’s financial interest or superstitious beliefs.

      InterfaithShaadi endorses the San Francisco MGM bill.

  15. Dipak says:

    The medical industry in the USA pushes circumcision relentlessly. I have personally experienced it when my first grandson was born in 2010. When my daughter was in the hospital having just delivered a baby boy, every time a doctor, nurse or the “lactation specialist” came to visit her, they would invariably ask, “So, have you made a decision yet about circumcision?” After three days of this pressure on my daughter, a medical doctor herself, and my son-in-law, also a medical doctor, I came to the conclusion that the money made by someone by performing this procedure is the main motivation behind it.

    It is quite interesting how the American cultural establishment rails against “female genial mutilation” performed in many African and/or Muslim countries as being barbaric, but they encourage “male genital mutilation”. What I fail to understand is that if the God of the Abrahamics is all powerful and merciful etc., why would He (for Abrahamics God is a male figure!) create baby boys with foreskin on? Makes you wonder! Also, if “man was created in God’s image”, I wonder if their God is circumcised too. Now about Genesis 17:11; as deals with God go, what did Abraham have to lose by agreeing to have the foreskin of all subsequently born defenceless few-days-old baby boys cut without their consent, and, without any anasthesia? I wonder if Abraham himself was circumcised. It is always easy to make a deal when you yourself don’t lose anything!

    Every pregnant woman should think through this issue before delivery. It should be noted that every routine circumcision is (1) done without the consent of the baby-boy, (2) is a violation of his human right to make decisions about his own body, (3) is medically unnecessary, (4) cannot possibly have anything to do with one’s spirituality. If a boy is circumcised in his childhood, I would encourage the boy on the attainment of adulthood to sue his parents and the doctors who performed this unnecessary surgery when he was defenceless. One day the legal establishment will catch-up with this issue.

    • shalman says:

      Mr. Dipak after reading your experiences and suggestion i want to reply you in very short and simple-


      • Anne says:

        I am a current “christian” medical student…and currently have a hindu bf

        I just want to respond to the matter of circumcision…

        Sometimes, when you read the Bible, you have to go back to its context (like where was the particular text written? To WHOM was it written for? And most of all, WHEN?)

        In Biblical times of the OLD TESTAMENT, we must put in mind that hygiene or cleanliness was not yet in the mind or ideas of people….Bacteria and Viruses were not yet known…

        So it was just right for God to command His followers (in this case the ISRAELITES) to do circumcision to at least minimize bacteria from residing under the foreskin of the penis IN THOSE DAYS when hygiene was not known….

        And God really commanded this to the Israelites (not to other race, including me) IN THE MOST STRICT and SCARY WAYS…because God wanted them to be clean at least in that matter because they were SUPPOSEDLY to be the ROLE MODEL in INTRODUCING GOD to the Gentiles (all of the non-israelites, including me)…BUT SAD OT SAY, they were UNABLE TO DO THEIR DUTY…and we are all lost and deceived in really knowing WHO is God…

        But,what Iam really trying to emphasize here in this reply was that in Biblical context of the Old Testament, CIRCUMCISION was ADDRESSED only to ISRAELITES and NOT to other races, BUT, it was NEVER during the TIME of ABRAHAM (because Abraham came many hundreds of years before circumcision was to be implemented in an ISRAELI society (which is from his blood line) …. So we really expect that Abraham himself was not circumcised…

        So thus, throughout history, circumcision became a practice until the first Christians came…






        • Ebirbal says:

          Nice…..and funny….this is the way GOD speaks in all regions……basically god is cultural phenomena….Sam is supposed to be westerner….salmanazars Arabic and Shyam indian ….si a chinese. And now when people travel they all mix up.

        • admin says:


          It is not clear from your message what you are trying to say about hygienic conditions and God’s commandment. God told in the Old Testament that circumcision is a must, after that the God modified this commandment (through his Son Jesus and associates) to de-emphasized the need of circumcision (Act 15:24, Roman Chapters 2 & 3), but later God told (to Muhammad) to continue circumcision practice. Are these conflicting messages in scriptures due to 1) apostles did not understood what God said, 2) then Christians were more hygienic than Muslims so God told accordingly or 3) simply scriptures are creation of men?

          What does God wants us to do with extra skin on the pennies He left for us? If we maintain our hygienic condition, is it okay to ignore God’s Commandment? Should we be following science or superstition?

          Now changing the subject…..

          You appeared to be a Bible follower and concerned about evil-doers and your salvation. Please tell us what is your strategy dating a Hindu who (and his relatives) is an idol worshiper and who prays to “other gods.” Are you hoping to slowly love-proselytize him (and convert him to Christianity) and help him be saved on the Judgment day?

          If you are not successful in converting him, this is what will happen if you continue your relationship….. in your Hindu wedding, the Hindu priest will invoke multiple male and female gods from the heaven, earth, from water and from all directions. The Hindu ceremony will begin with praying to an elephant head god Ganesh. There will be multiple idols (deities) and extensive pooja rituals. There may be a Garba dance to please Goddess Durga and you will have to eat offerings from Hindu gods, prasad. You will be surrounded by all non-baptized-new relatives; who do not believe that Jesus is the savior. Further, your husband may not wish your children to be baptized to remove the original sin. At many occasions, you will end up entering a Hindu temple and praying to multiple “other” gods. If you do literally believe in what is said in the “Bible on Hindus?”, you will be committing so many sins. Why do you wish to associate with so many sinners? Your LORD God will surely punish you for three to four generations (the 2nd of the Ten Commandments).

          Let us ask you bottom-line questions. Are you hoping to baptize your children from your future Christian-Hindu marriage? If yes, read Anu and Robin. And what will you do if your Hindu boy friend says “No BBS?”

          • Raffi says:

            First of all, it’s not skin. The correct term for “Foreskin” is Prepuce.

            It has a Frenelum which is necessary for the two-fold skin to hug the glands, which is similar to the bottom of the tongue, removed – varying from doctor to doctor.

            The inner foreskin has a ridge band that is very sensitive (Ridged Tissue) that is very sensitive, and rich in nerve endings, all removed.

            Inner and outer foreskin has nerves too.

            It protects the glands from drying, making them sensitive and more pleasurable, and less painful and irritating, which is why it is created.

            Not to mention that any medical institutions recommend them, as the 99% of them don’t, and doctors are biased with what is right.

            Circumcision is rape basically. The parents have the will to decide on the baby’s genitals? How is that sane? The penis belongs to the child, not the parent, so what right do they get to do that? Aren’t their role is to protect the child and to be educated in the most truthful way to give what is best and fair for the child?

            How come religious superstitions are given an exemption from human rights?

            Sorry. But baby’s cannot consent. And that is exactly the definition of rape.

            These studies are just showing that if your ear has a chance of getting burned, you should cut it off. Or if you are at risk of a toe infection, then cut it off. It’s the same, insane logic.

            Wake up!

Leave a Response