Circumcision

Abdullah, Abdurrahman, Islam 26 Sep 2009

As Salaam Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

I reverted to Islam just a few months before my 19th birthday, being brought up in a ‘Christian’ home meant that I wasn’t circumcised. As my father once told me, ‘the doctor told me the risks of circumcision and I thought were not Jewish, so why put you at risk of getting hurt?’. After I reverted, some of the brothers that I hung around started to hint at circumcision. I knew it was something that I would have to do.

Not long after my 20th birthday, I was admitted to hospital. They put me to sleep and did what they did and I don’t remember anything about it. What sticks in my mind are the stitches afterwards and the time I hit myself with a pallet at work.

A good brother and a good friend of mine, who I haven’t seen in many years but Allah knows that I love him for His sake, came to me and showed me his drivers license, with his Islamic name and then he asked had I changed my name yet. I hadn’t. So, he asked me if I was going to change my mind about this deen or something. May Allah forbid such an evil. I rushed out and changed my name. However, my dear brother, changing your name is not the acid test. The real acid test is cutting off your foreskin for no other reason than for His sake.

If I remember correctly the cost of my operation was around $2,500. At that time, I also had a $3,000 debt for a car I just bought. I made it my mission in life to get rid of all my debt. Every spare penny, went towards it. I made double payments and triple payments. Finally, I was completely debt free. All praise and thanks belongs to the Lord of the Worlds, besides Him there is no other god.

That same day, I went to my father’s house and he asked me how I was doing I said good because I finally got rid of my debt. He asked in a sort of incredulous way, what debt did you have? I goes my car, my op and a few other things. He asked about my operation. I hadn’t told him before. When I explained to him that I was circumcised he got upset, perhaps he realised that I wasn’t just ‘messing around’ and then would ‘come right’, as he had always hoped. Why would I do that he demanded. For no other reason than Allah, the Most High, expects male believers to be circumcised and I am a believer.

The ‘conversation’ drifted to ‘if I had a son would I get him circumcised’. Only Allah ta’ala knew that I would have a son. Of course, I would circumcise him or rather I would find a qualified professional to circumcise him for me. My father then denounced me, called me evil and declared that if I did circumcise my son that I would end up in Hell. Is it strange that he does not hold the same hatred for the Jew who circumcised his son but for me I am destined for the fires of Hell?

Never will the Jews or the christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: “The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance.” Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah. [2:120]

A week or more before Ramadan, my wife made an appointment with a doctor to have my son circumcised but for whatever reason he didn’t show and he didn’t even tell the patients that he wasn’t going to show. When my father in-law complained that they waited for so long and at least he could have left a message for the patients saying he wouldn’t be able to see them, he offered to do the circumcision for free after Ramadan, as a way of apologising.

Yesterday was the day. We took Abdurrahman in and lied him on the bed. The doctor gave him an injection just above his penis to numb the area and then sent us out for a few minutes. When we came back in the doctor took a pair of those things that look like scissors but are for pinching and holding and he clipped it on the end of his foreskin. He took another pair and did the same thing on another part of his foreskin. At this time, Abdurrahman is still not aware of what’s going on and he happily smiles and talks with me. The doctor then took another tool and started to separate the foreskin from his penis and then he rolled the skin down as far as was needed to expose everything. He then took another tool and clipped the skin. This step looked like he was marking where he needed to cut. Then he took some scissors and cut the foreskin and inserted a plastic thing that went around all the bits. Then he took some string and tightly, tightly tied it so that the foreskin was cut off from any blood supply. Finally the doctor trimmed the extra skin and it was all finished. My poor son was so hurt and upset that he actually sweated through the paper that they put on the bed, his face was so red and he couldn’t even breastfeed.

It made me appreciate what our father Ibrahim, alayhi sallam, did. After receiving the command of circumcision at 80 years old, without any medicine to numb the area or take away any pain, he cut off his own foreskin. Such was the calibre of that man, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him.

It also made me understand why Paul was so keen on changing the religion of Jesus, alayhi sallam, to make circumcision something other then cutting off the foreskin. The Romans would have never entered into that faith, Paul would have never received that favour that he was seeking from them and no one would be worshipping Jesus as an idol. Paul has a lot of explaining to do. May Allah give him what he deserves.

May Allah reward the doctor and his assistant for their very professional work.

I testify to the fact that there is no god worthy of worship except Allah, who does not have any partner and I testify to the fact the Muhammed is His slave and messenger.

All praise belongs to Him, there is no god except Him, glory to Him, there is nothing comparable to Him, He is the greatest.

Abdullah Abdurrahman Circumcision

About the author

Abdullah

I am Abu Sabah Abdullah Al-Amreeki, a revert to Islam from Christianity, a husband to my beautiful wife, a father to my amazing children, an aspiring daiee and a wannabe Web developer.

32 Comments

Mark Lyndon
September 26, 2009 at 1:15 pm

Not all Muslims circumcise. There are clear verses in the Qur’an against circumcision (eg 95:4, 23:14, 27:88, 32:7, 80:17-19 & 4:119-120). See the website for more details.

Reply

Abdullah
September 26, 2009 at 2:50 pm

I’m sorry but you clearly do not understand the verses you quoted and you conveniently leave out the sunnah of our beloved nabi, salallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Circumcision is a covenant between Allah and His creation.

Narrated Abu Huraira :

I heard the Prophet saying. “Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, cutting the moustaches short, clipping the nails, and depilating the hair of the armpits.” Imam Bukhari’s Sahih

Yahya related to me from Malik from Said ibn Abi Said al-Maqburi from his father that Abu Hurayra said, “There are five things from the fitra: cutting the nails, trimming the moustache, removing the hair from the armpit, shaving the pubic region and circumcision.” – Imam Malik’s Muwatta

Abu Huraira reported: Five are the acts quite akin to the Fitra, or five are the acts of Fitra: circumcision, shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking the hair under the armpits and clipping the moustache. – Imam Muslim’s Sahih

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. ” – Imam Bukhari’s Sahih

Whoever says circumcision is not part of Islam is seriously misguided about the subject.

Reply

Mark Lyndon
September 28, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Did you remove the website I linked to?

Some Muslims regard circumcision as an insult to Allah for suggesting that He made a mistake.

You’re presumably aware that the Qur’an doesn’t mention the circumcision of Abraham. It does however say the following:

“We have indeed created man in the ‘best of moulds’.” (Qur’an 95:4)
“The work of Allah who has ‘perfected everything’ (He created).” (Qur’an 27:88)
“He is the One Who has ‘made perfectly everything’ He has created: He began the creation of human beings with clay” (Qur’an 32:7)
“You will not see any flaw in what the Lord of Mercy creates.” (Qur’an 67:3)

If it was better for males not to have a foreskin, then why would they be born with one?

Reply
Abdullah
September 28, 2009 at 5:21 pm

This is my site and I decide which sites get linked to from here. If I don’t find the site useful or if I find it misleading then I will not allow it on here. The Web site you linked to finds itself in both categories.

I read the entire article on circumcision and I can tell you as someone who was circumcised as an adult that there are many things presented as fact that are wrong and nothing more than scaremongering against a blessed sunnah.

I don’t need the Quran to state that Abraham, alayhi sallam, was circumcised because that fact is quite clearly established in a hadith I quoted above. Moreover, you are seriously mistaken in your assumption that those verses apply to circumcision. In fact, it is an impossibility because to assert so would mean that our prophet, salallahu alayhi wa sallam, promoted acts and performed acts that are contrary to the Quran and an abandonment of his responsibility to deliver the message of Islam.

Allah ta’ala has created men with foreskins and has ordered us to cut it off. I hear this order and I obey this order and I don’t care about the whys or why nots.

Reply
feesabeelillaah
September 30, 2009 at 11:30 am

Assalaamu Alaikum akhee kareem,

Graphic description, :P. SubhaanAllaahi wa bihamdih. I ask Allah Azza wa Jall to keep your son healthy and strong, and also the Du’a I made before….:D

I had mine when I was, I think, about 6/7 years old. I wasn’t put to sleep, only numbing medicine, and the doctor who was doing it is my uncle!!!!!!!!

Didn’t know the story of Ibrahim (alaihissalaam). SubhaanAllaah. May Allah make you and me meet all His Prophets (alaihimussalaam) in Jannah (my ‘childhood’ dream).

BaarakAllaahu feekum

Reply

Abdullah
September 30, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Wa Alaykum Salaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

May Allah grant you the thing that you are seeking.

Circumcision is not for the squeamish, especially when you have a close-up first person view. :p. Do you remember much from your ordeal?

Ameen and again Ameen to all of your duaas.

Reply

feesabeelillaah
October 1, 2009 at 12:46 am

Assalaamu Alaikum,

Ameen.

Not much, except the apparent embarassment of being in front of my uncle, and, oh well, few days later I was playing with a plastic ak-47, and….I got hurt…… :P. Oh, Allah saved me from watching the whole thing, they put a screen in between. Alhamdulillaah.

wassalaam
Abdullah
October 1, 2009 at 7:25 am

Wa Alaykum Salaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

Ouch.

A few days after my circumcision, I went to work in a fruit and vegetable warehouse and I was trying to put a pallet on top of a stack of pallets. I found myself lying on the warehouse floor bleeding and holding myself. Good times. :P

Alhamdulillah for drugs that make you sleep and screens that prevent you from seeing.

feesabeelillaah
September 30, 2009 at 11:37 am

Mark Lyndon:

according to your logic, we should stop cutting our nails, moustache, pubic hair and armpit hair too…..

sounds plausible, and economic too, except that it will be really hard to socialize then….and the smell!

Assalaamu ‘alaa man ittaba’al Huda

Reply
Ahmad
September 30, 2009 at 11:13 pm

As’salaam aleikum, Akhi Abdullah. Insh’allah, your site here will continue to be blessed and those “visitors” here will respect that it’s “your” site! You’re responsible for the content, so they should respect you when you decide, after much prayer to remove a link of theirs (I’d have done the same thing). Visitors need to speak to you w/ respect and the ummat needs to hold their tongue (keyboard) if they can not give naseeah properly. Fi amaan Allah. -Ahmad-

Reply

Abdullah
September 30, 2009 at 11:52 pm

Wa Alaykum Salaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

May Allah increase you in good deeds and protect you from all types of evil.

Reply

Mark Lyndon
October 1, 2009 at 2:06 am

feesabeelillaah:

All the things you mention grow back. A circumcision removes living tissue, and is a permanent alteration.

There are devout Muslims (not many, admittedly) who believe it is wrong to circumcise. There are also devout Muslims who believe that some form of circumcision should also be performed on girls. Personally, I think that informed adults should be able to have either, but that it is wrong to perform such operations on children.

Reply

Abdullah
October 1, 2009 at 7:19 am

Mark try to understand that this deen of ours is not something that is governed by our desires and often it does not correspond to our aql. To say ‘I think’ is meaningless for a discussion of this type.

There is a circumcision for girls. If you read the Muwatta of Imam Malik you will read a number of hadith that mention it.

The reason why there are so few Muslims that don’t practice circumcision is because the requirement is firmly established in the sunnah. It is clear, both from the Web site you keep linking to and this discussion, that you have a problem with the sunnah, which has lead you into all types of problems to try to justify your deviated position.

Allah ta’ala did not just drop the Quran on top of a mountain, He gave it to his messenger and in the Quran He told us to follow and obey him, salallahu alayhi wa sallam. That should be clear enough.

Reply

caraboska
October 24, 2009 at 10:24 am

Paul apparently did view physical circumcision as required for Jews. That is why, as is described in chapter 16 of the book of Acts in the New Testament, when Paul met a disciple of Jesus named Timothy in Derbe, he had him circumcised. Because while Timothy’s father was Greek (which is why he was not circumcised as a child), his mother was Jewish, which halakhically speaking made him a Jew and therefore subject to the covenant of circumcision, even though he was by that time a Christian.

Reply

Abdullah
October 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm

The funny thing about that is the when the covenant of circumcision was made, there was no such thing as a Jew or a Christian. Meaning the covenant was not a Jewish one. Seems Paul was quite confused or he was nothing more than an opportunist.

Reply

caraboska
October 24, 2009 at 12:59 pm

Paul was a very highly educated student of Torah and its interpretation in rabbinical Judaism before becoming a follower of Jesus. No rabbinical Judaism I am familiar with teaches that any non-Jew is required to be circumcised, unless they actually wish to adopt the Jewish religion.

The Bible itself states that from the beginning, circumcision applied to the male physical descendants of Abraham. There is no mention of circumcision in the Bible at all before that, nor is there any mention of circumcision for anyone else besides physical descendants of Abraham after that (except for males from outside that lineage who wish to adopt the Jewish religion).

There is also the matter that the Bible teaches that God’s covenant with Abraham – which concerned not only God’s being the God of Abraham and his descendants, but also the land of Israel – was to pass through Isaac, Jacob and beyond to their descendants. So while Ishmael, as Abraham’s son, was subjected to circumcision, he was not part of that covenant.

I realize that this differs considerably from the usual teaching of Islam. So I am not going to comment here about which view is correct. My point is to state what the Bible in its present form teaches – which would have been what Paul was working from – and only that. And there is solid archeological evidence that the Hebrew Bible we have now existed in the same form hundreds of years before Paul was even a twinkle in his parents’ eyes. So it is definitely the same one Paul would have been using.

Reply
Abdullah
October 24, 2009 at 1:22 pm

There were four different Torahs in circulation at the time of Jesus’ birth. Moreover, there were hundreds of years when there was no Torah at all and extended periods of time when the Jews fell into open idolatry, which of course puts a blemish on the claim of one consistent, authentic and factually sound Torah that could easily be studied and followed.

If we accepted Paul’s narrative, then it would be impossible for him to be bound by Rabbinical Judaism, the same system that Jesus struggled against. Note that there is a significant difference between the Torah (Mosaic Law) and Rabbinical Judaism.

There is strong archaeological evidence that many of the stories reported in the Old Testament never happened. So now where does that leave us?

Reply
caraboska
October 24, 2009 at 7:48 pm

To my knowledge, the Torah never ceased to exist. It is true that there was a period of about 400 years before Jesus’ arrival on earth where there were no prophets speaking to the people. But I am talking about Torah scrolls dating back to before that time, which do not differ materially from the Masoretic text in use today.

I am well aware of the difference between rabbinical Judaism and Torah in the sense of the first five books of the Bible. Let’s say I’ve spent plenty enough time in the company of Jewish people to know what the differences are.

But the matter of circumcision is not a matter of rabbinical Judaism in the end. It’s right there in the Torah, in the Biblical text, that Jewish males are supposed to be physically circumcised. And so Paul acted according to its instructions with respect to that young halakhically Jewish male follower of Jesus whom he met in Derbe. Which shows he believed circumcision was more than just a spiritual concept.

Reply

Abdullah
October 24, 2009 at 8:17 pm

The Torah scrolls ceased existing at least twice for substantial periods and the Jews got deeply involved in idol worship. You should seriously take a look at the history of that text.

Right, I made the distinction because you implied that Paul circumcised a Jew because he was following Rabbinical Judaism, which is the very thing Jesus struggled against.

Circumcision was not made just for Jews and was performed for centuries before any person that could be called a Jew was circumcised.

Paul uses a lot of ink to down play the importance of circumcision and wrote to the Romans quite clearly that they did not need to be circumcised and thereby changing the law of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Moses and Jesus. All of whom considered circumcision to be a very necessary requirement.

So regardless if he circumcised that Jew or allowed circumcision, he clearly did not see a difference between the circumcised and the uncircumcised. The result is that the majority of today’s Christians do not circumcise and proof that Paul changed the religion of Jesus.

Reply

caraboska
October 25, 2009 at 2:39 am

Jesus never taught that anyone who was not a physical descendant of Abraham needed to be circumcised. Indeed, to the best of my recollection, we have no record of his teaching anything about circumcision at all.

I brought rabbinical Judaism into the conversation only because it defines who is or is not halakhically Jewish. The Bible in fact does not directly make such a definition. It only teaches that Jews of both genders are required to marry only Jews. Rabbinical Judaism, on the other hand, teaches that Jewishness is transmitted through the maternal line. So that a person with a Jewish mother and Gentile father (such as Timothy) would be defined as halakhically Jewish, while a person with a Jewish father and Gentile mother would be defined as halakhically Gentile. And Paul seems to have been assuming that circumcision was necessary for Timothy because he was halakhically Jewish.

Furthermore, Paul also stated (in the letter to the Romans) that there is much advantage in the fact that the Jews have the covenant and circumcision and the Law – the very words of God. But only if the circumcision in question is much more than just a physical operation. And he seems to believe that Gentiles are able to have that spiritual circumcision, they are able to have God’s moral law in their hearts and live by it, without being physically circumcised.

Reply
caraboska
October 25, 2009 at 2:44 am

PS Paul also shows that it was not circumcision that made Abraham right with God. Because the book of Genesis tell us that Abraham believed God [when He made His covenant promises to him] and it was credited to him as righteousness. And he was called God’s friend. And all this happened twenty years before the covenant of circumcision was instituted.

Reply
Abdullah
October 25, 2009 at 8:16 am

I hope your not suggesting that Paul was in need of Rabbinical Judaism to determine who was a Jew and who wasn’t?

Jesus didn’t have to teach circumcision, because it’s right there in your Bible,

Genesis: 17:12.

“And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.”

However, you wish to play it. Paul clearly writes there is no difference between the circumcised and the uncircumcised and that in itself is a false statement.

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:19:

“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,”

The results of his lies are evident, even those born, descended through Abraham are not circumcised. Some Christians even see it as a badge of honour to not be circumcised.

Reply
caraboska
October 25, 2009 at 3:58 pm

I don’t think it would cross a Messianic Jew’s mind to do anything other than circumcise his sons, unless he was completely unaware of his Judaism to begin with.
But actually, nearly always when a Jew receives Jesus, he becomes more rather than less observant of the Law. But not because he hopes thereby to earn his salvation. And that is the sense in which circumcision indeed makes no difference. It does not materially impact our salvation. It also means that the Gentile who is living according to God’s word and the Jew who is living according to God’s word have the same standing in God’s sight, even though one is circumcised physically (being required to be so by the Law) and the other is not (not being required to be so by the Law).

Reply
Abdullah
October 25, 2009 at 5:06 pm

To follow God’s law is to circumcise. How is it possible to live according to God’s word and abandon circumcision? Especially since God in the Bible called it an everlasting covenant.

Moreover, if there were no difference between the circumcised and the ‘uncircumcised’ why would God include Genesis 17:14 in His Bible?

Don’t forget what it says in Matthew 5:19, which Paul is clearly guilty of:

“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Reply
caraboska
October 26, 2009 at 3:06 am

Again. Physical circumcision is not required and never has been for people who are not physical descendants of Abraham.

Reply
Abdullah
October 26, 2009 at 6:05 am

You need to re-read Genesis 17

Reply
caraboska
October 26, 2009 at 6:56 pm

It is quite true that anyone in Abraham’s household whom his right hand possessed, as the Qur’an would put it, was to be circumcised, regardless of Jewish or non-Jewish status. Otherwise, it is very clear that circumcision only applies to physical descendants of Abraham. There is no mention of circumcising anyone else outside of those two categories. And furthermore, Genesis 17:21 states that it is through Isaac, not Ishmael, that the covenant will be reckoned.

Reply
caraboska
October 26, 2009 at 6:57 pm

The two categories being physical descendants of Abraham, on the one hand, and those in their households whom their right hands possess, on the other.

Reply
Abdullah
October 26, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Even though you claimed otherwise, the fact is that many non-Jewish and non-descendants of Abraham were circumcised following the command of Allah.

Regarding Gen 17:21, that is nothing more than a Jewish interpolation.

Reply
caraboska
October 27, 2009 at 12:19 am

The question is not whether they were circumcised, but whether they were required to be. The Hebrew Bible in its present form (which has been around verifiably since hundreds of years before Jesus’ time) teaches as I have been mentioning. People can be circumcised if they like or it’s customary among their people, but that does not make it required.

Reply
Abdullah
October 27, 2009 at 6:11 am

This is going in circles. Even if it were only descendants of Abraham that meant to be circumcised, Paul’s disregard of the importance of that act has lead even those of us that did descend from him circumcising.

Also you can pretend that there was only one Hebrew Bible with no gaps in its history but it will never make it true.

Alhamdulillah, I am a Muslim and not following a clearly racist doctrine.

Reply
caraboska
October 27, 2009 at 10:24 am

Once all of the prophets had spoken who are presently included in the Hebrew Bible, I will maintain precisely that – that the text has not differed since then in any but minor ways that can happen in any situation where there are several manuscripts. The Torah, however, has to the best of my knowledge been around since before any of the books of the prophets. And we have solid archeological evidence from hundreds of years before Jesus’ time showing that it was the same even back then.

Reply