You cannot be against female circumcision and in favour of male
circumcision in the same time unless you are willing to convince us
- that your culture is better than others' cultures
- that your religion is better than others' religions
- that your holy book is better than others' holy books
- that girls have to be protected but not boys.
There is one principle that you have to accept or to reject totally: the
right for physical integrity. If you accept this principle, you have to
apply it for any person whatever be his religion, race, colour, sex or
As I accept the sub mentioned principle, I consider both male
circumcision and female circumcisions as crimes that should be punished
when practised against a non consenting person without an effective and
serious medical reason.
For this reason, I consider as immoral the western (and any other)
legislations which condemn female circumcision and accept male
Remember here that this is the crime the more committed on the earth,
daily, without punishment, with the benediction of Jehovah, Allah,
legislators and charlatan physicians all over the world, in "civilised"
countries as well as in jungles.
2) Differences between male and female circumcision
I completely agree that there is a difference between male and female
circumcision. I also agree that female circumcision (specially pharaonic
style) is more harmful than male circumcision (if correctly done).
I also agree that to cut off a hand or a foot is different from cutting
off a finger. Cutting off a hand or a foot is more harmful than cutting
off a finger.
These differences do not give the right to cut off others' finger without
their consent and without a serious, effective medical reason.
3) Medical benefits
I may agree that male circumcision (as well as cutting off a hand or a
foot) could be, in very rare cases, practised for medical reasons. But it
seems to me that the supposed medical benefits aiming to generalise male
circumcision are just "a posteriori" reasons to justify barbaric acts.
Although I am not a physician, it seems to be very pretentious to suppose
that nature did a mistake necessitating surgical intervention on a so
4) God's orders and the respect of others' will
According to the Bible, Abraham pretends to have received the order from
God to be circumcised... when he was 99 years old! For me, a God who
demands that his believers be mutilated and branded on their genitals the
same as cattle, is a God of questionable ethics. Unless we suppose that
Abraham was not very sane at that age ... and that God never gave such an
order to the poor Abraham. In both cases, we can forget Abraham and his
Those who do not accept this liberal way of interpreting the Bible, must
nevertheless admit that Abraham circumcised himself when he was 99 years
old. He took himself the decision. Why then should we impose our
decisions on others? If we respect our children, we have to leave them
intact until at least the age of 18. Then, they will decide themselves if
they like to have their penis mutilated or not. They can even have their
ears cut if this is their will.
Sami Aldeeb, doctor of law
Hey, Dear Sami,
Take a chill pill. It's just a piece of dead skin.
Who cares? Personally I think that my penis works just
fine without that extra piece of skin. So do 1 Billion other
muslims in the world. (not to mention the jews).
I agree with this 100%. I love it when others speak out and all I have
to say is that I agree. It's as if you read my mind and translated it to
a nicely fromed English artickle!
@ An atheist is a person who has no invisable means of proof! @
>Hey, Dear Sami,
>Take a chill pill. It's just a piece of dead skin.
>Who cares? Personally I think that my penis works just
>fine without that extra piece of skin. So do 1 Billion other
>muslims in the world. (not to mention the jews).
Besides, no doubt about it, circumcised penises look better.
(just my humble opinion)
uh, I think you guys missed the point of this whole thing...
O, good God! This is hilliarious!
Sarah jAn, one more time, you proved that you are the best! I love your
posts -- seriously!
>There is one principle that you have to accept or to reject totally: the
> >right for physical integrity. If you accept this principle, you have to
> >apply it for any person whatever be his religion, race, colour, sex or
I dont think one sould accept this principle!
One has to accept that every culture is a KEY to survival. Every custom within
the culture fills a special function. One cannot judge a custom from another
culture by placing it in one owns culture and see what consequenses that would
give. One has to see what function that custom fills in THAT culture!! Customs
do not just pop up from nowhere for no reason!
If there would be a custom within a culture that would be fatal to the culture
either the culture would DIE or the custom would be forgotten and vanish. Now
since the cultures we are talking about are quite ancient- then we also know
that it fills or at least filled a function. Now it might be good if the custom
would disappear for that people- BUT IT IS NOT UP TO US TO DECIDE!
We are not part of that culture (Except for if MrALDEEB is from Egypt, Somalia
or Sudan etc) and therefor WE do NOT have the RIGHT to judge or decide. How can
we sit here and dictate how other people thousands of miles away should live!
(This thinking of naturally given rights has been totally exagerated lately-
people now think that they have the RIGHT to social security, they have the
RIGHT to have children even if they dont have a job but still have six other
kids, they think they have the right to almost everything because the State or I
dont know, maybe GOD owes it to them!!)
We Persians used to be known for our noninterferring cultural trait, we neither
imposed our culture or religion on any other people. We did not dictate how
other people should live because we realized that they can figure out whats best
for THEM themselves! We knew that 2500 years ago- the europeans came to this
knowledge just recently- lets not forget the ancient and worthy knowledge of our
past, the knowledge that we have inhereted for a reason!
Besides this I would like to congratulate Mr Aldeeb for very good contribution
to this debate.
Zende bAd IrAn
Pro-snip - basically aesthetic. Circumcised ones are easier to keep smegma and odour
free in places that don't have much water. However, we now know all about the
miracle of soap and water and can all keep it clean. Arguments about health and
hygeine are phallasies ;^) Northern European uncircumcised men have less problems
with keer cancers than circumcised American men. Also circumcision can go
horribly wrong, with infections, scars, even penile gangrene [aaaaaaahooooouch!]
on occasion. One slip of the knife and Bob's your aunty! :-)
Uncircumcised ones are more sensitive and the man does not need to be so
rough. I for one would not undergo circumcision as:-
a) my penis is the best in the world :^)
b) if I were snipped I'd lose some of my favourite nerve endings ;^)