why does Islam press male circumcision when there is no direct requirement in the Koran?

Answer 1

OK male circumcision is definitely highly recommended but there is no such thing as female procedures of this sort, please, Islam is not brutal, peace to you all

Answer 2

It is possible that there is no direct mention in the Qur'an, but you forgot Hadith. Islamic laws are established mainly based on Qur'an and Sunnah (hadiths, consents ans deeds of prophet Muhammad)

In Hadith, is is mentioned that circumcision for Muslim men is obligatory. But there is no mention about female circumcision. The 1st answer is misleading.

Answer 3

Circumcision isn't first introduced during the time of prophet Muhammad pbuh. It has been practiced earlier by the Jews. It's just not forbidden, because it has it's benefits.

Answer 4

Well are you sure about that? I believe you haven't read it. Islam is real tighty when it comes to being clean. To be unclean is a sin... that's why they do it

Answer 5

Because there is sunna which prophet Mohammad told us to follow,and if u ask any doctor he'll tell u why guys should be circumcised....

Answer 6

It's commanded in hadith.

And nothing about female

Answer 7

Something even more brutal is female circumcision. They do it with out benefit of any pain killers and mutilate these little girls.
So they won't get anything out of sex with a man.
Read that in one of your books so don't delete me. It came from the book the history of Arabia. It is on the internet.

Answer 8

The “medical” reasons for circumcision are for Doctors to make MONEY!!!
Circumcision is “nothing” compared to other much more terrible things that people do for MONEY, when MONEY is involved EVERYRHING is possible, MONEY is the priority not moral values, not ethics, not health, not wrong or right, not even human life, etc. People are selfish by nature. And that is soooo sad. $$$CASH$$$

MOTHERS, the feelings of mothers who observed the circumcision of their babies. Go here if you have the courage:
http://www.circumcision.org/mothers.htm
They do not remember the pain when they grow up, but I wonder what kind of neurological/emotional damage it does to inflict such severe pain to such a young one!

In the US circumcision started to stop boys from masturbating; they will take much longer to reach the orgasm, and the orgasm will not be as intense, but that will not stop them.
Nowadays the “medical” reasons to circumcision are for Doctors to make MONEY!!!

RELIGION--If God intended boys to not have "skin" He would have made them so.
Also, if you examine the bible, lest just say that is full of terrible things that are considered very illegal nowadays, and many of those terrible things are AGAINST WOMEN. Women, how would you like it if those things get legalized?
http://www.nocirc.org/religion/

HYGIENE--Use a new invention, soap and water!!! Women produce much more “smegma”, all kinds of discharges, wetness, and smells; because of physiologic and anatomical reasons, and how would you feel if they cut your vulva lips??? Women, why don’t you answer my question, are you afraid? Baby girls are more likely to get urinary tract infections and no one suggests we surgically alter them at birth to reduce the risks! Just one of many double standards and laws that always treat men worse.

MEDICAL REASONS--No medical reasons. A extremely small chance of a complication do not justify the removal of the foreskin, if so, why don't we remove the tonsils and the appendix when a child is born, and the chance of complications of the tonsils and the appendix is much greater. And what is even greater is the chance of breast cancer so the best thing to do is to remove the breast glands of young girls or at least remove them at the first sign of trouble without trying any alternative treatments first in order to preserve the breast(women, how do you like it now?). And for infections of all the organs, including female organs, use a new invention called antibiotics. Talking about complications, in fact many baby boys die each year from circumcision and related complications.
EVEN if “TRUE phimosis” occurs, instead of chopping it off like barbarians!, use Conservative Treatments like:
-Topical Medication(non-traumatic and non-destructive)
-Dilation and Stretching(non-traumatic and non-destructive)
-Combination treatment(non-traumatic and non-destructive)
-Preputioplasty is the medical term for plastic surgery of the prepuce or foreskin(many methods).
If you want more detail on Conservative Treatments, go here:
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/
http://www.circinfo.org/alternatives.html
The foreskin can still be tight even after puberty, and it is natural, not TRUE phimosis.
And now they invented a new reason to make money, the risk of STD in uncircumcised men. Well actually uncircumcised men have more protection, but in practical terms that protection means nothing, because circumcised or not, if you have sex without protection and your partner have an STD you will be infected FOR SURE! That means, it is just one more stupid and desperate reason in order to make money with circumcisions.

SEX--Foreskin actually enhances the sexual experience for men because it constantly moves over the head of the penis causing more friction and pleasure. Men will also lose much sensitivity to the glans if circumcised.
Circumcised men will have to deal with discomfort and dry glans. Uncircumcised men, pull the foreskin back for a day, and see how it feels against your underwear all day, and see what happens. The frenulum is the G SPOT in men.
The foreskin have those functions: protective, erogenous, sensory, and sexual physiologic. After all, why would you want to lose all of those “Meissner corpuscles”, the same nerve complexes which provide fine touch to the fingertips?
It is there for many reasons, that is how a man should be(it is natural).
If women like it better circumcised because it looks better(strange, not natural) or gives them more sexual pleasure(strange, not natural), then too bad, they do not have the right! All men do not like mutilated vulvas, and all men like breasts with nipples, they do not like mutilated breasts, etc, etc, etc, because that is the way those organs are supposed to be, it is natural. Interesting, isn’t?!!!

If that was a common practice to do that to baby girls, all the women would be in a BIG UPROAR about it(and men too!, men are not like women), but it’s ok to mutilate little boys. The great majority of the ones that agree with circumcision are women for their stupid selfish reasons. Even court cases reported in which mother and father fight because the mother wants to mutilate the son, it is always the mother!. You women should be ashamed to that to your son. Men that are not circumcised, will not get circumcised when adults, they would scream, kick, fight and run, if someone tries to mutilate their privates area, just like you women would run too if someone tried to do that to your labia. Men that where circumcised do not realize what they lost because never had one, and most of them that do realize try to justify it so they do not feel bad about it. Many circumcised men feel very bad emotionally because of what was done to them to such a private area.
It is mutilation of defenceless children in the most private spot, genital mutilation.
It is cruel and barbaric.
It is a human rights violation.
It is not the parent’s decision; it is the parent’s decision if they want to abuse him, rape him, or to kill him? It is the parent’s decision to choose the son religion? How can he chose a religion or his believes, if he is just a baby?
I do not even agree that it is ok if an adult man wants to get circumcised. I think it is wrong, because if a man wants to lose a finger, the Doctor can not do that to him. Think about it, think, think. And by the way, adult men that decide to get circumcised, do it because they know most women like it, they just do it to be more accepted by women.
I think it is just like slavery and all other barbaric acts of the past, it was accepted because it was common practice or tradition, everyone accepted slavery without questioning the facts, but it is not accepted anymore in a modern and fair and civilized society. Circumcision must not be allowed, BY LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many other reasons not to do it, check it out:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/
http://www.noharmm.org/
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/boydies.html

Answer 9

well male circumcision is done for health reasons.

PHYSICAL PROBLEMS
These are more than twice as frequent in uncircumcised boys [117].

Phimosis: This is generally regarded as narrowing of the foreskin orifice so as to prevent retraction of the foreskin over the glans. Phimosis is normal in very young boys, but is gone by age 3 in 90%. If still present after age 6 it is regarded as a problem. Phimosis affects at least 10% of uncircumcised males, the reported rates being: 20%, as seen by Gairdner in 5–13 year-olds [118], 8% at age 8 in Danish boys [259], 14% in British soldiers [258], and 9% in German youths [304] and men [309]. Although a rate of 50% in men in Japan [254] and Bali [44] has been reported, a more recent study found that by age 11-15, 77% had a retractable prepuce [166]. There is also the condition of pathological phimosis from secondary cicatrization of the foreskin orifice arising from balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO), and for which a rate of 1% has been reported [292]. However, a recent prospective study involving 1178 boys who presented consecutively over the decade 1991-2001 and were then treated by circumcision found by histological examination that the incidence was 40%, with incidence peaking in at age 9-11 (76%), BXO being the cause of the secondary phimosis in all of these [188]. In the study as a whole, 19% of boys had early, 60% intermediate and 21% late form of BXO. The narrow foreskin opening causes urinary obstruction that can be partial or complete. Backward pressure to the kidney may impede its function and lead to high blood pressure, which is associated with increased risk of heart attack and stroke. In one series in Boston of pediatric BXO, amongst 41 patients, 52% had been referred for phimosis, 13% for balanitis and 10% for buried penis [122]. Of these, 46% underwent curative circumcision, 27% also had BXO involvement of the meatus and had not only circumcision, but meatotomy or meatoplasty, and 22% required extensive plastic surgery of the penis, including buccal mucosa grafts, demonstrating a more severe and morbid clinical course. Phimosis also increases risk of penile cancer (discussed later) and treatment by complete circumcision to prevent this outcome is advocated. It can be treated with topical steroid creams, but these need to be applied for at least a month, are not completely successful, can lead to iatrogenic Cushing’s syndrome, adrenal suppression, delayed growth, skin atrophy, may need to be repeated, and of course offer no benefit in prevention of other conditions associated with having a foreskin [214, 406, 407].

Paraphimosis: This is when the retracted foreskin cannot be brought back again over the glans and is a very painful problem, relieved by circumcision or slitting the dorsal surface of the foreskin.

Zipper injury: In uncircumcised boys the foreskin can become accidentally entrapped in zippers, resulting in pain, trauma, swelling and scarring of this appendage. Foreskin accidents in men can also occur.

Elderly men: In elderly men, infections and pain from balanoposthitis (see below), phimosis and paraphimosis are seen and carers report problems in achieving optimal hygiene in uncircumcised men. The need for an appliance for urinary drainage in quadraplegics and in senile men is facilitated if they are circumcised. Nursing home staff have particular difficulty performing their duty of washing the genital area of uncircumcised elderly men, particularly with the onset of dementia. Such men can react violently towards staff or family during attempts to wash under the foreskin. This is an under-recognized problem and far from the mind of a parent or neonatologist when considering circumcision for an infant, so that information on the gerontological perspective should also be given at birth [114].

Bathroom 'splatter': Boys and men who are not circumcised can be a source of irritation if they do not retract the foreskin when they urinate, as 'splatter' will occur. Although not a medical problem, it is a source of annoyance for other people (such as a parent or partner) if it is they who have the job of cleaning the bathroom.

The foreskin problems referred to above also mean intercourse is painful.

Frenular chordee: This results from an unusually thick and often tight frenulum and prevents the foreskin from fully retracting, being present in a quarter of all uncircumcised males [137]. The frenulum then tears during intercourse or masturbation. Since scar tissue on the foreskin is generally more fragile and less elastic than normal tissue, the tear often re-occurs causing pain, bleeding and is an impediment to sexual activity. This problem can be solved by excising the frenulum during a circumcision. Frenoplasty (removing just the tight frenulum) is also possible.

Psychological sequelae: Follow-up 5 years later of 117 boys circumcised for phimosis, balanitis scarring of the prepuce, or ballooning when urinating found that 95% expressed complete satisfaction and the only psychological effect was slight shyness in the school change-room in 9% of boys in this Swedish study [339, 340]. The study showed that parents had nothing to fear for their son's psychological well-being from circumcision.

INFLAMMATORY DERMATOSES
Balanitis and posthitis: To paediatric surgeons, the most obvious medical reasons for circumcision are balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin). Both are very painful conditions. The latter is limited to uncircumcised males. Balanitis is seen in 11-13% of uncircumcised men, but in only 2% of those who are circumcised [104, 190]. In uncircumcised diabetic men it is 35% [190]. In boys the incidence of balanitis is twice as high in those who are uncircumcised [116, 156]. In babies, balanitis is caused by soiled diapers, playing and sitting in dirty areas, antibiotic therapy, as well as yeast and other micro-organisms. Balanitis caused by the group A haemolytic variety of Streptococcus is present exclusively in uncircumcised boys [256].

Penile skin diseases also include psoriasis, those arising from penile infections, lichen sclerosis, lichen planus, schorrheic dermatitis, and Zoon balanitis. The various conditions have been extensively reviewed [99, 190] and are either much more common in, or totally confined to, uncircumcised males. For example, all patients with plasma cell (Zoon) balanitis, bowenoid papulosis, and non-specific balanoposthitis were uncircumcised [218]. Mycobacterium smegmatis has been implicated in Zoon balanitis [99]. Typical symptoms of the latter include erythrema (in 100%), swelling (in 91%), discharge (in 73%), dysuria (in 13%), bleeding (in 2%) and ulceration (in 1%) [190]. Lichen sclerosis is found in 4–19% of all foreskins, and in older patients progressive Lichen sclerosis or other inflammatory changes lead to phimosis [24]. Phimosis in older men is, moreover, associated with 80% of cases of penile cancer.

Balanoposthitis (inflammation of the foreskin and glans) is common in uncircumcised diabetic men, owing to a weakened shrunken penis [104] and such men also have more intercourse problems. Diabetes is common, inherited and rising in incidence, so this, especially when there is a family history of diabetes, may add to considerations about whether to circumcise an infant at birth.

Most cases of inflammatory dermatoses are diagnosed in uncircumcised men (overall odds ratio 3.2). Thus circumcision is protective [218]. The disorders include psoriasis, penile infections, lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, schorrheic dermatitis, and Zoon balanitis (referred to above). All patients with Zoon balanitis, bowenoid papulosis, and nonspecific balanoposthitis were uncircumcised. Lichen sclerosis is found in 4-19% of all foreskins [94]. In older patients progressive Lichen sclerosis or other inflammatory changes lead to phimosis [24]. For a more extensive account on diseases of the penis see the references [99, 190].

Ulcerative STIs (particularly chancroid and syphilis) are associated with lack of circumcision, as seen in over 11 studies (for review see [234]). There are no studies to the contrary [234]. For other STIs the overall picture indicates greater prevalence in uncircumcised men, but more recent studies do exist that show no difference (reviewed in [234]). For genital herpes this 1998 review noted there were 2 studies showing association with lack of circumcision [266, 352] and 4 that found no association [37, 75, 92, 207]. For gonorrhoea 5 reported significant association [75, 151, 160, 266, 388] and 2 no association [207, 333]. For chlamydial, non-gonococcal or other types of urethritis 2 studies reported association with lack of circumcision [151, 363], 3 with circumcision [160, 207, 243] and 3 no association [75, 92, 333]. Similarly, no association was found in a 2005 report [87].

1. Protection from urinary tract infection (UTI)
Since 1980, at least ten research studies have been published linking urinary tract infections to a lack of circumcision. 1–10 These studies found a minimum twelve-fold increased risk for urinary tract infections among uncircumcised males one to sixteen years of age, as well as among adult males. There is no data that contradicts these findings.

In 1997 a team of pediatric surgeons at Wolfson Hospital, Holon, Israel, conducted a study that established a relationship between failure to circumcise and increased urinary tract infection in infants. The team concluded that “streptococci, strict anaerobes, and genital mycoplasmas were found almost exclusively in uncircumcised males of more than fifteen years of age.” They further stated, “Our results also support the role of the prepuce [uncircumcised foreskin] as a reservoir for sexually transmitted organisms.” 11

2. Guarding against cervical cancer
In an important study done on the cause of cervical cancer, it was discovered that there was a 2,000% greater incidence of cervical cancer among non-Jewish women whose husbands were uncircumcised. A New England Journal of Medicine article, published in April 2002, affirms the relationship between cervical cancer and men who are not circumcised. 12 In reporting on this study, The Wall Street Journal notes the long-standing debate over the merits of circumcision in combating sexually transmitted diseases: “The results come at a time when public opinion is turning away from circumcision, which many doctors have increasingly come to view as painful and unnecessary.” 13

According to the Journal, “uncircumcised men are more likely to harbor human papilloma virus (HPV).” HPV, a sexually transmitted virus, is believed to cause nearly all cervical cancer. The article also states that if all men were circumcised, it could “reduce the incidence of cervical cancer world-wide by as much as 43%.”

3. Avoidance of penile cancer
After reviewing the data from 50,000 cases in the past half-century, Dr. Thomas Wiswell concluded that “circumcision categorically prevents penile cancer.” 14 Out of 50,000 cancer cases, only ten had occurred in circumcised men. These men had all been circumcised later in life. Thus, none of the men diagnosed with penile cancer had been circumcised during infancy. 15,16

4. Reduction of harmful bacteria
Circumcision unquestionably facilitates better hygiene and the avoidance of conditions that result from uncleanliness. However, the most compelling reasons for circumcision among pediatric surgeons and urologists are balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and phimosis (stricture of the foreskin, resulting from recurrent infections). These painful conditions almost always occur in uncircumcised males. In babies, balanitis is caused by soiled diapers, as well as by playing or sitting in dirty areas. 17

FEMALE CIRCUMCISION had started only a few days back, but it is more cultural rather than religious. in Africa, there are MANY NON-MUSLIM WOMEN who are made to undergo this. although it now seems to be creeping into many Muslim countries.

but i never see anyone asking questions about Piercing of bodies by tribes as tradition or Chineese Foot bonding methods. may be this is very selective only to muslims.