Religious Justifications For The Continuation Of Ritual Genital Mutilation [Circumcision] Of Male Minors

By Mike Buchanan (J4MB): In mid July we wrote to a small number of senior Jewish and Muslim clerics, as well as a number of Jewish and Muslim organizations, concerning our position on male circumcision. Our blog post on the matter is here. We didn’t get any responses from Muslim clerics or organizations, and the only response we got from Jewish clerics and organizations was one from Milah UK, the body promoting circumcision for male Jewish infants in the UK. Their letter is here.
Traditional Jewish circumcision is known as Brit milah. An increasingly popular alternative does not involve genital cutting – Brit shalom (a naming ceremony).
Milah UK referred to two sources to justify the continuation of male circumcision – Genesis 17:10-14, and Leviticus 12:3. Genesis and Leviticus are two of the books in the Torah, the central reference of the religious Judaic tradition. There is much in these books – as in most holy books – which we would today find repellent, such as putting to death homosexuals, adulterers etc.
The ‘pick and mix’ approach which advocates the continuation of male circumcision, but not other elements in these books, is indefensible. The approach places male humans as sub-human. Anyone who circumcised male animals would surely find the criminal justice system falling on them like a ton of bricks – and quite right, too. Male cats and dogs have more rights than male humans when it comes to circumcision.

Metzitzah B'peh: A Jewish witch doctor paedophile sucking and licking the bloody penis of a little baby boy he just mutilated!

The books are also, of course, in the Old Testament of the Bible. My thanks to Don for informing me that it’s possible to obtain a copy of the Bible (English Standard Version) on Kindle at no cost – here. If, like me, you don’t own a Kindle device, you can download Kindle books onto computers and other devices with Amazon’s free software. I invite you to download the book and read for yourself the text that is being used to justify the continuing circumcision of eight-day-old male babies. I’m disinclined to call them ‘Jewish babies’ because the idea of a religious identity from birth offends me deeply, especially in the context of the bodily ‘branding’ that is circumcision. And we shouldn’t forget that the high proportion of male infants in some parts of the world – the United States being a notable example – has been attributed in part to the influence of Christianity.
There is no requirement in the Qur’an for Muslims to be circumcised, but the procedure – Khitan – is very common among Muslims. Islam is currently the largest single religious group in which the practice is widespread.
A final note on Wikipedia, to which most of the links in this piece will take you. If you enter ‘Female genital mutilation’ you’ll see a piece on Female genital mutilation. If you enter ‘Male genital mutilation’ you’ll see a piece on Genital modification and mutilation. The section on FGM precedes the section on MGM. What are the chances?

Source