 |
|
|
|
 Arsalan Iftikhar says the debate on circumcision is really about religious freedom.
July 17th, 2012
07:41 AM ET
My Take: Jews and Muslims should unite against Germany circumcision ban
By Arsalan Iftikhar, Special to CNN (CNN)–According to recent reports, a German court's ban on circumcising baby boys has provoked a rare show of unity between Jews, Muslims and Christians who see it as a threat to religious freedom, while doctors warn it could increase health risks by forcing the practice underground. This recent ruling has global media commentators on all sides of the political aisle debating whether this issue is an affront to religious freedom or a victory to protect the foreskins of young male babies around the world. Several prominent writers, including Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, rightfully challenged this recent legal decision by a local German court in Cologne, which would effectively criminalize ritual circumcision for infant males as an exercise of religious freedom for minority religious communities in the country. Gerson and others have been highlighting this most recent issue vis-à-vis Europe’s infamous history of anti-Semitism, which has long been a sociopolitical stain of xenophobia across European lands. However, it is quite interesting to note that most of these same commentators are not even adequately addressing the fact that the German case in question actually involved a Muslim family, not a Jewish one. Basically, many of these commentators are citing a legal ruling against a Muslim family in Germany to fashion entire columns devoted to prejudice vis-a-vis the Jewish community, with barely a reference to the original case involving Muslims or rising tide of Islamophobia in Europe, which exists alongside anti-Semitism on the spectrum of xenophobia and must be eradicated. CNN's Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the big stories Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel ignored the Muslim origins of this controversy when she recently told her party members that Germany risked becoming a "laughingstock" and that her country should not be "the only country in the world in which Jews cannot practice their [religious] rites". This entire meta-narrative is even more perplexing since most estimates find that Germany is home to approximately 120,000 Jews and more than 4 million Muslims. On the other side of the Germany circumcision debate, noted journalist Andrew Sullivan recently wrote about the topic and asked, "[Can] parents permanently mutilate a child's genitals to pursue their own religious goals?" Although Sullivan clearly states that he "veers on the side of permissiveness" in this case in Germany, he does anchor his position on the belief that the religious practice of infant circumcision is tantamount to male genital mutilation. "At some point, one can only hope this barbarism disappears," writes Sullivan. "And it will have nothing to do with anti-Semitism or Islamophobia; it will be about defending the religious liberty of Jewish and Muslim male [babies] to choose their religion, and not have it permanently marked as scar tissue on their [genitals]." Although I usually agree with much of his writing on most subjects, I would be curious to see if Sullivan would also consider parents who pierce the ears of their baby daughters to be committing "earlobe mutilation"? Probably not. Having said that, this is yet another instance of a "teachable moment" where Jews, Muslims and people of all faiths (or no faith) can unite to promote religious freedom for all people around the world. Since we tend to live in tribalistic circles where Muslim people tend to focus only on Islamophobia and Jewish people tend to focus only on anti-Semitism, we need to instill a new culture where Jewish people speak against Islamophobia and Muslim people speak against anti-Semitism across the globe. Similarly, as an international human rights lawyer, it would behoove me to highlight the importance for the global community to protect the legal and political rights of all religious minorities in every part of the world. In the case of the German circumcision ban, people of conscience should stand with both Muslim and Jewish communities in Germany to help ensure that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are equally challenged, especially since we are seeing right-wing xenophobic political parties continue to rise to prominence in many part of the European Union. Similarly, we should also speak up for disenfranchised religious minorities in other parts of the world, whether it is Coptic Christians in Egypt, the Baha'i community in Iran, the Rohingya Muslims in Burma (now known as Myanmar) or the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Even though we do not yet live in a world where many Jewish and Muslim people agree on many geopolitical matters, the concept of religious freedom should be something that people of all faiths (or no faith) should be able to agree upon wholesale. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Basically, at a time where the world seems to become even more polarized on a daily basis, this latest Germany circumcision debate should be used by Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities to stand in solidarity and unite in an essence of true Abrahamic camaraderie, regardless of whether we are circumcised or not. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Arsalan Iftikhar.
Next entry »Drafting Israel's ultra-Orthodox?
« Previous entryOrdination on the go? There’s an app for that!
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's note: Arsalan Iftikhar is an international human rights lawyer, founder of TheMuslimGuy.com and author of the book "
What makes you think you own the penis of your baby son?
Because he's my baby boy, see? Mine. I own him, lock, stock and c ock.
based on your thoughtless comment would you like to tell me that you know what is better for my child than you? exactly.
Genital mutilation is child abuse. Society has a duty to protect children that transcends a parent's right to do things to minors. We don't allow parents to beat them, tie them up, deprive them or put them in harm's way. Why should society turn a blind eye to a "religious ritual" ?
For health reasons? Studies have proven this, so calling it genital mutilation highlights the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.
To "JMM":
The often-cited excuse that it is a health benefit is overstated for the simple reason that there is a membrane between the foreskin and the head of the peni_s that prevents germs (bacteria) from collecting under the foreskin. This membrane is usually ruptured after first inter_course (or rough mastur_bation). So circu_mcision is not warranted for an infant, and is not worth the risk that ANY kind of surgery has – especially at such a tender age. When the child comes of age, then they can make the decision as to cut or not cut.
"Although I usually agree with much of his writing on most subjects, I would be curious to see if Sullivan would also consider parents who pierce the ears of their baby daughters to be committing "earlobe mutilation"?"
THAT IS FU.CKING MORONIC! Iftikhar what the fu.ck? Are you just trying to trivialize what is done in the name of religious freedom? And here's another thing, THE PEOPLE SCREAMING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AREN'T THE ONES HAVING THEIR DI.CKS CHOPPED!
Its illegal in lots of places.
F uck religious freedom. it's just plain looks better.
Does anyone here even know WHY this is a religious rite? For what purpose does it serve God(s)?
Before many of you start, this is a rhetorical question ... it is meant to ask people to step back, see the forest for the trees and look at this .. not as religious rights but why the he!! would we do this to begin with?!
I'm just happy my husband doesn't have a worm for a dick. Turtlenecks disgust me. I need to feel the nubbin' rubbin'.
(here is what religious ceremony does to children)
The health department reported last month that an estimated 20,493 infants in New York City were exposed to direct oral suction. Baby boys who were reportedly circu-mcised "with confirmed or probable orogenital suction" between April 2006 and December 2011 had an estimated risk of contracting neonatal herpes (HSV-1) infection of 24.4 per 100,000 cases, making the risk 3.4 times greater than those infants who did not have direct oral suction, according to the health department findings.
In a statement advising New York parents to refrain from direct oral-genital suction during circu-mcision, New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley said, "There is no safe way to perform oral suction on any open wound in a newborn.
"Parents considering ritual circu-mcision need to know that circu-mcision should only be performed under sterile conditions, like any other procedures that create open cuts, whether by mohelim or medical professionals."
Reports of infant herpes infections and deaths are not new.
In November of 2004, the Department of Health reported that twin male infants contracted neonatal herpes after the ritual circu-mcision, one of whom died.
Spokesman Jerry Schmetter of the Brooklyn Defense Attorney's office said a criminal investigation regarding a rabbi who was linked to infant herpes cases, was "still ongoing."
In the case of the Brooklyn infant's death in September, the parents of the baby refused to tell authorities who performed the ritual.
The United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg in Brooklyn could not be reached for comment.
Jeffrey Mazlin, a certified mohel and physician in New York who regularly practices circu-mcision procedures, said "only the more orthodox, the more traditional mohels" perform the metzitzah b'peh.
"[Orthodox Jews] look at it in terms of religion being more important than the individual, whereas someone who is more liberal will make sure that the individual's rights are taken care of," he said.
But the ritual is not just an upholding of a Jewish tradition, but also a firm reminder of their beliefs.
"Because blood is the life-giving element, they believe that it's supposed to be part of the whole procedure," Mazlin said.
The little blood that is drawn from the newly circu-mcised penis is usually left alone or wiped away under regular procedures, he said.
"There are no known medical benefits to sucking [the blood]," he said.
Rabbi Moshe Tendler, professor of Talmudic Law and Bioethics at Yeshiva University, dismissed any defense of the practice, calling it "primitive nonsense."
"[The ritual] has nothing to do with religion. It's only their customs. But they've managed to convince the city that it's a violation of their religious freedoms."
Tendler notes that there is an alternative to the metzitzah b'peh in which a mohel doesn't use his mouth directly, but uses a sterilized glass tube or pipette to suck the blood from the wound, which many modern orthodox Jews have started to incorporate during their circu-mcision rituals.
I want mine back.
You can have mine.
Wife won't let me use it anyway...
A child has no way to determine what he wants but as someone who doesnt have an ugly pen1s, I am happy with my parents decision to have it done for me.
Could not agree more. There is a real odd intensity for the opponents to this issue. Yes, some infants have been injured and an extremely small percentage have died (yet far less than from normal birth complications), but I do not understand why some have made this such a crusade. Especially when our country has countless other issues to focus on.
And to those that don't buy the hygiene issue, you are all fools. The data is out there about diseases and infection and washing your penis is not the same as sticking your hands under the sink, using some soap and they are all clean. these are your genitals and so it is clearly much different. For me personally, i think the naysayers are just bummed when they look down in the shower everyday before work.
Well, I am not on a "crusade" about it, but I do care about the issue. Personally, I'm saddened when I'm with a man who has been cut. Sad for him, sad for me. I much prefer those who are natural, as God made them. You know, there is a purpose to the skin, besides what it does for the man. It actually changes things for the woman. The friction isn't there, just the pressure. The skin protects the woman from abrasion. I much, much prefer men to be natural.
The ONE thing I still take and love about judiasm is that my penis is nice and cut. thanks jews!
What a way to welcome a little boy into the world: by hacking up his privates.
At least he wont have any memory of that compared to the constand bombardment of religion to occupy his conscious memory.
Hacking would imply a hatchet or large bladed knife. Is that what you think is used? Lol
Hey , You don't like , You don't do it. The people that want to do it to their children , it's their buisness .
So we finally found an issue that can unite Jews and Muslims, and it is . . . foreskins.
A human rights lawyer called "The Muslim Guy," who isn't interested in the rights of the human but of the religion.
Right.
Please do a search on the health benefits for this...read John Hopkins report on it.
The often-cited excuse that it is a health benefit is overstated for the simple reason that there is a membrane between the foreskin and the head of the peni_s that prevents germs (bacteria) from collecting under the foreskin. This membrane is usually ruptured after first inter_course (or rough mastur_bation). So circu_mcision is not warranted for an infant, and is not worth the risk that ANY kind of surgery has – especially at such a tender age. When the child comes of age, then they can make the decision as to cut or not cut.
Basic human rights .. no one has the right to permanently disfigure anyone else, especially an infant who can't choose for themselves. Yes, this includes ear piercing. Ear piercing is not necessary and is purely for ornamentation. If a person wants a ritualistic circmcision they can choose to have it done as an adult. Religious freedom does not trump basic human rights.
The only difference is that ear piercing is reversible once the jewelry is removed.
Its an unusual feeling having so many strangers worry about my penis.
Thank you all, I feel fine.
You may return to your daily lives now.
I stopped reading this once I saw the phrase "vis-a-vis" used twice in the same article. Isn't there some rule against that somewhere to keep people from trying to sound fancy for no apparent reason?
What better way to welcomeyour son into the world than by chopping party of his $&@# off.
If you're a Jew or musIim and don't like the law in Germany – get the heII out, before you're forced thru the chimney
But he'll thank you later in life !
It would be great to have these two fundamentalist religious grups join hands and minds on something as important as is the removal of a baby's penis' foreskin, at least. My personal opinion is that each male should be able to decide by himself once he becomes able to make his own decisions. That way, no body would have anything to object.
Babies can not object at all when they are only a few days old, and even if the parents think they have the right to decide, I believe that they should wait until the baby grows enough to make such a decision. The same form a young man shows to be old enough to stand before a congregation to recite some sacred book verses, the same way getiing his foreskin removed ought to be done once he is able to decide, it would be a personal choice instead of a parental imposition.
do they cut the earlobes off meat-head? What a moronic comparison.
Who knew the creator of the universe had so much stock in how much skin covers the tip of my pen!s...
Muslims speaking of religious freedom is hilarious. How many countries are there in this world that adapted Quran/Hadith as the law? Almost all Muslim majority countries. Go and try to practice any other religion there and report to us if you are alive (threat is not just from private individuals and groups, governments officially don't tolerate it). Arsalan should be ashamed of preaching religious freedom.
The best Reply
I agree. Why doesn't the author move his lock, stock and barrel, and move to Saudi Arabia to preach the Mullahs there?
I agree. Why doesn't the author move his lock, stock and barrel, and move to Saudi Arabia to preach the Mullahs there?
Yes, I tend to agree that religion should not dictate mutilation. However, for medical reasons I agree that it is cleaner and safer. I didn't have any choice, but am glad I don't have the extra skin. It looks kind of ugly to me anyways and I can't miss something I never had. No offense to anyone. If I were given a choice to do it later in life, no way in hell would I have that procedure done. No knives near the family jewels unless for an emergency.
So you don't want knives near your jewels as an adult, why on earth would you subject an innocent, defenseless child to it!?
It looks od to you because you have ben raised in the wicked jeudaochristian civalization christians jews and muslums are EVIL
@ kevin – why would you impregnate your wife considering the chance she could die in childbirth is no zero? Its just what we do.
*not