 |
|
|
|
 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 "
Germany is right here. Genital mutilation is barbarism and has to be stopped in developed countries. They can go back to Israel and their Muslim countries to continue the practice if it is so important for them.
Great, so you are moving to Germany to show them your support, right?
Couldnt agree more Ricky...
If a Christian moved to Saudi Arabi, we have to obey and live by their opressive rules and regulations, otherwise leave the country... If you dont like what Germany's laws are, go back to your cultural countries where these barbaric practices are accepted..
I assume neither of you are parents.
@Kate
I don't get what them being parents have to do with it. It's not like it's some kind of health imperative.
There once was a man named Elias,
In bathrooms wreaked havoc, the why is,
He places the blame,
For inaccurate aim,
On a Rabbi who cut on the bias.
;D
This is an obvious attack on faith. If it were anywhere but Germany, I'd say it was blithering idiot nanny state mentality, but considering the source, it's questionable.
@Hypatia
You said, "This is an obvious attack on faith."
Of course not. It is to protect those that can't protect themselves.
Do you think honor killings are acceptable? Should a father have the right to determine who his daughter dates and enforce that with death? Not condoning honor killings is infringing on the father's religious rights.
Do you think it is acceptable deny girls an education because the religion of the tribal leaders say so? Not supporting that practice infringes on the religious rights of those tribal leaders.
It is the foremost important task of government to protect those that can't protect themselves. Religious infant circumcision should be banned everywhere as the child abuse tat it is. If adults wish to have it done to themselves they are free to do so.
Fine, it is an attack on faith. If your faith compels you to forcibly mutilate the genitals of other people, then your faith is some sick stuff that needs to be stopped.
We realize you will put up a resistance. It has taken us awhile to get rid of cannibalism as a 'faith' but we're making progress. We're going to get rid of you baby mutilators next, oh yes indeedy.
LinCa, to protect those who cannot protect themselves is an excellent reason to ban abortion. Will you support banning abortion?
@lifeknoxhard
You said, "You said, "Will you support banning abortion?""
Until birth, a discussion about abortion will always be about balancing the rights of the woman and those of the embryo/fetus. Dismissing the rights of the mother in favor of a clump of cells is not "protecting those that can't protect themselves". It is forcing your religious dogma on a medical discussion.
So to answer your question, no, of course not. No reasonable person can support a ban on abortion.
Feel free not to have an abortion if you don't want one.
LinCA
At a minimum ban a nurse that strangles a viable fetus in a tray rather than allow it to squirm for 45 minutes as testified in the last debate to limit abortions.
@fred
You said, "At a minimum ban a nurse that strangles a viable fetus in a tray rather than allow it to squirm for 45 minutes as testified in the last debate to limit abortions."
Do you have a source for that statement? Not that I'm challenging you on it (yet), but I'd like to read about it myself.
I don't advocate for unrestricted abortions. I simply expect the rights of all involved to be given due consideration. That should also include those of the biological father, or the person(s) identified as the legal parent(s) after birth.
Lin, keeping living your selfish life as w h o r e abortion supporter. God wil judge you.
Amen.
I'm dismayed by people who use abortion as an excuse for mutilating boys. Do they really believe that abortion justifies any other bararity?
@HeavenSent
You said, "Lin, keeping living your selfish life as w h o r e abortion supporter. God wil judge you."
Been skipping your anger management classes again?
For your information, if there is a god, and if it is remotely similar to the one that you seem to be worshiping (or is that whoreshiping?), I'll gladly take an eternity in hell over a day with that monster. Your god puts all earthly dictators and mass-murderers to shame. Anyone that venerates such a despicable creature should have his or her head examined.
Arguing that this issue has anything to do with abortion is idiotic.
It is not an attack on faith. It is an attack of genital mutilation of children. What if it was a religious doctrine to remove the right eye, the left ear, and the pinky finger on both hands shortly after birth as an offering to the Gods. Are you good with that? Is it any less problematic to genitally mutilate an infant or small child?
Once again the continued use of religion to justify atrocity. Mutilating a child to express your personal religious views is child abuse. If there is a medical case for it, that is another issue. That is not the case here. NO ONE has the the right to impose their religious beliefs on another. The German court is right. The only problem is that there are still so many people with bronze age beliefs that ritual child abuse is considered mainstream.
How about the ritual child abuse of abortion? Oh, that's OK with you, right? Hypocrite!
Actually, there is a medical reason. A number of studies have shown that it decreases the probability of HIV transmission. A few African countries where it has not been the practice are trying to encourage it for that reason.
What is more important?
The right of the child to not be harmed in any way unless its a necessary medical operation. And:
The religious freedom of the child.
Or
The rights of the parents?
(No there is no religious freedom arguement here because its the religious freedom of the child which gets attacked here)
There are two of the most important basic human rights against one that isnt even important in any human rights charta.
Sorry but its obvious you see this more as a muslim instead of a human rights lawyer.
Well said.
Nice try on the "earlobe mutilation" analogy, but there's a pretty significant difference there. Those holes in your ears? They heal if you take the earrings out. My foreskin hasn't grown back yet, and I don't expect it to.
I wonder how the author would feel if it was traditional to cut off the ear lobe as a child...
Let us pray that the Jews, the earthly Israel, will join us soon, the heavenly Israel of fatih, through faith. That faith would be exactly the faith of their ancestor and archfather Abraham. Only the object of faith has changed, former it was the promise of a descent, today it is the promise that we become righteous through Jesus Christ.
The circu-mcision should be kept at any rate. Damned German judges, such morons. I say this although I am a Christian.
Hello, according to my descent I am a German, but I have joined the Israel of faith through Abraham's faith.
Got it?
What is Abraham's faith?
Abraham believed God's promise that he would give him descendants and a country to dwell. Abraham kept this faith for decades up to a very high age, when his body became very old and he could no more conceive children by natural male strength. Also Abraham's wife had become very old an could no more bear children. Furthermore Abraham lived in the very godless country Canaan (today Palestine) and was seduced persistently to forsake the Lord, the eternal God, which has made heaven and earth.
Despite all hostility of the pagans of Canaan and athough he saw no fulfillment of God's promise for decades, Abraham kept the faith and finally got a son by a divine miracle, called Isaac.
The circu-mcision is a sign, which should remember the Jews that they should more appreciate Abraham's faith than their descent from Abraham. The male member represents the descent of man. Reducing it by circu-mcision simply means to reduce the trust in the natural descent, but increase the appreciation of the faith, which causes the circu-mcision of the heart.
Hence, circu-mcison should not be abolished, because the Jews still need it as a sign of remembrance of Abraham's faith. It is merely a pity that the Jews don't understand that. Let us hope and pray that God will open the eyes of the Jews that their member tells them: YOU NEED ABRAHAM"S FAITH.
The modern promise of God is the Gospel, which we have to believe in a world, which totally rejects Christ. But one day he will return and the Christian Church will get revealed and glorified as God's new mankind.
Yes rainer got it....you buy whole heartedly into this religon that was created for you by men. you believe in fairy tale beings and creatures, and have a great deal of trouble differentiating reality from fiction.
Got it.
Are there nearly no reasonable bloggers on this CNN Blog?
Repeatedly posting the same crap isn't going to make your point better.
"Are there nearly no reasonable bloggers on this CNN Blog?"
When did intentionally mutilating people for religious reason become reasonable......it's not.
Cu-Coo..
Anyway, It shouldn't be abolished but it should not be allowed to be done on a baby. That child should have the right once they're old enough to decide on their own to do it. Not be forcibly mutilated by a nutjob set of parents.
As you are a descent of the degenerated Adam, it is clear that you cannot process higher information.
I hope and pray that God gives you the Spirit so that you may not designate words of wisdom as crap.
Rainer: Did you never hear that "brevity is the soul of wit"? When are you going to figure out how to make your point without writing a book and then cutting and pasting it everywhere? This isn't a vanity publishing house, dear.
Circ-umcision is tradition, nothing more. Being that whether or not it is done does not gain you entrance into your heaven, it is meaningless in the scope of eternity. And, as I said before, a religious ceremony is pointless if the person cannot consent to it. You can bless, baptize, mutilate... perform any ceremony you choose to a an infant, but it will still be up to that person, when they come of age, to choose for themselves.
"As you are a descent of the degenerated Adam, it is clear that you cannot process higher information."
You are the one who believes there really was an "Adam" and you are decended from him and therefore YOU need to deal with your cognitive deficiancies that make you think bronze age myths are real and allow you and those who think like your the right to mutilate children.
Religio-sheep says what?
Pfft, whatever dude... there's no Adam in my family tree that I'm aware of.
Quoting religious passages is the thought process of the weak minded. Learn to think on your own. Too many times religious nutjobs make their arguments by quoting a book that's no more credible than anything else in the Fiction aisle. Learn to come up with real reasons instead of quoting garbage that's been force-fed to you since you got your own dick mutilated.
its nice that you believe all that, now maybe a sedative and a nap for you..
This was brought up only as a distraction, so that serious issues are out of mind for the moment. As for this matter, why would this at all be brought up now, after generations of time? why else other than to distract?
Why else? Because Satan is alive and well and trying to stop anything that even hints at God. Take a look around you! Wonder why the world is going to hell in a handbasket?!?!
In Germany the sacrifician of bulls for religious purposes is illegal....
Is that anti-sematic?
Well, sacrificion isn't illegal, but burning them in your yard is....
This ruling has nothing to do with xenophobia, anti-semitism, or islamophia. Why does the author mention it so many times?
Becasue his position is so untenable he has to argue those extremes for it to be coherent.
He mentions that there is no ban on "earlobe mutilation". The ban was specifically anti-religious, leading to the conclusion that it's Islamophobic and anti-Semitic.
I think, chopping of parts of children or drilling holes into them should be banned and illegal everywhere. This seems so obvious to me, that there is no discussion necessary.
That religion has anything to do with it, is coming from the fact that religions want to make sure, that the offspring of their followers will be part of them, too. This is profoundly against freedom of religion, of the child once grown up, that is.
That this is interpreted as antisemitism is just a bite reflex on the germans again. They have learned their lesson, most of them at least, have you? At least you pointed out that this was about muslim cases.
And: Small holes in the earlobes are reversible. What about tattooing a cross onto any christian child's stomach, you consider this as the parents rights? Not me! What about holes in the lower lips, extending necks, and other weird practices in some african or south american tribes,would you allow this in Washington or New York for the sake of freedom of religion?
We should thank that court of pointing out, that mutilating a child could never be justified by anything but medical!
The problem is that in Germany, all you have to do is call them nazis and anti-semites and they'll fold. It's a shot a their sensitive regions so-to-say...
all of you are so ignorants in this matter.This is part of their tradition and thousands year old,and beside even medically is proven to be beneficial for body's immunity.The one thing that makes me sad today is to see how much is abused with human right and how few right are left for a human being,is ever worse then in a communist regime.DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU EXPRIME YOUR OPINIONS.
If God hates foreskin so much, why did he put it on there in the first place?
To test our obedience.
But Lucy, if god is omniscient, he doesn't need to test our obedience – he'd already know if were or not.
Behind God’s (The Creator’s) every creation there’s a reason and science is an education that discovers and explains those reasons that a simple man could not comprehend. The foreskin is a crucial part of a male genital meant to protect the very sensitive (important) part of a male body at birth. It is created to be removed later once the purpose is served. Think of penis as just laid chicken egg shell-its very soft and fragile but once landed on earth it gets harder.
People in Germany needs to get education. It is not only about just God-it is about living righteously with everything good/beneficial for human kind and leaving the world righteously. If you don’t believe in the God or his reasonings or its creations then let your science prove your theories that derives from educated ignorance.
"It is created to be removed later once the purpose is served."
What a load of unsubstantiated drivel. If this was the case then it should naturally fall off without the help of a scalpel.
"it is created to be removed once the purpose is served."
And you think its purpose is to protect the tip during birth. What evidence do you have of this. And it was created to be removed? then why doesn't it just drop off naturally like the umbilical cord?
You are leaping to unjustified conclusions based on your belief, not fact....perfect example of a "believer"
"What evidence do you have of this."
Delusional beliefs...that is all.
Karim you are wrong, you can not compare foreskin to the egg shells, there is no similarity to them both. Very bad logic! Foreskin, by the way, is elastic. lol
"It is created to be removed later once the purpose is served."
One would expect the creator to design it so that this was not necessary, or would have provided a mechanism for it to fall off on its own once its usefulness has served its purpose. Much better than leaving it up to someone with a sharpened stone to remove it.
So the penis needs protecting in the womb only? What a load of trash.
We can invent perforations and god can t? That would make it easier you know. No botched jobs, no un even cuts, no training required.
Forcible genital mutilation has no place in the civilized world.
Arsalan Iftikhar Wrote:
"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"?"
This is a false equivalence, the earlobe can hear and is not permanent. I wonder if he would be willing to argue that western society should allow FEMALE circ.umcision? And why not? This would be the fair comparison and it is no surprise he steared clear of that comparison.
This ruling has nothing to do with xenophobia, anti-semitism, or islamophia. Why does the author mention it so many times?
It is a bit ridiculous to invoke the freedom of religion when the court ruled based on the freedom of the individual. It is any adult's right to commit to any religious rite they want including body mutilation to even graver extent. What the court ruled is that absent any medical reason no parent has the right to apply an invasive procedure (however safe it is) against their child.
This also applies to ear piercings which cannot be done in germany at an age under 14 and until 18 only with the consent of the parents _and_ obviously _not_ without the consent of the child!
Most of this debate is ridiculously debased. There is a reason article 1 to 7 of the universal declaration of human rights protects the individual and "only" article 18 protects freedom of religion and again onyl in context of the individual!
While one can argue about wether it really matter one should be honest about this debate: Some religious folks think some anachronistic rite is somehow identical to their religion and earns more protection than the rights of the individual. I hope this is not true. Pulling the Holocaust card is at least a cheap shot that in context deserves ridicule, not support.
I agree
The circu-mcision should be kept at any rate. Damned German judges, such morons. I say this although I am a Christian.
Hello, according to my descent I am a German, but I have joined the Israel of faith through Abraham's faith.
Got it?
What is Abraham's faith?
Abraham believed God's promise that he would give him descendants and a country to dwell. Abraham kept this faith for decades up to a very high age, when his body became very old and he could no more conceive children by natural male strength. Also Abraham's wife had become very old an could no more bear children. Furthermore Abraham lived in the very godless country Canaan (today Palestine) and was seduced persistently to forsake the Lord, the eternal God, which has made heaven and earth.
Despite all hostility of the pagans of Canaan and athough he saw no fulfillment of God's promise for decades, Abraham kept the faith and finally got a son by a divine miracle, called Isaac.
The circu-mcision is a sign, which should remember the Jews that they should more appreciate Abraham's faith than their descent from Abraham. The male member represents the descent of man. Reducing it by circu-mcision simply means to reduce the trust in the natural descent, but increase the appreciation of the faith, which causes the circu-mcision of the heart.
Hence, circu-mcison should not be abolished, because the Jews still need it as a sign of remembrance of Abraham's faith. It is merely a pity that the Jews don't understand that. Let us hope and pray that God will open the eyes of the Jews that their member tells them: YOU NEED ABRAHAM"S FAITH.
The modern promise of God is the Gospel, which we have to believe in a world, which totally rejects Christ. But one day he will return and the Christian Church will get revealed and glorified as God's new mankind.
What if someone else's faith believed they need to cut off the left hand because when we are born it has demons in it? Are you going to support that too for religious freedom? If not, why not?
Your assumption is ridiculous.
First, the mutilation of the member is a very small injury, secondly, time will come when the Jews will get to realize the true meaning of circu-mcison, that would mean that they would start to become believers in the Messiah Jesus. As believers the Jews themselves would abolish circu-mcison voluntarily and instead appreciate faith and baptism, which is the circu-mcision of the heart. By faith and baptism we get a new nature, which overcomes our sinful nature from Adam.
No state has the right to abolish circu-mcison, it is the Jews own matter, as soon they receive Abraham's faith and reduce appreciation of their natural descent.
It wasn;t an assumption, it was a question and you are dodging it. What about female circ.umcision, should that be allowed. How about cutting off an ear? Where do you draw the line and why? Where does your "freedom of religion" end and a babies right to be unmutilated begin?
The Jews didn't pay attention that Eve was deceived in the garden, that's why they still get deceived today.
Genital mutilation of a fellow human, who has no say in such a primitive bit of sadism, should be banned everywhere- as should honoring Judaism, Islam and Christianity- all founded by Abraham, a psychopath, who "heard God" tell him to show his love for said "God" by cutting open his son. According to the myth, Abe has the boy help him build the altar on which he intends to gut his son and at the last moment, knife raised, God sends another poor helpless creature to be whacked in place of the boy. Shame on muslims, shame on jews and shame on christians, who indoctrinate their young with this garbage. Its no more anti-semitic or anti-arab to halt this barbarism as it is anti-Indian to bewail the caste system or anti-native american or anti mexican to stop human sacrifice – religous freedom for Aztecs.
The only people that follow Jesus Christ are Christians. Notice the name.
Only Christians follow Jesus. Isn't it enough we heard the lies from the RCC that islam and judaism followed the teachings of Christ.
How true. I don't know why people insist other religions follow Christ.
It isn't exactly accurate that only Christians follow Christ. Messianic Jews follow Christ as they wish to retain the fact they are Jewish and believe that Christ, the Messiah has returned. One could argue that Christians are actually gentiles who have been brought into the Jewish family by virtue of Christ.
Then, torture your son in a different country.
Religion is bane of civilization.
If you are a believer in god, and think he/she/it created you-then he created your foreskin too. It is illogical for you to then chop it off.
Okay, but what about parents deciding the opposite of that for their children before they can decide it for themselves?
Behind God's (The Creator's) every creation there's a reason and science is an education that discovers and explains those reasons that a simple man could not comprehend. The foreskin is a crucial part of a male genital meant to protect the very sensitive (important) part of a male body at birth. It is created to be removed later once the purpose is served. Think of penis as just laid chicken egg shell-its very soft and fragile but once landed on earth it gets harder.
People in Germany needs to get education. It is not only about just God-it is about living righteously with everything good/beneficial for human kind and leaving the world righteously. If you don't believe in the God or his reasonings or its creations then let your science prove your theories that derives from educated ignorance.
Karim, there is no logic in that. ALL of the holy books of the world were WRITTEN by men. There is no hardening of the foreskin as you get older. If you had one, you would no that. You are an idiot.
@Karim
If the foreskin is created for temporary use only, why doesn't it fall off on it's own after its purpose has been served, like baby teeth?
You are right, God made us perfectly as we are, and that including forskin, I am really glad my parents did not have it chopped off when I was a baby.
@Karim: Once my penis lands on Earth, should it instantly get harder; or does it slowly and continuously harden over time, so that by the time I'm in my later years, I can use my penis to punch holes through rock– or maybe even steel?
@Rugby: If you are a believer in God, more than likely you will derive some crazy insane theory to explain why you do what you do, even though it makes little to no sense logically or biologically.