Mother’s fury after doctor circumcises three-month-old baby boy at request of Muslim father WITHOUT her consent

Our thanks to Tim for this. He writes:

Note that the social worker was only concerned with the mother’s well-being and not the little boy who had just suffered an horrific physical assault, permanently damaging his most intimate body parts. And that the article uses the euphemism ‘circumcision’ to make it sound like a medical procedure rather that the ritual mutilation that it is.

Please publish and note the Facebook page of the medical centre so that people can leave their comments – here.

18 thoughts on “Mother’s fury after doctor circumcises three-month-old baby boy at request of Muslim father WITHOUT her consent

  1. Hi Clay. Mutilating female minors is illegal under a 1985 Act. There’s nothing to make MGM legal, and it’s undoubtedly illegal under at least a couple of acts, though not specifically identified as an illegal act. The key problem is that the police never prosecute the practitioners, so we’ve sent Theresa May, Home Secretary, a FoI request, asking why that is.

  2. Its fascinating that we even have to have a discussion on why it is wrong to torture males. Can’t you people understand this simple concept? Are you not convinced that there really is a war on against men? You realize of course, mutilating a female in illegal but not so for a man.
    Can this POSSIBLY be fair?

  3. Thanks for this. In the UK at least, FGM is a specific criminal offence, in line with an Act passed in 1985, 30 years ago. MGM is clearly a crime in the UK, but one that is never prosecuted, except occasionally when things go so wrong that an infant dies. A year or two ago a female nurse was prosecuted over her subsequent neglect of an infant she’d circumcised, and she only received a suspended sentence.

  4. You hardly have the ability to know any better as it would be impossible to provide a comparative analysis regarding the validity of circumcision. You have no way of understanding what circumcision has done to you, because it was performed on you before you could use your parts! Based on common sense and SCIENCE, there is not a single reason (religious or otherwise) that justifies the removal of healthy tissue. And to perform it on an infant or legally non-consentual individual is criminal. I am an atheist but I am not against others practicing religion, but “reformation” is an essential element to any organization. Understand this, there are laws that protect girls from the same fate in westernized countries and as such they (in accordance with LAW) apply to boys as well. The act of circumcision is technically illegal and current laws are enforced within a sexist context illegally via corrupt politicians and law makers.

  5. Neither male nor female genital mutilation (circumcision is a political term) are at all mentioned in the Qur’an, actually. They were mentioned in later texts, however. Possibly by religious enemies trying to (and apparently succeeding in) making Islam look bad.

    In fact, quite the opposite. According to the Qur’an, Allah specifically cut the mould of humanity special. And it was Satan who pledged to trick humanity into attempting to modify this base mould through non-medical surgeries. Such as infant genital mutilation. And it was apparently so incredibly successful that Muslim communities now flout their most divine holy text in favour of routine mutilation.

    Of course, this is a prime example of why you should always listen to apolitical experts, and never feminists who make a mint selling baby tissue, or victims of the crime who have a vested interest in plugging their ears and humming.

  6. There’s a huge amount of confirmation bias in your research into this issue. People really don’t like to think their body has been mutilated and it’s particularly hard to come to terms with the fact that such a mutilation was thanks to their parents. Also, almost no men have two penises so how can those who’ve undergone circumcisions say whether or not they have been affected? It’s scientifically proven that sensitivity is massively reduced and that tens of thousands of nerve endings are lost and there’s a particular impact on older men.

    Even for those men who know that the circumcision might have damaged their penis, how many are going to openly admit to having a defective penis? Sometimes the entire head of the penis is accidentally cut off, but no one is going to openly mention that are they? You’re also forgetting that hundreds of babies die due to complications from circumcision – you won’t have heard any complaints from them either because they’re dead and so don’t have a voice.

    Ultimately all surgery carries risk and all doctors make mistakes. I don’t doubt that these mistakes are less common in your country than in the third world, but they’re still going to exist and it’s tremendously important to stand up for all the victims of MGM.

  7. The “problem” here is, circumcision is a MUST in Islam and again, speaking frm personal experience, ive yet to meet a Muslim male of ANY race who disagreed with being circumcised simply because its part of the religion.

    With that being said, FEMALE circumcision is actually not a requirement in Islam, but yet it is something that persists amongst many cultures that happen to be Muslim.


    1. NO it is not a must in Islam for male or female, it has always been a cultural issue. My former wife who is a sharia scholar and lawyer has pointed out that it is not stated anywhere in the Qur’an. She was backed up by her late grandfather who was a cleric and imam for the sultan of Pahang, malaysia( your neck of the woods). it has aways been cultural and was around before malaysia became an islamic country.
    2. We are all aware that it is done by doctors to a high standard but it still is an issue of consent. my wife was circumcised without permission of her father( he did not want it) and she has stated that it has caused damage. My own daugther thankfully was not circumcised because I forbade it and the doctors( they were also muslims) respected my wishes ( and this is in the gulf who as you know are staunch followers of Islam and yes it does happen there to girls). My wife was worried that we could risk possible prosecution and eventual deportation, but I stood my ground on this.
    3. the three religions of the abrahamic faiths have always shared some cultural regional practices( diet, modesty etc) and circumcision is one that belongs to the tenent of cleansiness. Many of the laws in religion were based on controling/ preventing issues that affected people( eg pork,alcohol) adversely, as you would aware muslims still debate as to whether they can eat shellfish. With that said modern science tells us that there is no medical reason to perform this and scholars tell us there is no religious reason either ( much the same debate about abayas, tudongs and burkas).

    Its all about tradition and like some traditions it conflicts with the rights of the individual and the laws of the land, so its time to let it go. As mike is pointing out there is a double standard here and unfortunately people are using religion as an excuse for this practice. As you have pointed out that you are from singapore, so the question I ask is if it has any use then wouldn’t be practiced as standard by all singaporeans?
    ” ive yet to meet a Muslim male of ANY race who disagreed with being circumcised simply because its part of the religion.”

    consider me your first muslim male who disagrees simply because its part of the religion

  8. snozzcumbers wrote:

    Iam a staunch supporter for J4MB and as Red Pill as it gets, iam also a Muslim male.

    Mike Buchanan wrote:

    ‘ … this isn’t about you … ‘

    and thereby drew attention to a very blue pill way of thinking. An excellent response Mike.

    Non-consensual infant male genital mutilation and ritual slaughter of animals are both illegal under ‘U’K law but are allowed for members of two religious faiths, even though both practices, which cause unnecessary suffering, are repugnant to the majority of people in this officially Christian country.

    There can be no justification for the continuation of either practice.

  9. Hi Snozzcumbers. Am I right though in thinking that male circumcision is not compulsory (Wajib) in Islam, but only recommended (Sunnah)? I have certainly read some Islamic Scholars over the years who are against the practice, although they are a still a minority. Not that this makes any difference in my eyes as I don’t believe children can be ‘muslims’ or ‘jews’ or ‘christians’ etc. I think only adults can be assumed to have freely chosen a religion, so it would be wrong to permanently carve a religion into a non-consenting child’s body. And of course ‘freedom of worship’ has to begin and end at one’s own body, otherwise one is infringing upon someone-else’s freedom of worship.

  10. Thanks for that recognition of the consent issue. This is all about giving male minors the same protection under the law as that enjoyed by female minors, 30 years after the Act which gave legal protection to the latter.

    Male circumcision is a religious requirement for Jews – laid down in Genesis and Leviticus – but Muslims have told me it arguably isn’t one in Islam because it’s not stipulated in the Qur’an, but it’s a strong cultural expectation. I’m not qualified to comment on that view.

    There are of course many things stipulated in the major world religions’ holy books, which would be illegal in the UK (and most countries, come to that). Male circumcision is undoubtedly illegal under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – not specifically, but as an example of causing bodily harm, without consent – but the criminal justice system won’t enforce the law, which is why we’re publicly challenging Alison Saunders (Director of Public Prosecutions) and Theresa May MP (Home Secretary).

    The law in the UK does not allow religious or cultural grounds to be used as mitigating factors in inflicting bodily harm (as we see with prosecutions for facial scarification, for example.)

  11. Hello Taca, with regards to female genital mutilation, unlike male circumcision in Islam, female circumcision is actually not a must.
    But it still persists in many cultures that happen to be Muslim.

    As for the rest of your post, pls refer to my reply to Mike above this post.

  12. Hello Mike,

    I could be wrong here, but my best guess is, in most cases it complications do arise whe the procedure isnt carried out properly. I know men who’ve had circumcision done when they were adults and it hasnt affected them in any negative way.

    Im from Singapore a multi racial and multi lingual nation which is as advanced as any other first world nation. Circumcision of muslim males here is common and doctors who carry it out are held to a standard they have to follow.

    At the same time, i understand the problem with doing it kids who are too young too consent. The “problem” here is, circumcision is a MUST in Islam and again, speaking frm personal experience, ive yet to meet a Muslim male of ANY race who disagreed with being circumcised simply because its part of the religion.

    With that being said, FEMALE circumcision is actually not a requirement in Islam, but yet it is something that persists amongst many cultures that happen to be Muslim.

    With that being said, i do understand that this is mostly about consent.

  13. Snozzcumbers, as a fully intact male, I can promise you it has affected you, quite drastically. The foreskin is absolutely vital for the penis to function as nature intended. You have lost the motile function of the prepuce, and the glans, which is anatomically evolved as an internal organ has now become an external organ and ‘keratinised’ resulting in huge loss of sensitivity. You have been deprived of two-thirds of the total erogenous skin area of your penis, and also the immunological and hormonal functions of the prepuce. I understand entirely that you might feel ‘ok’ with this (Just as the majority of FGM victims say they are glad they were cut and intend to pass this ‘gift’ onto their daughters and grand daughters) and I have no argument with guys over the age of 18 getting cut (except of course we know then that the practice would die out) but still that is no excuse to force it upon helpless infants. Some guys are happy with a spiders web tattoo right across their face, and multiple piercings, but this cannot make it right to inflict it on non-consenting infants. I’m glad you’re happy with your genital status but please understand many cut men are not. As a campaigner I have met many men whose lives have been ruined by the butchery they suffered as infants – sexual dysfunction, reliance on lube, anxiety, depression, and the breakdown of relationships and resentment that follows. And finally, if any of your cut friends really were unhappy about it, would they be likely to acknowledge it? Would they tell you, or anyone-else about it? Who wants to advertise to the world that they have problems ‘down there’ or with their sexual psychology? This is not a personal thing about your satisfaction, it is a fundamental Human Rights issue.

  14. Thank you, but this isn’t about you, it’s about the human rights of male minors, and their right (in a highly secular society, in particular) to protection against religious and cultural practices which harm them bodily (or mentally). There are many men who have suffered physical and mental health problems as a result of the procedure, which is undoubtedly illegal under UK and EU law, although the criminal justice system won’t bring prosecutions. We have no problems with males who’ve reached the age of majority agreeing freely to the procedure, though they’ll then discover the whole point of it, which is to ameliorate sexual pleasure in adult males. By definition, you cannot know how much less sexual pleasure you’d have if you were intact. You say, ‘It’s just the removal of the foreskin’, but it has a huge number of nerve endings.

    You might want to watch this video of an eminent psychology professor // and read this piece by William Collins

  15. Iam a staunch supporter for J4MB and as Red Pill as it gets, iam also a Muslim male. Circumcision has in no way shape or form affected me or anything sexually related. Its the same for ALL muslim men that i personally know. Its just the removal of the foreskin. Heck, plenty of non muslim men do it too.

  16. I posted comments on both the practice FB page and the Mail Online website. As I expected my comment in response to the Mail Online article has not made it past the moderators, who seem to pursue the same biased censorship mindset as the those who oversee the Guardian website. My post: “It is rather rich that there is such a brouhaha due to the fact that a boy was circumcised WITHOUT his mother’s consent. I did not consent to having a perfectly normal, healthy, erogenous part of my penis amputated when I was just an infant. My late parents presumably both consented, and yet I am the one who has had to live a life with a body that was surgically modified at their behest. This is yet another example of the world full of double standards we live in, which flatters itself by claiming to be a civilised society that rightly abhors FGM, and yet condones the genital cutting of perfectly healthy infant males, provided both parents consent.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.