In a series of articles, I have proven that male circumcision was not a Coptic custom from the beginning and that it was introduced into Coptic society as a consequence of Arab and Muslim influence, as many Arab and Muslim customs crept into our nation through the process of Arabisation and Islamic acculturation of the Copts in the Middle Ages, such as concubinage, polygamy, and women isolation. Our Church patriarchs fought these last mentioned and managed to eradicate concubinage and polygamy with their ugly consequences on the family from our nation. They have not managed, however, to eradicate male circumcision, even though Patriarch Cyril III (1235 – 1243) [and priest Marcus ibn Ganbar before him] fought hardly against it, but for that, and for other matters, he was unfairly vilified by the leading Coptic archons, supported by other patriarchs.
The reader can review my articles on circumcision by checking the links below:
Circumcision and The Copts – A History: Part I
Circumcision and The Copts – A History: Part Ii
Circumcision and The Copts – A History: Part Iii
Male circumcision might have been practised in Ancient Egypt, but whether that was a practice enforced on all children or done only for medical reasons in adults is debated by the historians. Anyway, the evidence is that the Egyptians, once they turned Christian, abandoned the practice since it was considered as un-Christian, as they abandoned, e.g., the practice of mummification.
Male circumcision was a Jewish practice – a mark in the flesh of those who will be belonging to the Jewish religion, and a sign of the Old Covenant. Jesus was circumcised at the age of seven days old according to this custom, as He had to follow the Law until He came out as the Messiah and established the Age of Grace and the New Covenant, which established baptism as the sign of it. There is no doubt that the Early Church banned male circumcision, and in the Pauline Epistles there is ample prove for it.[2]
When in the Middle Ages, Coptic archons, mainly working in the Muslim administration as clerks and accountants, sought to assimilate themselves to the Muslim culture (and it is a culture based on Islam), they insists on it being practised on their children so that their children did not appear different from Muslim kids. There arose a great debate in the Middle Ages as to its nature: all patriarchs agreed that it was not a religious ceremony like the Jewish one, but a custom that can be tolerated as long as it was practised after baptism (after the age of forty days when a Coptic child was baptised). The Coptic canons of the Middle Ages banned its practice before forty days but allowed its practice after that. What that meant is that it was practised usually at the age of around seven years old when the Muslims usually circumcise their children, often with great celebrations.
Male circumcision, which involves cutting off the foreskin, was practised without an anaesthetic. The child not only felt pain but was stricken with fear and panic at the thought of it. Usually the child is pinned down by adults who laughs at the child’s reaction as he screams in pain and panic, and considered it fun. And this practice still continues. Even though now a local anaesthetic is used, it is still a scary practice, and borders on child abuse. I was circumcised at the age of ten months by a Jewish doctor, and I can’t remember it, but I am sure it was not a nice experience. My brothers were circumcised at an older age, between the ages of three years and six years. Even though a local anaesthetic was used, it was still a horrific experience. When I grew up and had my sons, I didn’t think much of it, and as it was tradition, I too circumcised my children. I was ignorant and thoughtless. And I regret it a lot, particularly as I put my children in that horrible situation of panic and fear. I am sure it was painful too despite the anaesthetic. It was physical abuse of my children.
A lot has been said about the medical and hygienic benefits of male circumcision, but that is a lot of manufactured argument, made by people who would like to justify the horrible practice. There is no evidence for all of that.
I call for this practice to be abolished completely in our Coptic society: there is no justification for it whatsoever, whether religious, medical or hygienic. It is unnecessary, borrowed from a foreign culture, and is a kind of physical abuse parents cruelly put their children through.
And our Church ought to have a stance on that. It has a strong a stance against female circumcision. It remains to do the same with male circumcision. Patriarch Cyril III (as Marcus ibn Ganbar before him) was against it entirely, whether before or after baptism, following on the teachings of St. Paul the Apostle. He also had a position against what was called “confession before the censer”, and advocated for confession before the priest, but he was resisted by Patriarch John VI (1189
– 1216). Later, the Coptic Church came to agree with Patriarch Cyril III on the confession issue. One hopes that the Church comes to agree with him too on the issue of male circumcision.
[1] From Mail Online: Brace yourself, this might sting a bit… Boys scream in pain as they are circumcised with NO anaesthetic in Turkey (29 June 2017).
[2] On the relationship between Christianity and circumcision of boys, see: On the New Testament and Circumcision by Michael Glass.