Peter Kaluma has stirred heated debate by calling for the abolition of male circumcision, a practice he controversially described as male genital mutilation. According to Kaluma, circumcision is an unnecessary and harmful tradition rooted in misinformation and outdated beliefs.
In his argument, Kaluma questioned why humans continue to embrace this practice when most animals, including donkeys, do not undergo any form of circumcision. He pointed out that only a few human communities worldwide practice circumcision, driven by cultural and religious beliefs passed down through generations. Kaluma specifically criticized the association of circumcision with biblical traditions, suggesting that it is based on the idea of being descendants of Abraham — a man who lived in the desert without access to water.
His remarks have sparked mixed reactions, with some supporting his call for reconsidering the practice, while others see his comments as insensitive to cultural and religious values. Supporters of circumcision argue that it has health benefits, including reduced risk of infections and certain diseases. However, critics like Kaluma view it as an unnecessary and invasive procedure imposed on young boys without their consent.
As this debate continues, it raises important questions about tradition, health, and bodily autonomy. Should circumcision remain a cultural rite of passage, or is it time to reconsider its relevance in modern society? Kaluma’s bold stance has certainly opened up space for deeper reflection and dialogue on this long-standing practice.
By Kenyans