No child should be subjected to mutilation for religious reasons. When they reached the age of 18 they could decide if they wanted this procedure done. I doubt if many would.
// Dr Balvinder Mehat of the Bakersfield Medical Centre in Nottingham carried out the procedure on the baby boy while he was in the care of his father, who is separated from the mother. //
It seems clear that the Grand parents had the consent of the father, so they did not go behind his back. The mother had not given permission, so to carry out the mutilation was wrong, but more a technicality.
Thousands of male babies are mutilated every week because both parents consent, but apparently that is OK with you.
The consensus seems to be that if the mutalation is done by a Rabbi with the consent of both parents, then there is nothing wrong. But if a muslim doctor does it with only one of the parents' consent, then it is barbarism.
It is barbaric irrespective of which religion does the attack on a defenceless baby.
Between the two given Links it says he was
'in the care of his Father'
and
'and apparently staying with his paternal grandparents, who are Muslim'
Nowhere does it state his Father approved.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.