Moses, Jesus and Mohammed against sexual mutilation — Sigismond
From Peaceful Beginnings
Read the WORD file: http://intactwiki.org/Image:Moses%2C_Jesus_and_Mohammed_agaisnt_SM.doc
or read below:
Part I - A THREE-MILLENIAL FALSIFICATION: THE 2ND COMMANDMENT:
“... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to...” great-grandfathers,
FORBIDS SEXUAL MUTILATION
John the Baptist and Jesus gave their lives for baptism by water rather than by the trauma of the “original” punishment, conceived to prevent any further “sin”. Numerous attempts of abolishing circumcision occurred, sometimes quelled by blood (Machabees). The most elaborated one was that of German Reform rabbis, in the middle of the 19th century, for socio-political and juridical reasons (a violence against the child, the custom isolates the Jews), and also four religious reasons: the Book of Deuteronomy (the Book of Moses, and thus the Ten Commandments) does not prescribe it, Moses opposed that of his son (Exodus, 4: 24-26), it was not practised under his reign (it was set back into practice for men only, after his death, in Gilgal – Joshua, 5: 2-9), there is no (no longer) equivalent for girls. (cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571).
Prior to Moses, worshipers of the masculine phallus and contemptuous of the feminine one, the Egyptians practised, and still do, upon both sex children, the most terrible repression that can be imagined of infantile sexuality. Spanking hits behind what is so gently done in front. Strikes and sexual mutilation accompany it, as shown by Ernst's painting: “The Virgin thrashing the Child Jesus”, where the fallen halo hints at the cut off foreskin. Sexual mutilation castrates the child of the specific organs of autosexuality. It was imposed on the Jews as a measure of enslavement. After having freed them, Moses could not tolerate that some would carry on these barbarous customs. Thinking that these ablations make the phallus a fetish and that a “jealous” God cannot admit such idolatry, he denounces chapter 17 of the Book of Genesis, through the 2nd Commandment. In the same vein, after having killed the Egyptian murderer (Exodus, 2: 11-12), the son of Bedouins chooses nomadism praised by nowadays Jewish writers, rather than genocide of his brothers. This was fatal to him; according to Freud and a few Egyptologists, keeping his skin whole could not save it from the Levites. Similarly deeming circumcision “a barbarous and bleeding rite” (quoted by the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris: Editions du cerf; 1993. p. 433), Abraham Geiger and his mosaicist, democrat and feminist friends founded the first post-Renaissance Jewish movement refusing circumcision. It was an outcry in the community, orchestrated by Hirsh (one of the founders of Zionism). Though having perfectly understood Moses, the reformist could not believe their eyes of the falsification of one of the Ten Commandments. When the rabbinical authorities answered their arguments, most dissidents came back to circumcision, after twenty years resistance. But the “heresy” gained the United States where some practise non-mutilating nomination.
The falsification here denounced hides that the 2nd Commandment forbids circumcision and that God seems to have changed his mind between both Covenants. Indeed, the following verses:
“... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generation, for those who offend me, and who spread my benevolence to the thousandth, for those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus, 20: 5-6, French Rabbinate translation (literally translated). Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1999),
are read as if they said: “… who punish children for the crimes of fathers”, instead of “who punish the crime of fathers upon children” but,
1, if the sentence had this meaning, it would also have this construction,
2, the version of the 2nd Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 9) has also been falsified; it rubs out the terms: “upon children”. How could the most sacred text of the Torah since carved in stone by God in person, have varied?! This blue-pencilling favours the intellectual falsification of the Book of the Exodus, well-known to the people and therefore impossible to falsify physically, whereas the Book of Deuteronomy, a book of priests, was easy to modify. The cut-making could be operated at the return from the exile in Babylon, at the time of the alleged discovery of the manuscript buried in the temple. It enabled setting circumcision, which had had to be abandoned in the jails of Babylone, back into force; it was a custom of the Egyptians, Nebuchadnezzar's worst enemies, of whom it was vital to be distinguished (cf. Sabbah M. and R. The secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002. New York: Helios press; 2004).
3, the text uses neither the double singular (the crime of the father), nor the double plural (the crimes of fathers), which, according to the orthodox interpretation, would designate criminality in general. The simple singular: “the crime of fathers”, refers to a precise well-known crime upon children, that can only be sexual mutilation,
4, asserting that God punishes children for the crimes of fathers, the orthodox interpretation gives the term “jealous” the aberrant meaning of suspicious till the injustice of condemning irresponsible children and grandchildren. The just will not allow such interpretation; a jealous God is jealous of his own creation, which man may not alter,
5, besides, one could not understand why a punishment of criminality applied to the whole family would dead abate at a fourth generation of descendants. On the other hand, it is natural that the punishment of the 2nd Commandment cannot be applied beyond great-grandfathers,
6, it is impossible that two commandments, the 2nd and the 6th: “Do not commit homicide.”, should have the same object,
7, at the contrary, the 2nd Commandment brings out paedo-sexual criminality as very particularly reprehensible. Moses was aware of the gravity of mass crimes, striking a whole part of the population: children in the case in point. Justly locating sexual mutilation amongst crimes against creation (humanity), he punishes it more harshly than ordinary crime. For the first time in history, a legislator enacts an imprescriptible penalty, hitting the elderly years after their crimes,
8, a few verses below the 2nd Commandment, the Bible enlightens it:
“If however you build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, you made them lay. You must not either go up on my altar through degrees so that your nudity does not uncover itself there.” (this touch makes Moses a shrewd sexologist, advocating capped penetration) (Exodus, 20: 21-23)
9, at last, through abolishing sexual mutilation, Moses tolls the bell for the inhuman “exclusion from the people” inflicted to defenders of their children; it instituted discrimination by self-proclaimed “elected”, the worst one since moreover an alleged identity discrimination through divine, or rather diabolical order.
The meaning of the divine periphrasis was therefore denatured. In order to hide that the expression: “the crime of fathers” aims at sexual mutilation, their upholders – and blind victims – cleverly twisted it through sacrilegious introducing a nonexistent double meaning. But if they dared falsifying the 2nd Commandment for boys; they did not dare to do it for girls. Abolishing Abraham's, the 2nd and 6th make the Ten Commandments – the first historical declaration of the duties and rights of man – a declaration of the very first right of the human person: that to physical integrity and ownership of the body. The right to the body forbids both the death penalty and mutilation of children or adults without grave and strictly medical motive. We are requiring its inscription as article 1st of the Universal declaration of human rights. This is a summary; read the whole article at http://intactwiki.org
Part II – THE DEGRADATION OR FORSAKING OF CHRIST'S MESSAGE AGAINST CIRCUMCISION BY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
“Blessed be the gentle ones”
“I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” Jesus (Matt. 9: 13)
Jesus showed himself relatively discreet on the theme of circumcision. However, through receiving baptism by water from John the Baptist in the first act of his public life, he took a stand in favour of a wholly simple ceremony, symbolic of the necessity of hygiene, against the barbarian ritual that does not exempt from this very necessity. Likewise, he invited the apostles to “go and baptise all nations” “in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mathew, 28: 19). On the only occasion when he openly talked about circumcision, it was to denounce it together with the hypocrisy of the Pharisee, ironically opposing mutilating to curing:
“Therefore, if a man can be circumcised on the day of the Sabbath without Moses’s law being violated, why are you angry at me because I entirely cured a man on the day of the Sabbath?” (John, 7: 22-23)
Aware of the fate made to Moses and, very near him, John the Baptist, by the Abrahamists, Jesus did not want to clash head-on with them but his wrath bursts in allusion:
“If one of your members scandalizes you, cut it off and throw it away!”
But after his death, Saint Peter's declaration opposing those who intended to impose circumcision on new converts, clearly shows that the Apostles belonged to Jewish families opposing circumcision:
“Why are you now tempting God, putting on the disciples’ neck a yoke that neither our fathers nor we could bear?”(Acts, XV: 10)
Similarly, after having circumcised Timothy as a strategic concession, Paul stood against some Christians who wanted to impose circumcision on new converts:
“Being Jewish is not being Jewish outside, and circumcision is not outside in the flesh, the true Jew is Jewish inside and circumcision in the heart, according to the spirit and not according to the letter...” (Romans, 2: 28-29)
But this Roman citizen Jew could afford the luxury of not being satisfied by denouncing Pharisee’s hypocrisy; he openly pronounces against circumcision:
“Was he found uncircumcised by the call? He must not get circumcised!” (Corinthians, 1, 7: 18)
“God put every member in the body as he wanted it.” (1 Corinthians, 12: 18)
“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form and in Him you have been made whole...” (Col. 2: 8-14)
The Catholic Church officially rejected circumcision at the council of Jerusalem (46 AD) but Pius XII, in his 1952 declaration, opened the door to “hygienic” circumcision in the USA:
“From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way.”
Contrary to the ethical principle forbidding amputation for preventive purpose, this declaration annihilates the message of gentleness to the child put forward by John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul. Under the pretext of a low risk of urethral infections, it originated the rush to very anti-autosexual neo-natal circumcision in American Catholic families and hospital institutions.
Modern Catechism is more rigorous but it only condemns the circumcision of “innocents”:
“Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”
What about the “guilty” ones? For this rule does not apply to voluntary adult circumcision. We cannot but bewail this omission, unaware of man’s physiology. Nonetheless, since 1960 (John XXIII papacy), the feast of circumcision of Christ disappeared from the calendar but one does not understand that the Church should condemn autosexuality as sin of lewdness and be silent about ritual excision and circumcision whereas Christ and the first Christians clearly took the defence of the foreskin.
Protestantism advocates returning to the Bible. But only Anglo-Saxon puritanism accepted bringing circumcision back into force.
Part III – THE KORAN AGAINST SEXUAL MUTILATION
Though the Koran, God’s words to Mohammed, does not quote the word “khitan” (circumcision) once, it forbids excision and circumcision through verses 6: 115 and 16: 890 that exclude everything which does not appear in the book of Islam. Verse 10: 59 is still clearer:
“Did you see the gifts God granted you? You hold some lawful, others unlawful. Did God allow you this?” (10: 59)
Abounding in affirmations of the perfection of creation: 3: 6, 3: 190-91, 13: 8, 25: 2, 30: 30, 32: 7, 38: 27, 40: 64, 54: 49, 64: 3, 82: 6-8 and 95: 4:
“Lord, you did not create this in vain!” (3: 191)
“… no changes in the creation of God, here is religion in its rightfulness…” (30: 30),
the Holy Book seems to echo Paul, the apostle of non circumcision and an upholder, with Jesus and John the Baptist, of baptism by water:
“God put every member in the body as he wanted it.” (1 Corinthians, 12: 18)
The Koran also appears condemning the generalization of circumcision by Abraham as belonging to the old polytheist customs:
“When the Lord tested Abraham by certain words and he had accomplished them, God said: “I shall make you a guide for men.” Abraham said: “And my offspring?” The Lord said: “My alliance does not concern the unjust.” (2: 124)
“…Cursed be he (the devil) who said: “I shall take a certain part of your servants, I shall lead them astray, I shall make them empty promises, I shall order them to cut the ears of cattle and change God's creation.” Whoever takes Satan for master, rather than God, is obviously doomed to loss.” (4: 118-119)
At last, while mysteriously saying the contrary, the wording of verses 2: 136 and 3: 84 seems to put apart Jesus and Moses, both opponents to circumcision:
“Say, “We believe in God, in what was disclosed to us, in what was disclosed to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, the (twelve) tribes; in what was imparted to Moses, Jesus, all the prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between them and to God we are submitted.” (2:136)
Sura 17 seems to enlighten this mystery through privileging “certain” prophets:
“We gave certain prophets a preference over others...” (17: 55)
Now that we know that the 2nd commandment condemns sexual mutilation, it seems that the Koran prefers Moses and Jesus due to their rejection of sexual amputation but that, because of the fate made to his two great predecessors by the supporters of circumcision, Mohammed did not want to forbid it straight out. However, the fact that, like Jesus but unlike Moses, Mohammed ignored what a foreskin is:
“No one has ever seen my foreskin.” (Haddith),
probably has a lot to do in this decision.
Part IV – THE DESCENDANTS OF AMERICAN SLAVES IGNORE SEXUAL MUTILATION
Blacks from Americas bring an historical proof of the cogency of the fight against sexual mutilation. The most beautiful productions of the black race: blues, gospel, jazz and reggae, are the work of women and men who do not mutilate their children. And when Césaire affirms that no man may have a right of property on another man, he obviously includes children and women. So, when he quotes the odious colonial saying:
“Beating a nigger is feeding him”,
he stands against enslavers of all colours who dispose of the body of children to mutilate their sex affirming:
“It’s for your own sake.”
Besides, he does not seem to claim African tradition:
“The umbilical cord has been cut.”
At all events, he never made sexual mutilation a “value of niggerism”. Like the Marrano Jews forcibly converted to Christianity by the Inquisition, the descendants of the slaves took advantage of the prohibition of excision and circumcision. For a slave costs a lot. When they noticed on the one hand the number of deaths through haemorrhages and infections, and, on the other hand, the number of days of forced immobilization during healing, white enslavers who, at variance with their black counterparts, had a short-term view, forbade sexual mutilation. It was the great benefit of slavery. It eased the life of the deportees. So, at the time of the abolition, the ancient slaves did not claim to come back to ritual mutilation. They had realized the number of avoided infirmities due to botched operations (slaughtered vulvas, amputated glans, etc.) and the cruelty of festivities during which the laughter of some fed in the pain and tears of others. But foremost, the children of the excised and circumcised had tried out the gain in sexual pleasure of remaining intact, without becoming profligate for all that.
Custom is one of the sources of law. The example of the American slaves shows that it is for customs as for laws; those that should never have existed must be abolished. When custom clashes with ethics, the legislator must rule in favour of ethics. Now that we know that the three great religious founders agree to condemn all kind of sexual mutilation, the religious too should make this condemnation a theme of ecumenical gathering.
GET UP, STAND UP AGAINST BABYLON DON’T LET BABY ALONE AGAINST THE KNIFE
Revised and uncut for lack of time version of the lecture pronounced 4th September 2008 in the University of Keele (U.-K.), at the 10th international symposium organized by NOCIRC, NORM-UK and the University of Keele school of law.
Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux), HEC, Lic. Sc. Éco, DECS.
oldsigismund@hotmail.com
Psychoanalysis researcher and a specialist of infantile sexual mutilation (ISM), author of “Sexual mutilation, the child’s point of view”, for free at intactwiki.org or http://groups.msn.com/circabolition, of which this text is an excerpt.
Sign the world petition against ISM at http://montagunocircpetition.org.
Non violence is as fundamental as violence, love and hatred, beauty and ugliness. But power is at the tip of the tongue and the sweet violence of speech, if one takes hold of it, can silence weapons.
Fascism is: “Shut up or I’ll shut it up to you!”, democracy: “Talk all you want!”. In Loveland, one is neutral; “You talk to me; I heal you; I speak to you, you cure me.”
There are only facts; interpreting is that of the prince.
