“Thou shall not kill.” — Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, defenders of the right to the body — Sigismond
From Peaceful Beginnings
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 (of the prime erection). It leads straight to that of the cross, for rebels. Actually, jealous fathers intended to prevent incest. 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 legal 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 in Gilgal after his death – Joshua, 5: 2-9); there is no 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 Mosaic, 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 and guess 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; 1966),
are read as if they said: “… who punish children for the crimes of fathers”, 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: 8) has also been falsified; it rubs out the terms: “upon children”. But 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 Nebuchadnezzar, back into force; it was a custom of the Egyptians, his 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 does not say “the crimes” but “the crime”, 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 descendants, irresponsible for paternal criminality. The just will not allow such interpretation; a jealous God is jealous of his own creation, which man may not alter,
5, besides, one cannot understand why a punishment of criminality applied to the whole family would dead abate at the fourth generation of children. On the other hand, it is natural that the punishment of the 2nd Commandment cannot be applied beyond great-grandfathers,
6, the orthodox interpretation uselessly duplicates the 6th Commandment: “Do not commit homicide.”,
7, the 2nd, at the contrary, brings out paedo-sexual mutilation 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 of the people” inflicted to the defenders of their children; it institutionalized discrimination by some 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 blasphemous introducing a nonexistent double meaning.
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, and duty, of the human person: keeping theirs and other people's body intact. The right to the body forbids both the death penalty and sexual 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 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 Indeed, they exclude everything that 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 and 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.” (a Haddith),
probably has a lot to do in this decision.
Part III – 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
Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux), HEC, Lic. Sc. Éco.
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.
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.
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.
