Everything begins 4000 years ago at 2000 BC. in the fertile crescent - which is a semi-circle around the Arabian desert and the center for many civilisations (Jerusalem, Tyre, Sidon, Damascus in the west, Haran and Nineveh in the north, and Ashur, Babylon, Ur in the east). Civilisations existed here from the Stone Age right up the golden age of Graeco-Roman culture. Peace and prosperity must have reigned supreme at those years along the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates because no inscriptions are discovered as yet which record any large-scale warlike activities then. Then suddenly a horde of nomadic tribes of Semitic stock from the heart of the Arabian desert launched violent assaults on the north and north west, on Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. These Amorites attacked the kingdoms of the fertile crescent. Empires of Sumer and Akkad collapsed 1960 BC. Amorites founded a number of states and dynasties. One of them was eventually to become supreme: The first dynasty of Babylon, a great centre of power 1830-1530 BC. Its sixth King was the famous Hammurabi. And one of these tribes of semitic nomads was destined to be of fateful significance for millions of people throughout the world. It was a little group, perhaps only a family, the family of Abraham, forefather of the patriarchs.

Covenant in Hebrew is 'Berith' (This must be the equivalent of 'ber'at' in Arabic?). This Hebrew word, 'berith,' translated as covenant is basically a 'contract.' It denotes a relation between two persons or groups, between God and man. This relation is characterised as harmonious existence (peace), law and order, reconciliation, mutual or unilateral protection, trust etc. But the impression we get from the Old Testament as a whole as to what this 'contract' characterizes foremost, is 'imposition of very strict rules' on this tribe of people. Which is the fundamental act on the part of the 'supreme overseer,' that created Israel out of nomadic tribes. The suzerainty treaty, as well as other near-eastern types of covenant, has been adduced as evidence for the early age of the Old Testament covenant form. But when the monarchy became the central authority in the 10th century BC. this ancient institution was radically changed. A similar covenant to the one between YAHWEH and Israel existed in the political form among Hittites and other peoples in the 2nd millennium BC: This is the so called suzerainty treaty in which the suzerain binds his vassals to himself unilaterally and makes stipulations which they are to observe. In the Sinai covenant Israel is inaugurated as YAHWEH's people and exhorted to obedience to the stipulations of the covenant.

As Spenta Mainyu pointed out earlier, this covenant between Israel's God and Israel is basically a 'contract' (Genesis 17:7-11). It is claimed to be another step, a symbol, in the 'supreme overseer's plan and purpose in history. This plan and purpose has started with the contract supposedly between this God and Noah. It was about a harmonious existence for all mankind in primeval times. The second step in this plan is the contract between this God and Abraham. It was about this God's promise to protect the people of Israel. In the third step, this God makes a contract with Moses at Mount Sinai . This final contract was the revelation of this God's will to his people - Israel. This progress is a very clever one. Starting with God's interest in the destiny of mankind as a whole; becoming Abram's personal God; then becoming a tribal God by selecting a group of people - Israel - as his main concern. (This progress will take another step, this time without a contract, with this God becoming a universal God further in the Old Testament; and later on this same God will 'reveal'(!) Qoran to the tribe of Kuraysh in Arabia, 'in their languaege' and through Mohamed ('one of them') so they can understand the divine message. In other words this God becomes a 'tribal supreme overseer' again. But Qoran cleverly and progressively, presents this God as the sole creator and the arbiter mundi.

Since the time of Abraham, who, the Mosaic belief system considers the ancestor of all the nations ('Nations' here means the Semitic tribes, neither the nations of the region nor the world, that's for certain) a dialogue was going on between this God - Rabb - and the mankind. From time to time Abram managed to persuade his Rabb in line with his (Abram's) thoughts. The Covenant - 'contract' - was meant to be kept by Abraham, but he was not meant for this contract. He was not created(!) for this contract. If he was, his God need not have made a contract with him. The covenant was a testimony between this God and Abraham. Abraham neded this covenant but this God did not need a testimony. With this contract this God established a testimony for the mankind: For Abraham and the future generations this God would be the 'sole and only God,' and this testimony was initiated with this contract. The commandments of Israel's God are specific regulations for the Hebrews. That is why, sin for Jewish people is not a spiritual matter but a special, structural, and legal (pertaining to the divine law) one. In accordance with the contract each Jew has the right to discuss his/her wrongdoing directly with Rabb. There is no need for an intermediary or a priest to reach the God, Rabb (This must be the origin of the identical belief in Islam. Zoroastrianism is the origin of the Jewish and Moslem concepts of direct relationship with God).

The call of Abraham inaugurates the special contract of God with him and his descendants, and the remainder of the book is devoted to the history of his contract as it passes from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob and thus to the tribes of Israel. In the narrative about each of the patriarchs the events of his career are intertwined with reflections that anticipate the later experiences of Israel. Stories concentrate on the human frailties of the patriarchs which also anticipate the history of Israel. Throughout the book is the theme of God's promises to Abraham and through him, to the people with whom he made a contract. These promises in turn form the ground for the commandments and the warnings of later books. Genesis is the beginning of the Bible; the outline of the Bible and its message begins with Genesis. Without this the Old or New Testament narrative would not make sense.

This subject of circumcision in the Old Testament is initiated with Genesis 17:10-14 There Rabb - Abraham's God - makes a covenant with him; 'Every man child among you shall be circumcised...And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin...And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you...and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant...the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.' According to Genesis 17:24 Abraham did not carry out this basic necessity of the Covenant with his God, Rabb, because he was ninety years old when God made the covenant with him, and according to Genesis 17:24 he was '...ninety years old and nine when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin,' in other words, nine years later. Genesis 17:25 makes clear that Ishmael (Son of Abraham) was circumcised when he was 13 years of age. Genesis 17:26 tells us that Abraham and Ishmael was circumcised on the same day. Genesis 17:27 ends the story by telling us that all the men in the house of Abraham - born in the house and bought with money - were circumcised with him on the very day. The so called contract between God and Abraham on circumcision, in effect, means the introduction of this practice to Palestine, because it was originally an Egyptian tradition. Phallus in Egypt was considered sacred as the symbol of fertility. Presentation to the God of a piece of the foreskin showed the respect and loyalty to God.

The second event related to circumcision is told in Joshua 5:2-7: "At the time the Lord (Rabb) said unto Joshua, make yourselves sharp knives, and circumcise the children of Israel the second time.' Joshua did as he was told. He circumcised the Sons of Israel. What was the reason for this "second" circumcision? Well the men in the group which came out of Egypt were all circumcised but they died on the way. Those born on the way were not circumcised because they had been on the move for 40 years. Joshua circumcised them. These stories show us that circumcision is practiced in Egypt and these people that came out of Egypt took with them this tradition of circumcision. While this 'surgical' operation was going on as a tradition bronze was in use, but Joshua used a stone knife in circumcision. Why? Some scholars think that the use of stone knife shows that this tradition has been going on since the stone age.

On this subject of circumcision, Exodus 4:22-26 tells us a strange story; Rabb (Rabb is the God of Abraham, and of Moses, and later the God of Islam under the name of Allah) is speaking to Moses and orders him to go to the Pharaoh, tell him that Israel is his son, even his firstborn, so the Pharaoh should let them go to serve him (Rabb), if the Pharaoh refuses, he (Rabb) will slay his firstborn; then Rabb meets him (Pharaoh or the son; it is not clear) the story suddenly takes a strange turn and Zipporah/Tsippora (wife of Moses) enters the scene, takes a sharp stone, cuts off the foreskin of her son, casts it at his feet, and says that he is surely a bloody husband to her; he is a bloody husband because of the circumcision. Here one immediately thinks that Rabb must have met the Pharaoh. The logic of the story being told dictates a meeting between God and the Pharaoh. If, so why did Tsippora enter the scene? Tsippora is the wife of Moses, and she has her son with her. If we follow the logic of the story, this boy should have been the one Rabb wanted to kill. If so, why would Rabb want to kill Moses' son? Tsippora calls the one who meets them as her 'husband,' so that person must be Moses. If so, why would Moses want to kill his son? Tsippora throws the foreskin at the feet of Moses? Why? Woman and child belong to him. And the one who wants to kill the child is not Moses but Rabb, and Rabb wants to kill the son of the Pharaoh not the son of Moses. If we go by what is said in Hosea 2:16: "And it shall be at that day, said the Lord (Rabb) you shall call me Ishi (my husband) and not Baali (God of the Canaanites)," then we can say, by stretching the symbolism, that Tsippora has thrown the foreskin of her son to the feet of the God (Rabb) who self-appointed himself 'the husband of Israel.' There are those who interpret this strange story, as God being infuriated because Moses was still uncircumcised, God tried to kill him, but the wife of Moses quickly circumcised him and saved his life. What is all this? Another example which shows the ulterior motives and the incompetence of the writers of the Old Testament. This whole story is just nonsense.

It was felt that this tradition of circumcision should be kept (because it was turned into a sign of identification for the Sons of Israel) but at the same time efforts were made to separate this tradition from Egypt. The confusing and incomprehensible passage in Exodus 4:24-26 could only be explained by the intentional denial which betrays the event. YHWH (Rabb) is cross with Moses because he was not circumcised. (Moses took his people out of Egypt the Old Testament tells us. So if he is not circumcised then this tradition could not have originated from Egypt). But the wife of Moses, who is a Midianite, was quick to circumcise him, and this act saved the life of Moses. Secondly, this YHWH is the God of Abraham as well, because as you remember that God, called Rabb, made a covenant with Abraham on circumcision. So, if YHWH is now insisting on this 'sign of identification' then YHWH must be Rabb. These are most probably the efforts by the writers of the Old Testament, first to deny openly that YHWH was a new God to the Sons of Israel, and secondly to separate the tradition of circumcision from Egypt. How? Well did not Rabb make a contract with Abraham on circumcision? If we have to go by the story told in Genesis 17:10-14, 24-27 Abraham was not circumcised before going to and after returning from Egypt. So, again this could not be a tradition originating from Egypt. It all started with the Covenant. It is peculiar to the followers of Abraham and to his seed. There are those who think that in order to connect this 'sign of identification' to Abraham and to his seed, myths related to the Patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - were created. YHWH was claimed to have been the God of the Patriarchs. But Abraham and his sons called this God Rabb. So once Rabb and YHWH are proven to be the same God, there is no problem. But this operation by the writers of the Old Testament necessitated YHWH accepting openly that, those people did not know him as YHWH, that he did not give the specific name he was known to those people (Exodus 6:3); he said he was known to them 'by the name of God Almighty' (which is equivalent to Rabb). If YHWH is Rabb then Abraham's God, and the God of Moses are one; and the origin of the 'sign of identification' is the Covenant made when Abraham was alive. So Covenant is peculiar to Abraham and to his seed (the Sons of Israel) and has nothing to do with Egypt.

(The idea that a supreme overseer choosing a people as his, just like that, and appointing himself their sole(!) God is puzzlling in itself. A supreme overseer looking for a 'unique' people is unheard of. Moses' going to the Hebrews and making them his 'chosen people' is much more plausible.)

But circumcision was not an Egyptian invention. It was being practiced in the whole of Africa.

Qoran considered itself a natural next and last step in the 'religion of Abraham,' which includes Moses, Jesus and a number of smaller 'messengers' among them. So one naturally expects to see the mention of circumcision in Qoran. To no avail! There is no mention of it in Qoran. Why? Some scholars say that it must have been a tradition among the Arabs, and they felt no need to mention it, or it may have been taken over from the Sons of Israel following the death of Mohamed, or they may not have felt the need to have a 'sign of identification.' Still, there are those who say that Mohamed was circumcised.

The reason behind the non-existence of circumcision among the Christians is explained in the New Testament: To the Romans 4:9-13 tells us that '...faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness...in uncircumcision (when he was not circumcised)...the promise, to Abraham and to his seed, that he should be the heir of the world was not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.' Which means in plain understandable words that Abraham believed in God when he was uncircumcised. And he was 'given the world' because of his faith. Circumcision is the law, but faith is much more important than the law. That is why the believers of the Christian faith are not required to get circumcised. Galatians 3:7-13 gives us the story: "..those faithful are blessed with faithful Abraham...Who are of the matters of law are under the curse...And the law is not of faith..Christ has redeemed us from the curse of law." (Qoran and consequently Mohamed recognize the Old Testament and the New Testament, and the messengers to whom those books were revealed(!), Moses, Jesus. Mohamed considers Patriarch Abraham as an 'ancestor.' So this is an unbroken chain starting with Abraham and ending with Mohamed. Which necessitates those orthodox Arab believers of Mohamed and their 'followers' who give prominence to the 'law', 'Sharia,' to heed this call: 'Faith' comes first.

There is another event in time which is related to circumcision: When Cyrus the Great occupied Babylon, he let the Jewish priests return to their homeland. The first Temple in Jerusalem was in ruins, and 70 years after the destruction of the first one a second Temple was built. Rule of the Temple priests was re-established. This is the period, especially in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, when differences between the Jews and non-Jews were established. The chief difference among them is the circumcision. Others are the keeping of Sabbath, adoption of the Jewish year, obedience to Torah, marriage within the faith, and fulfilling the essential obligations toward the Temple. In this period, meetings at the synagogues continued and spread under the supervision of the scribes. Scribes were working not only in the writing of the religious texts but also in the understanding and interpretation of these texts. These scribes were the forerunners of the teachers - rabbis.

ABRAHAM AND THE SUBJECT OF 'SACRIFICE'

Now let us see again what the story is. Abraham's God commands him to offer his son as a sacrifice to him (the God). Abraham obeys the command, takes his son Isaac to Mount Moriah (This is going to be the place where the Temple is built). As he was going to carry out the divine(!) command and present his son as a burnt offering Abraham's supreme overseer intervened, produced a ram to be sacrificed, and stopped the attempt.

Sumerians used to offer sacrifices to make their supreme overseers happy, to wish something from them, to be cured of ailments, and in return for their oaths. The animals to be sacrificed has to be healthy, and the person offering the animal should be clean bodily. Killing of the animals were accompanied by special prayers recited by the priests. The right hip and the internal organs of the animal is offered to the supreme overseer and the rest would be distributed to the people around. Moslems make their sacrifices in identical conditions, accept killing of the animal by a hodja - a Moslem cleric - is not necessary, and those pieces of the animal the Sumerians offered to the supreme overseer are left to the person who makes the offering, and the rest of the animal was given out to the people around. Though there was no human sacrifice in Sumer, we know that it existed in Israel and ancient Greece. Hebrews made human sacrifices in the form of a kind of contract with the supreme overseer, to please persons dead or living, or to protect their health (Samuel II, 21:6-9). Arabs also had this primitive practice. Prophet Abraham is said to have ended it when he arrived in Arabia from Mesopotamia.

Biblical language is abstract. It is only natural. The subject matter is abstract. The Biblical narration is much more rich in images than ours. Anything that we reduce to a short conceptual formulation is converted into a story in the Bible where the descriptions are often puzzles whose ambiguity is quite often intentional. Of course! As Spenta Mainyu pointed out earlier, this difficult-to-comprehend style and approach, and the abstract symbolism are the fundamental prerequisites of a belief system. There should be a vague idea and an incomplete comprehension, so the ordinary person is intrigued and titillated by this 'haven' (belief system) which promises an afterlife, eternity, a 'God-like existence' in the nether-world, in return for an easy, effortless, and 'fruitful' obedience on this earth, in this life. This is a 'haven' which lets individuals shirk off their responsibilities and duties and expect everything from the 'supreme beings.' So when the personal 'supreme overseer' of Abraham orders(!) him to sacrifice his son, he has nothing to do but to obey. But there is more to it..

This attempted sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham upon orders from his personal God, but stopped at the very last moment (Genesis 22) may be taken as an example. How? Well, it can be interpreted in three ways: First it may be the trace of a primitive initiation rite, a kind of blood baptism. Only the person who wholly and unconditionally submits himself to his God becomes a full member of the community. Secondly, it may be taken as a renunciation, in more or less allegorical form, the custom of human sacrifice and more particularly of the sacrifice of boys which was widespread in the ancient east. Thirdly, it may be considered a test of faith for Abraham. The author of this chapter in the Bible, suggests this when he writes at the beginning of his account : 'God did tempt Abraham.' The underlying idea is 'submission at all costs' to the divine(!) being to become eternal and have a place in the 'other world.' It sounds extremely silly today, but in those days with all the ignorance around, plus the primitive state of the mankind these ideas were extremely important, especially to create nations and to establish a domination. When we search for a meaning of this story, what can we say? The writer/writers of the Old Testament may have tried to convey the idea that human sacrifice was stopped in Abraham's lifetime as a result of this divine(!) intervention.

But in reality this practice must have continued until the Romans. Molek, who is mentioned in the Old Testament, is the Canaanite god Baal. Because this supreme entity is reported to have had a special taste for young tender meat, children were burnt in the furnace in the abdomen of its statue, and God was fed. Exodus 34: 19-20 tries to give the impression that human sacrifice is not welcome anymore, but this practice continues. In the Mosaic Law offering children, and human sacrifice to Molek is banned. Because Molek is a foreign God. There is nothing wrong with a sacrifice to the proper supreme entity. Judges 11:30: Yeftah makes an offering to the God. If he returned victorious over Ammonites he would offer the first person he comes across as a burnt offering. In other words the sacrifice becomes a contract between man and the God. It is a 'payment' in return for the request from the God. In Judges 11:34 we read that the first person Yeftah came across was his daughter. He had to burn her alive. Because it was his promise. His daughter asks for a permission for two months. She descends to the mountains south. Returns two months later and is sacrificed by burning alive. She was a virgin. That is why the daughters of Israel mourned for four days every year. This means that human sacrifice in Israel goes on. As we gather from the Old Testament, efforts were made in the land of Canaan to end the child sacrifice, as we read in Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5.

Animal sacrifice, or any kind of sacrifice for that matter, is the continuation of the most primitive of actions passed down to our present day 'modern(!)' societies, practiced by those most primitive communities of thousands of years ago, to appease their 'supreme overseers,' to have a good fortune in this world and to reserve a place for themselves in the supposed 'paradise' of after-life. In this specific sacrifice story we find the memory of western Semites sacrificing their sons to Baal, their 'supreme overseer.' This ceremony in the Phoenician cities used to become an act of religious madness, and hundreds of children some of them even suckling babies were used to burn alive. This story must have appeared in the period when the sons of Israel started worshipping the sole(!) God, their God. We know that Israel used to make human sacrifice in the ancient times. But not only human sacrifice was made to the Gods of Semites, animal sacrifice was made, wine and pleasant perfumes were offered also. The Old Testament shows us that the Sons of Israel continued with this tradition for a very very long time, and prophets fought openly against it. Western Semites showed their respect for their Gods by erecting stones and wooden stakes for their Gods. The Temples - homes of Gods - were constructed in later periods. There used to be an outer and an inner chamber in these Temples, and the statues or the symbols of Gods used to be put in these chambers. The Sons of Israel took these Temples as examples and built their Temples. These Temples were called 'hegal' a deterioration of 'egal' (meaning 'big house') in Sumerian. This shows that even their Temples were taken from the Sumerians.