Food for thought: "Ignorance is an affront"
	YOU ARE IN DARKNESS.
abraham page 1  abraham page 2

AV'RAM AND THE COVENANT

Everything began 4000 years ago at ~2000 B.C. in the fertile crescent - which is a semi-circle around the Arabian desert and the center for many civilisations (Yerushalim, Tyre, Sidon, Dimishk-esh Sham (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 Greco-Roman culture. Peace and prosperity must have reigned supreme in those years along the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates because no inscriptions have been discovered as yet which record any large scale warlike activities. Then suddenly a horde of nomadic tribes of Semitic stock from the heart of the Arabian desert have started launching violent assaults on the north and northwest, on Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine. These Amorites attacked the kingdoms of the fertile crescent. Empires of Sumer and Akkad collapsed in 1960 B.C. Amorites founded a number of states and dynasties. One of them was to become supreme: The first dynasty of Babylon, a great centre of power between 1830-1530 B.C. 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.

Covenant in Hebrew is 'Berith' ('Ber'at' in Arabic?). 'Berith', translated as covenant, is basically a contract. It denotes a relation between two persons or groups, between god and mankind in our case. 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 the imposition of very strict rules on this tribe of people. Which is the fundamental act on the part of the supreme overseer, who has created Israel out of  a multitude of nomadic tribes. The suzerainty treaty, as well as other near-eastern types of covenant, have been offered as evidence for the early age of the Old Testament covenant form. But when the monarchy has become the central authority in the 10th century B.C. this ancient institution was radically changed. A similar covenant to the one between YHVH and Israel has existed in the political form amongst the Hittites and other peoples in the 2nd. millennium B.C: 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 YHVH's people and were ordered to obey the stipulations of the covenant.

As I have 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 supreme entity 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 superior entity and Av'ram, which was about this 'entity's promise to protect the people of Israel. In the third step, this 'entity' makes a contract with Moses on mount Sinai (Actually mount Horeb). This final contract was the revelation of this supreme entity's will to his people - Israel. What an imagination! Very clever!

• Progress has started with the supreme being's interest in the destiny of mankind as a whole;

• He became Av'ram's personal god;

• Then by selecting a group of people - Israel - as his main concern this god has become a tribal god .

• This progress will take another step, this time without a contract, and  this god will become  a universal god following the intervention by Ezra the priest, as told in the sections of the Old Testament written after the exile.

As far as the followers of the Hagarene Messenger ('Muhammad') is concerned this plan was finalized only after this god's revelation to 'Muhammad'.

Since the time of Av'ram, the ancestor of all the nations according to the Mosaic faith ('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 and the mankind. From time to time Av'ram managed to win his god over to his  thoughts. The Covenant - contract - was meant to be kept by Av'ram, 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 supreme being and Av'ram. Av'ram needed this covenant but this god did not need a testimony. With this contract this god has established a testimony for the mankind: For Abraham and the future generations this god would be the 'sole god,' and the testimony was initiated with this contract. Here the meaning of the 'sole' god is not the 'only god in existence', but a certain one which is chosen as the god out of a multitude. 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 one (pertaining to the divine law). In accordance with the contract each Jew has the right to discuss his or her wrongdoing directly with the supreme being. There is no need for an intermediary or a priest to reach the supreme being. This must be the origin of the identical belief in Islam, which could be traced back to the Zoroastrian faith.

The call of Av'ram (from now on 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 I'zak to Ya'kub and 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 humanly weaknesses of the patriarchs.  Throughout the book  the theme is 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.

 ABRAHAM AND CIRCUMCISION

The outline of  Bible and its message begins with Genesis. Without it neither the Old nor the New Testament narratives would  make sense. The subject of circumcision in the Old Testament is initiated with Genesis 17:10-14. There  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." (Circumcision is vital in our search for the real character, who we know as Av'ram, Abraham and Ibrahim.)

According to Genesis 17:24 Abraham did not carry out this basic necessity of the covenant with his god. How do we know? Well,   he was ninety years old when his 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 Ish'mael (Son of Abraham) was circumcised when he was 13 years of age. Genesis 17:26 tells us that Abraham and Ish'mael 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 (The true story is completely different). Circumcision was originally thought as 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 him. The Sabians in Egypt have also had circumcision. Keeping in mind the influence of the Sabian faith on the religions of the region, including the Mosaic belief system,  the Sabian (Mandaean) connection is the actual link between the practice of circumcision in Egypt and Israel.

The second event related to circumcision is told in Joshua 5:2-7: "At the time the Lord  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. Do you know the reason for this second circumcision? According to the story, the men in the group which came out of Egypt were all circumcised but they have died on the way. Those born on the way were not circumcised because they had been on the move for 40 years. Therefore, they were the ones who Joshua had circumcised. These stories may indicate that circumcision was practiced in Egypt and the people that came out of Egypt  took it with them, but the Mandaean-Sabian connection is crucial. This surgical operation was performed traditionally by a bronze instrument, but Joshua used a stone knife instead. Do you know why? Some scholars think that the use of the stone knife shows that this tradition has been going on since the Stone Age. The stone implement is accepted as an indication to the age of this tradition.

On this subject of circumcision, Exodus 4:22-26 tells us a strange story; the god of Abraham and of Moses (Rabb, El Shadday, YHVH, and later the god of Islam under the name of Allah), is speaking to Moses and orders him to go to the pharaoh and tell him that Israel is his son, even his firstborn, so the pharaoh should let them go to serve Him (god). If the pharaoh refuses, He  will slay his (pharaoh's) firstborn; then god meets him (who is he, the Pharaoh or the son?); 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. Is he a bloody husband because of the circumcision? Here one immediately thinks that God 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 god wanted to kill. If so, why would god want to kill the son of Moses? 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 god, and god 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,  you shall call me Ishi (my husband) and not Baali (gods of the Canaanites)," we can say, by stretching the symbolism, that Tsippora has thrown the foreskin of her son to the feet of the god,  who self-appointed himself  as 'the husband of Israel'. Some interpret this strange story as god being infuriated because Moses was still uncircumcised, and  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.

• If Moses was not circumcised then this tradition could not have originated from Egypt. It must be a tradition particular to the Hebrews.

• YHVH is supposedly the god of Abraham as well, who made a covenant with him on circumcision. So, if YHVH is now insisting on this 'sign of identification' then YHVH must be the god of Abraham. Therefore,  the concept of a single god carrying out its scheme since the time of Noah to the sons of Israel is intact.

But in reality this is a naive effort  by the writers of the Old Testament;

• First to deny openly that YHVH was a new god to the sons of Israel,

• Secondly to separate the tradition of circumcision from Egypt.

How? Well Rabb or El Shadday did not 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 (There is no proof of this visit to Egypt anywhere). It all started with the covenant. It is particular to the followers of Abraham and to his seed. Some think that in order to connect  this 'sign of identification' to Abraham and to his seed, the myths related to the patriarchs were invented (This could be right as we shall see later).

YHVH is claimed to have been the god of the patriarchs. But Abraham and his sons have called this god something else. So  if  their god (who was once called either El Shadday or Rabb or  something else)  and YHVH are proven to be the same God, there is no problem. But this operation by the writers of the Old Testament has necessitated YHVH accepting openly that  those people did not know him as YHVH, that he did not announce the specific name he was known to those people (Exodus 6:3); that he said he was known to them "by the name of god almighty".  If YHVH is also Abraham's god, then there is one god. 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 exclusive to Abraham and to his seed (the ons of Israel) and has nothing to do with Egypt. A clever scheme but futile.

The idea of a supreme creator is sufficiently bizarre in itself, and as if that was not enough, here is the concept of a creator choosing a group of people as his 'nation', and appointing himself as their sole god. A supreme overseer looking for a 'unique' people is unheard of. Instead of this unacceptable notion, let us substitute  Moses for god. Then we end up with Moses, a man,  going to Hebrews and making them his 'chosen people'. Isn't this alternative much more plausible?  If it is,  then wouldn't you rather believe in the proposition that the events might have developed like this, but was reported in the codebook with the characters changing places and acquiring a divine dimension, because Israel in that  phase of their history needed a divine intervention  in their progress towards becoming a nation?

The faith of Sabians is said to have preceded  the Mosaic belief system and Islam. This conclusion naturally leads us to the idea that some aspects of the Sabian belief system were taken over by Judaism and Islam. 'Hanifs' or 'hanifiyyun' as the Arabs has called them, are one of the main branches of the Sabians (Mandaeans). Circumcision for them was a religious and social necessity. They were living in Irak and called the 'Sabians of Abraham/Ibrahim.' Circumcision is said to have existed before Judaism in Egypt, among the Sabians living there. Jews are said to have taken it over from them. One scholar writes:

• "Circumcision could not have been a sign of identification at the time of the Old Testament, because those people which the Sons of Israel were in touch with were also circumcised. Furthermore Egyptian priest-doctors had transformed the circumcision into an instrument of hygiene no honourable person could avoid. They considered those who did not get rid of their foreskins as barbarians. The children of Israel considered their condition (not being circumcised) as a drawback."   (They must have felt as outcasts.)

Kuran considers  itself as the 'natural  last step' in the 'religion of Abraham,'  So one naturally expects to see the mention of circumcision in Kuran. But there is no mention of it in Kuran. What could be the reason?

• Some scholars say that it must have been a tradition among the Arabs, and they felt no need to mention it.

• It may have been taken over from the sons of Israel following the death of 'the Hagarene messenger (Muhammad').

• They may not have felt the need to have a 'sign of identification.' Still, some say that the Hagarene messenger was circumcised. Some others maintain that he was not circumcised until he had declared his belief system, then he had it done (This seems to be the truth.) I am of the opinion that, the ancestors of the Hagarene Messenger were of the believers of the Mosaic faith. Therefore he must have been circumcised and since he had declared a faith that was within the Abrahamic line there was no need to emphasize the circumcision.

But does it matter that much? Aren't there uncircumcised men on earth leading happy and fulfilling lives? For instance the Christians.. The reason behind the non-existence of circumcision among the Christians is explained in the New Testament:

• "..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" (Epistle to  the Romans 4:9-13). 

Which means in plain understandable words that Abraham had faith 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."

The Hagarene messenger ('Muhammad') and consequently Kuran  recognize the Old Testament and the New Testament, and the messengers to whom those books were revealed(!), Moses and Jesus. The Hagarene Messenger considers patriarch Abraham as his ancestor. So, this is an unbroken chain starting with Abraham and ending with 'Muhammad'. Don't you think that orthodox Arab believers of Muhammad and their incognizant followers who give prominence to the 'law', the 'Sharia', must  heed this call: 'Faith' comes first, and  an outward sign is  just an appearance.

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 Yerushalim was in ruins, and 70 years after the destruction of the first one a second temple was built. Rule of the temple priests was reinstated. 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;

• Keeping of the Sabbath,

• Adoption of the Jewish year,

• Obedience to Torah,

• Marriage within the faith,

• Fulfilling the essential obligations towards  the temple.

In this period, meetings at the synagogues have continued and spread under the supervision of the scribes. Scribes were involved not only with the writing of the religious texts but also with  understanding and interpretation of them. These scribes were the forerunners of the teachers - rabbis.

Until now we have followed the stories in the official texts. But before going further we have to find out the real Av'ram-Abraham-Ibrahim.

THE REAL AV'RAM-ABRAHAM-IBRAHIM

BAHRAM THE MANDAEAN

Av’ram of the Mosaic texts  (if he had ever lived) must have worshipped the Moon god Sin in Ur, El Shadday ('god of the mountain') when he arrived in Canaan, where he has erected a stone to El at Beth El ('house of El') near Shechem. But the Judaic literature assert for particular reasons that this god was YHVH, and not any other. That is the closest we can get to the truth via the Jewish texts. But this man called Av'ram-Abraham in the Torah was actually someone quite different.

I have mentioned elsewhere in this site that the stories about Av’ram, Ya’kub (Yakob, Yah-kobe) and I’zak look like inventions with a specific purpose of finding an origin for Israel back in history: An origin in Aram, which is Syria (including Irak). Not a single thing about Av’ram is definite if we go by the texts of Judaism. The bottom line is, insofar as the ‘character’ in the Mosaic scriptures is concerned, Av’ram is ‘non-existent’. But he did live somewhere else, under another name. Following is his story in short.

ABRAHAM-IBRAHIM = BAHRAM THE MANDAEAN

He is the source person behind the stories in the Old Testament and Kuran, and in their related literature. Bahram the Mandaean is the real person behind the mythical character called Abraham-Ibrahim. Here are three quotes about him:

Moses ben Maimonides, the ‘second Moses of Judaism’, has written that Abraham (Av’ram) was a Sabian (Mandaean):

• “In these books and in their chronicles, the history of Abraham our father is given in the following manner.  Abraham was brought up in Kutha; when he differed from the people and declared that there is a maker beside the Sun, they raised certain objections and mentioned in their arguments the evident and manifest action of the Sun in the Universe. (…) In short the king put him in prison; but he continued many days while in prison to argue against them. At last the king was afraid that Abraham might corrupt the kingdom and turn the people away from their religion; he therefore expelled Abraham into Syria after having deprived him of all his property.”

Firstly he was brought up in Kutha (in Irak), which was one of the major centres of Mandaeans-Sabians. Secondly he 'differed from his people'. Thirdly he was expelled to Syria. To Ur of the codebook, other names for which are Edessa and Urfa, a town just north of Syria.

Av'ram-Abraham had migrated from 'somewhere' to Haran. Here is a story which explains a certain period in the distant past. The following paragraph is a quote by al Birunî from a story told by Ibn Sankila (The Knowledge of Life, Şinasi Gündüz):

• “Abraham left the community simply because leprosy appeared on his foreskin and that everybody who suffered from this disease was considered impure and excluded from all society.  Therefore he cut off his foreskin i.e. circumcised himself.  In this state he entered one of their idol-temples when he heard a voice speaking to him: ‘O Abraham, you went away from us with one sin and you return with two sins.  Go away and do not come to us again.’  Thereupon Abraham seized by wrath, broke the idols in pieces and left their community.” (This is the scene that is mentioned in the Islamic ideology, where Av’ram had destroyed the idols and images.)

In the rest of the story we have Abraham offering his son to the planet Saturn.  The planet Saturn sees that Abraham is truly repented. Saturn allows Abraham to sacrifice a ram instead. Part of this Abraham story is in line with the Jewish tradition, but it also contains a unique connection with the Mandaean tradition in that region, and it tells us the reason behind his circumcision.

In Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran E.S. Drower relates the Mandaean folk tale titled Abraham and Yurba, but does not identify the narrator:“

• "..Yurba is of the powers of Darkness. Power is given to him, but he acts as the servant of the powers of Light, for the powers of Light rule, and do not serve. It was Yurba who gave the Jews their power. Abraham was one of our people, we called him Bahram. Yes, he was a Mandai, a Nas’urai. His brother was a ‘rish amma’ (chief, a king-priest), and they were a family of priests. Bahram developed a sore (dumbala) and, because of it, he was circumcised. He was very troubled when this happened, because he could no longer act as a slaughterer or priest. For the Mandai do not accept as their priests, the maimed persons or those who have lost a finger, ear or part of any member. These are henceforth unclean..He dared not tell his brother, but his brother discovered what had happened and said to him: ‘It is written that you may not  be a priest any more. No doubt the origin of your sickness was in darkness, and you committed a fault, because no sickness comes to the pure.’ ...And it is so; for, if a person lives purely and does not frequent people of ‘eHshukha’ (Darkness) and  prays and keeps his  thoughts clean, disease and sores do not come upon him. If a person is strong, in purity and light, he may go amongst evil or sick persons and surlier no hurt: on the contrary, he has power from Mara ad Rabutha (the  Lord of Greatness), which goes out from him to them and heals them  .....Bahram said to his brother, ‘It will be better if I go out from amongst you, and go forth into the desert.’ ....So he left the city and established himself (for he was rich) in the desert. With him went all the unclean amongst the S’ubba; the leprous and those who were deficient and of these bas’ran Sira (Moon-deficients) their descendants are unclean and deficient until the seventh generation. They went, the leprous and the unclean, with their children and their families, and Bahram began to  worship Yurba. ....Yurba came to him on the wind and began to rule him and his people in all that they did. He said, ‘Do thus’, and they obeyed, Bahram and his people. ....Thus Bahram became a large tribe and a powerful people. Yurba had been given power in this world, and he gave to Bahram such magic power that fire was unable to burn him. ....Amongst the Mandai and Nas'urai also there were those who quarrelled (with the true believers), and they joined themselves with Bahram, who said to them, ‘I have power from Yurba and can conquer.’ ....They and Bahram sought to force the Mandai, saying, ‘Come with us and be like us, or we will fight with you!’  ....The Mandai answered them; ‘We may not fight, because it is forbidden to us to kill men.’ ....Bahram said to them, ‘Then I shall take you by force.’ And he caught them as opportunity offered, on the roads or in the wilderness, and circumcised them by force, thus making them lacking and unclean like himself. If they resisted, he killed them. ....The Nas’urai sent to reason with him, saying, ‘Why do you seize people thus and circumcise them or kill them? You commit sin and will be punished.’ Bahram replied: ‘My power is of Yurba and not from Melka Ziwa: what can you do?’ ....Thus, likewise, Yurba had power, and it was by this power that Abraham became strong (according to this folk tale Moses also had his strength from Yurba). But Prophet Moses never suffered himself to be circumcised, neither did the prophet Jesus, for Jesus was of our sect, and they do not allow mutilations.” (Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran, E. S. Drower)

Here is what we understand from this tale:

• The original name of Av’ram in his native community is Bahram.

• Bahram's community was in Kutha. 

• Bahram’s family is a family of priests.  

• Bahram’s brother was the chief or leader of the community.

• Bahram had a holy responsibility, he was a priest and a slaughterer. In other words he was a pious person. 

• Bahram did ‘something’ wrong.

• Bahram had his powers from ‘darkness.’  

• The reason of Bahram’s circumcision was a sore on his foreskin, which was the sign that he had done something wrong.

• The reason why Bahram had to leave his native community was his becoming unclean and deficient after his circumcision.

• Bahram was wealthy enough to go out to the desert with his followers and settle there.

• Bahram used force on the members of the community he left behind to make them join him.

• Bahram and his followers circumcised others by force to make them ‘like themselves.’

• Yurba (his supreme being) gave Bahram such magic power that fire was unable to burn him.

Bahram and his followers were carrying the 'sign of identification' on their bodies, because all of them were  circumcised. They went out to the desert. This desert must be the Ceziret-ül Mawsil (land of Mosul-Syria). From there they could have gone to Urfa-Edessa-Ur. After a certain period they could have gone to Haran. Evidently the story of Bahram has been 'Canaanized'; his name has been changed to Av'ram-Abram-Abraham to make it sound western Aramaic (Hebraic); his story has been embellished with the Canaanite and Hebraic motifs like erecting stones to his god; following special schemes to connect his personal god with the god of the sons of Israel and having him settled in the land of Israel, Bahram was transformed into Av'ram-Abram-Abraham - the patriarch. It wouldn't be wrong if we said that the story from Haran onwards is a pure invention.

• The stories in the codebooks of Judaism, Christianity and Islam on the one hand and the Mandaean folk tale on the other, portray the same person with three different personalities and four different names: Av’ram/Abraham in the Torah and the New Testament; Ibrahim in Kuran; and Bahram in the Mandaean folk tales.

• The Mandaean folk tale, which displays the basic characteristics of the stories in Torah and Kuran, makes clear that both Judaic and Islamic stories were taken from the same Mandaean source.

• Torah’s Abraham is tailored to the needs of the Hebrews and Israelites.

• Muslims did the same with Ibrahim and fashioned him according to the monotheistic perspective of Islam.

• Bahram is the source character.

• The Mandaean story shows that the claimed connection between Av’ram/Abraham/Ibrahim and the Sabians of Harran is not true. He may have gone to Harran, but according to the Mandaean folk tale he could not have been an Harranian.

• The Mandaean story indicates that Bahram (Ibrahim) was the member of a monotheistic sect.

• The foreskin operation carried out on Bahram (Ibrahim) was not the consequence of a divine intervention, it was not a 'stamp' of  a covenant between a group of people and their supreme being. It was a medical necessity due to a natural cause.

• The circumcision done on Bahram (Ibrahim) was the ‘stamp’ of  the membership in a community: The community of Bahram.

According to the quote above, which was by al Birunî from a story told by Ibn Sankila (The Knowledge of Life, Şinasi Gündüz)   Abraham is offering his son to the planet Saturn. Seeing that Abraham is truly repentant Saturn allows Abraham to sacrifice a ram instead. Now you know the original story, and the one adapted to the needs of the Hebrews. where this story comes from. From now on you will see how the writers of the book of Genesis have adapted this story.

Abraham's god commands him to offer his son as a sacrifice to him (god). Abraham obeys the command, takes his son I'zak to mount Moriah (this is the place where the temple will be built). As he was going to carry out the divine(!) command and present his son as a burnt offering Abraham's supreme overseer intervenes, produces a ram to be sacrificed, and stops the attempt. Saturn has become the god of the Israelites: YHVH!

In the Old Testament story, the name of the son to be killed as burnt offering is given as I'zak, but the writers of Kuran give the name as Ish'mael (Ismail). I'zak is the father of Ya'kub (Israel) who is the father of the children of Israel. So what do you think might be the reason for this discrepancy? Well, Ish'mael's name is given in Talmud.  Therefore firstly the ideologues of the Hagarene teaching and afterwards the writers of Kuran must have taken the Talmudic version of the story. They had a very good reason too. because the forerunner of Islam, the Hagarene teaching, had accepted Hagar/Hacar's son Ish'mael as their forefather.

Sumerians have made offerings to make their supreme overseers happy or to wish something from them or to be cured of ailments, and in return for their oaths. The animals to be offered had 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 was offered to the supreme overseer and the rest would be distributed to the people around. Muslims make their sacrificial offerings in identical conditions, accept killing of the animal by a hoca - a Muslim cleric - is not necessary, and those pieces of the animal  which 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 'contract' with their supreme overseer, to please persons dead or living or to protect their health (II Samuel, 21:6-9). Arabs also had this primitive practice. Messenger Abraham is said to have ended it when he arrived in Arabia from Mesopotamia (Nonsense! He had never been to Arabia).

Biblical language is abstract. It is only natural, because the subject matter is abstract. The Biblical narration is rich in images. Anything that we reduce to a short conceptual formulation is blown up and converted into a story in the Bible where the descriptions are often puzzles whose ambiguity is often intentional. Of course, they had to be! As I have mentioned 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, immortality, 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 ordered(!) him to sacrifice his son, he had nothing to do but to obey. But there is more to it..

This attempted sacrifice of I'zak was stopped at the very last moment by god (Genesis 22) which may be taken as an example that could 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, of 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 (or rather  for the readers of the story!). 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 next world.

It sounds extremely silly today, but in those days with all the ignorance around, plus the primitive intellect 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 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 human sacrifice 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 continued. In the Mosaic law offering children, and human sacrifice to Molek is banned. Because Molek is a foreign god. In other words, there is nothing wrong with a sacrifice to the proper supreme entity. Judges 11:30: Yeftah promises an offering to 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 supreme being. In Judges 11:34 we read that the first person Yeftah had come across was his daughter. He was obliged to burn her alive due to his promise. His daughter asked for a permission for two months. She descended to the mountains south, and returned two months later to be sacrificed by burning alive. She was a virgin. That is why the daughters of Israel mourn for four days every year. This means that human sacrifice in Israel has continued. 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 offering 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. It was  practiced by the most primitive communities in history to appease their supreme overseers,  to have good fortune in this world and to reserve a place for themselves in the supposed 'paradise' of afterlife. 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 has become an act of religious madness, and hundreds of children, some of them even suckling babies, were   burnt  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. Human sacrifice was not the only mode of offering to the gods of the Semites, animal sacrifice was made also, and wine and pleasant perfumes were offered as well. The Old Testament shows  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. Temples - the 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 their chambers. The sons of Israel took over these temples as examples and built  theirs. 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.

abraham page 4