Christmas: Pagan Festival or Christian Celebration?

Dr Anthony McRoy

- Joseph F. Kelly, The Origins of Christmas, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2004)
- J. Neil Alexander, Waiting for the Coming: The Liturgical Meaning of Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, (Washington DC: Pastoral Press, 1993)
- Susan K. Roll, Toward the Origins of Christmas, (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995)
- Maxwell E. Johnson (Ed.), Between Memory and Hope: Readings on the Liturgical Year, (Collegeville: Pueblo/Liturgical Press, 2000)
- John F. White, Restorer of the World: The Roman Emperor Aurelian, (Stroud: Spellmount 2007)

Atheist and Muslim polemicists – and some Protestants – often claim that Christmas derives from a previous pagan festival. These books help answer this accusation. Those by Kelly and Alexander are brief, readable and informative (though it must be cautioned that none of the liturgical studies books here have a conservative approach to the Bible). Johnson’s book is a collection of liturgist articles;, those by Thomas Talley, ‘Constantine and Christmas’, and Susan Roll, ‘The Origins of Christmas’, being particularly interesting and pertinent.

Polemicists (and The Da Vinci Code) frequently state that 25 December was Mithras’ birthday, yet the renowned Mithraic scholar, Dr Richard Gordon has corresponded to me that he is unaware of ‘a single date on a Mithraic inscription that falls in the winter, let alone late in December… We know NOTHING about the cycle of rituals in the cult...’ So, Christmas owes nothing to Mithraism. This is one area where Kelly (p. 65) and Roll (p.111) are inadequate.

Roll’s book presents two theories for the origins of Christmas: the ‘History of Religions’ school, and the ‘Computation’ thesis. The first only goes back to the eighteenth century, proposed by Paul Ernst Jablonski, an Egyptologist who claimed that ‘Constantine exercised a personal influence on the establishment of Christmas’, p. 130. However, the main figures responsible for the claim were Hermann Usener in 1889 and Bernard Botte in 1932. Usener’s thesis was that the Church adapted certain pagan customs to keep the converts happy, such as the Natalis Sol Invicti– birthday of the Unconquered Sun, pp. 132-133. Botte similarly held that the Church ‘“christianized” certain non-Christian practices, Christmas being intended as ‘a counterfeast in regard to the pre-Christian feast’, p. 141.

The argument on ‘Christianisation’ usually rests on one or both of two foundations: the Roman Feast of the Saturnalia, which ran 17-23 December, characterised by carousing, merry-making, gifts and candles, and the Sol Invictus event on 25 December. One can immediately dismiss the supposed link with the Saturnalia: it did not stretch to 25 December, was not inclusive of any Solstice commemoration, and ended on 23 December when another event began – the Larentalia, a feast of the dead!

The evidence suggests that Christian festivals in the fourth century were accompanied by worship and fasting, not dissipation, cf. p. 203. As Kelly notes: ‘early Christian leaders found the Saturnalian practices offensive’, p. 69. Alexander observes (p. 9ff) that the 380 Saragossa synod obliged daily church worship for 17 December-6 January. All the indications are that fasting, rather than secular ‘feasting’ was prescribed, as demonstrated by the writings of Bishop Filastrius of Brescia (d. 397), pp. 14-15.

Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop of Constantinople c. 379, in his sermon On the Theophany indicates that proper practice for celebrating the Nativity differed from pagan Saturnalia practices – not least riotous conduct: ‘…let us not strive to outdo each other in intemperance… Let us leave all these to … the …festivals of the Greeks… But we, the Object of whose adoration is the Word… seek it [‘luxury’]…in the Divine Law …’ There are no patristic references to a conscious decision to copy or usurp the Saturnalia.

Secondly, all polemicists – and unfortunately, all the books reviewed here – make the mistake of over-emphasising the Solstice and especially Aurelian’s contribution. Emperor Aurelian, as White’s excellent, informative and lucid book demonstrates, was a remarkable man, who in a short five-year reign re-united and strengthened the Roman Empire. The book is also superb for presenting the cultural/historical background for church history during this era, and White pays special attention to Christianity, e.g. p. 168. Most pertinently, regarding claims that White notes (p. 136) that Aurelian dedicated a temple to Sol Invictus in 274 ‘perhaps on 25 December’; note the caution here – the dating is not secure. Apparently, Aurelian did institute Games in honour of Sol on October 19-22 – but not 25 December.

A prominent Roman Studies specialist, Dr Steven Hijmans, has demonstrated that contrary to claims (unfortunately, repeated in the liturgical studies books here) that Aurelian borrowed from a Syrian cult brought to Rome by the degenerate Emperor Elagabolus some decades earlier, Aurelian’s religion was a development of the existing Roman cult. Moreover, in Hijmans’ article, Sol Invictus, the Winter Solstice and the Origins of Christmas, we read: ‘…December 25 was neither a longstanding nor an especially important feast day of Sol… the suggestion that it was established by Aurelian cannot be proven. In fact, there is no firm evidence that this feast of Sol on December 25 antedates the feast of Christmas at all.’ He continues: ‘The traditional feast days of Sol… were August 8, August 9, August 28, and December 11. Of these, only August 28 is still mentioned in the Calendar of 354, along with October 19 and October 22, the latter being the most important, judging by the 36 chariot races with which it was celebrated.’

He also emphasises that we must distinguish between the Sun-god - he cult of Sol - and the Sun- i.e. the astronomical body. Hijmans states that the failure to differentiate ‘between astronomy and cult’ touches upon the ‘fatal flaw in the contention that Christmas was instituted on December 25 to counteract a pagan feast.’ The winter solstice in December was an astronomical event: the major feast of Sol, the sun-god, was October 22. Christians could deal with the astronomical symbolism of the sun, without engaging the deity Sol. Thus Natalis Solis Invicti i.e. the winter solstice, observed on December 25, was recognised as the ‘birthday’ of the astronomical entity, not necessarily the solar deity! This allowed the Christians to utilise the imagery of Malachi 4:2 - that Christ was the ‘Sun of Righteousness’.

The essential point is this: if Aurelian did not initiate any festival on 25 December, and there was no major festival before that, it follows that the Christian feast of the Nativity – Christmas – cannot be construed as deriving from a pagan festival! This is where so many accusations of ‘paganism’ against Christmas fall down. As for claims that Constantine was responsible for the December 25 Nativity feast, there is no hard evidence for this. The first recorded celebration occurred in Rome in 336, a city Constantine left for the last time in 326 and never returned, (Talley, Between Memory and Hope, p. 267). By this time Constantine was in Constantinople, but he ordered no such Nativity festival on December 25 there. It seems likely that the Constantinople December Nativity only began with Gregory Nazianzus c. 380.

The second theory is ‘Computation’, based on the Rabbinic concept of the ‘integral age’ of prophets, that they died on the same date they were born, or with Jesus, on the date of his conception (Roll, pp. 95-96). Since Rome and North Africa held that Jesus died on March 25, and the East that He died on April 6, He must have been conceived on either of those dates. Add nine months and you get His birth on January 6 (when Armenians still celebrate the Nativity) or 25 December, Alexander, p. 52.

There is evidence from North Africa from the third and fourth centuries that the date of the nativity had been computed to 25 December (Roll, p. 87). We know from Clement of Alexandria (c. 159-215) in Stromateis 1:21 that in Egypt people were computing the date of Christ’s birth, and that the Basilidian Gnostics even celebrated the event of His baptism (believing that the heavenly Power endued the man Jesus at this point). On the basis of Luke 3:23: ‘And Jesus was himself beginning about thirty years’ many believed that Jesus was baptised on His birthday. Hence the earliest Nativity celebrations – which occurred on January 6 (Alexander, p. 72) commemorated both the Baptism and the Birth (again, Armenians still celebrate both).

It appears that the earliest Easter celebration was ‘a unitive feast which included the incarnation’ (Roll, ‘The Origins of Christmas’, p. 287), as demonstrated in the Paschal homily of Melito of Sardis c. 165. However, by the time of Origen (c. 185-254), in Against Celsus VIII:XXI, it had fragmented into Preparation-Day, Passover and Pentecost. The emergence of the Nativity feast was simply an extension of this fragmentation (p. 212). It is also possible that Christological controversies which questioned the true deity or humanity of Jesus spurred the practice. Certainly, we find people like Gregory Nazianzus, Leo, Ambrose and John Chrysostom using the Nativity feast as an occasion to attack Christological heresies (ch.4). Perhaps the process of festal fragmentation and the need to emphasise the true simultaneous deity and humanity of Jesus came together to encourage the Nativity festival.

What about the candles and lights? We know that the January 6 Nativity feast was sometimes called ‘the Festival of Lights’ (Ta Phōta), and Chanukah, the Jewish ‘Festival of Lights’ was characterised ‘by lighting lamps and kindling fires’ (p. 121). How about the ‘pagan’ Christmas tree? The earliest record of Christmas trees comes from 16^th century Germany, when one was decorated with apples, nuts, dates, pretzels and paper flowers. Later, Martin Luther, impressed by the stars shining through the evergreen trees, decorated his Christmas tree with candles to reproduce the majesty of Creation. In Britain, the Christmas tree was introduced by King George III’'s German-born Queen Charlotte, and popularised by Queen Victoria’s German husband, Prince Albert.

The pagan Germans revered an Oak, not a Fir tree! The centre of their worship was the Oak of Geismar, dedicated to Thor (Donar). It was felled by the British/Saxon ‘Apostle of Germany’, Boniface in 723. Falling, it crushed every tree around except a small fir tree. Boniface declared the fir tree’s survival a miracle: ‘Let this be called the tree of the Christ Child.’ Boniface used thetriangular shape of the fir to illustrate the Trinity.

Regarding holly and ivy, all ancient cultures used greenery/flora as decorations, and in winter evergreens were used. There was nothing specifically religious in this, and in Medieval and Tudor times, no ‘arcane’ properties were ascribed to either plant (Ronald Hutton, Stations of the Sun, p. 35). Tertullian in On Idolatry XIV-XVI is concerned that Christians do not participate in pagan festivals, and on that basis attacks Christians who use evergreens during such. Holly became associated with the Crown of Thorns and the red berries with Christ’s blood.

As an Irishman working in Wales, I am always amused by ‘Celtic’ traditions like the Welsh hat which actually date no earlier than the 18^th century. The same is true of the supposed Druid ‘fertility’ link with kissing under the mistletoe. Although mistletoe was used with other evergreens, kissing under it only began in the 18^th century (Susan Drury, ‘Customs and Beliefs Associated with Christmas Evergreens: A Preliminary Survey’ [Folklore 98.2 1987, p. 194]) – long after the demise of Druidism! The so-called Druid association is found in Pliny the Elder,The Natural History, Book XVI, where he claims (based on reports) that Druids believe ‘that the mistletoe, taken in drink, will impart fecundity to all animals that are barren…’ Nothing about kissing.

The other fantasy is that in Norse mythology, the evil god Loki used mistletoe to kill Baldur, but that his mother Freya caused him to be restored to life and then changed the plant to a symbol of love, blessing any who kissed under it. In fact, the Norse Eddas, whilst confirming that Baldur was killed by mistletoe, say nothing about a resurrection, still less about kissing under the plant!

This 25 December, enjoy your Christmas, celebrating the Nativity of Our Saviour: the festival is truly Christian, not pagan.

This article was first published in the Church of England Newspaper of 14th December 2007, placed on pages 12 and 21. It is reproduced here with permission. A related article by Dr. McRoy on the origin of Easter was published by Christianity Today: Was Easter Borrowed from a Pagan Holiday?

Source: http://answering-islam.org/pagan/christmas.html

IHS

MESSAGE FROM MUJAHID MAJOR HASAN , SOA (SOLDIER OF ALLAH) OF SUCCESSFUL FORT HOOD JIHAD FAME

By Ali Khalaf

KILL OR GET KILLED FOR ALLAH, THE ONLY GUARATEE OF PARADISE IN QURAN

Brothers and sisters in Islam:                     

Assalam Alaikum. Today I am the happiest man in the world. By killing 13 infidels for Allah I have guaranteed myself a place in paradise. All muslims know the only guarantee Allah has given for paradise in whole of Quran is killing or getting killed for Allah.

9.111 Allah has guaranteed paradise to those who kill and are killed for Allah.

SHAHEED BY PASSES GRAVE TIME AND JUDGEMENT DAY AND GETS TO PARADISE INSTANTLY

Although I went to kill and get killed for Allah to comply 9.111, but Allah did not grant me martyrdom. Perhaps He wants me to kill more. Inshallah after I get released under insanity plea filed by my taxpayers supported liberal lawyer I will try to fulfil the wish of Allah. Who knows he may even grant me martyrdom next time. , the noblest dream of all true muslims. That will earn me the ultimate prize a muslim can get, that is bypassing grave time and judgment day and instantly proceeding to paradise and start fornicating , as promised by Allah in Quran

3.169: Those who are killed in Allah's way are not dead but they are alive and are enjoying bounties provided by the lord.

SLAY THE INFIDELS,THEY ARE THE WORST BEASTS

My muslim fellow Americans, don’t be afraid to kill infidels. It is not a matter of choice but an order from Allah to all muslims: For a momin .there is no greater pleasure in life for a momin than killing and getting killed for Allah.

9.5 Slay the infidels wherever you find them.

Why Allah wants them dead? Because they deny Allah as God and Mohammad as his prophet and that they are the worst beasts and lowest creatures, thus they must be killed.

This is what Allah says:

8.55 Non muslims are the worst beasts

98.6 Those who disbelieve in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures

ALL INFIDELS ARE GUILTY, ONLY MUSLIMS ARE INNOCENTS
Some may ask how can we kill innocent people who are minding their own business. There is no such thing as innocent infidel. They are all guilty of not accepting islam, they must be killed. Here is the top Islamic authority of islam and a leading muslim lawyer explains it in a BBC interview :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related [1]

And remember in paradise you get most beautiful women who have swelling breasts.  you don’t have to suffer through flat chest wives of mediocre looks any more):

78.33 “and maidens with swelling breasts”

IMAGE OF ISLAM NEVER TARNISHES
If you are worried that your violence will tarnish the good name of Islam, then be assured that will never happen. Even after very high profile job like 9/11 islam came out smelling like roses, thanks to the president Bush who immediately afterwards announced that islam is a religion of peace and visited Islamic center of DC to praise islam and muslims.

We are even in a better shape now because muslim money has put the current govt in power. Basically they are in bed with us now. They will always cover our asses when we need them. After a mujahideen attack the following will happen:

IGNORANT INFIDEL APOLOGISTS WILL PROTECT ISLAM
The President will immediately come out after the massacre and say the killers were not muslims because no religion teaches violence (isn’t it great that the bozo never reads quran and hadiths and instead relies on muslim feedback).
- Liberal leaders will blame it on US middle east policy.
-Leftist leaders will blame it on ex-president Bush.

KNOWLEDGABLE MUSLIM APOLOGISTS WILL USE TAQIYYA
-CAIR will go to all media outlets and announce that the perpetrators had hijacked islam.
-Media favourite moderate muslim Zuhdi Jasser will appear on CNN and FOX and say islam is a religion of peace and blame the massacre on the “militant heretic sect of Wahabis”.
-ISNA will say “they were not true muslims becaus  “killing one innocent is killing all’in islam.

BRAIN WASHED MUSLIM UMMA WILL BLAME THE JEWS

Bottom line is that the real reason which is quran and sunna will never be suspected.

I SIMPLY FOLLOWED THE PROPHET
I successfully used the strategy of our prophet. He always attacked the infidels without warning.

Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717: Narrated Ibn Aun: The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.

I did exactly the same and walked into Fort Hood wearing my Arabian garb without any warning. He killed many kuffar with his sword and I killed many kuffar with my gun. The way we spent that night were also similar. He spent the night with gorgeous teenage beauty Juavaria and other captured women. I also spent the night with many beautiful nurses. The only difference is that he and his women were naked and had sex all night but I and my nurses were not naked and I could not even move any part of my body as I was in a coma.

MODERATE MUSLIMS AND REAL MUSLIMS MAKE A TEAM
Real muslims must never badmouth moderate/secular types. People like Zuhdi Jasser, Ingrid Matsonetc and muslim organizations like CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, ICNA etc play a very important role in the destruction of kuffar. They present a sugarcoated and sanitized islam to kuffar and keep them in false security and unprepared while the real muslims hit them where it hurts.

Basically the moderate/secular muslims hold down the feet of the kuffar while real muslims cut their throats.

Source. http://www.faithfreedom.org/print/7430

IHS

Poor Muhammad, Or Was He?

By Mumin Salih         

Mohammed is portrayed, by Muslims as well as many non Muslims, as a poor man who dedicated his life to deliver Allah’s message to mankind. He is usually associated with a simplistic life style that lacks the lavishness enjoyed by the rich and famous of his time. In the minds of Muslims, Mohammed’s image is that of a determined messenger of Allah who was not deterred by the hardship and the persecution he suffered at the hands of the Meccan Arabs (1). Such representation of Mohammed as savour, who had no material ambitions or earthy desires and achieved no personal gains, fits well in the image of the ‘perfect hero’, which Muslims aim to paint for him. Mohammed’s early childhood as an orphan, who lost his father before he was born and lost his mother at the age six, provided the Muslims with a convenient readymade foundation on which they built their desired image of their hero.
Such image of Mohammed’s life style is one of Islam’s strange ironies because it is believed despite the evidence to the contrary. Such claim about a simplistic Mohammed is a clever mental illusion that distracts the mind from seeing the obvious and works well even on people who are critical of Mohammed. The secret of the success of this mental trick lies in the different perception of luxury in the seventh century Arabia. People have different tastes and priorities in life; what is considered to have a high value by some people may have no value at all to others. The Arabs’ in general were not keen on appearances and the other manifestations of high class or royalty. Managing wealth depends on personal taste, culture and the available resources, all of which were poorly developed in Arabia compared to the other nations of the time like the Romans and the Persians.
The Arabs have always been loyal to their tradition, which explains why Islam is shaped to agree with those traditions. Even today, departing from the local traditions is considered a serious social offence that most modern Arabs try to avoid. In the seventh century Arabia, it was considered a social duty for the chief of the tribe to open his house to all, a tradition that is still alive in many Arab societies today. Such a tradition was considered as a sign of generosity and an indication of distinction and social prominence. In the seventh century, it was traditionally unacceptable for the wealthy Arabs, who were normally eminent figures in their tribes, to be segregated from the rest of their societies by guards or palace walls. Arabic literature is rich in examples that emphasise that tradition. I am not sure if it is still the case, but it was customary for the rulers in the Gulf States to offer coffee in their lounges, called diwan, to ordinary people, who seize the opportunity to hand their complaints, or requests for help, directly to the rulers. In addition to the cultural reason, there were other reasons for the lack of palaces, and other manifestations of luxury, in Arabia. The Arabs, in the seventh century, did not have the technology or the resources to build spectacular palaces on the scale known in Persia or Syria. A simple tent was a practical and simple answer to the hot desert climate. Those who visit the Gulf States may be surprised to see that the wealthy Arabs still use tents which they erect next to their palaces. Gaddafi’s tent is a living reminder, not just of the Libyan leader’s eccentricity, but also of that old desert tradition.
It is true that Mohammed did not own spectacular palaces, but neither did any other wealthy leader in Arabia. In the absence of accurate indicators of capital such as bank accounts, Mohammed’s wealth has to be gauged using the suitable measures of the time. In other words, we have to look at his assets in the form of properties, as well as his other possessions. This article is not designed to provide an estimate of Mohammed’s wealth, but it sheds some light on only some of his assets and refutes the claims that he was poor or had a simplistic life style. As usual, our sources are the authentic Islamic history sources; it is either that the Islamic history is completely wrong (and Islam is a big lie) or that Mohammed was a corrupt ‘millionaire’ (and also Islam is a big lie).

Mohammed in Mecca- a ‘millionaire’ aged 25
We learn from sira (Mohammed’s biography) that Mohammed was trained to be a merchant by his uncle Abu Talib, with whom he travelled to Syria. Mecca was the most affluent city and the undisputed cultural and trade centre of Arabia. As a young man, Mohammed had his own business as a merchant and did so well that he could afford to offer financial help to Abu Talib by raising one of his children, Ali, in his own house. At an early age, Mohammed was selected by Khadija, the wealthiest woman in Mecca, to manage her business. Obviously she paid him well and treated him well as evidenced by the fact that she offered him to marry her when he was still twenty five years of age.
With such wealth at his disposal, Mohammed became one of the most prosperous men in Arabia when he was only twenty five years of age. Khadija died a few years later leaving all her possessions to him. These are all historical facts about Mohammed’s life that were never disputed by Muslims before. It is clear that throughout all his adult life in Mecca, Mohammed was a rich man.

Mohammed in Yathrib- a leader
Mohammed emigrated to Yathrib (present day Medina) in 622 AD and established his Islamic state. Inevitably, the relocation to Yathrib was associated with extra spending and a period of instability, but Mohammed had a long time to plan and prepare for that historic move. However, Mohammed did feel the financial crunch in Yathrib not so much for him personally but more for his group of immigrants, known as ‘almuhajiroon’. Unlike Mecca, the economy of Yathrib was not based on trade but on farming and simple crafts. As a leader of a united group of men, Mohammed had the means, and the opportunity, to establish some form of business to secure a reasonable income, but he opted to earn his money the easy way- piracy, which he called jihad. After scoring initial swift gains by raiding trading caravans and the neighbouring tribes, the taste of easy money flavoured by his victims’ blood was too good to Mohammed to give up, and too addictive that he eventually made it a lifelong career.

In general, a man is considered poor when he is unable to live without financial help from the others. A person who can afford to own a reasonable house and provides the means of reasonable living standards to his family is generally considered to be comfortable. Rich people are those who own more assets than they need. By any standard, a man who owns many houses with servants and slaves must be a wealthy man.
We do not know exactly the grand total of Mohammed’s wives but we know that at one stage he had nine of them. We also know that each of Mohammed’s wives had her own house, maids and slaves. Marriages were costly social activities especially when the bridegroom happened to be the leader of the community. When Mohammed successfully formulated the divine decree to marry Zaynab, he celebrated for a week; hundreds of goats were slaughtered to provide lavish meals for the residents of Medina. Throwing a party for a week, for the entire city, can hardly be called a simplistic life style; only the super rich can afford such extravagance. Mohammed could afford throwing many of such parties; he actually loved such lavish generosity that he made it sunna to his followers (2). He once told Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf: “make invitations, even if you cook only one goat”. In Mohammed’s ‘simplistic’ life style, a party with only one cooked goat was a small party. Getting married has always been an expensive social event; Mohammed afforded marriage not once but many times. Marrying multiple wives was a sign wealth in Arabia, which is hardly surprising, and still so in our time.

After establishing his Islamic state in Yathrib, Mohammed became the only man on earth to share Allah his wealth. He cleverly released a verse (3) stating that one fifth of all war booties were to be assigned to Allah and his messenger; in real terms to Mohammed alone. That verse alone secured an enormous and regular income and effectively safeguarded Mohammed’s wealth throughout his life.

Some of Mohammed’s Assets (4):
Wives: here are the names of one dozen of them, but he probably had many more. Kadija, Sawda, Aysha, Hafsa, Zainab Al Hilalya, Aum Salma, Zainab Bintu Jahsh, Juwayryia, Safiya, Um Habiba, Maria, Maymuna.
Houses: Mohammed gave each of his wives a house, totally independent from the others. Each wife had her own maids and slaves, all paid for by ‘poor’ Mohammed.
Slaves: Mohammed preferred to sell his slaves, but he kept some of them including Maria and Rayhana. Other slaves included: Abu Rafi, Thawba, Abu Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yassar, Anasa, Tahman, Keysan, Marwan.
Servants/ personal assistants: Mohammed had a dozen of servants and personal assistants, each assigned to do a specific job. The following are the names of some them:
Anas Ibn Malik: a personal assistant for general purposes.
Ibn Massoud: looked after Mohammed’s sewaks ( used to clean the teeth) and shoes.
Ukba: looked after Mohammed’s mules
Abu Zar, Bilal and many others.
Personal guards: Mohammed employed a number of bodyguards; the following are the names of some of them: Saad Ibn Maaz, Ibn Salma, Al Zubair and Abbad Ibn Bashr.
Cattle: owning a horse in the past was like owning a top of the range luxury car. Mohammed owned not one but dozens of horses, mules and donkeys and had specialist people employed to look after them. He also owned herds of camels and goats.
Lands: Mohammed owned the entire land of Khayber, where the tribe of Bani Al Nadeer used to live. The Jewish tribe was defeated; many of its men killed and women enslaved, the survivals were deported to outside Arabia. The tribe’s processions and the entire land were assigned to Mohammed (5). Mohammed also owned a large land outside Medina in a region called Fadak.

Conclusion: Mohammed became a wealthy man from a young age. His eccentric and complex personality was associated with matching eccentric desires on which he spent his wealth. He was not a refined man and never developed the taste for a refined life style. His mind was totally occupied with myths, religions and the supernatural. His dream and fascination was to be seen by his followers as a man with absolute divine authority, an obsession that he achieved once he seized power. Armed with his divine claims, Mohammed sought total obedience from his followers. The Muslims’ submission to Mohammed was voluntary but was driven by a state of fear, not from Mohammed but from Allah! The paradox is that although Mohammed was an authoritarian tyrant, he was neither feared nor hated by his followers- because it is all from Allah!
Armed with his false divine claims, Mohammed successfully made it part of the faith that Muslims must love him more than they loved themselves. No king had ever managed to achieve such state of conformity from his subjects. Mohammed’s sick ego could only be satisfied by emphasising to his followers that he was the best man to walk on the earth. Through his false divine authority, Mohammed could ‘own’ any woman he desired, even if she was married. Mohammed’s sick desires exist only in sick minds, but any of those desires is well beyond the reach of the richest and most powerful men on earth. Mohammed’s sick ego was better satisfied by watching his followers eating like him, drinking like him and dressing like him, which they still do today. Good Muslims can only like what Mohammed liked and hate what Mohammed hated.

References:

1. The truth is that the Meccans demonstrated exemplary tolerance to Mohammed, see ‘Islamic Jihad, a legacy of forced conversion, imperialism and slavery’ pages 18-26 by M A Khan.
2. Mohammed told Abdulrahman Ibn Auf, one of close sahaba: اولم ولو بشاة, meaning it is good to make a dinner invitation, even if he only cooks one goat. Reported by both Bukhari and Muslim.
3. Q. 8:41: “And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah and to the Messenger ...”
4. Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah: ‘ زاد المعاد في هدي خير العباد zad al ma-aad fi hady kairil ibad’:
5. According to hadith by Omar Ibn Al Khattab, reported by Al Tirmizi, Page/Number 1719 in the Arabic edition.

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/print/7436

IHS

Islam enslaves women, period

It is a common fallacy spread by Muslim apologists and dhimmi mouthpieces that "Islam is a great for women." One time, I was almost physically attacked by a "cool" New Ager type who told me he was reading the Koran/Quran, followed quickly by the off-the-cuff-remark, "Islam is great for women."

The comment was so out of left field that it smacked of, "Me thinks thou doth protest too much." Why would he need to make such a declaration, unless he knew that there was a debate as to whether or not Islam was "great for women?" He obviously knew many had claimed the opposite that is Islam is bad for women. At that moment - being a woman - I asserted the opposite as well, at which point he became quite angry, completely losing his holier-than-thou enlightenment. Apparently, my womanly opinion was not appreciated.

No one can tell me that "Islam is great for women," because - surprise! - I have eyes to see how women are treated in the Muslim world. And I've actually read the Koran, which is not only anti-infidel but also anti-woman, while the bulk of Islamic woman-enslavement can be found in other Muslim scriptures such as the hadiths. As one example, Koranic sura 4:34 states:

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (The Koran with Parallel Arabic Text, tr. N.A. Dawood, 83)

Concerning the subjugation of women in Islam, Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner states: "How is this subordinate status defined? According to hadith 3.826, Muhammad said that women are genetically and legally inferior: 'Muhammad asked some women, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of the woman's mind."'...

"Three times in the Hadith, Muhammad's vision of hellfire is recorded, each time including the same feature: 'Muhammad said, "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women."' As a result of this teaching, women are regarded as both harmful to men and a bad omen. 'Muhammad said, "Bad omen is in the women, the house and the horse...after me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."'

"A woman, thus being a lesser creature, has fewer rights and privileges in Muslim society. In apportioning inheritance, a woman should receive half of what a man receives: 'To the male a portion equal to that of two females' (sura 4:11). In judicial proceedings, a woman's testimony is given one-half the value and credibility as that of a man... (sura 2:282). (Caner, Ergun Mehmet and Caner, Emir Fethi, Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs, 134)

Islam gives men authority over women in a variety of ways - and an emancipated woman who was actually raised Muslim can attest to this fact abundantly. Just ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dr. Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish, as but a few examples. Hirsi Ali in particular was subjected to the crudest form of classical- not "extremist" or "radical" - Islam, complete with radical genital mutilation and the nearly full veil of the chador/abaya. (Unlike the burkha and niqab, these coverings allow for the face to be shown.) These women will tell you that classical Islam is absolutely not "great" or even good for women.

Is slavery is "great" for blacks?
The Muslim apologist argument runs that women in the pre-Islamic world were actually worse off than they are within Islam! First of all, it depends on what location you are discussing: This claim may be true for the Arabian Peninsula, for example, but not in many other parts of the world. How about Polynesia, where women live quite freely by comparison? Or what about other eras, in which the Goddess ruled and women were revered in a far greater manner than at any other time in history?; Today in the democratic Western cultures women have achieved - or re-achieved - much of this status, although even here sexism remains in many areas to some extent, unfortunately.

Secondly, just because women appear to be slightly or even somewhat better off within Islam than they were in the pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula, that alleged fact does not mean that "Islam is great for women." Slaves in 19th century America were far better off than their counterparts in Africa - does that mean that slavery is great for blacks? To those of us women, who are truly free, liberated and whole, with the wealth of life's opportunities available on the table before us, Islam represents slavery, period. And that is one reason why so many women are at the forefront of battling back the brutal, cruel and inhumane Islamic/sharia law that would reduce us to household/sex slaves and baby-making machines. The bottom line is that Islam is NOT "great for women."

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/islam-enslaves-women-period

IHS

Muhammad and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE)

By Ali Sina

The Physical Effects of Muhammad’s Ecstatic Experiences:

Here is how Muhammad described his mystical experiences: “The Revelation is always brought to me by an angel: sometimes it is delivered to me as the beating sound of the bell--and this is the hardest experience for me; but sometimes the angel appears to me in the shape of a human and speaks to me.” [40]
 
“Those who saw the Prophet (pbuh) in this state relate that his condition would change. Sometimes he would stay motionless as if some terribly heavy load was pressed on him and, even in the coldest day, drops of sweat would fall from his forehead” [41] At other times he would move his lips.

Ibn Sa'd says, "at the moment of inspiration, anxiety pressed upon the Prophet, and his countenance was troubled" [1]

"He fell to the ground like one intoxicated or overcome by sleep; and in the coldest day his forehead would be bedewed with large drops of perspiration. Inspiration descended unexpectedly, and without any previous warning."[2]

"Then Allah's Apostle returned with that experience; and the muscles between his neck and shoulders were trembling till he came upon Khadija (his wife) and said, "Cover me!" They covered him, and when the state of fear was over" [3] and [4]

All these are symptoms of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. The following is a partial list of the Temporal Lobe Seizure Symptoms & Signs as defined in health.allrefer.com

Hallucinations or illusions such as hearing voices when no one has spoken, seeing patterns, lights, beings or objects that aren't there

- Rhythmic muscle contraction Muscle cramps are involuntary and often painful contractions of the muscles which produce a hard, bulging muscle
- Abdominal pain or discomfort. Sudden, intense emotion such as fear.
- Muscle twitching (fasciculation) is the result of spontaneous local muscle contractions that are involuntary and typically only affect individual muscle groups. This twitching does not cause pain.
- Abnormal mouth behaviors
- Abnormal head movements
- Sweating
- Flushed face
- Rapid heart rate/pulse
- Changes in vision, speech, thought, awareness, personality
- Loss of memory (amnesia) regarding events around the seizure (partial complex seizure)

All the above symptoms were present in Muhammad during the moments that he was allegedly receiving revelations.
- He had visions (hallucinations) of seeing an angel or a light and of hearing voices.
- He experienced bodily spasms and excruciating abdominal pain and discomfort
- He was overwhelmed by sudden emotions of anxiety and fear
- He had twitching in his neck muscles
- He had uncontrollable lip movement
- He sweated even during cold days.
- His face flushed. His countenance was troubled.
- He had rapid heart palpitation
- He had loss of memory. (There is a tradition that states Muhammad was bewitched and used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives when he actually had not. [5]

It is also interesting to note that Muhammad's hallucination was not limited to seeing the Angel Gabriel but he also claimed seeing Jinns and even in one occasion while praying in the mosque he started struggling with an imaginary person and later said "Satan came in front of me and tried to interrupt my prayer, but Allah gave me an upper hand on him and I choked him. No doubt, I thought of tying him to one of the pillars of the mosque till you get up in the morning and see him. Then I remembered the statement of Prophet Solomon, 'My Lord ! Bestow on me a kingdom such as shall not belong to any other after me.' Then Allah made him (Satan) return with his head down (humiliated)." [6]

Muhammad's belief in Satan was such that he seemed to think that not even he is immune from his whisperings. [7]

One of the embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put words in his mouth.

Tabari says: “When the messenger of God saw how his tribe turned their backs on him and was grieved to see them shunning the message he had brought to them from God, he longed in his soul that something would come to him from God which would reconcile him with his tribe. With his love for his tribe and his eagerness for their welfare it would have delighted him if some of the difficulties which they made for him could have been smoothed out, and he debated with himself and fervently desired such an outcome. Then God revealed:

"By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire..."
and when he came to the words:
Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:
"These are the high flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval.

The Quraysh left delighted by the mention of their gods. Amity was restored and the news of that reached the followers of Muhmmad who at his behest had migrated to Abyssina and some of them returned. Muhammad realizing the consequence of this is giving up on his monopoly on God and the contradiction that it entails, claimed those verses and his Allah consoled him saying, “Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom”: 22:52 [8]

In the Quran there are several mentions of Jinns. Surah 72 narrates a conversation between Jinns where they comment about the Quran, call it “a wonderful Recital” and convert to Islam. Their role is described as prying into the secrets of heaven and eavesdropping to the conversation of the exalted assembly. Which since the apparition of Muhammad, they found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires. “We used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations, to (steal) a hearing;" Quran quotes one Jinn saying to others, "but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush. And we understand not whether ill is intended to those on earth, or whether their Lord (really) intends to guide them to right conduct".

It is not difficult to see that Muhammad suffered from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. In fact TLE was just one of his ailments. The prophet suffered from other mental disorders and physical complications. I will speak about them in future. The real miracle is in the fact that a billion people follow a sick man for so long.

[1] Katib al Waqidi p. 37. See also Bukhari 1: 1: 2
[2] Bukhari 7, 71, 660
[3] Bukhari 6, 60, 478
[4] B. 9,78.111
[6] Bukhari 2, 22, 301
[7] 6.68, 6.116, 22.52
[8] Tabari volume 6, page 107

http://www.emedicine.com/NEURO/topic365.htm

Background: Temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) was defined in 1985 by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) as a condition characterized by recurrent unprovoked seizures originating from the medial or lateral temporal lobe. The seizures associated with TLE consist of simple partial seizures without loss of awareness (with or without aura) and complex partial seizures (ie, with loss of awareness). The individual loses awareness during a complex partial seizure because the seizure spreads to involve both temporal lobes, which causes impairment of memory.
TLE was first recognized in 1881 by John Hughlings Jackson, who described "uncinate fits" and the “dreamy state." In the 1940s, Gibbs et al introduced the term "psychomotor epilepsy." The international classification of epileptic seizures (1981) replaced the term psychomotor seizures with complex partial seizures. The ILAE classification of the epilepsies uses the term temporal lobe epilepsy and divides the etiologies into cryptogenic (presumed unidentified etiology), idiopathic (genetic), and symptomatic (cause known, eg, tumor).

Pathophysiology: Hippocampal sclerosis is the most common pathologic finding in TLE. Hippocampal sclerosis involves hippocampal cell loss in the CA1 and CA3 regions and the dentate hilus. The CA2 region is relatively spared.

For more information, see Pathophysiology in the article Seizures and Epilepsy: Overview and Classification.

Frequency:
In the US: Approximately 50% of patients with epilepsy have partial epilepsy. Partial epilepsy is often of temporal lobe origin. However, the true prevalence of TLE is not known, since not all cases of presumed TLE are confirmed by video-EEG and most cases are classified by clinical history and interictal EEG findings alone. The temporal lobe is the most epileptogenic region of the brain. In fact, 90% of patients with temporal interictal epileptiform abnormalities on their EEG have a history of seizures.

History:
- Aura
- Auras occur in approximately 80% of temporal lobe seizures. They are a common feature of simple partial seizures and usually precede complex partial seizures of temporal lobe origin.
Auras may be classified by symptom type; the types comprise somatosensory, special sensory, autonomic, or psychic symptoms.
- Somatosensory and special sensory phenomena
- Olfactory and gustatory illusions and hallucinations may occur. Acharya et al found that olfactory auras are associated more commonly with temporal lobe tumors than with other causes of TLE.
- Auditory hallucinations consist of a buzzing sound, a voice or voices, or muffling of ambient sounds. This type of aura is more common with neocortical TLE than with other types of TLE.
- Patients may report distortions of shape, size, and distance of objects.
- These visual illusions are unlike the visual hallucinations associated with occipital lobe seizure in that no formed elementary visual image is noted, such as the visual image of a face that may be seen with seizures arising from the fusiform or the inferior temporal gyrus.
- Things may appear shrunken (micropsia) or larger (macropsia) than usual.
- Tilting of structures has been reported. Vertigo has been described with seizures in the posterior superior temporal gyrus.
- Psychic phenomena
- Patients may have a feeling of déjà vu or jamais vu, a sense of familiarity or unfamiliarity, respectively.
- Patients may experience depersonalization (ie, feeling of detachment from oneself) or derealization (ie, surroundings appear unreal).
- Fear or anxiety usually is associated with seizures arising from the amygdala.
- Patients may describe a sense of dissociation or autoscopy, in which they report seeing their own body from outside.
- Autonomic phenomena are characterized by changes in heart rate, piloerection, and sweating. Patients may experience an epigastric "rising" sensation or nausea.

Physical:
- Following the aura, a temporal lobe complex partial seizure begins with a wide-eyed, motionless stare, dilated pupils, and behavioral arrest. Oral alimentary automatisms such as lip smacking, chewing, and swallowing may be noted. Manual automatisms or unilateral dystonic posturing of a limb also may be observed.
- Patients may continue their ongoing motor activity or react to their surroundings in a semipurposeful manner (ie, reactive automatisms). They can have repetitive stereotyped manual automatisms.
- A complex partial seizure may evolve to a secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizure.
- Patients usually experience a postictal period of confusion, which distinguishes TLE from absence seizures, which are not associated with postictal confusion. In addition, absence seizures are not associated with complex automatisms. Postictal aphasia suggests onset in the language-dominant temporal lobe.
- Most auras and automatisms last a very short period—seconds or 1-2 minutes. The postictal phase may last for a longer period (several minutes). By definition, amnesia occurs during a complex partial seizure because of bilateral hemispheric involvement.

Causes:
- Approximately two thirds of patients with TLE treated surgically have hippocampal sclerosis as the pathologic substrate.

The etiologies of TLE include the following:
- Past infections, eg, herpes encephalitis or bacterial meningitis
- Hamartomas
- Gliomas
- Vascular malformations (ie, arteriovenous malformation, cavernous angioma)
- Cryptogenic: A cause is presumed but has not been identified.
- Idiopathic (genetic): This is rare. Familial TLE was described by Berkovic and colleagues, and partial epilepsy with auditory features was described by Scheffer and colleagues.
- Hippocampal sclerosis produces a clinical syndrome called mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). MTLE begins in late childhood, then remits, but reappears in adolescence or early adulthood in a refractory form.
- Febrile seizures: The association of simple febrile seizure with TLE has been controversial. However, a subset of children with complex febrile convulsions appears to be at risk of developing TLE in later life. Complex febrile seizures are febrile seizures that last longer than 15 minutes, have focal features, or recur within 24 hours.

Source: http://faithfreedom.org/content/muhammad-and-temporal-lobe-epilepsy-tle

IHS