Atheism

A Mississippi man accused of destroying a statue of a pagan idol at Iowa’s state Capitol is now being charged with a hate crime.

If the bill succeeds, taxpayer dollars could be funneled to religious schools... including Satanic ones.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/186277

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/11303681

List of killings ordered by mohammad

Recorded cases of blasphemy in 21st century:

Saudi Arabia

2009 - Hadi bin Sa’id bin Hamad Al Mutif, an Isma'ili death row prisoner, was sentenced to an additional 5 years imprisonment for criticizing the Saudi justice system.[6] He was sentenced to death in 1996 for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad in 1993. His trial had violated numerous international fair trial standards, and basic rules of due process had not been observed from the time of his arrest to his conviction.[7]

2008 - Ra'if Badawa was charged with “setting up an electronic site that insults Islam” for his website that details abuses by the Saudi religious police and questions the predominant interpretation of Islam (Wahhabism). Jeddah's prosecution service referred the case to the court and requested a 5-year prison sentence and a 3 million riyal (US$800,000) fine. Amidst arrest threats and death threats, Badawa fled the country.[8]

2007 - Sabri Bogday, a Turkish barber, was sentenced to death on blasphemy charges after an unfair trial.[9] Thankfully, King Abdullah, after receiving correspondence from Turkey's president and prime minister, pardoned Bogday and he was released to Turkey.[10]

2005 - Muhammad al-Harbi was sentenced by a Saudi court to more than three years in prison and 750 lashes for speaking to his students about his views on a number of current topics, such as Christianity, Judaism and the causes of terrorism.[11]

2004 - Muhammad al-Sahimi was banned from teaching and sentenced to three years in prison and 300 lashes for endorsing allegedly un-Islamic sexual, social and religious practices because of his discussion on the varying concepts of love in poetry.[11]

Iran

2010 - Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were hanged on January 28 after being convicted of being "enemies of God" and members of an outlawed pro-monarchist group. The semi-official ISNA news agency said the two were charged with plotting to topple the government and had been tried in August – apparently implying that they were part of the protest movement over June's disputed presidential election. But opposition sources said the two were arrested three months before the elections.[12]

2002 - Hashem Aghajari, an Iranian university professor, was originally sentenced to death on blasphemy charges after calling for religious reforms and declaring that Muslims were not "monkeys" who should blindly follow the teachings of clerics.[13] The case led to an international outcry, protests from thousands of Iranian students, and the resignation of twenty Tarbiat-Modarres University department chiefs.[14] Although he decided not to appeal the original verdict, his lawyer filed on his behalf.[15] Under pressure from Iranians as well as the international community, the court reduced his sentence to three years imprisonment, and after serving two he was released on bail in 2004.[16]

Pakistan CHAPTER XV OF OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION

295. Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class

295-A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any classby insulting Its religionor religious beliefs

295-B. Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur'an295-C. Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet

296. Disturbing religious assembly

297. Trespassing on burial places, etc.

298. Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings

298-A. Use of derogatory remarks, etc. in respect of holy personages

298-B.Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc. reserved for certain holy personagesor places 298-C.Person of Quadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith Pakistan Penal Code XLV of 1860, 6th October 1860 Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.[17] Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code No true Muslim could tolerate blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad or against any prophets. Love of Prophet Muhammad is a fundamental part of Islamic faith.....The governor’s logic that since Islam teaches us to protect minorities and therefore blasphemy laws should be repealed is an extremely weak one.[18] Syed Munawar Hassan, Head of Jammat-e-Islami, September, 2009

2011 - Mohamed Imran had been accused, jailed, tried and cleared of blasphemy, only to be gunned-down two weeks later.[19]
2011 - Although no-one convicted under the blasphemy law has been executed, more than 30 accused have been killed by lynch mobs.[20]
2010 - Rubina Bibi, a Christian woman, was arrested after a Muslim woman accused her of blasphemy. The woman claimed Rubina Bibi made a derogatory remark about the Prophet Muhammad. As of March 24, she is still imprisoned.[21]
2010 - Munir Masih and Ruqqiya Bibi, a Christian couple, were convicted for touching the Qur'an without washing their hands and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.[22]
2010 - Qamar David, a Christian arrested in 2006,[23] was found guilty of outraging the religious feelings of Muslims and sentenced to life imprisonment for blasphemous messages he sent with his cellphone.[24]
2010 - Imran Masih, a 22-year-old Christian shopkeeper, was beaten by a Muslim mob, arrested, and sentenced to life imprisonment for burning what a rival shopkeeper claimed were pages of the Qur'an.[25]
2009 - Hector Aleem, a 51-year-old human rights activist, was severely beaten and tortured in January 2009 on blasphemy charges after objecting to the destruction of a church.[26] As of 2014, Aleem had been released.
2005 - Younus Shaik, author of Shaitan Maulvi (Satanic Cleric), was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment for writing the allegedly blasphemous book about the Qur’an and the Islamic justice system.[27]
2002 - Anwar Keneth, a 40-year-old former government official, was sentenced to death for declaring that he is the Christ and that Islam is a fake religion. Khalid Gill, a leader and spokesman for Pakistan's Christian Liberation Front, said, "We think justice has not been done in the case of Anwar Keneth. [He] should have been treated at a mental hospital."[28]
1996 - Zaibun Nisa ("Zebunnisa"), a mentally retarded woman, was imprisoned for over 13 years for blasphemy and had never seen the inside of a courtroom until July 2010 when a Pakistani court finally ordered her release.[29][30]

Afghanistan

2008 - Pervez Kambakhsh, a journalist, was sentenced to death by a city court in Mazar-e-Sharif for downloading and distributing an article insulting Islam. He was arrested in 2007 after downloading material relating to the role of women in Islamic societies. His conviction and sentence was upheld by Afghanistan's upper house of parliament.[31] A day later the upper house quickly withdrew its support for his death sentence claiming that it had been a 'technical mistake' and had been unconstitutional. The support for the death sentence had been signed by the senate leader Sibghatullah Mojaddedi.[32] The death sentence was later changed to twenty years imprisonment,[33] but President Karzai secretly pardoned Kambakhsh and he was able to escape the country.[34] Afghanistan's upper house of parliament condemned the release of Kambakhsh as contrary to Islamic values and issued the following statement:[35]

The members of Meshrano Jirga (Upper House) expressed concern that this was not the first time a person sentenced for apostasy and impiety with the cooperation of anti-Islamic organisations is freed from punishment.

Punishment for Blasphemy In Qur'an

Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the here after, and He has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace. And those who speak evil things of the believing men and the believing women without their having earned (it), they are guilty indeed of a false accusation and a manifest sin. O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while; Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. Quran 33:57-61

Also, Qur'an does specify a punishment for "spreading mischief":-

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, Quran 5:33

(This verse is also used to justify public executions in muslim states (for example in arabia and iran)

"Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?" Quran 6:93

Hadeeth

Muhammad had said to his followers “Whoever curses a prophet kill him,” (Tabarani, Daraqutni)[3] and there are many examples of people during his time who were guilty of blaspheming Islam and its Prophet. Most of these people were assassinated with Muhammad's blessing, and no punishment or compensation was imposed on the murderer.

'Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) - Muhammad asked his followers to kill this man for making "evil" statements about Muhammad's family.

Abu `Afak - Muhammad asked his followers to kill this man for making negative remarks about Muhammad and Islam.

Ka’b bin Ashraf - Muhammad asked his followers to kill this man for writing inflammatory poetry about Muhammad and Muslim women.

Asma Bint Marwan - Muhammad asked his followers to kill this woman for composing inflammatory poetry about Islam and Muslims.

Blind Man's Slave-Mother - When Muhammad learned that one of his followers had stabbed and killed his Umm walad (concubine with whom he had fathered a child) for making derogatory remarks about Muhammad, he declared that "no retaliation is payable for her blood."

Al-Nadr Bin Al-Harith - Al Nadir, a storyteller and poet who had mocked him. He was a prisoner of war who was not allowed to be ransomed by their clans and was executed on Muhammad's orders.

other doctrine books

Scholars

[In Islamic Fiqh] there are absolutely no opinions, no variants, no exceptions...Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that even if a man claims that it is part of his religion to insult the Messenger, and so in his religion it is lawful, that makes no difference to us. If he openly insults our Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, then our religion makes it lawful to kill him. This surely is the inescapable centre of the current affair. The arrogant kuffar have to learn that the world contains a two-billion community who have a different set of Laws from theirs, and who can never be detached from that Law The Fiqh Concerning Those Who Insult The Messenger of Allah Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi, February 6, 2006

“Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.

The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or lies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the ‘ulama' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.[4]

Qadi 'Iyad ibn Musa al-Yahsubi

According to Ayatullah al-Khu'i, it is incumbent (wajib) to kill one who insults or calumniates the Prophet when one hears the insults provided there is no danger to his self, reputation or wealth. Agha also extends this ruling to cover insults against the Imams and Bibi Fatima (A.S.). It is not essential to get the permission of a Hakim al-Shar' to carry out the act. Islamic law on Blasphemy Dr. Takim, 'Aalim Network QR, December 8, 1995 In Islam, a person who has committed blasphemy can either be killed or crucified, or his opposite hands and feet can be cut off, or he can be exiled from that land. On the other hand, in other religions there is no other option except capital punishment. Islam at least has four options of punishment for an act of blasphemy. Question Hour: Ruling for Blasphemy in Islam Dr. Zakir Naik, Islamic Voice, April, 2006

Dr. Naik fails to mention that the other world religions are not political ideologies and therefore are not incorporated in state penal codes. The Islamic state does have the right to punish the person who commits blasphemy against the Prophet.[5]

Asif Iftikhar, PhD student of Islamic Law at McGill and a visiting faculty member at LUMS and Pakistan College of Law Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) discussed this matter at length and mentioned the ruling on one who tells lies about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally, the ruling on one who tells lies about him in a report and the ruling on one who narrates a hadeeth knowing it to be false. He was of the view that the one who tells lies about him verbally is a kaafir. He said in al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘Ala Shaatim il-Rasool (2/328-399), after quoting the hadeeth of Buraydah:

A clan of Banu Layth in Madeenah was of two minds. A man had proposed marriage to one of their womenfolk during the Jaahiliyyah but they did not accept his proposal. He came to them wearing a hullah (a suit of clothing) and said: “The Messenger of Allaah gave me this hullah to wear and told me to rule over your wealth and your blood.” Then he went and stayed with that woman whom he loved. The people sent word to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said: “The enemy of Allaah is lying.” Then he sent a man and said: “If you find him alive – although I do not think that you will find him alive – then strike his neck (kill him). And if you find him dead then burn him with fire.” He said: This is what the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning “one who tells lies about me deliberately.” Shaykh al-Islam said: “This is a saheeh isnaad according to the conditions of al-Saheeh and we do not find any fault in it.” Then he said: There are two opinions concerning this hadeeth:

1 – That the apparent meaning should be followed and the one who deliberately tells lies about the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be killed. Among those who were of this view were some who said that the one who does that becomes a kaafir thereby. This was the view of several including Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni. Ibn ‘Aqeel quoted his Shaykh, Abu’l-Fadl al-Hamdaani, as saying: “The innovators, liars and fabricators of hadeeth are worse than the heretics because the heretics want to attack Islam from without but these people want to attack it from within. They are like people who try to destroy a city from within whilst the heretics are like those who are laying siege to it from without, and those who are inside open up the fortress. So they are more dangerous to Islam than those who do not appear outwardly to be Muslims.” The main point of this opinion is that telling lies about him (the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) is tantamount to telling lies about Allaah. Hence he said: “Telling lies about me is not like telling lies about one of you.” What the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded is what Allaah commanded, and it must be followed just as the commands of Allaah must be followed. Whatever he told us must be believed, just as whatever Allaah told us must be believed. Whoever rejects what he told us or refuses to follow his command is like one who rejects what Allaah told us or refuses to follow the command of Allaah. It is well known that the one who tells lies about Allaah by claiming to be a messenger or prophet of Allaah, or tells false things about Allaah, such as Musaylimah and other fabricators of his ilk, is a kaafir whose blood may be shed, and the same applies to one who tells lies about the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Thus it is clear that telling lies about him is tantamount to disbelieving in him. Hence Allaah mentions the two things together in the verse where He says (interpretation of the meaning): “And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allaah or denies the truth, when it comes to him?” [al-‘Ankaboot 29:68] 2 – The liar is to be punished severely, but he is not regarded as a kaafir and it is not permissible to kill him, because the factors that determine who is a kaafir and is to be killed are well known and this is not one of them. It is not permissible to affirm something for which there is no basis. Whoever says that he is not to be executed has to stipulate that telling lies about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) does not imply any criticism or defamation of him. But if he says that he heard him say something that implies belittling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or criticizing him, such as the hadeeth about “the sweat of horses” and other such silly fabrications, this is obviously mocking him, and the one who says this is undoubtedly a kaafir whose blood may be shed. Those who were of the view that such a person is not to be executed responded to this hadeeth by saying that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) knew that he was a hypocrite so he killed him for that and not for lying, but this answer does not count for anything.

Ruling on one who tells lies about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 43725

Defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is a kind of kufr. If that is done by a Muslim then it is apostasy on his part, and the authorities have to defend the cause of Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by executing the one who defamed him. If the one who defamed him repents openly and is sincere, that will benefit him before Allaah, although his repentance does not waive the punishment for defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which is execution. If the person who defames him is a non-Muslim living under a treaty with the Muslim state, then this is a violation of the treaty and he must be executed, but that should be left to the authorities. If a Muslim hears a Christian or anyone else defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) he has to denounce him in strong terms. It is permissible to insult that person because he is the one who started it. How can we not stand up the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? It is also obligatory to report him to the authorities who can carry out the punishment on him. If there is no one who can carry out the hadd punishment of Allaah and stand up for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) then the Muslim has to do whatever he can, so long as that will not lead to further mischief and harm against other people. But if a Muslim hears a kaafir defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he keeps quiet and does not respond for fear that this person may then defame him even more, this is mistaken thinking.

It is essential to respond to those who defame the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Barraak, Majallat al-Da’wah, Muharram, issue no. 1933. Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 14305 If a Muslim commits blasphemy against the Prophet , this is an act of disbelief which takes him out of the fold of Islam. Allaah Says (what means): {Make no excuse; you have disbelieved [i.e. rejected faith] after your belief. If We pardon one faction of you—We will punish another faction because they were criminals.}[Quran 9:66] If joking is considered as an act of apostasy, then it is more confirmed for one who is saying it intentionally. If the blasphemer does not repent, he should be killed for his apostasy. However, if he sincerely repents to Allaah, Allaah will accept his repentance. Repentance expiates all sins, even Shirk (associating partners to Allaah). Allaah Knows best. Blasphemy against the Prophet is an act of apostasy

Islam Web Fatwa Center, Fatwa No. 17316, December 11, 2007 Whoever Curses the Prophet Peace and Blessings be Upon him, Muslim or Kafir, Must be Killed.

The Drawn Sword Against the One Who Curses the Messenger - Pages 31-33 Ibn Taymiyyah "The general scholars agreed that whoever curses him, Peace and Blessings be upon him, must be killed. This was stated by Malik, Al-Layth, Ahmad, Ishaaq, and Ash-Shafi'ee, and Nu'man (Abu Hanifa) said that the Dhimmi (Jizya-paying non-Muslim) is not to be killed." The Drawn Sword Against the One Who Curses the Messenger - Pages 31-33 Ibn Al-Munthir The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438 Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. Ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) Shaykh al Munajid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 22809 Waging war against Islam is not limited only to fighting with weapons, rather it may be done verbally such as defaming Islam or the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or attacking the Qur’aan, and so on. Waging verbal war against Islam may be worse than waging war against it with weapons in some cases.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/735

When Americans are asked to check a box indicating their religious affiliation, 28% now check 'none.'

A new study from Pew Research finds that the religiously unaffiliated – a group comprised of atheists, agnostic and those who say their religion is "nothing in particular" – is now the largest cohort in the U.S. They're more prevalent among American adults than Catholics (23%) or evangelical Protestants (24%).

Back in 2007, Nones made up just 16% of Americans, but Pew's new survey of more than 3,300 U.S. adults shows that number has now risen dramatically.

Researchers refer to this group as the "Nones."

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/10956738

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/10818194

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/10818188

Proof that mohammad was a pedophile: 17 sahih (Islamically fact) hadiths affirming that Aisha was married to 54 year old Mohammed at 6 and raped at 9:

1- https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1877

2- https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422c

3- https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422d

4- https://sunnah.com/nasai:3258

5- https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1876

6- https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2121

7- https://sunnah.com/nasai:3256

8- https://sunnah.com/nasai:3378

9- https://sunnah.com/nasai:3257

10- https://sunnah.com/nasai:3255

11- https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5134

12- https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3894

13- https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5133

14- https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5158

15- https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3896

16- https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422a

17- https://sunnah.com/muslim:1422b

Quran 65:4 allows child marrige

A true believer is one who doesn't feel the need to lie about their own beliefs

As climate-stoked disasters and record-breaking heat waves piled up after 2014, the sense of urgency among white evangelicals actually declined. Amazingly enough, the mounting evidence they saw or perhaps even experienced did less than nothing to convince them.

Though they belong to the most popular religion in the world, Christians remain mercilessly persecuted by a depraved subset of maniacs who do not believe in God. The Onion asked Christians why atheists are bullies, and this is what they said.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/10378835

(podcast)

Someone else got me thinking of my favorite scene from Father Ted. If you've never seen this show, seek it out. You'll never see more hilarious blasphemy.

I am really enjoying Matt Dillahunty's Debate Review vs Muslim Apologist Daniel Haqiqatjou.

Currently it comes in three parts, linked is the first. Two others are on the ready (the second one is two hours long). The fourth and final will come around at some point... which means you have time to catch up!

#atheism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmaMz_dr1t

I picked up Asimov's Guide to the Bible recently and have been really enjoying it. I found this bit about Christmas in the chapter on Luke really interesting. It's not a short read but an insightful and in-depth take. It gets to a few points that have always bugged me about the birth story; such as "Why is Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem?" "Why would there be a census in the winter/why Dec 25?"

Here's Asimov's telling from the book, from the chapter on Luke:

TLDR:

.

Bethlehem

One might suppose, instead, that Luke made use of the well remembered census merely as a landmark by which to date the approximate time of birth of Jesus, as Matthew used the star of Bethlehem (see page 128). The Biblical writers are rarely concerned with exact dating, in any case, and find other matters of more importance.

But there is a chance that more was involved. We might argue that Luke was faced with a serious difficulty in telling the tale of Jesus birth and that he had decided to use the census as a device to get out of that difficulty.

In Mark, the earliest of the gospels, Jesus appears only as Jesus of Nazareth. To Mark, as nearly as we can tell from his gospel, the Messiah was a Galilean by birth, born in Nazareth.

Yet this could not be accepted by Jews learned in the Scriptures. Jesus of Nazareth had to be born in Bethlehem in order to be the Messiah. The prophet Micah was considered to have said so specifically (see page 1-653) and the evangelist Matthew accepts that in his gospel (see page 132).

In order to make the birth at Bethlehem (made necessary by theological theory) consistent with the known fact of life at Nazareth, Matthew made Joseph and Mary natives of Bethlehem who migrated to Nazareth not long after Jesus' birth (see page 138).

Luke, however, did not have access to Matthew's version, apparently, and it did not occur to him to make use of so straightforward a device. Instead, he made Joseph and Mary dwellers in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, and had them travel to Bethlehem just in time to have Jesus born there and then had them return.

That Mary, at least, dwelt in Nazareth, and perhaps had even been born there, seems plain from the fact that Gabriel was sent there to make the annunciation:

Luke 1:26. the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Luke 1:27. To a virgin [whose] name was Mary.

But if that were so, why should Mary, in her last month of pregnancy, make the difficult and dangerous seventy-mile overland journey to Bethlehem? Luke might have said it was done at Gabriel's orders, but he didn't. Instead, with literary economy, he made use of the landmark of Jesus' birth for the additional purpose of having Jesus born at Bethlehem. Once Caesar Augustus had issued his decree commanding the census in advance of taxation:

Luke 2:3. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Luke 2:4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)

Luke 2:5. To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Though this device has much to be said for it from the standpoint of literary economy, it has nothing to be said for it in the way of plausibility. The Romans couldn't possibly have conducted so queer a census as that. Why should they want every person present in the town of his ancestors rather than in the town in which he actually dwelt? Why should they want individuals traveling up and down the length of the land, clogging the roads and interfering with the life of the province? It would even have been a military danger, for the Parthians could find no better time to attack than when Roman troops would find it hard to concentrate because of the thick crisscrossing of civilians on their way to register.

Even if the ancestral town were somehow a piece of essential information, would it not be simpler for each person merely to state what that ancestral town was? And even if, for some reason, a person had to travel to that ancestral town, would it not be sufficient for the head of the household or some agent of his to make the trip? Would a wife have to come along? Particularly one that was in the last month of pregnancy?

No, it is hard to imagine a more complicated tissue of implausibilities and the Romans would certainly arrange no such census.

Those who maintain that there was an earlier census in 6 B.C. or thereabouts, conducted under the auspices of Herod, suggest that one of the reasons this early census went off quietly was precisely because Herod ran things in the Jewish fashion, according to tribes and house- holds. Even if Herod were a popular king (which he wasn't) it is difficult to see how he could have carried through a quiet census by requiring large numbers of people to tramp miles under the dangerous and primitive conditions of travel of the times. All through their history, the Jews had rebelled for far smaller reasons than the declaration of such a requirement.

It is far easier to believe that Luke simply had to explain the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem for theological reasons, when it was well known that he was brought up in Nazareth. And his instinct for drama overcame any feelings he might have had for plausibility.

Judging by results, Luke was right. The implausibility of his story has not prevented it from seizing upon the imagination of the Christian world, and it is this second chapter of the gospel of St. Luke that is the epitome of the story of the Nativity and the inspiration of countless tales and songs and works of art.

Christmas

In Bethlehem, according to Luke's account, Mary gave birth:

Luke 2:7. And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Presumably the inn was full of travelers, as all inns in Judea must have been at that time, if Luke's story of the census is accepted. Every town, after all, would have been receiving its quota of families returning from elsewhere.

There is no indication at all at this point concerning the date of the Nativity. The feast is celebrated, now, by almost all Christian churches on December 25. This is Christmas ("Christ's mass").

But why December 25? No one really knows. To Europeans and North Americans such a date means winter and, in fact, many of our carols depict a wintry scene and so do our paintings. Indeed, so close is the association of winter and snow that each year millions irrationally long for a "white Christmas" though snow means a sharp rise in automobile fatalities.

Yet upon what is such wintry association based? There is no mention of either snow or cold in either Luke or Matthew. In fact, in the verse after the description of the birth, Luke says:

Luke 2:8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

It is customary, since we have the celebration firmly fixed on Decem- ber 25, to imagine these shepherds as keeping their watch in bitter cold and perhaps in deep snow.

But why? Surely it is much more likely that a night watch would be kept in the summertime when the nights would be mild and, in fact, more comfortable than the scorching heat of the day. For that matter, it is but adding still another dimension to the implausible nature of the census as depicted by Luke if we suppose that all this unnecessary traveling was taking place in the course of a cold winter time.

To be sure, it is a mistake to think of a Palestinian winter as being as cold as one in Germany, Great Britain, or New England. The usual associations of Christmas with snow and ice-even if it were on December 25-is purely a local prejudice. It falls in the same class with the manner that medieval artists depicted Mary and Joseph in medieval clothing because they could conceive of no other kind.

Nevertheless, whether December 25 is snowy or mild makes no difference at the moment. The point is that neither Luke nor Matthew give a date of any kind for the Nativity. They give no slightest hint that can be used to deduce a day or even guess at one.

Why, then, December 25? The answer might be found in astronomy and in Roman history.

The noonday Sun is at varying heights in the sky at different seasons of the year because the Earth's axis is tipped by 23 degrees to the plane of Earth's revolution about the Sun. Without going into the astronomy of this in detail, it is sufficient to say that the noonday Sun climbs steadily higher in the sky from December to June, and falls steadily lower from June to December. The steady rise is easily associated with a lengthening day, an eventually warming temperature and quickening of life; the steady decline with a shortening day, an eventually cooling temperature and fading of life.

In primitive times, when the reason for the cycle was not understood in terms of modern astronomy, there was never any certainty that the sinking Sun would ever turn and begin to rise again. Why should it do so, after all, except by the favor of the gods? And that favor might depend entirely upon the proper conduct of a complicated ritual known only to the priests.

It must have been occasion for great gladness each year, then, to observe the decline of the noonday Sun gradually slowing, then coming to a halt and beginning to rise again. The point at which the Sun comes to a halt is the winter "solstice" (from Latin words meaning "sun- halt").

The time of the winter solstice was the occasion for a great feast in honor of what one might call the "birth of the Sun."

In Roman times, a three-day period, later extended to seven days, was devoted to the celebration of the winter solstice. This was the "Saturnalia," named in honor of Saturn, an old Roman god of agriculture.

At the Saturnalia, joy was unrestrained, as befitted a holiday that celebrated a reprieve from death and a return to life. All public business was suspended, in favor of festivals, parties, singing, and gift-giving. It was a season of peace and good will to all men. Even slaves were, for that short period, allowed license that was forbidden at all other times and were treated temporarily on a plane of equality with their masters. Naturally, the joy easily turned to the extremes of licentiousness and debauchery, and there were, no doubt, many pious people who deplored the uglier aspects of the festival.

In the Roman calendar - a very poor and erratic one before the time of Julius Caesar - the Saturnalia was celebrated the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth of December. Once Caesar established a sensible calendar, the winter solstice fell upon December 25 (although in our own calendar, slightly modified since Caesar's time, it comes on December 21).

In the first centuries of the Roman Empire, Christianity had to compete with Mithraism, a form of Sun-worship with its roots in Persia. In Mithraism, the winter solstice was naturally the occasion of a great festival and in A.D. 274, the Roman Emperor, Aurelian, set December 25 as the day of the birth of the Sun. In other words, he lent the Mithraist holiday the official sanction of the government.

The celebration of the winter solstice was a great stumbling block to conversions to Christianity. If Christians held the Saturnalia and the birth of the Sun to be purely pagan then many converts were discouraged. Even if they abandoned belief in the old Roman gods and in Mithras, they wanted the joys of the holiday. (How many people today celebrate the Christmas season with no reference at all to its religious significance and how many would be willing to give up the joy, warmth, and merriment of the season merely because they were not pious Christians?) But Christianity adapted itself to pagan customs where these, in the judgment of Christian leaders, did not compromise the essential doctrines of the Church. The Bible did not say on which day Jesus was born and there was no dogma that would be affected by one day rather than by another. It might, therefore, be on December 25 as well as on any other.

Once that was settled, converts could join Christianity without giving up their Saturnalian happiness. It was only necessary for them to joyfully greet the birth of the Son rather than the Sun. If December 25 is Christmas and if it is assumed that Mary became pregnant at the time of the annunciation, then the anniversary of the annunciation must be placed on March 25, nine months before Christ mas. And, indeed, March 25 is the day of the Feast of the Annunciation and is called Annunciation Day or, in England, Lady Day, where "Lady" refers to Mary.

Again, if the annunciation came when Elisabeth was six months pregnant, John the Baptist must have been born three months later. June 24 is the day on which his birth is celebrated.

December 25 was gradually accepted through most of the Roman Empire between A.D. 300 and 350. This late period is indicated by the date alone.

There were two general kinds of calendars in use in the ancient Mediterranean world. One is the lunar calendar, which matches the months to the phases of the Moon. It was devised by the Babylonians, who passed it on to the Greeks and the Jews. The other is the solar calendar, which matches the months to the seasons of the year. It was devised by the Egyptians, who passed it on, in Caesar's time, to the Romans, and, by way of Rome, to ourselves.

The lunar calendar does not match the seasons and, in order to keep it from falling out of line, some years must have twelve lunar months and others thirteen, in a rather complex pattern. To people using a solar calendar (as we do) the lunar year is too short when it has twelve months and too long when it has thirteen. A date that is fixed in a lunar calendar slips forward and backward in the solar calendar, although, in the long run, it oscillates about a fixed place.

The holidays established early in Church history made use of the lunar calendar used by the Greeks and Jews. As a result, these holiday shift their day (by our calendar) from year to year. The chief of these days is Easter. It is the prime example of a "movable holiday" and each year we must look at the calendar to see when it might come. All the other movable holidays are tied to Easter and shift with it.

When Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and even became the official doctrine of the land, early in the fourth century, it began to make increasing use of the Roman calendar. It became rather complicated to adjust the date of Easter to that calendar. There were serious disagreements among different portions of the Church as to the exact method for doing so, and schisms and heresies arose over the matter. Those holidays that came into being comparatively late, when Christianity had become official in the empire, made use of the Roman calendar to begin with. Such holiday dates slid back and forth on the lunar calendar but were fixed on solar calendars such as our own. The mere fact that Christmas is celebrated on December 25 every year and that the date never varies on our calendar is enough to show that it was not established as a religious festival until after A.D. 300.