For many children around the world, Santa Claus is a major source of
joy. He is a legendary patron, saint of children. Imaginatively, he is
thought to bring presents to them annually at Christmas eve. So, who
initially integrated this fictitious character? It was the Catholic
Church of Rome. Whenever you demand to hide a criminal, just reshape
him in a valuable and broadly loving character. That is precisely
what they have done. What could be more gracious than delivering
felicity to children across the globe? If you were deceived about the
reality of Santa throughout your childhood, you certainly were not
alone. How Santa became so prominent? Santa Claus is a pseudonym for
Saint Nicholas. So, who is Saint Nicholas? He was a conspicuously
notorious bishop of Asia Minor during traditional Christian fourth
century. In that time, people who declined embracing the doctrine of
Trinity were relentlessly subjected to explicit religious persecution
and brutal bedevilment. With his consent and oversight, Trinity
deniers were suppressed and ruthlessly subjugated to purposeful ethnic
cleansing. He presided the mass murder of many innocents. Thence, this
criminal figure has viciously been recreated to hide his unfortunate
and abhorrent true character. Shamelessly, the one who has longly and
counterfeitly been misportrayed as children lover, carer and giver is
a mere serial murderer. The critical question is, who is held
accountable of deliberately hiding the truth for quite a long time?
The truth may or may not be crucial to plenty of manipulated and
culturally defeated Muslims. Well, they are Muslims just by name after
all. And as for those who are not Muslims, I ask, if you knew what
Santa actually was, why did you choose to hide the truth? What could
be more disgraceful than deliberately lieing to children? Once at
prophet Muhammad's time, a woman called a child and said to him: Come,
and I shall give you something. What are you going to give him?,
prophet Muhammad asked. I’ll give him dates, she said. If you would
have not offered him something, it would have been counted a lie upon
thee, prophet Muhammad decisively stated. I chose to call this piece
innocence infringement for primal couple of reasons. First of which,
it is a desperate necessity to wholly unveil the genuine origin of
Santa Claus. I certainly do not destine to provoke anyone’s offence. I
just meant to bring clarity to people. Second, my current job
primarily pertaines to communicating with children, particularly,
intellectually challenging ones. To many of them, I am their mentor
and reliable source of information. What if they discovered when they
grow up that I lied to them once during their childhood? What would be
their reaction? They would have never trusted me again. Certainly,
they have the right to. This is why, I would never lie to them about
even the smallest of things. If I lied to them once, it would have
been the impingement of their natural innocence. Why would I tell my
child that a nonexistent figure brought you a present? Why wouldn’t he
just be me? I do not intend to intentionally bait Christmas
celebrants. I am just questioning the potential consequences and the
moral implication of some inherited traditions. This occasion is
allegedly affiliated to Jesus the Christ, peace and blessings be upon
him. Therefore, it must be honoured and properly feted. Saint Nicholas
had been enigmatically renamed. He strangely had got an alternative
pseudonym. He was called Kriss Kringle rather than Santa Claus. Why
Catholics transferred the actual character of Saint Nicholas into
legendary figure that supposedly indulges children? At its inception,
it was so crucial to Church and its eminent hierarchy to deeply
conceal the scandalous truth of manslayer Saint Nicholas and
substitute it with its precise opposite. They prospered doing so and
indirectly, attracted children throughout the world to mass
Christendom, without engaging in explicit missionary acts. This is
their ordinary manner of methodologically deceiving lay individuals.
They do not dare approaching theologically edified Muslims. Therefore,
they introduce conversion through evoking incertitude, emotional
enticement or organised facts distortion. This style was used to make
Muslim children adore Santa and despise prophet Muhammad. In Christian
hospitals in Nigeria, Ghana, Pakistan, Philippines or any developed
country around the world, as poor Muslim children are hospitalised for
various diseases, nurses who secretly engage in missionary work would
bring presents to them and say, Santa brought you this because he is
nice. Next day, she would intentionally hide the present from the
little child and say, Muhammad stole it from you because he is
naughty. She would then bring it back and say, Santa retook it from
naughty Muhammad because he loves you. Muhammad is bad, Santa is good.
This is the emotional frivolity that is carefully practiced on poor
hospitalised children. Naturally, Santa will be transfered to Jesus as
the child grows up. No one could deny that missionary engagement is
only practiced through entrancing people of ignorance and poverty with
temporalty and copious greed. I wholeheartedly invite top Christology
proponents to utterly abandon this unethical approach. The clearer you
are, the serious you will surely be. If you would like to be reliable,
you must present your proposition genuinely. You must refrain from
resorting to implicit manner of proselytising. I urge you to quit
sending missionary activists to hapless African villages and so on. If
you would like to offer them inadvertent and innocuous aid, you
certainly wouldn't be scolded. The problem is, your aid is often
mingled with religious ambitions. This is why, Muslims are prohibited
to give Zakat contribution to poor people who are not Muslims. In each
and every community, the rich must share a portion of his wealth with
the poor. This is what Zakat is in brief. This is to avoid the
misconception of indirect religious compulsion. I hope this last
statement is fathomed thoroughly. Mustafa