Mental Instability Diagnosis of Mohammed

Cris

In search of Immortality
Valued Senior Member
Interesting article that examines the mental instability of Mohammed and how such a major religion can be founded just on delusions.

http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/elst-wahi-part6.html

Just a few random highlights -

Of all the founders of religions, none has left a more detailed biography than the Prophet of Islam.

As indications of a latent mental problem, this is still pretty vague, but this much is clear that even as a boy, Mohammed was noticed as a special case.

In the years preceding the start of the Quranic revelations, we know that his wife Khadija thought he had the “evil eye”. For this reason, she sent him to exorcists for treatment. This again we only know in very general terms, but it corroborates the suspicion that Mohammed was predisposed to developing a mental problem, and that his contemporaries were aware of his unusual psychic complexion.

From that point onwards, her supportive attitude to her husband’s initially desperate attempts to come to terms with his trances took on the character of a folie à deux: though not afflicted herself, she went along with his self-delusion. She became the first believer, the first one to surrender (Islam) her common-sense judgment and take his claims as true.

…it is the contents of Mohammed’s hallucinations which clearly mark him as a paranoia patient.

The disproportion between his new self-perception and his actual social status as an ordinary businessman and later as a derided cult leader was unbearable. In fact, intolerance of others’ skepticism, along with vengefulness, is a typical trait of paranoia patients. And so, we find Mohammed singling out each of his critics for assassination or execution.

Of Mohammed’s physical traits, one which draws the attention is that he suffered of chronic headaches, which he tried to remedy by bleeding himself in two veins in his neck. While in itself not enough to indicate a brain problem, it certainly fits that picture once more indications are found.

….. indicates an identifiable neuropathological basis for Mohammed’s hallucinations. As a hypothetical physiological explanation of Mohammed’s mental problems, Dr. Somers suggests that very near the main sensory (auditive and visual) nerves in the mid-brain and on the front part of his pituitary gland, Mohammed had developed a tumor. But this is more speculative than the well-attested psychopathological diagnosis of Mohammed’s paranoia condition.

Mohammed’s paranoia, by contrast, is an obvious, widely attested and diagnostically articulate fact.

Sad to say, this world religion espoused by more than a billion contemporary human beings, is based on a delusion.
 
And?

Sad to say, this world religion espoused by more than a billion contemporary human beings, is based on a delusion.
If it's not this, it'll be another.

It's not Muhammed that I worry about.

(1) Does this idea of mental instability discredit Muhammed?
(2) As compared to what?
(3) Welcome to a pseudoreligious dualism.

Was Muhammed's thought process deviant? Obviously. You don't do work like that unless your thought process is deviant.

Remember also that many geniuses have exceptionally deviant thought processes and exhibit unusual behavior. Believe me, I'm quite sure Microsoft is founded on a delusion, and yes I think the delusion holds back progress, but it doesn't change the fact that Bill Gates is a brilliant son of a gun.

I'm quite sure you have a point, Cris. I just think this topic is a waste of your time as much as it is anyone else's.

Oh ... and what about the mainstream according to which we compare a deviant process isn't screwed up and subjective? Compared to the breadth of the ideas and implications you've put together, your topic post isn't even a complete sentence.
 
tiassa,

It was just an article I found while looking for something else. I believe it tries to show that Mohammed was mentally ill and that consequently Islam was founded on hallucinations.

I offer no analysis beyond that. Although, if true the implications for Islam should be significant.
 
Originally posted by Cris
tiassa,

It was just an article I found while looking for something else. I believe it tries to show that Mohammed was mentally ill and that consequently Islam was founded on hallucinations.

I offer no analysis beyond that. Although, if true the implications for Islam should be significant.

SHAME ON YOU CRIS, you are supposed to be unbiased fair moderator....

I am not going to answer this nonesense, i will just post this for you to read:

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA confirms:
"....a mass of detail in the early sources show that he was an honest and upright man who had gained the respect and loyalty of others who were like-wise honest and upright men." (Vol. 12)

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW said about him:

"He must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness." (THE GENUINE ISLAM, Singapore, Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936)

MAHATMA GANDHI, speaking on the character of Muhammad, (pbuh) says in YOUNG INDIA:

"I wanted to know the best of one who holds today's undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind....I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission.

MICHAEL H. HART in his recently published book on ratings of men who contributed towards the benefit and upliftment of mankind writes:
"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels." (M.H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York, 1978, p. 33)
 
Proud_syrian,

SHAME ON YOU CRIS, you are supposed to be unbiased fair moderator....
But I also engage in debates as a regular poster where I do have strong opinions. But on this matter I have yet to offer an opinion.

However, while I do not doubt your quotes, I also have no reason to doubt the article. That Mohammed could be an apparent fine citizen and still suffer from hallucinations are not inconsistent conditions.

That the hallucinations of a charismatic figure could be the cause of a major religion seems entirely likely and probable. This seems especially relevant now since we are beginning to develop the science of Neurotheology where abnormalities in the brain seem to specifically cause spiritual-like hallucinations entirely consistent with those of Mohammed.
 
Originally posted by Cris
Proud_syrian,

But I also engage in debates as a regular poster where I do have strong opinions. But on this matter I have yet to offer an opinion.

However, while I do not doubt your quotes, I also have no reason to doubt the article. That Mohammed could be an apparent fine citizen and still suffer from hallucinations are not inconsistent conditions.

That the hallucinations of a charismatic figure could be the cause of a major religion seems entirely likely and probable. This seems especially relevant now since we are beginning to develop the science of Neurotheology where abnormalities in the brain seem to specifically cause spiritual-like hallucinations entirely consistent with those of Mohammed.

Without the intent of offending anyone, I read where Saul of Tarsus had epilepsy, and when he fell off his horse on the road to Damascus, it was an epileptic seisure. The field of neurotheology interests me, because if this theory proves to be true, we then create our own gods. That would make each perception of god a different an up close and personal one. My question, then, would be what about the writers of the Bible? Did they have an attack of neurotheology? What about the creation of man-made religions? Were they all based on neurotheological episodes?
 
M*W,

Yes exactly, however we have more information about Mohammed than we do about the early Christian authors. M was very real and there is signifcant personal data on him, as opposed to Jesus who we cannot establish as being a real person.

If we can show with some authority that Islam was founded on baseless hallucinations then that might just shock enough believers to seriously question the validity of any religion.
 
Originally posted by Cris
M*W,

Yes exactly, however we have more information about Mohammed than we do about the early Christian authors. M was very real and there is signifcant personal data on him, as opposed to Jesus who we cannot establish as being a real person.

If we can show with some authority that Islam was founded on baseless hallucinations then that might just shock enough believers to seriously question the validity of any religion.

Understandably, is cannot be determined if Jesus was a real person or a myth. Can we assume Saul of Tarsus was real or is his existence questionable, too? The reason I ask is that my understanding of Saul is that he had mental problems stemming from either epilepsy or a bad case of neurotheology. My question: Was Paul a real character who created the myth of Jesus or are both characters thought to be just myths?
 
<i><b>Understandably, is cannot be determined if Jesus was a real person or a myth. Can we assume Saul of Tarsus was real or is his existence questionable, too? </b></i>
We can be certain that Paul existed because Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius and others not only mentioned him but knew him.

This in away proves Christianity. As Chesterton said, either Jesus is a complete lunatic or he is what he said he is. There can be no middle ground where Jesus is only a good teacher but not God or a prophet.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
<i><b>Understandably, is cannot be determined if Jesus was a real person or a myth. Can we assume Saul of Tarsus was real or is his existence questionable, too? </b></i>
We can be certain that Paul existed because Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius and others not only mentioned him but knew him.

This in away proves Christianity. As Chesterton said, either Jesus is a complete lunatic or he is what he said he is. There can be no middle ground where Jesus is only a good teacher but not God or a prophet.

No it doesn't prove anything. The only thing it would prove is that Paul existed and created the myth of Christianity. Chesterton is entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
<i><b>Understandably, is cannot be determined if Jesus was a real person or a myth. Can we assume Saul of Tarsus was real or is his existence questionable, too? </b></i>
We can be certain that Paul existed because Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius and others not only mentioned him but knew him.

This in away proves Christianity. As Chesterton said, either Jesus is a complete lunatic or he is what he said he is. There can be no middle ground where Jesus is only a good teacher but not God or a prophet.

okinrus, I addressed this question to Cris. If I had wanted the opinion of a Christian, I would have asked for one.
 
This thread is belittling of an entire religion. Muhammed and his followers do not try to explain his 'revelations" scientifically. Why do you try to discredit these 'revelations' with 'science'? If Islam maintains divination as the reasons for Muhammed's 'aberrant' behaviour, then why do you think that these tidbits of his life contradicts that? They do not. You are letting your subjectivity in your belief that Science is truth-- and this belief, like religiousfaith can also not be proven-- confuse your assessment. Science and religion are two separate universes-- figuratively.
 
M*W,

Paul appears to be a historical figure. But I'm of the impression that there is more personal information about Mohammed than about Paul. That both claimed "visions" is consistent with the symptoms that fit Neurotheology, but is there other corroborative evidence about their personal lives that reveal more about their mental state? Mohammed is certainly more recent and the data about him does not seem to have been censored as was the usual custom through the Christian path.
 
<i><b>okinrus, I addressed this question to Cris. If I had wanted the opinion of a Christian, I would have asked for one.</b></i>
Is this consistant with you only listening to what you want to hear? Why don't you just PM Chris if you don't want anyone else to dialog. This is a public forum after all.
 
Thefountainhed,

This thread is belittling of an entire religion.
You seem to imply that there is something wrong with that. What is your point? If the religion is a fraud then it deserves little to no respect.

Muhammed and his followers do not try to explain his 'revelations" scientifically.
OK. So?

Why do you try to discredit these 'revelations' with 'science'?
Because it appears that science has discovered what is probably the real source behind the revelations, i.e. a brain disorder/feature. If true then the basis of Islam is a fraud, and we may be able to prove that.

If Islam maintains divination as the reasons for Muhammed's 'aberrant' behaviour, then why do you think that these tidbits of his life contradicts that?
Because there is no other precedent or proof that something divine exists so a more mundane explanation like mental disease is astronomically more likely. That modern medical science can now assess Mohammed’s mental state and show he displayed aberrations consistent with mental disabilities or abnormalities, is far more reliable than concluding that he was contacted by an invisible super being that only he could see.

You are letting your subjectivity in your belief that Science is truth—
Why is this subjective? Religion has yet to show that it has ever revealed a truth, whereas science does this constantly. Based on that 100% failure rate for religion then any scientific basis is infinitely more valuable than any religious claim.

and this belief, like religiousfaith can also not be proven-- confuse your assessment.
Science never depends on faith in the same way as religion. The comparison is invalid.

Science and religion are two separate universes-- figuratively.
Close; Science depends on facts and religion does not. In this sense they are opposites. Science has revealed knowledge and religion has yet to show anything. Science has been validated and religion has not.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
<i><b>okinrus, I addressed this question to Cris. If I had wanted the opinion of a Christian, I would have asked for one.</b></i>
Is this consistant with you only listening to what you want to hear? Why don't you just PM Chris if you don't want anyone else to dialog. his is a public forum after all.

I already know what a Christian's answer would be, so there is no point in addressing this to a Christian. It just so happened that you jumped right in with your answer. Yes, this is a public forum, but since you already know my stance on Christianity, your answer was redundant. I specifically was asking Cris what HIS opinion was, and it didn't require a PM to get that answer. I will say this, okinrus, compared to all the Christians on board, you are probably the most learned. If I were asking for the opinion of a Christian, I'd probably ask you. Well, I just thought of one! Regarding all the early church history (warts and all) that is readily available on the Internet, why do you as a Christian always deny or try to defend the warts of the Church? I know you think this is your holy obligation, because I walked in your shoes for a long time and I understand the fervor to protect the Church, but I'm just curious about the 2000 years of cover-ups. What is your opinion on this? Heart-to-heart, now!
 
Originally posted by Cris
If we can show with some authority that Islam was founded on baseless hallucinations then that might just shock enough believers to seriously question the validity of any religion.
No Cris, validity of all religions is not based on single individuals.
Can a hallucinating individual can produce a work like Quran.? oh, may be all the poets who create great literary works were having something wrong inside their head.!
 
You seem to imply that there is something wrong with that. What is your point? If the religion is a fraud then it deserves little to no respect.
Of course there is comething wrong with that-- because you have not shown that it is a fraud. And if a poster belittles or insults a different religion simply because it contradicts with their beliefs-- which may or may not be religious-- they also deserve little to no respect.

So... you are applying 'scientific' techniques to an area where it is inapplicable. If Muhammed said he had 'visions'-- procured through divination, why do you suggest these 'visions' to be indicative of mental instability simply because they march modern behvaiour patterns consistent with SOME modern definitions of mental instability. Muhammed's entire behaviour is not consistent any case of mental disorder.

Because it appears that science has discovered what is probably the real source behind the revelations, i.e. a brain disorder/feature. If true then the basis of Islam is a fraud, and we may be able to prove that.
It "appears"? That is nonsense. You belittle based on appearance? Even then, it does not appear any such way. You cannot pschyoanalyze through accounts about a man who lived millenia ago. Your analysis is also irrelevant when the followers of that religion recognize the originator as being an "aberrant." What science has to say about these visions therefore is irrelevnat to them. You merely present them for they "seem" to validate opinions already held by you.

Because there is no other precedent or proof that something divine exists so a more mundane explanation like mental disease is astronomically more likely.
A lack of evidence does not necessitate a substitute.

That modern medical science can now assess Mohammed’s mental state and show he displayed aberrations consistent with mental disabilities or abnormalities, is far more reliable than concluding that he was contacted by an invisible super being that only he could see.
No it does not. Because you conveniently dismiss everything else outside these "aberrations". The mental state that would be consistent with such "mental disability" as you and the author insiuate would make Muhammed incapable of most things he did. Even then, speculation on the speculative is still speculation.

Why is this subjective? Religion has yet to show that it has ever revealed a truth, whereas science does this constantly. Based on that 100% failure rate for religion then any scientific basis is infinitely more valuable than any religious claim.
Religion has never revealed a truth?? LOL. That is insane. Are you still using the definition of religion as you presented me or the real definition? Consistence basis is also not 100% success. And what has "valuable" to do with anything? Value is subjective! You once again present your bias as if it supersedes all.

Science never depends on faith in the same way as religion. The comparison is invalid.
Who says they depend on faith to the same degree? Most science work on axioms that another "science" -- quantum mechanics contradicts. I suggest you look closer. Both depend on faith-- this is my assertion, and it is correct.

Close; Science depends on facts and religion does not. In this sense they are opposites. Science has revealed knowledge and religion has yet to show anything. Science has been validated and religion has not.
You are incorrect in saying that religion has yet to show anything. Everything is irrelevant and I have not said anything to contradict that. I said they are two different entities.
 
<i><b>I will say this, okinrus, compared to all the Christians on board, you are probably the most learned.</b></i>
This depends on what area. Many of the christians on this board are way better than me at physics, math, writing or whatever subject. I appear learned only because I know how to use google effectively and I try to read original sources.

<i><b>
Regarding all the early church history (warts and all) that is readily available on the Internet, why do you as a Christian always deny or try to defend the warts of the Church? I know you think this is your holy obligation, because I walked in your shoes for a long time and I understand the fervor to protect the Church, but I'm just curious about the 2000 years of cover-ups. What is your opinion on this? Heart-to-heart, now!</b></i>
I don't try to defend or deny warts but most mistakes within the Church are due to unforseen consequences, not a motive to do wrong.
 
Back
Top