Comments on Brightwork Articles on Islam
Executive Summary
- This article contains comments from the articles on Islam.
Introduction
These comments are in response to the articles on Islam.
Article Questions & Comments
Here are questions or comments on the Brightwork articles on Islam.
Comment #1
The following comment is from a person who would prefer to stay anonymous.
To give you an accurate understanding you’ve to understand what really goes on after a Muslim child is born. Since I’m a man and born Muslim, I can only say about Muslim boys. After Muslim boys are born, they experience a hardcore PC(Political Correctness) Culture. The rules and leaders are already fixed, fixed like the sun, you have to obey them no matter what. So when a Muslim says that “…this violence has nothing to do with Koran,” in their mind they’re simply defending Koran. They say one thing but feel different emotions.
Also, you understood the virus-like characteristic of Muslims. Japan is currently having this problem. Muslims go to Japan, make a Muslim community, appeal to build a mosque, appoint radical imams, start converting Japanese people into Muslims. A peace-loving country like Japan now fears anarchy for the growing Muslim population.
This is very interesting. This is the global pattern of Islam — but I was unaware they had spread to Japan. I am curious how they got into Japan as Japan is so restrictive in its immigration.
One thing I want to add is: Not all Muslim countries are unstable. If you see Saudi Arabia, you don’t see the chaos when you see Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan. Because Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, and a part of Indian Muslim region aren’t purely Islamic. The Indian subcontinent was purely of people of Hindu religion. After the Arab invasion/Arab business ventures these countries (now Part of India, Pakistan) were forcibly converted to Islam. Before the Arab invasion, Syria was the main center of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. That’s why they are very unstable.
Not yet. I think it is well known that Saudi Arabia is at a high potential for instability in the future.
However, Islam indeed had Caliphates that lasted for a very long time and were stable.
This comment makes the argument that Islam is unstable only under specific circumstances. And it must be added that most certainly, being bombed or destabilized by the US as occurred in Iraq and Syria has not helped.
Islam and Population Growth
But another problem with Islam is its promotion of out of control population growth. This was a problem with Christianity in the western countries, but they eventually rejected Christianity’s control over reproduction — at least for the most part. There was a time not that long ago where Christian families in the US would have ten children, without any observation for how repeating this reproductive rate for multiple generations would lead to overpopulation.
The Eventual Rejection of Christian Recommendations on Fertility in Western Countries
Although many children are born to people who are not prepared to raise more children due to listening to Christian ideas. That is Christians only grew to reject Christian ideas on reproduction through in part rejecting Christianity, or at least part of Christianity.
Muslims have proven less willing to contradict these similar teachings. Latin America, Africa, and the Muslim world all suffer from out of control population growth. In African countries, the Muslim areas of countries will almost always have higher fertility rates than Christian areas. I cover in the article The Lack of Evidence Supporting the Morality of Religion, that religion creates conditions of desperation, through promoting unbridled population growth, and through not respecting limitations of the natural world — which according to nearly all religions are not determined by nature, but by God, which can increase supply as need be.
And this relates to the entirely unscientific nature of religion in general. What is curious is that under the pandemic we are continually told to “follow the science,” which has come to mean not an actual science, but whatever pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical company-controlled health authorities tell us we should do — that just so happens to benefit pharmaceutical companies. However, this brings up the natural question — if we are to “follow the science,” why is anyone following religion. Many people who use the term “follow the science” to promote people to take vaccines are religious. However, religion is anti-science — yet the majority of the population is either religious or believes in “a higher power,” which is just as scientific. This curiosity indicates that the population believes in “following the science” in some circumstances, but not others.
If you see the life of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, he was a charismatic man; not a merciless, but a very intelligent, strategic man. He never physically beat anybody(other than in war), although references are there that he made others to do this job. On many occasions, he simply forgave his murderous enemies. In his last years, he had a conflict with his son-in-law, Ali, which resulted in the creation of a different sect of Muslims, namely Shia Muslims. I’m guessing he was a psychopath who understood human nature very well. He was nothing until he reached 42 and started acting out on his seemingly weird thoughts, modern-day term of this would be “Midlife Crisis for Men”. He used people’s impulsivity, raised it to the point when people would kill themselves for him. Islam lasted for so many years because I’m guessing he was indeed a true genius.
I think this sounds right.
Mohammed must have been very intelligent to control people, understand people, and get them to follow him. He started a tremendously successful movement that had high credibility with a large number of people. It started slowly in the beginning but rapidly grew later in Mohammed’s life.
I think there are good observations in this comment. One can be smart but also lead to outcomes that are bad. Mohammed was a warlord, and a great deal of violence and bigotry came with Mohammed. As he grew in power, his “revelations” became less conciliatory and more aggressive. Some of the claims around his less aggressive nature come from earlier in Islam’s formation when Mohammed did not have the power he possessed later in his life.
Comment #2
The following comment is also from a person who would prefer to stay anonymous.
An age old quote I don’t know who originally said it is: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Feminists aren’t really into Shariah or neither they care about Islamic fundamental laws. They like it because it’s the opposite of what they don’t like.
An age-old quote I don’t know who initially said it is:
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Feminists aren’t really into Shariah, or neither they care about fundamental Islamic laws. They like it because it’s the opposite of what they don’t like, which is white men.
I cover how feminism attracts the most mentally unbalanced in the article Why Feminism Attracts the Most Mentally Unbalanced Women.
The comment continues…
Feminists won’t hesitate to re-define Islamic Shariah laws just like what they did to Christianity. I find it funny how gender dynamics works. I’m from a Muslim country, and modern muslim girls plainly hate Shariah Laws, but they’re not overt about it. They like to date western guys if they’re not residing in their home country. Coming from a hardcore conservative society, they enjoy the liberalism western culture provides.
This comment is quite interesting. I was not aware of feminists redefining Christianity. I had thought that feminists worked within a primarily secular framework for making their changes.
The comment continues…
On the other hand, 60+ years of feminism drove western men to become effeminate. These western men are becoming shelter for family-fleeing muslim modern girls. I know 2 girls from Egypt who are born and raised in America fled their family, moved to a different state, currently living with their white boyfriends, although they have their own jobs, these liberal men provide them with emotional shelter. I think those boyfriends really love those muslim girls, for the opposite reason muslim girls are able to respect western men’s generosity because they know how bad things could be without it, while white women no longer appreciate traditional white-male masculinity because they’re too tired of it and never facing any significant hardship those muslim girls have faced.
Another interesting observation. Particularly the part about white women no longer appreciating traditional white male masculinity.
It appears that the primary thing that western women appreciate about men is their resources. They don’t seem to have much else — aside from physical attraction — that attracts them to western men.
The comment continues…
So is Islamic Shariah the future? Since powerful feminism supporting it, nothing is absolute, Islam will never rule the world because it has already ruled the world. World never goes back to any previous state, history never completely repeats itself, Islamic Shariah could be standard worldwide, but that would be just namely, an appearance, more like a liberal Islam, which is not the real one.
This is insightful, as basically, it explains that Islam has already had its chance to run societies. If we think of the most successful times of Islam, it was many hundreds of years ago. Islamic societies have not progressed or influenced other societies to copy them for many hundreds of years.
Comment #3
Been reading your articles. I’d say that your analysis is the most accurate rational breakdown on Islam I’ve ever read. I want to add some of my thoughts on Islam.
Islam is a religion of proxy. To give perspective, assuming the guy Jim is an appointed leader in a company. But under Jim’s leadership, productivity of Jim’s domain decreased, moreover, people started to make complaints about the company’s service. Since Jim was given power as being a leader, yet he couldn’t do well, the management can decide that Jim should cease to being a leader. That’s a normal system for the most secular countries in the world. But in a Muslim country, that’s not necessarily true. As I live in a Muslim country, I see religious leaders always use Islam as a proxy to absolve themselves of personal accountibility. “I only did what Koran said to do,” you can no longer point out to an individual who is responsible for something.
This is an important point — and it also is a cover for incompetence. In each Muslim society, the leaders use Islam as a crutch. The lack of progress in Muslim societies is covered by simply saying the society is being run according to Muslim principles. The citizens of these societies don’t seem to be as concerned with the fact that the outcomes from Muslim societies are poor.
The comment continues…
Another thing here important to mention is interpretation. Islam is indeed a religion of peace, at least by sayings of the prophet and Koran. Jihad by arms is the last thing Islam actually suggests. There are three stages of Jihad, one is Jihad against oneself (inner Jihad), another is Jihad with words, if the opposition is purely evil and none of humane ways can make peace and the opposition already went for the sword, then Islam suggests that you too go for the sword. But religious leaders and terrorists, who were having all the religious freedom they needed, I’d say they got more than they should, simply lift a quote from Koran out of context and try to verify their personal needs. These leaders are simply misfits in the society, comparing to western countries, they are supposed to be in rehabilitation facilities or in prison, convicted, but as you’ve mentioned in one of your articles that unstable anger is seen as power in Muslim society, they are given the power positions ! It’s like giving children some dynamites to play. And I personally never think that these misfits terrorists are evil but totally unfit for power positions. They simply don’t have the vision how the world works, they’re very emotional and unstable, they use Koran like a tool to maintain position. An example I want to give here: recently I saw a book written by a Jihadist in our country (who is already hanged), the first page of the book and the first sentence title is “Jihad must continue until Doomsday”, that’s the first sentence and he was simply lifting quotes out of context from Koran to verify his unstable ideas.
We were taught “Islamic Studies” till grade 10, the textbooks were written by Islamic national scholars, and we had a very good impression of Islam in those courses. And yet if Islam is such a religion of peace, why Islamic leaders can’t control a country’s economy, like growing poppy crops (prohibited in Islam, haram) to sustain existance? Why such failure?
I think it’s inherited from previous generations. Muhammad was a clever man who understood how the world worked, he knew people’s emotions and how to cater them. He was quite a liberal of his time. But he never disclosed the formula to his followers. Imagine yourself living in Arab when Muhammad was ruling, imagine the social dynamics, whenever Muhammad was in trouble or needed to strengthen his position, Gabriel would suddenly appear and talk to him, only Muhammad could see Gabriel, not his followers. What Muhammad did was making better “slaves”. He instructed everybody how to be a slave, “Pray to God 5 times daily”, and told his followers that praying was the key to success. As Muhammad was successful in many ways, people followed him. This following is still ruling in muslim fundamentalists’ minds, unlike Muhammad, they don’t care about how the world works, they think the miracle book Koran will solve everything, also following how Muhammad slept, ate, prayed, smiled, following his beard length will ensure their success in life. Anyone tells otherwise is an enemy. I say that Islam is a religion of misfits, who have no perspective of life, who are mental slaves, they are definitely sociopaths.
Would You Like to Comment and Have it Added to This Thread?
Just provide your comment in the chatbox in the lower left of this screen.