A reader sent me this youTube video.
When I watched it, I thought to myself, “this is intriguing and the presenter is well-spoken and seems well-informed. I wonder how Muslims would respond…” So I watched this video.
It should be obvious, to any objective viewer, that Muhaddith puts thewhiteroses to shame in the composition, presentation and substance of his rebuttal. But we should not be surprised; just as a couch potato cannot defeat an Olympic runner in a sprint, so too an outsider cannot prevail in a theological debate with somebody who spends all his days (probably for most of his life) poring over his religious texts. Of course it is possible that Muhaddith is fabricating everything he says, taking advantage of our ignorance to deceive us – but this is not the impression most people would get from his video.
Look closely at any major religion and you will find numerous sects and denominations. This is because religion, like politics, can be almost anything its followers choose to make of it. Of course we can find horrible things in the Quran and the Hadith. The same is true of the Bible, the Talmud and probably the Vedas. Those who are inclined to be evil people can find many excuses for their activities within their respective holy books. Good-hearted people also derive comfort and support from their holy books. It is the person who makes the person. Not the book he calls “holy”.
For us to focus on the minutiae and intricacies of any given religion, in a bid to prove that its adherents are evil, is a losing battle. It is possible that, in an alternate reality, Europeans would rally under the banner of Islam and the brown peoples of the South under the banner of Christianity. But this is not how history played out. In our reality, Islam came to represent the Southern peoples and Christianity the Northern peoples (very roughly, of course). As a result, many customs, mores and attitudes of that Southern region, that may not actually be original components of Islam, have become attached to the people who practice Islam. For us, it makes little difference if female genital mutilation (FGM) is a “part of Islam” or not. What matters is that those who practice such abominations are colonizing our native lands. It also matters that those who call themselves “Muslim” do not take a strong enough stand against such practices, even if most of them do not practice them personally. Most importantly of all, it matters that our lands are being taken away from us, through massive migration and birth-rate differentials, by alien peoples.
I am fairly certain that, if we asked a member of a conquered people what his main concerns were, the religion of the intruders would not be high on the list. Though it is true that Islam is an aggressively proselytizing religion (like many Christian sects), the only reason it is gaining a foothold among native Europeans is that the latter have rejected their own spiritual traditions. Where there used to be native European beliefs or Christianity, there is now a vast void – just waiting to be filled by anybody willing to fill it. It just so happened that Muslims were geographically convenient for the elites to import and so Islam has taken that role. Europeans should fight back because Islam represents subjugation of the peoples of the North to the peoples of the South and because it comes with a lot of nasty baggage. European paganism and Christianity are far from perfect themselves but, if “religion is the opium of the masses” then Europe should partake of its own opium, not somebody else’s.
I don’t agree. Islam by itself is a problem to the entire world, not just to Europeans. And yes, it is about Islam, not “Islamism” or “radical Islam” or some other bullshit they keep feeding us in the mass media.
That being said: Yes, Muslims feed off our weakness right now, as do other aliens who don’t belong in Western countries.
Historically speaking, the Islamic conquests encountered an IQ limit to their expansion. Muslims never managed to penetrate Europe north of the Alps through armed conquest, nor did they conquer East Asia. This is at least partly because they encountered peoples who were too smart for Middle Eastern Muslims to subdue. They did manage to control parts of southern Europe, but only for a while, compared to the much more lasting control over the Middle East.
By and large, Islam is a stupid and savage religion for stupid and savage people. That’s why so many black convicts convert.
Absorbing their SSA slaves into their general population certainly didn’t help.
None of the Abrahamic faiths have found particular success in East Asia. The Nestorian Christians had worse luck in the long run than Muslims did in China as to this day there is a sizable minority of 回族 (Hui people) in China who are essentially Muslim Han (they have some distant West Eurasian ancestry, but it’s negligible) and of course, China’s Turkic Uyghur minority is Muslim.
I say this because I think that the locality of Islam has more to do with cultural and historical trends than any particular “intelligence barrier”. Islam is a middle eastern religion and it is firmly centered in the middle east. Christianity is as well and its advantage was that it came before Islam, allowing it to plant itself in localities such as Europe and Ethiopia before Islam engulfed former Christian regions in the middle east.
The far east, because of geographic proximity, was far more influenced by religions originating in India. There are still indigenous religious practices such as Daoism in China and Shintoism in Japan, but middle eastern faiths have only made inroads in the far east with the advent of European global power and again there are historical contingencies for why Christianity has more of a foothold in Korea than in China or Japan.
I wouldn’t use intelligence as an explanatory metric, because I don’t think it explains much at all here.
This is an interesting place to discuss genes vs. ideas. As demonstrated in The 10,000 Year Explosion by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, the new paradigm in human evolutionary biology is now recent accelerated evolution: Genetic changes have not only continued into historical times, but the rate of changes itself has accelerated. I think this is probably true.
Yet this has been pushed too far by certain people who seem to think that EVERYTHING is about genes, and that every single historical shift was matched by a corresponding genetic shift. If you follow this line of thought to its logical end point then it can lead to absurd conclusions. Was there a change in genes between 1910 and 1920 that caused the Russian Revolution and the Communist establishment of the Soviet Union, for instance? If a peaceful person converts to Islam and suddenly becomes a violent Jihadist, has he then changed his genes?
Ideas matter. If you change your religion this will greatly affect your outlook on life. Perhaps we should say change your belief-system, since the examples of Islam and Communism remind us that what constitutes a religion and what constitutes a political ideology is not always clear-cut. If you change your belief-system this will affect how you view the world around you and will change your entire code of morality. One of the greatest psychological shocks in the history of my nation was when we switched from Norse paganism to Christianity. And no, I don’t think it was a genetic change that caused us to adopt that creed in the first place.
Yes, it is possible for cultural ideas to affect genes. This is called dual inheritance theory or gene-culture co-evolution and is a serious branch of evolutionary biology today. Evolution works through “survival of the fittest,” but who is fittest? A trait is adaptive if it increases the fitness of its bearers. Fitness here means the rate of reproduction of an entity. The “fitness” of an individual can be defined as the genetic contribution of that individual to the next generation. Yet perhaps certain cultures or social environments will cultivate certain traits, which will then accumulate over time, while other traits, like aggression, will be fitness-enhancing in other cultures.
If you think everything is about genes, let us study the case of the Italians. In Roman times they produced few if any original contributions to the creative arts, in painting or sculpture. They just copied what the ancient Greeks had done. By late medieval times and for several centuries they then produced one of the most impressive periods in the world history of art, with Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael etc. Likewise, while the ancient Romans made good aqueducts and roads, their mathematics was not more sophisticated than what was needed for construction works. Not a single creative mathematician wrote in Latin during Antiquity. Yet Italians later produced first-rate mathematical physicists such as Galileo. Italians in the Roman Empire had access to clear glass and Greek geometry but did not make eyeglasses. Italians in late medieval times did. Italians in Roman times did not invent capitalism. Italians in late medieval times did. Personally, I don’t think all of these changes can be explained by genetic changes.
Nevertheless, I would claim that while ideas do matter, genes are primary, ideas are secondary. It’s not fifty-fifty; genes clearly matter the most, probably somewhere between 65-85%. Let us pick one of the lower estimates and state for the sake of argument that ideas account for one third of the outcome, genes for two thirds. This rule of thumb leaves some room for ideas, but it also states quite clearly that genes are primary, ideas secondary. No matter what kinds of ideas you have, you cannot totally exchange one set of genes with a completely different set of genes and seriously expect to get the same result. The Germanic and Celtic peoples of Europe used Christianity as part of their inspiration for creating modern science. Kenyans in Africa used Christianity as an inspiration for signing and dancing.
This principle has huge consequences in real life. For example, the USA is currently focusing exclusively on the secondary effect, that of ideas, while doctrinally ignoring the primary component, that of genes, because this is considered “racist” and evil. By doing so, Western authorities and self-appointed intellectuals are in effect waging a war on human nature, and all regimes who have done so in the past have lost. Unless this mistake is corrected, it will bring down the Unites States. It partly already has.
I have come across several Americans who claim to be conservatives and are great supporters of Constitutionalism, the belief that everybody from the entire world who is loyal to the US Constitution is an American. The USA, according to this line of thinking, is an idea nation or proposition nation. This notion of a “universal Republic” is also found to some extent in France. This concept of civic nationalism dates back to the Enlightenment and to the American and French Revolutions. Coincidentally, France is, perhaps next to Britain, the one Western country after the USA that is most rapidly approaching a non-European demographic majority. The pioneers of the proposition nation concept are thus destroying themselves first. I would personally claim that the “idea nation” concept constitutes one of the greatest threats European civilization has ever faced. It could literally kill this civilization forever unless it is rejected.
As I said before, ideas matter; we are currently being destroyed by very bad ideas. But genes are primary, ideas secondary. We cannot preserve the best of our cultural heritage without also preserving the best of our genetic heritage. The USA was established by the English and the Scottish in particular, who brought with them what was then one of the best political cultures in the world. The US Constitution is a fine document, but it reflects a much older Western European political culture. Low-IQ mestizo Mexicans do not magically transform into Thomas Jefferson the second they cross the Rio Grande. It was relatively easy to assimilate the Dutch, the Germans and the Scandinavians because they came from Germanic-speaking cultures of northwestern Europe that were culturally and, yes, genetically closely related to the British. It was somewhat more challenging to assimilate the Sicilians; Europe is a big place after all. Yet the USA worked reasonably well as long as the newcomers were overwhelmingly Europeans since the various European nations had many things in common to begin with. Saying that the USA could assimilate culturally and genetically similar peoples from the same continent is not at all the same as saying that the USA can absorb literally all peoples from all parts of the world. The USA is an extension of European civilization or it is nothing.
I disagree partially. The concept of violent jihad is unique to Islam, and the founder of the religion, Mohammed (who, unlike Moses or Jesus, was a real person) spread the religion through warfare.
I’m sure that there are Muslims who don’t take that stuff seriously, just as most Christians seem to ignore the prohibition of eating shrimp, but the violent jihad interpretation of Islam seems to be ascendant at the moment.
I thought it was interesting that in the Muhaddith video, the speaker had a strong penchant for using Paul as a foil. That came out especially when he used a blue background for gospel text juxtaposed with a red background for Pauline text. It’s as if, in addition to refuting the video from TheWhiteR0ses, he was trying to hint to Christians: look at this awful character who has corrupted your religion.
And why not? From what I understand, Muslims accept the Gospels (though perhaps a now-hidden uncorrupted version of them) as being true while rejecting Pauline teachings.
On the other hand, I suspect that Christians would bristle a bit at what were ultimately somewhat gratuitous jabs at Paul. Yes, it made a point of contrast, but insinuating the unworthiness of an opponent religion probably has a negative effect on how willing an audience of that religion is to listen to you.
Anyway, interesting tidbits. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the great animated exchange of ideas. It might be that I am wrong about Islam. Or perhaps this is one of those multifaceted situations where there are numerous “correct” answers. It seems to me that there are some poisonous ideas in Islam, but that good people can ignore them. Yet they won’t go away any more than a malignant tumor will go away if ignored.
Prof. J. Philippe Rushton (HBD researcher) postulates that the violence associated with Islamic people is endemic to the people themselves. Namely, if we take away the religion, much like you suggest, the problem will remain. Here is a snippet I found on the web about his statements:
“In his speech, Rushton contended that Islam was not just a cultural, but also a genetic problem. According to Rushton, the Muslim problem is not just a condition of their particular belief system. Instead, he argued that Muslims have an aggressive personality with relatively closed, simple minds, and are less impervious to reason than one might expect.”
Controlled, peer-reviewed, double-blind genetic studies would have to be performed on Muslims the world over. Since Islam is not a race or ethnicity but a universal religion, that would be near impossible to proove.
However, considering that Arab muslims have practiced cousin marriage over hundreds of generations, there might be a correalation there. But Islam itself is not nor has ever been Arab-exclusive. That is part of its problem – the ideology that it is the only correct religion and the entire world needs to convert to it. Christianity also had this warped ideology, long before Islam was invented, and it still does and there are still missionaries flying all over the world claiming that their way is the only way and trying to convert us non-Christians.
Jewamongyou, I agree with most of what you wrote but the fundamental defect of both Islam and Christianity is in their ideology. The core belief is that the entirety of the world’s other religions are completely wrong and only their approach to God is correct and therefore it is the duty of every Muslim and Christian to preach and convert others.
All the problems associated with these two religions stem for that core ideology.
This is an old discussion so I don’t know if it’s productive to comment but there’s one very simple way to solve the riddle: observe the difference between Muslim and non-Muslim behavior in regions where both exist and are of the same race. In general, everywhere there is a border between Islamic and non-Islamic populations, it’s the Muslims who are doing the most killing and mischief. In India, it’s the Muslim who behave the most barbarically.