[fortysix]

(04-14-2014 06:59 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 12:03 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

Exactly. Let's seperate the ideology from the simpletons who follow it. Mohammed was a simple tradesman before Islam, an orphan, but also a brilliant one. You can tell his genius by the fact that the book Quran wasn't 'sent' as a whole, it was sent page by page during the course of 23 years. During which time Mohammed observed people's reactions, the society, the dynamics and 'received' the pages accordingly.

I believe when you're talking about a religion it's better to discount the cult leader or founder himself in the discussion. I believe all cult leaders are inherently red pill to some degree. This goes for Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Jesus, Buddha or whatever. It takes a certain amount of advanced understanding of people and situational awareness of the world to form your own religion and exploit the naive nature of people.

I don't think cult leaders like Mohammed were simply red pill but were probably outright sociopaths too like a lot of ambitious successful men. Like others before and after him, he knew how to pull the right strings at the right times to get what they wanted and ensure his place in the history books.

Aside from power, the pussy was a prime motivator for the founders of religions as well.

According to all the biographies of Mohammed that I read, he was barely able to support his family because he gave all of his riches away to poor people living in Medina or wherever he was travelling at the given time. I obviously have not confirmed any of the sources used to write these books, but one of the books that I read was written by a non-Muslim historian, so I don't know what the incentive to bs would be. (Obviously the history source could have been written in a b.s. manner, but would multiple people who met Mohammed [assuming he even existed] and recorded their interactions with him go out of their way to make something up such as that he gave all his riches away?)

I'm not Muslim, just writing for the sake of argument.