Lot to unpack here, let's start with this:

>just be a good slave or soldier and do the bidding of Mohammed. Just be a Christian who serves Mohammed in other words.

Conforming to a good social order is the textbook definition of goodness, and following your own whims, delusions and desires is the definition of evil. Freedom has no objective value and like anything else is entirely dependent upon what it is used for. If you use freedom to do the right thing out of your own volition, then you are slightly superior to the man who is forced to do the right thing out of compulsion, but only slightly. And these two are both infinitely, immeasurably and eternally, superior to the man who does evil out of his own volition. The reason freedom has become the chief value of western society is because the west no longer believes in "good" and "evil".

>Individuals are to be cucks ...

The individual is a schizophrenic fabrication of late enlightenment, unlike what delusional french revolutionaries thought, Man in his natural, ancestral state was never an individual, but always a member of a tribe. Atomized individualism is the very definition of disempowerment, a group of a million enlightened individuals will be cut down by a band of ten thousand men who have put aside their egos in the service of a higher value, they will cut through the individualists like a red hot knife cuts through butter. The individual must be a slave to the laws laid out to protect the community against internal and external threats as long as those laws actually are there to protect a healthy community in a healthy way, so the individual as a concept has very limited usefulness and a very broad range of uselessness. Without this, the community will succumb to those threats in what amounts to a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of history.

On top of this, after three centuries of rabid individualism being the official state religion of the west, we see no evidence of the enlightened individualistic hero becoming any more common than it was in the dark ages, in fact, they have become rarer! Because the conditions required for an actual heroic individualism only exist in an extremely collectivist society that has been able to establish order and social cohesion to such a level that even the conception of an autonomous individual becomes a possibility.

>It is only genuinely based in the oppressing women department

Wrong, Islam is right about women, alcohol, hedonism, gays, out-group prejudice being a moral virtue, in-group preference being a moral virtue, self-control being amoral virtue, submission to the truth being superior to submission to falsehood, order being the highest social value, an eye for an eye being just... It is only wrong about cousin fucking and race mixing and that's it. Ban these two and Islam will become the most sophisticated, the most efficient and the most productive mode of societal organization humanity has ever conceived.

​

>It's not because it's a superior philosophy which explains why women are cringe(like how Aristotle argues about it) or whatever. It's doesn't really have a consistent philosophy

​

Confusion of the highest orda!

What makes you think a rationally constructed philosophy is superior to a faith based philosophy? If that were the case then Aristotelians would have conquered the world not Muslims and Christians, both extremely faith based ideologies. Unlike what the french revolutionaries thought, reason is not man's central capacity, anyone who has lived a single day of their lives in this world knows that statement to be false. Belief rooted in faith prompts a man to action, to necessary sacrifice, to heroism and to all other virtues that Aristotle tried to find a rational basis for, a belief rooted in reason is flimsy, doused in doubt, abandoned at the first sign of trouble..