This
is not a new subject. It would be to the mainstream media. To the dhimmitudal
denizens of this particular subject of enquiry, Islam, as a “religion of
peace” and a belief system, is above reproach, even when its true believers
and activists are blowing up non-believers by the dozens, hundreds, and even
thousands, or machine-gunning them or taking machetes to them. Islam is
untouchable. To question its nature leaves news media denizens with dropped
jaws one can hear thud on the floor. It leaves them aghast and in horror.
To
them, Islam can do no wrong. There’s nothing wrong with it that a little
patience and interfaith dialogue can’t resolve. It’s a needless cultural clash
that can be reconciled peacefully. A negotiated settlement is possible. Muslims
just want to be left alone and not be stereotyped or mocked or defamed. All the
mullahs and imams need to do is put a leash on Islam’s hotheads to curb their
youthful – and oft times middle-aged – exuberance, and then everyone can grab a
ribbon and dance around the Maypole of Diversity to the tune of a Tiny Tim song.
But
the pathology inherent in doctrinal Islam – and that which inhabits its passive
and aggressive adherents – has been discussed in the past in non-mainstream
media, sometimes effectively, sometimes not. For example, Soren Kern, in his
Gatestone article of March 24th, “UK: Child
Sex Slavery, Multiculturalism and Islam
,” takes to task both the idea
of multiculturalism and the British authorities on the sex-grooming Muslim
gangs that have apparently been preying on non-Muslim school girls for at least
twenty years.
Kern’s
article is mostly a discussion of Peter McLoughlin’s exhaustive report, “Easy
Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery
,” which details how
officials in England and Wales were aware of rampant child grooming – the process
by which sexual predators befriend and build trust with children in order to
prepare them for abuse – by Muslim gangs since at least 1988, with the knowledge of the authorities.
The report is 333 pages long and worth reading – as long as you have a supply
of Valium on hand and are not susceptible to high blood pressure. Kern writes:
Rather than take steps to protect
British children, however, police, social workers, teachers, neighbors,
politicians and the media deliberately downplayed the severity of the crimes
perpetrated by the grooming gangs to avoid being accused of
“Islamophobia” or “racism.”
But
the festering, metastasizing problem couldn’t be contained and hushed up for
much longer.
The conspiracy of silence was not
broken until November 2010, when it was leaked that police in Derbyshire had
carried out an undercover investigation—dubbed Operation Retriever—and arrested
13 members of a Muslim gang for grooming up to 100 underage girls for sex.
Shortly thereafter, the Times
of London
published
the results
of a groundbreaking investigation into the sexual exploitation
and internal trafficking of girls in the Midlands and the north of England. In
January 2011, the newspaper reported that in 17 court cases since 1997 in which
groups of men were prosecuted for grooming 11 to 16 year old girls, 53 of the
56 men found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, and just three were white.
The
overwhelming number of sex-grooming gangs are Muslim in makeup.
One of the defining features of
child grooming is the ethnic/cultural homogeneity of the gang members, and the
refusal of other members of their community to speak out about them or to
condemn their behavior. According to the report, the gangs are often made up of
brothers and members of their extended family, many from Pakistan, who take
part in the grooming and/or rape of the schoolgirls.
The report states that grooming
gangs target young girls, aged between 11 and 16, because the gang members want
virgins and girls who are free of sexual diseases. “Most of the men buying
sex with the girls have Muslim wives and they don’t want to risk
infection,” the report states. “The younger you look, the more
saleable you are.”
I
left this edited comment on Kern’s Gatestone article. It raises the issue of
the criminal pathology of the perpetrators and of their “ethnic/cultural
homogeneity”:
One must ask oneself: If Islam
and Muslims consider women the lesser sex, and infidel women as uncovered meat
to be consumed by men in the crime of rape, and that “that ‘women are no
more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground,'” why are
Muslim men in these gangs attracted to them? Shouldn’t these Muslims, if they
are “true believers,” be revolted by the prospect of such a
physically close proximity as it must occur in sex? Has any one of these
barbarians ever asked himself that question, or asked it of others of his ilk?
The answer to those questions I think can be found in the fact that Islam is
merely a rationale for the criminally minded. Islamic ideology inculcates in
the unquestioning a sense of pseudo-superiority of the faithful over anyone
outside its boundaries.
The alleged inferiority of women,
Muslim or non-Muslim, which doctrinally sanctions especially rape, allows these
criminals to put a “moral” cast on their actions. They claim they are
acting out the tenets of their religion, when, in fact, their motives are more
insidiously pathological and have nothing to do with the creed and ideology. It
goes beyond these criminals’ taste for the “forbidden.”
Whether these criminals can be
deemed sociopaths or psychopaths, is a moot question. Islam inculcates and
fosters the pathology. It is the only major creed I am aware of that sanctions
crime. The murderers of Lee Rigby claimed they were being consistent with
Islam. There’s no reason to doubt them on that count. The child rapists of
these Muslim grooming gangs are also being consistent, but because sex is the
object, their libidos have been twisted out of all recognizable human shape.
In “grooming” and
raping these young women and children, they are making a statement: We’re
criminals, and we’re conquering your country by raping your women. Islam says
it’s okay, it blesses our criminality, but it’s what we want to do anyway.
No excuses should be admitted in
the prosecution of their crimes. Religion should not be admitted as a defense.
It isn’t in Western law, but that seems to be changing in Britain,
given the news that Sharia will now be considered a legitimate means of settling
disputes and inheritance
issues in
British courts
.
Islam,
horrific an ideology and creed as it is without recalling its 1,400-year-old
catalogue of crime (call it a “rap sheet”), serves as a convenient
mask of piety for the recidivist criminal. Instead of claiming, “The Devil
made me do it,” he says, “Allah made me do it. Allah expects me to do
it. Allah commands me to do it. So, I
am beyond moral judgment. You have no right to judge or punish me.”
Treating
the systematic assault on non-Muslim women in Britain, Sweden
(Stockholm
has the highest incidence of Muslim rapes), Norway, Denmark, Belgium and
Germany, among other
European
or Western countries, as an expression of Islamic pathology is
beginning to seep into the thinking of individuals searching for an explanation
for the phenomenon.
For
example, one reader of
Daniel Pipes’s July 2006 column, “Arabs Disavow
Hizbullah
,” edged closer to a pathological explanation:
As with most cults, research
indicates, progressive disassociation with reality is a common trait. To the
rational mind, words on paper contain no power in themselves, but are assigned
significance by the observer. One may call the book a “Bible” or a
“Manifesto” or a “Koran” or the “Times of
London”, all are simply words on paper. To the mind of the cultist, it is
the document itself that has power. To an Islamist, such as yourself, the
internalization of the Muhammedian dogma and the “Koran” motivates
and animates your life to the exclusion of rational thought processes.
Criminal
actions, after all, are not symptomatic of rational behavior or rational
thinking. A rational quest for the causes and effects of criminal behavior is
not going to discover “rational” causes. But this does not stop some
observers from painting irrational Muslim behavior in subjectivist terms.
Criminals and their apologists always have an excuse for crime. To wit, Discover
the Networks
profiled one apologist, Natana DeLong-Bas, an apologist for
Saudi Wahhabism, who explained why Islam has a “bad rep”:
In a similar vein, DeLong-Bas contends
that “extremism does not stem from the Islamic religion,” but rather from “the
political conditions in the Islamic world, like the Palestinian issue … [the
issue of] Iraq, and the American government’s tying [the hands of] the U.N.
[and preventing it] from adopting any resolution against Israel.” These, the
professor maintains, “have definitely added to the Muslim youth’s state of
frustration, which then pushes them to—as they understand it—help their
brothers do away with the aggression against them, in the various Islamic
countries…. That is why I believe that religion has nothing to do with this.”
This
is the “academic” version of the “Officer Krupke
number from West Side Story.
Jihadists are “depraved because they’re deprived,” and haven’t been
raised in a “normal home.” “They’re “misunderstood.” And
etc. Islam has nothing to do with the violence; it’s unfair to ascribe to Islam
all the murders, rapes, assaults, and destruction committed in its name – as a Koranic imperative.
Barbara
J. Stock, in her November 2005 article, “The pathology of an
Islamic Mind
,” which discussed why an unsuccessful female Muslim
suicide bomber was willing to kill Muslim children as well as infidel children:
This abnormal mind is the mind of
our enemy. It is the mind of a woman who can place herself next to playing
toddlers and attempt to blow them up and tear their bodies apart with a bomb
containing ball-bearings. It is the mind of a man who can drive a car filled
with explosives into a crowd of children eating ice cream with their fathers
and kill them. Muslims say that this must be done in the name of Allah for the
advancement of Islam….
These warped minds are unable to
accept that it is Islam that is responsible for the bombings and the slaughter.
Always able to put the blame elsewhere for all of Islam’s crimes and problems,
Muslims eagerly accept any and all excuses for the sins of Islam, no matter how
illogical those excuses may be. If their warped minds can’t accept the fact
that their “religion of peace” is to blame, the blame is pushed off
on the Jews, or justified by claiming it was Islam that was attacked first.
Denial is their first line of defense….
Sadly, this is what happens to
the human mind when it must be constantly bent and twisted to accept the
unreasonable.
But
suppose one accepts the unreasonable because it comports with one’s
unreasonable expectations in life, such as sex with anyone one wishes to have
it with, regardless of the other party’s willingness or consent? Islam is
eminently “unreasonable” – that is, irrational – and if one is told
from infancy on up through adolescence and adulthood that Islamic logic is
incompatible with infidel or Western logic (in the buffet of relativist
philosophy, there’s Musim logic, and capitalist logic, and Nazi logic, and two
dozen more brands of logic), it “justifies” one’s criminal behavior.
One’s wanting the unearned is justification enough to just take it.
An
anonymous blogger on Hesperado also comes closer to a pathological explanation.
In his April 2012 article, “Understanding
Islam Anthrologically
,” he noted:
Islam, Allah, Mohammed, the Koran (among other things) are thus in
the Muslim psyche to be an inviolable circle of sacred objects to be protected
from anything perceived to be negative, whether it’s a physical attack or a critique
or mockery, or even thoughts. Anything perceived this way is physicalized as an
enemy, and the response is biochemical, pre-rational defense.
With Muslims and their Islam, we are thus not dealing with a
rational mind here, but with the pre-rational mind.
A
“pre-rational mind” is that of a prehistorical farmer who ascribes to
deities the success or failure of his harvests and the vagaries of the weather.
He is seeking a comprehensible reason for why things happen. His descendents
will discover reason and rationality and science and discard the deities and
establish a fealty to reality. A criminal mind, however, is not only not
“pre-rational,” but non-rational and anti-rational. Things just
happen, things just exist, and such a mind fundamentally isn’t interested in
crediting cause-and-effect to anything. Reality is incomprehensible, but that
doesn’t worry him. Reason? Reality? Free will? Rights?
Perhaps
the best extirpation of Islamic metaphysics and how it affects the Muslim mind
is offered by Robert R. Reilly, who was interviewed by WND in “Islam:
“Spiritual Pathology Based on Deformed Theology,
‘” in February
2013. Reilly is the author of The
Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern
Islamist.
Reilly said in the
interview:
The closing of the Muslim mind…
is rooted in Ash’arite theology, which denies the God-given human powers of
reason and free will. This is precisely the opposite of Christian doctrine, which says that personhood is defined by
the powers of reason and free will
….
(Italics WND’s)

“When I read the account of creation in the Quran,
the first thing that jumped out at me was the fact that man was not made in the
image and likeness of God. In Islam, it’s blasphemous to suggest in any way
that man is like God or can be compared to God,” said Reilly. “The closing of
the Muslim mind occurred over a struggle concerning the role of reason in
Islam, its relationship to revelation and ultimately to Allah….”
Reilly then introduces the metaphysical chaos
inculcated by Islam metaphysics and cosmology.
“What made this worse,” explained Reilly, “is that the metaphysics
behind the delegitimization of reason is the thought that Allah is not only the
first cause – the primary cause – but He’s the only cause for everything.” According
to this school, there are no secondary causes for creatures or actions. This
means fire doesn’t burn cotton, God directly burns the cotton; acorns don’t
grow into oak trees; animals and human beings don’t beget offspring; man-made
machines don’t heat or cool our buildings; and no human persons can choose
their own actions.
“Denying cause and effect in the natural world makes the world
incomprehensible – unintelligible,” said Reilly. “But anyone who would suggest
that natural law has a role in the world would be accused of shirk blasphemy,
of somehow demeaning God’s omnipotence.
“In addition to that, the world is constituted by these time-space
atoms that in themselves have no nature, but they are agglomerated in any
instant directly by the will of God to make something. The fact that acorns
grow into oak trees has nothing to do with the nature of an acorn or oak tree,”
said Reilly. “This process and all other acts are discreet and independent acts
by God and anyone who says that an acorn grows into an oak tree because of its
nature would, again, be committing blasphemy.”
So, if God – if Allah – is directly responsible for all acts, then
several premises follow for the classical Western thinker: (1) No human acts
could be morally wrong; (2) God is directly making some persons Jews, some
Christians, some Hindus, others Mormons, still others atheists and so on; (3)
Therefore, humans who don’t convert to Islam must be doing God’s will; (4) God
would have to be the cause of all conflicts; and (5) God would have to be the
author of contradiction, confusion and chaos.
To these objections, Reilly replied, “Ah, but see, you are
applying logic to Allah, Who’s above it all.
“And since God is above reason and acts for no reasons, neither
can one understand what God does and God Himself becomes unintelligible.
Therefore, reality recedes from the Muslim mind. This is what accounts for the
dysfunctional cultures you see primarily in the Middle East,” said Reilly.
“This is a product of the Ash’arite Kalam, the school of theology for the
majority of Sunni Muslims. It predominates in the Middle East, Pakistan and
South Asia. So if you wonder why there’s so much unreasonable behavior, it’s
simply because reason has lost its status as a normative guide to ethical
action.”
As an atheist, I cite this remarkable exposition without endorsing
Reilly’s Christian premises. However, Reilly has made what I think is a key
identification of what moves Islamic jihadists of all stripes: from the killer
jihadists to the grooming gangs. Muslim criminal minds – of the members of the
Muslim grooming gangs of Britain and other countries – act on what they
rationalize is Allah’s will, and that is just fine with them, because it is
what they want to do anyway. They have been taught – and they never bothered to
question what they’ve been taught – that there is no such thing as the earned or the unearned, just things that people
have for no comprehensible reason and which they want and whose origins they
don’t wish to fathom. To them, the necessity of thought is a fiction.
Their metaphysical modus
operandi
is to evade reality and the trader principle that governs most
human relationships, a principle that recognizes the reality of those
relationships. They know what they do is evil, but evil is what they think universally
governs men’s thinking and actions, so they attach no moral disapprobation to
their own actions, and don’t think anyone else should, either, especially not
their victims. The women and girls they rape exist for them to fulfill Allah’s
ends, that is all.
Their minds are neither slothful nor lethargic. They can plan
their crimes. But their intelligence is feral. A predator detects and exploits its
prey’s weaknesses. This can also be said of the “cultural and
civilizational” jihad being waged against the West, as well of the
grooming gangsters.
Knowing that they are evil – while at the same time claiming that Allah
determines what is evil and what is good – and that what they do is evil, these gangs wish to humiliate,
degrade, soil, pervert, and ultimately destroy the good. That is their claim to
the efficacy of their Islamic evil. That is the claim of every mullah and imam
and jihadist killer. It is the will of Allah; he puts the uncovered meat before
them, and they take it. It is unspoiled. We shall spoil it.
Islam reduces all Muslims to ciphers, to interchangeable manqués.
The definable criminal among them consequently occupy a rung below that occupied
by the passive manqués; they are literally and definably subhuman. Can they be
deemed sociopaths, or psychopaths?
One of the outstanding lines from the film Gladiator
is spoken in the beginning, before a Roman army attacks a tribe of barbarians:
“What we do in life, echoes in eternity.”
I would add: What we don’t do – such as think – also follows us in
life.  

Is there a clinical name for the pathology of men
who refuse to think?