It
is commendable that someone should address the psychological profile of Muslims
– that is, of individuals born into the culture of Islam – and Nicolai Sennels
does that in his Jihad Watch article of October 30th, “Cultural
psychology: How Islam managed to stay medieval for 1,400 years
.”  I began reading it with some eagerness. Over
the years I have had nothing good to say about the psychology or mindset of
anyone who was either born into the religion/ideology and never challenged it
or attempted to escape it, or who had been converted to it.
Sennels
has studied Muslims prisoners in Denmark and has a wealth of insights to offer,
one of which is that, from my perspective, at least, Islam provides a purported
“moral” base which especially Muslim criminals justify or rationalize
their criminal actions. The New English Review published his May 2010 study,
Muslims
and Westerners: The Psychological Differences
.” I had already read
that paper and discussed it in “Islam on My Mind
in May 2013.
Sennels’ Jihad Watch summary, however, was
disappointing. There were a number of statements in it with which I could
legitimately quibble. Straight off, the very beginning of the article grated
against my sensibilities. He began:
While almost all other cultures changed from
primitive and medieval to democratic
and egalitarian societies, one
culture managed to keep even its most brutal and backward traditions and values
for 1,400 years until today. (Italics
mine)
Sennels, apparently born and raised in socialist
Denmark, might be forgiven for employing the highlighted terms. Democracy means “mob rule,”
or, the rule of the majority. What a majority may want and vote for is not
necessarily rational or desirable by individuals who value their freedom to
live their own lives unencumbered by a political or even the social consensus
represented by majority rule. Numbers do not establish political or
metaphysical truths.
A “democracy” is not what the Founders
intended when they finished writing the Constitution. It was a rights-defending
republic whose political structure was designed to stave off or frustrate all
“democratic” legislation and collectivist popular sentiment. The American
Constitution did not fail in that purpose. Its defenders in the person of our
political leadership failed it.
Egalitarianism means the leveling of all to an
ever-diminishing measure of “equality.” Amendments
IV, V and VI
in the U.S. Constitution, for example, establish the
“equality” of all men under the law, regardless of wealth or
“social” status, and regardless of race, religion or gender.
Egalitarianism, however, specifically aims to bring the best and the brightest,
the ablest, and the exceptional down to a level of common mediocrity. Egalitarianism
seeks to erase all measures of value, to reward the undifferentiated and the
parasitical and to punish the distinguishable and the productive. One of egalitarianism’s
ends is to minimize “economic differences” to the point when there is
more wealth in the looters’ hands than in the hands of those from whom it was
looted. This is called “social justice.”
Egalitarianism is also altruistic. The most
productive, the thrifty, and the virtuous living in an egalitarian society are
expected to sacrifice themselves to the moochers, the spendthrifts, and the
immoral. They are expected to defer to groups, gangs, and collectives acting in
the name of the “public good,” and to not complain when their lives
have been abbreviated and their wealth expropriated or confiscated outright or
by degree. This is the nature of such projects such as ObamaCare, in which the
virtuous are expected to subsidize the medical insurance coverage of the least
able, and to pay more for the “privilege.”
The confusion about the meaning of democracy, and the benign misconstruing
of egalitarianism, together have caused
incalculable damage, which is why I have dwelt on those subjects here.
But, on to other reservations I have about his
paper, keeping in mind that Sennels apparently is not well-versed in political
philosophy.
Under the subheading of “Religion,”
Sennels writes:
One main factor is that while all other religions
allow their followers to interpret their holy scriptures, thereby making them
relatively adaptable to secular law, human rights and individual needs, Islam
categorizes Muslims who do not take the Quran literally as apostates. And
according to Islamic law, the sharia, apostasy is to be punished with death.
The sharia thus makes it impossible for Islamic societies ever to develop into
modern, humanistic civilisations.
Centuries
of religious warfare in the West passed before Christian religions were diluted
by Enlightenment ideas and subsequently leashed by secular law and forbidden to
wage intramural jihad against members
of opposing sects. Islam, however, as Sennels points out, cannot be leashed or
similarly contained because its fundamental doctrine is one of conquest and
submission.
Sennels
under this same subheading reveals one contributing factor to the demonstrable
irrationality of Islam and Muslims:
Together
with massive inbreeding – 70 percent of Pakistanis, 45 percent of Arabs and at
least 30 percent of Turks are from first cousin-marriages (often through many
generations) – this has resulted in the embarrassing fact that the Muslim world
produces only one tenth of the world average when it comes to scientific
research, and are dramatically under-represented among Nobel Prize winners.
Fewer books have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than
the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year.
The
inbreeding factor can account for the epistemological myopia of Muslims,
particularly Muslim criminals. An inability to think, to project, to employ
common syllogisms, to formulate one’s own personal values (and not submit to
those of the Ummah or the tribe) are all
direct results of inbreeding.
Sennels
published a revealing article on Muslim inbreeding in May 2013 on Islam vs.
Europe, “Serious
consequences of Muslim inbreeding
.” Among those consequences are lower
average intelligence and impaired health.
A rough estimate shows that close to half of the
world’s Muslims are inbred as a result of consanguineous marriages. In
Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins – children of
siblings – and in Turkey the share is 25-30 percent.
Statistical research on Arabic countries indicates
that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algeria are blood-related as are 46
percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (the southern part
of Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42
percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent
in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria,
39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent
in Yemen. According to Dr. Nadia Sakati of King Faisal Specialist Hospital in
Riyadh, 45 percent of married Arab couples are blood-related.  The
fact that many of these couples are themselves children of blood-related
parents increases the risk of negative consequences.
Sennels
reaches some disturbing conclusions that connect Muslims with terrorism.
The consequences of consanguineous marriages may also bring us closer to an
understanding Islamic terrorism. One study suggests that many suicide bombers are
suffering from depression. Among some Muslims their actions are considered a
socially acceptable way of committing suicide in order to end mental torment.
Being
physically handicapped or mentally retarded often leads to exclusion. Becoming
a martyr may be the only chance of achieving social recognition and honor. Some
cases of Down’s syndrome may be another unpleasant effect of inbreeding and
al-Qaeda has been known to use people afflicted with it. People with low
intelligence may also be more easily convinced that Islam, with its promise of
72 virgins to Muslims who die fighting for their religion, is true.
To
return to the subject of Arabic translations of books:
Fewer
books have been translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the
amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year.
Among
those fewer books has been a translation into Arabic of Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf, precisely because of its virulent
antisemitism
and because the Nazi worldview is copasetic with the Islamic worldview. Only
the “races” have changed, that is, Hitler trumpeted the racial superiority
of the Germans, while Islam trumpets the superiority of Islam . Victor
David Hanson
noted as long ago as September 2006 that:
Hezbollah’s
black-clad legions goose-step and stiff-arm salute in parade, apparently eager
to convey both the zeal and militarism of their religious fascism. Meanwhile,
consider Hezbollah’s “spiritual” head, Hassan Nasrallah — the current celebrity
of an unhinged Western media that tried to reinvent the man’s own self-confessed
defeat as a victory. Long before he hid in the Iranian embassy Nasrallah was on
record boasting: “The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from
them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death.”
Iran’s
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trumps that Hitlerian nihilism by reassuring the poor,
maltreated Germans that there was no real Holocaust. Perhaps he is concerned
that greater credit might still go to Hitler for Round One than to the mullahs
for their hoped-for Round Two, in which the promise is to “wipe” Israel off the
map.
The
only surprise about the edition of Hitler’s Mein Kampf that has
become a best seller in Middle Eastern bookstores is its emboldened title
translated as “Jihadi” — as in “My Jihad” — confirming in ironic fashion
the “moderate” Islamic claim that Jihad just means “struggle,” as in an “inner
struggle” — as in a Kampf perhaps.
Under
the subheading of “Child rearing” in his Jihad Watch article, Sennels
describes the method by which Muslim children are browbeaten into obeying and
following the rituals and “truths” of Islam, a scare tactic not so
dissimilar from what I experienced growing up in a strict Catholic household. He
writes:
Together
with the wide use of violence and even torture within Muslim families, the
horrific amount of daily family executions of Muslim youth, this is enough to
keep the vast majority from even considering escaping the way of the Sharia. The
Qur’an’s and the Hadiths’ many promises of hellfire to those who go against
Muhammad’s orders and example scares many from leavin the culture that bring them
so much suffering.
Precisely.
My own childhood thoughts on the matter were: If you need to frighten me into
being a “good” Catholic, where is the moral argument? For example, watching
on TV the various productions of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol in my formative years, when I witnessed Scrooge being
terrorized into becoming a “virtuous” man, simply buttressed my conclusion
that there was no moral argument other than “we say so, and take it on
faith.” So I can imagine how fearful a Muslim would be to question the
“say so’s” of his imam, mullah, or the Qur’an.
Fear
of retribution may be one factor contributing to a rank-and-file Muslim’s
reluctance to question his “faith.” Delving a little more deeply into
that psychology, I would think that it is more a matter of being comfortable
with an ideology/religion that makes no demands on one’s mind. All one need do
is conform to the rituals and strictures and one is left is alone.
Under
the subheading “Ethnic pride,” Sennels drops the ball and does not
elaborate on the fact that Islam is not a “race,” but an ideology. I’m
sure he realizes this, but it would have helped if he had mentioned it in
passing. There are Arabic, Asian, black, Caucasian (converts), Chinese, and
Indian and Pakistani Muslims, to name but a few ethnic or national groups.  
Another
cultural psychological factor enabling Islamic culture to remain unchanged in a
globalised world with all its possibilities concerns Muslims’ ethnic pride. No matter
how ridiculous or embarrassing it may seem to the outsider, most Muslims are
proud of being Muslim and a follower of Islam. According to Islam they are
destined to dominate the rest of us, and we are so bad that we deserve the
eternal fire.
Muslim
spokesmen charging critics of Islam with “Islamophobia” imply or
state directly that such a phobia is “racist.” Too many Westerners
fall for the fallacy and join in the wolf-pack howling to punish “Islamophobes,”
whether they write cogent books critical of Islam or leave a pig’s head on the
doorstep of a mosque. It makes no difference to the pitchfork-and-torch mobs.
Without
quibbling about when the Dark Ages ended and the Medieval and Enlightenment
eras began, Islam is product of the Dark Ages, of the 7th century,
an enemy of knowledge, enlightenment, and freedom – if the Dark Ages can be
described as a period in human history when superstition, ignorance, and
slavery governed human existence.
Also,
I don’t know if many Muslims can say that they are “proud” of being
Muslim. If there is any emotion at all, one can’t imagine that it is anything
other than a seething, repressed resentment of anyone who is not a Muslim, that
is, of anyone who is not committed to a set of primitive rules that govern his
existence and prohibit any kind of meaningful happiness. Pride, after all,
implies a self that can take stock of
one’s virtues and one’s relationship with existence and with other men. Islam,
however, does its best to erase the notion of “self” from one’s
existence.
Islam
is anti-life, anti-mind, anti-value, and anti-man. That is why it has been able
to remain unchanged for 1,400 years. Its chief “strength” is its nihilistic
nature, proof against all thought and life-affirming values. And there are just
too many people – namely, Muslims – willing to surrender their minds to the
suffocating comfort zone of “authority.” Muslims don’t have a corner
on that “original sin” – the refusal to think – but their
totalitarian ideology is an immediate peril to those who do choose to think.
I
can’t say I’m the first to say it: Islam is
a mental
illness
. That’s its fundamental psychology, the debilitating and crippling
legacy of its founder transmitted through fourteen centuries of Muslim madness
to its contemporary spokesmen, leaders, and rank-and-file.
The
illness, however, is no defense against Islam’s essential criminal character.