₦airaland Forum

"How Islam Creates Psychopaths," by Nicolai Sennels
Posted on October 3, 2015 by ADMIN

The Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels has studied the ideology of Islam and how it affects Muslims. He has concluded it creates monsters/psychopaths

Here he writes:

How Islam Creates Sociopaths

by Nicolai Sennels

Psychopathic people and behaviour are found within all cultures and religions. But one tops them all — by many lengths.

The daily mass killings, terror, persecutions and family executions committed by the followers of Islam are nauseating, and the ingenuity behind the attacks — always looking for new and more effective ways of killing and terrorizing people — is astonishing: hijacking jumbo jets and flying them into skyscrapers, hunting unarmed and innocent people with grenades and automatic rifles in shopping malls, planting bombs in one’s own body, using model airplanes as drones, attaching large rotating blades to pickup trucks and using them as human lawn movers, killing family members with acid or fire, hanging people publicly from cranes in front of cheering crowds, etc.

It makes one ask oneself: what creates such lack of empathy and almost playful and creative attitude towards murdering perceived enemies?

This is a question for psychologists like me.

Studying the Muslim mind:

Nobody is born a mass murderer, a rapist or a violent criminal. So what is it in the Muslim culture that influence their children in a way that make so relatively many Muslims harm other people?

As a psychologist in a Danish youth prison, I had a unique chance to study the mentality of Muslims. 70 percent of youth offenders in Denmark have a Muslim background. I was able to compare them with non-Muslim clients from the same age group with more or less the same social background. I came to the conclusion that Islam and Muslim culture have certain psychological mechanisms that harm people’s development and increase criminal behaviour.

I am, of course, aware that Muslims are different, and not all Muslims follow the Quran's violent and perverted message and their prophet's equally embarrassing example. But as with all other religions, Islam also influences its followers and the culture they live in.

One could talk about two groups of psychological mechanisms that both singly and combined increase violent behaviour. One group is mainly connected with religion, which aims at indoctrinating Islamic values in children as early as possible and with whatever means necessary, including violence and intimidation.

One can understand a Muslim parent's concern about his offspring's religious choices, because the Sharia orders the death penalty for their children should they pick another religion than their parents. The other group of mechanisms are more cultural and psychological. These cultural psychological mechanisms are a natural consequence of being influenced by a religion like Islam and stemming from a 1,400 year old tribal society with very limited freedom to develop beyond what the religion allows.

Classical Brainwashing Methods in the Upbringing

Brainwashing people into believing or doing things against their own human nature — such as hating or even killing innocents they do not even know — is traditionally done by combining two things: pain and repetition. The conscious infliction of psychological and physical suffering breaks down the person's resistance to the constantly repeated message.

Totalitarian regimes use this method to reform political dissidents. Armies in less civilized countries use it to create ruthless soldiers, and religious sects all over the world use it to fanaticize their followers.

During numerous sessions with more than a hundred Muslim clients, I found that violence and repetition of religious messages are prevalent in Muslim families.

Muslim culture simply does not have the same degree of understanding of human development as in civilized societies, and physical pain and threats are therefore often the preferred tool to raise children. This is why so many Muslim girls grow up to accept violence in their marriage, and why Muslim boys grow up to learn that violence is acceptable. And it is the main reason why nine out of ten children removed from their parents by authorities in Copenhagen are from immigrant families. The Muslim tradition of using pain and intimidation as part of disciplining children are also widely used in Muslim schools — also in the West.

Combined with countless repetitions of Quranic verses in Islamic schools and families, all this makes it very difficult for children to defend themselves against being indoctrinated to follow the Quran, even if it is against secular laws, logic, and the most basic understanding of compassion.

isis-ethiopian-christian-13

And as we know from so many psychological studies, whatever a child is strongly influenced by at that age takes an enormous personal effort to change later in life. It is no wonder that Muslims in general, in spite of Islam's inhumane nature and obvious inability to equip its followers with humour, compassion and other attractive qualities, are stronger in their faith than any other religious group.

Four Enabling Psychological Factors

Not only does a traditional Islamic upbringing resemble classical brainwashing methods, but also, the culture it generates cultivates four psychological characteristics that further enable and increase violent behaviour.

These four mental factors are:

anger
lack of self-confidence
no sense of responsibility for oneself
intolerance

When it comes to anger, Western societies widely agree that it is a sign of weakness. Uncontrolled explosions of this unpleasant feeling are maybe the fastest way of losing face, especially in Northern countries, and though angry people may be feared, they are never respected. In Muslim culture, anger is much more accepted, and being able to intimidate people is seen as strength and source of social status. We even see ethnic Muslim groups or countries proudly declare whole days of anger, and use expressions such as "holy anger" — a term that seems contradictory in peaceful cultures.

In Western societies, the ability to handle criticism constructively if it is justified, and with a shrug if it is misguided, is seen as an expression of self-confidence and authenticity.

As everyone has noticed, this is not the case among Muslims. Here criticism, no matter how true, is seen as an attack on one's honour, and it is expected that the honour is restored by using whatever means necessary to silence the opponent. Muslims almost never attempt to counter criticism with logical arguments; instead, they try to silence the criticism by pretending to be offended or by name-calling, or by threatening or even killing the messenger.

The third psychological factor concerns responsibility for oneself, and here the psychological phenomenon "locus of control" plays a major role. People raised by Western standards generally have an inner locus of control, meaning that they experience their lives as governed by inner factors, such as one's own choices, world view, ways of handling emotions and situations, etc. Muslims are raised to experience their lives as being controlled from the outside.

Everything happens "insha' Allah" — if Allah wills — and the many religious laws, traditions and powerful male authorities leave little room for individual responsibility. This is the cause for the embarrassing and world-famous Muslim victim mentality, where everybody else is blamed and to be punished for the Muslims' own self-created situation.

Finally, the fourth psychological factor making Muslims vulnerable to the violent message in the Quran concerns tolerance. While Western societies in general define a good person as being open and tolerant, Muslims are told that they are superior to non-Muslims, destined to dominate non-Muslims, and that they must distance themselves socially and emotionally from non-Muslims. The many hateful and dehumanizing verses in the Quran and the Hadiths against non-Muslims closely resemble the psychological propaganda that leaders use against their own people in order to prepare them mentally for fighting and killing the enemy. Killing another person is easier if you hate him and do not perceive him as fully human.

Why Islam Creates Monsters

The cultural and psychological cocktail of anger, low self-esteem, victim mentality, a willingness to be blindly guided by outer authorities, and an aggressive and discriminatory view toward non-Muslims, forced upon Muslims through pain, intimidation and mind-numbing repetitions of the Quran's almost countless verses promoting hate and violence against non-Muslims, is the reason why Islam creates monsters.

The Psychological Problem within Islam

The problem with Islam and Muslim culture is that there are so many psychological factors pushing its followers towards a violent attitude against non-Muslims that a general violent clash is — at least from a psychological perspective — inevitable. With such strong pressure and such strong emotions within such a large group of people — all pitched against us — we are facing the perfect storm, and I see no possibilities of turning it around. For people to change, they have to want it, to be allowed to change, and to be able to change — and only a tiny minority of Muslims have such lucky conditions.

Far too many people underestimate the power of psychology embedded in religion and culture. As we have already seen, no army of social workers, generous welfare states, sweet-talking politicians, politically correct journalists or democracy-promoting soldiers can stop these enormous forces. Sensible laws on immigration and Islamization in our own countries can limit the amount of suffering, but based on my education and professional experience as a psychologist for Muslims, I estimate that we will not be able to deflect or avoid this many-sided, aggressive movement against our culture.

I do believe that we, as a democratic and educated society can become focused and organized concerning the preservation of our values and constitutions, can win this ongoing conflict started by the often inbred followers of Sharia. The big question is how much of our dignity, our civil rights, and our blood, money and tears will we lose in the process.

TundeHashim:
It's more of an op-ed than a research article. Knowing fully well that everyone is entitled to his opinion, no matter how gross it is. So if that's his opinion, so be it. But I know millions of Muslims don't conform to his description of Muslims. So the best his let's leave him in his defective imagination...

richeeyo:
Am not a Muslim but I can say it anywhere Islam does not create psychopath
You can choose to be a psychopath if you want and not Islam makes you a psychopath,

OLAADEGBU:
Did you read the OP at all?

richeeyo:
Constructive headlines give the reader a choice of willingness to read through

TundeHashim:
It's more of an op-ed than a research article. Knowing fully well that everyone is entitled to his opinion, no matter how gross it is. So if that's his opinion, so be it. But I know millions of Muslims don't conform to his description of Muslims. So the best his let's leave him in his defective imagination...

OLAADEGBU:
Your response to this article proves the author to be accurate in his evaluation and analysis of Muslims.

TundeHashim:
Looooool! The author raised several points..could u please draw a similarity between the author's evaluation of Muslims and My person which u could deduce from my response...this is an intellectual debate....man up bro and respond...

OLAADEGBU:
Can you as a Muslim tell us why none of those points raised in the OP doesn't apply to you?

9inches:
He isn't implying that all muslims are psychopaths. Saying an ideology can create psychopaths does not mean all adherents must be psychopaths. It simply means such ideology has what it takes to create psychopaths.

TundeHashim:
I wasn't implying, in the remotest of sense, that ALL Muslims are psychopaths neither did I state that there are no psychopathic Muslims. He opined that Islam, as an ideology, could create psychopaths. But it seems you're getting me wrong. All I'm saying is that that's HIS opinion and he's entitled to it. The article is not a research paper neither did the author cite authorities to back up his claims. He's not a reputable authority in psychology neither have I seen ANY other article online which either supports or oppose his conclusions. So why am I not bothered? Because if the article has made lot of sense, other scholars would have lent their voice for or against his assertions but no one did. Every scientific article do get a peer review especially when it makes far reaching conclusions. But when an article like that doesn't get any response from the intellectually proficient in the field, it means it's a pool of filth not worth taking serious. And that's exactly what that article is.


And lest I forget, sorry for replying u late. Been busy of recent. And I hope y feel my explanations.

9inches:
I appreciate your response. As much as I agree with you on him citing no scientific evidence for backup, I do not view the article as authoritative but rather an argument that can stand in the grand scheme of things.

TundeHashim:
Yeah! There's no point of contention here...While you and I agree its not authoritative, we differ on the persuasive weight to be attached to it "in the grand scheme of things". While I see it as an argument which lacks substance, you see it in a totally different light. That's obviously because of our subjective thinking. I'm a Muslim and you're a Christian....

That's all for now. I guess this is the second time we're rubbing minds. Though the lenses upon which we view things differ, I pray we keep reaching a comfortable compromise. May God bless u bro. Bye for now

9inches:
Well, I can't say, with due respect, that I share in your bias or subjective thinking. I sure recognise we both share a fundamentally different but superficially similar beliefs. However, I hesitate from infusing personal bias into conversations like this because the TRUTH does not change regardless who won a debate.

TundeHashim:
Did u know I used almost half an hour gazing on ur response. I did that not because I was convinced by the force of your argument nor I didn't know what to type. The truth is I don't know where to start from. For sake of brevity, I'll address two points which I think is most fundamental.

You said we both share a fundamentally different but superficially similar beliefs. If by this, u mean yr faith and mine are fundamentally different, although they share basic similarities like belief in God,monotheism and some stories. That I agree with u. My religion is MORE fundamentally different THAN superficially similar to urs. In fact, what divides us, to my mind, far outweighs what binds us. We're totally different to u guys in almost every aspect.

Now to the crux of the argument. Basically (if my summary of ur argument is right), u said u are not being subjective because the TRUTH does not change regardless of who won the debate. What's the "TRUTH" is a naughty philosophical issue that even embarrasses the most proficient of philosophers. I won't bore u by delving into what constitute truth. But one thing is sure. The truth, with respect to argument like this is not objective. I'm a Fulani born into a Muslim home and I was raised to see certain ethical values to represent "truth". If you had been born into a kanuri home, your perspective of what constitute the truth, with specific respect to faith, would have been different. Also, If I was born to an igbo parent as well, maybe I would have been more sympathetic to the Biafran struggle and see the "truth" in it. It is wrong, to imply that you have monopoly of "truths". That the only true way is the Christian way. That's false, that'ssubjective and that's the basic crux of my argument. The Jew sees Judaism as the true way; the Buddhist see Buddhism as the true way; the Taoist see Taoism as the true way so also is the Hindu, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. We are all products of respective environment.

Conclusively, methinks I've been able to achieve my aim by showing u that there's noway u could engage in argument of this nature by not being subjective. Though as u pointed out, the TRUTH might not be subject to change but obviously, what constitute truth to us, in discourses like this, is subjectively subjected to our upbringing. (To the social factors that has shaped our lives)

TundeHashim:
Looooool! The author raised several points..could u please draw a similarity between the author's evaluation of Muslims and My person which u could deduce from my response...this is an intellectual debate....man up bro and respond...

9inches:
If I get the core of your argument right, you are saying objective TRUTH does not exist? If that is correct, and from your analogy, your argument being that:

1. Our senses and perception are subjective.
2. Everything we know is based on on our senses and perceptions.
Therefore,
3. Everything we know is subjective.

If the above depicts your argument, then I would remind (or rather ask) you about "truths" that hold independently of experience; example being mathematical truths.

Lastly, I have spent time around Middle East and I can tell you I have met Saudis who are apostates, albeit unofficially.

OLAADEGBU:
For you to say that the article is showing the "defective opinion" of the author without providing evidence just shows how you are so quick to wave away what is obvious to everyone except for you Muslims who have been brainwashed into believing in your own mantra that has been imposed upon you since childhood.

TundeHashim:
Did u know I used almost half an hour gazing on ur response. I did that not because I was convinced by the force of your argument nor I didn't know what to type. The truth is I don't know where to start from. For sake of brevity, I'll address two points which I think is most fundamental.

You said we both share a fundamentally different but superficially similar beliefs. If by this, u mean yr faith and mine are fundamentally different, although they share basic similarities like belief in God,monotheism and some stories. That I agree with u. My religion is MORE fundamentally different THAN superficially similar to urs. In fact, what divides us, to my mind, far outweighs what binds us. We're totally different to u guys in almost every aspect.

Now to the crux of the argument. Basically (if my summary of ur argument is right), u said u are not being subjective because the TRUTH does not change regardless of who won the debate. What's the "TRUTH" is a naughty philosophical issue that even embarrasses the most proficient of philosophers. I won't bore u by delving into what constitute truth. But one thing is sure. The truth, with respect to argument like this is not objective. I'm a Fulani born into a Muslim home and I was raised to see certain ethical values to represent "truth". If you had been born into a kanuri home, your perspective of what constitute the truth, with specific respect to faith, would have been different. Also, If I was born to an igbo parent as well, maybe I would have been more sympathetic to the Biafran struggle and see the "truth" in it. It is wrong, to imply that you have monopoly of "truths". That the only true way is the Christian way. That's false, that'ssubjective and that's the basic crux of my argument. The Jew sees Judaism as the true way; the Buddhist see Buddhism as the true way; the Taoist see Taoism as the true way so also is the Hindu, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. We are all products of respective environment.

Conclusively, methinks I've been able to achieve my aim by showing u that there's noway u could engage in argument of this nature by not being subjective. Though as u pointed out, the TRUTH might not be subject to change but obviously, what constitute truth to us, in discourses like this, is subjectively subjected to our upbringing. (To the social factors that has shaped our lives)

TundeHashim:
Now we have to delve jnto the concept of "a priori" truths. But trust me, I'm not ready to write a long treatise.

You didn't get the core of my argument right. You could go back and read my posts again. I wasn't talking in the absolute when I said truth is subjective. I was SPECIFIC by stating that one can't be objective when making opinions on issues of THIS NATURE! Simple. The truth here is subjective! It depends on who u ask. Mathematical truths like 2+2 and 2×2 is objective to all persons, in all places. But with respect to religious/moral truths, it's subjective. That's my argument and that's what I've been saying all along. You could read my post again. I've never implied something to the contrary. Religious/ethical and moral truth would always depend on the lenses upon which each individual, society or group views it. That's why there's relativity of morality. I think I'm done with this.

9inches:
You're so wrong. You're starting on a wrong foot already. Truths especially that of morality are absolute. Incinerating of Jews or Eugenics could be subjectively justified in the eyes of a Nazi judge or a prophet muhammad; but intrinsically, they are wrong. Reason being that there is a moral giver (which I assume you believe in).

9inches:
You're so wrong. You're starting on a wrong foot already. Truths especially that of morality are absolute. Incinerating of Jews or Eugenics could be subjectively justified in the eyes of a Nazi judge or a prophet muhammad; but intrinsically, they are wrong. Reason being that there is a moral giver (which I assume you believe in).

TundeHashim:
Defending the most indefensible position makes the best of lawyers look like learners. I knew you were on a quicksand starting from when u delved into philosophy. You've lost the war prior to firing your first shot. And why did I say this? I'll go ahead making a case for my argument in the subsequent paragraphs.

First of all, you said I'm starting on a wrong foot. By this, you posit "Truths especially that of morality are absolute". If I'm to contextualize your point, you're basically saying moral truth is objective. That morality truths are universal and not based on the whims and caprices of a particular society. [s]What's morally true in China is morally true in Zimbabwe. What's morally right in Pyongyang is morally right in Katsina and what's morally wrong is Ottawa is also wrong in Rome. Morals are universal, stealing is wrong in US, UK, Tokyo...just name it[/s]. Thats basically the point youre trying to make. Now lemme dismember your point and show u the errors in holding those views.

I'll like to define morality by calling it a standard which classifies an act to be either "good" or "bad"(although this definition looks like ethics but is not). By this, a moral act is a "good" act. Conversely, an immoral act is a "bad" act. Furthermore, it is important we explain what's universal/ objective. When u say something is universal or objective...that should imply that such a thing is [s]universally the same[/s]. For example, scientific truths are objective. That means scientific truths are the same in all countries, in all ages and at all time. Water [s]is H2O in the US, Zambia, Japan just name it; water[/s] is H2O in 1129 B.C.; 1453 A.D., 1989, 2000 and down to 2017 and it'll be the same throughout time. So also is 2+2. This are objective truths. One fundamental thing about objective truth is that they are known as "a posteriori" truth. What does that mean, they are subject to scientific scrutiny/test before an answer is gotten. At least, you must do a little bit of calculation before you get the answer of 2+2. To also the properties of water or any other thing, a thorough scientific research must be carried out. Thats to objective truths.

But can we say moral truths are objective? The first thing is that there is no general consensus on what's good. What's good in China May not necessarily be good in Lagos. Conversely, what's immoral in KwaZulu May not be immoral in KinNupe. [s]What the Mbororo'en (nomadic Fulanis) hold as taboo May not be taboos to the Ndi Igbo (I think that's how they call themselves). Conversely, the same applies to the Yorubas and Hausas. Let's take the example of polygamy. I'm sure you're a Nigerian. Every Nigerian society (I say it with all sense of correctness) does not see polygamy to be an immoral act. Mohd, David, Solomon and even Abraham practiced polygamy BUT polygamy is immoral to the average Roman or Greek. I can use several examples but I think that'll suffice.[/s]

Furthermore, moral truth is not constant. It changes. It doesn't hold for all time, all people and all ages. The answer to 2+2 has been the same right from the time of my ancestors and it'll be the same till the world ends. Can we say the for morality? 2000 years ago, it was morally wrong to practice gay marriage in Rome or Spain but that has changed now. Human sacrifice was widespread in some areas in Nigeria 300 years ago and those societies doesn't see it as a wrong. But can that be said of the modern age? This are the vexing issues....

[s]I agree that there are some morals that are universal such as stealing, murder, rape etc. The truth is that even universal morals are subject to change. Now lemme give u an example. Slavery use to enjoy the status of almost universal acceptance. Almost every society in the universe do not see anything wrong in slavery 500 years ago. But slavery is now an immoral act. That goes on to show u the dynamic of universal morals.[/s]

I was on a journey yesterday. The road was bad so I couldn't type a long treatise without making so many errors. I'm sorry for the late reply.

I think I've made my case for subjectivity of moral truth. If you have a superior argument to rebutt it, you could go ahead. Then any "independent" (obviously not the OP because he's an interested party) party could call us both and pass hos comments.
Bye!

TundeHashim:
Now u went on to say incinerating Jews may not be immoral toaa Nazi judge or Mohammed. Probably you've forgotten that Nazi judges are more Christians than Muslims. With respect to Mohammad, there is a specific ruling against incinerating persons. If u want to talk about incinerating of persons, probably go back to Ivan the terrible or the Spanish inquisitors...you'll get lot of stories on how inquisition is done.

Now the last leg of this discourse. You committed one of the biggest intellectual frauds. You told me to be objective yet subjective at the same time. You posit that moral truths are objective yet appealing to my subjective side (by specific reference to my belief in a moral giver). Ask a Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Christian 2+2 and the answer will be the same. But that doesn't hold for religious/moral truth. The questions of is there God? What's trinity? Does hell exist? Destiny? Freewill ? All elicit different response from different people. The answer is not universal! It's not objective. Simple.

I believe in a moral giver, you believe in a moral giver but that doesn't mean our moral giver IS THE SAME. [s]The fact we both believe in a moral giver is NOT a prove for the universality of Morality![/s] More so, as long as u believe in trinity, you and I do NOT (in emphasis) share the same moral giver. We are fundamentally different from u guys. I've said that countless of times. Yorubas believe in a moral giver (eledumare), the Greeks believe in Zeus while the Romans believe in (I've forgotten...probably Jupiter?) But that doesn't mean they share the same standards for what's good or not. [s]Polygamy is "immoral" in Athens but "moral" in Oyo-ile or Igboho...how do u explain that?[/s]

9inches:
Reason being that there is a moral giver (which I assume you believe in).

imagrg:
Hmm. Religion, as they say, is the opium of the people! See syntactic acrobatics! War of words!
The truth is that, man was born into a religious climate, wherever you find yourself, you are encapsulated into its religious geography!

TundeHashim:
OMG!!! Is this the best u could come up with? I said the author is entitled to his opinion and I'm going to allow him wallow in his defective opinion. Does that make a psychopath? Do u actually know the meaning of a psychopath? Does basically saying someone opinion is defective makes the person a psychopath? If that's your definition of a psychopath, funny enough you're also a psychopath by your definition! Why did I say this, you implied my opinion is false basically because I've been brainwashed from childhood! See how defective ur argument is. If we're to go by your standards, all human beings are psychopaths because we've, in one way or the other, disagreed with others and hold their opinions defective. I'm a lover of C. Ronaldo and I strongly believe the opinions of others that believe messi is better than him is defective. Conversely, the same applies to messi fans. As such, your definition of a psychopath is flawed and views misshaped by your skewed perspective.

TundeHashim:
Haven't criticized your definition of a psychopath, it's necessary I proffer a better alternative to your definition. According to Google, psychopathy is an abnormal mental illness characterized by abnormal or social violent behavior. Also, some have argued based on my finding on Google that psycopaths have the following traits: coldbloodedness, narcissistic tendencies, uncaring, irresponsibility etc. So if you're looking for a psychopath, a person whose uncaring and coldblooded, obviously u need search introspectively. Look into the book of Deut 20: 10-16.
Where it was stated that if u approach a city and it surrenders peacefully, take its inhabitants as slaves (could u imagine that...u declare war on someone, they refuse to fight u and still, you're commanded to take them as slaves...) But if they fight u, kill all their males and take the sweet girls for yourselves. If that's not coldbloodedness, irresponsibility and psycopathy in its glamour, I don't know what psychopathy is.

richeeyo:
Constructive headlines give the reader a choice of willingness to read through

OLAADEGBU:
Should I take it that you haven't and wouldn't read the OP?

DOCTUFOS: Proverbs of Otem 5:13

13. As it is now, most terrorists are Ishlamites, but most Ishlamites are not terrorists.

richeeyo:
Yes