Doc's Talk: Mohammed’s Greatest Discovery, Part 1

Friday, January 18, 2013

Mohammed’s Greatest Discovery, Part 1

Kenneth Roberts, Associate Writer

What causes a Muslim woman to honor-kill the children she has borne and raised? The explanation is ‘the Stockholm Syndrome’. It is one of the secret keys of political Islam and Mohammed’s greatest discovery.

The Stockholm syndrome or ‘capture bonding’ is a psychological paradox in which hostages develop empathy and positive feelings towards their captors, even to the point of adopting the captor’s oppressive ideology. One would expect captives to experience resentment and hatred towards an abuser, but that is not what occurs in the Stockholm syndrome.

Rather, the Stockholm syndrome takes hold in a few days as a result of captors performing small acts of kindness towards their doomed captives. The threat of certain death in contrast with kind gestures is thought to bring about the syndrome. The confused captive soon begins to identify with the cruel psyche of the captor in order to survive.
This push-pull dynamic of terror alternating with moments of relative benevolence produces this delusion in the mind of the captive. The captive then begins to believe the far-fetched justifications for brutality and murder that bend the minds of her or his terrorist captors.
The Stockholm syndrome is a severe form of a psychological phenomenon known as dissociation. It is the mind's survival mechanism, the way trauma victims convince themselves that "this isn't happening". Mohammed discovered it by accident.
Why ‘Greatest Discovery’
The discovery of the Stockholm syndrome changed Mohammed’s life. Before discovering the Stockholm syndrome, Mohammed preached religion for 13 years and collected about 150 followers. After his discovery of capture bonding, Mohammed’s political movement grew exponentially.
How did Mohammed’s great discovery occur? It began with a problem.
Omar’s Revelations
After leaving Mecca, Mohammed’s small, impoverished movement began to pick up ruffians to assist in pillaging the Meccans. Mohammed had previously been living in a polite, middle class, business environment. He and his followers were not used to the rough, rude manners of the pillaging ‘Ansaris’ (auxiliaries) that Mohammed had hired in exchange for a share of booty on his vengeful raids against the Meccans. Even the manners of Ansari women were rough and insubordinate. The women of Mohammed’s group began to pick up the highly assertive manners of the Ansari women. At first, Mohammed took no notice, but Omar bin Khattab did. Omar pushed Mohammed to receive a revelation from Allah.
Allah soon sent Mohammed an eternal revelation that men should beat their wives into submission. Were these original Muslim women beaten ‘lightly’ as recommended by modern mullahs? Apparently not. Aisha (Mohammed’s preteen bride) later said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.” (Bukhari 7:72:715)
Veiling and Isolation: Ingredients of Stockholm Syndrome
Veiling is another important contributor to the Islamic Stockholm syndrome. Veiling causes isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor.
Veiling came about when Omar yet again provoked a crisis, this time by following Muslim women to the privies. Omar noted that free Muslim women, if left unveiled, could not be distinguished from unveiled slaves. Since Mohammed permitted his men to ‘molest’ slaves, Omar demanded action “…as he desired eagerly that the verses of al-hijab may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "al-Hijab" (Sahih Bukhari 1.14.148). Allah swiftly gave an eternal command about veiling, so that married women (including Omar’s wives) could no longer be ‘misidentified’ as kafirs and ‘molested’ by jihadists (Koran 33.59). According to Allah, unveiled women don’t get protection from rape.
Mohammed’s Prisoners
By limiting women’s independence of movement and making them indistinguishable one from another, veiling produces permanent isolation of women, a necessary condition for the Stockholm syndrome. The combination of isolation, beating and the veil turn Muslim women into passive, isolated, malleable non-persons. Muslim women live in a permanent state of dissociation and denial.
Because of Omar, the freedom of Muslim women has not increased at all in the last 1400 years, while everywhere else women’s rights have steadily evolved. Muslim women are still restricted to a form of house arrest as ‘domestic animals’ or ‘prisoners’, forced to interact only with their husbands and children (read ‘Mohammed’s Final Sermon’).
Choosing Compliance as an Alternative to Death
As the Stockholm syndrome takes hold, victims perceive they can either resist the perpetrator and meet certain death or they can comply and hope to live. The threat of certain death is a necessary factor in the Stockholm syndrome. Islam provides this permanent threat to women through the eternally existing Koran, Mohammed’s Sunna (perfect example) and sacred Sharia law.
No Islamic doctrine depends on a single verse, but on the Koran, Mohammed’s example and the canonical decisions of Islamic jurists. They create a three-dimensional picture of conduct that all Muslims must follow. Tragically, Islamic law provides broad loopholes for the honor killing of women.
The Koran says that if a Muslim woman obeys her male owner after a beating, no further action should be taken. The words ‘take no further action’ (Koran 4.34) are highly significant, since they imply that actions beyond beating may be taken, perhaps mutilation, perhaps starvation or death through honor killing. The choice of ‘further action’ is up to the male owner of the chattels. Modern mullahs often try to tone this down for Western audiences, but such moderation is not in foundational Islam. Koran 4.15 & 34 offer the basis for honor killing of women, since a husband needn’t feed a woman if her performance is unsatisfactory. She may be locked up and starved in her home.
Mohammed’s sacred example approves of a blind man who murders the mother of his children because she blasphemed Mohammed.
Sharia law also makes ample room for honor killing of women by omitting any punishment for the murderer of an apostate or the murderer of disobedient children or grandchildren. In the context of cousin marriage, Sharia leaves the door open to the honor killing of women with the blessing of the couple’s common grandparents (Reliance of the Traveller, o1.2, 1-5). Such honor killing is perfectly legal under Sharia, there being no punishment for it.
Honor killing is eternally permitted (though not commanded) in Islam. Such violence against women is part of jihad, the ‘struggle’ to force women and ‘others’ to submit without resistance to Muslim males.
Dhimmitude: a Captivity Contract
Dhimmis capitulate to Islamic rule. Captive Muslim women (as well as entire captive nations) are given the stark choice of being beaten (or dead) prisoners…or living, compliant semi-slaves to Islam. Since it is difficult to endure the despair of permanent captivity, Islam’s captives dissociate and ‘voluntarily’ choose compliance. This condition of surrender to Islam is called ‘dhimmitude’. When entire kafir nations submit to Islamic supremacism, they become pacified kafirs or ‘dhimmis’ under a humiliating ‘dhimma’ (protection) agreement. Nevertheless, if dhimmis resist their Muslim overlords even a little, they are deemed to have broken their contract of ‘protection’ and they revert to being unprotected ‘kafirs’ or ‘harbis’ who must be ‘fought’.
Sharia’s logic is that a Muslim woman who resists her owner has become an apostate from Islam, a ‘kafir’ or even a ‘harbi’ who may lawfully be murdered, since she has abandoned the rules of Islam. Under Sharia, no blood indemnity is required in the murder of an apostate, so killing defiant women is permitted. This is easily done with the consent of the parents or grandparents in a cousin marriage.
A majority of Muslim women actually marry a first cousin, so family-directed violence against women is rife in Islam. Cousin marriage places a secure sociological noose around the majority of Muslim women. Thanks to Sharia law and cousin marriage, Muslim women are Mohammed’s prisoners having no escape from violence and death.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/mohammeds-greatest-discovery-part-1/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk