In our daily life here in Britain we face many contradictions. Its part of life. In the average British home children face those contradictions very early on. The child wants to stay up to watch TV and the parent says he needs to go to bed because its a school night. The child sees a contradiction immediately….. “But that’s tomorrow. I want to watch the TV now!”
Children have a very different take on life to us adults. They see the world in a very naive and simple way. A way that most of us forget as we get older. Its important to this discussion for us to try to recognise the world of the child, because it is then, more than any other time in our lives, that we learn the building blocks of life and the foundation stone of our personalities.
There are many ways that we can describe childhood learning. The study of Psychology has many theories and ideas about that. I would like to talk about just one way that we learn. It comes from the Theory of Personality by Dr. Carl R. Rogers. His work on personality development through both practical and research methods was groundbreaking. His theories of what came to be known as the “Client (or Person) – centred Approach” have permeated into the work of psychological therapists, social work and education (and more) over the last 50 years.
Building Blocks of Life
So it goes something like this. At birth the child comes complete with a very basic concept of self. He is aware, needs food, defacates, is aware of pain and the need to be loved. Beyond that, the newborn has no ideas about the world except the world which extends just a few inches around him.
As the child meets his mother, then father for the very first time, the learning starts. The baby responds to the behaviour of those around him. His behaviour begins to develop from the interactions with the people closest to him. Bonds of attachment form (e.g. Bowlby’s theory of attachment). I make this point so that we can be very sure that the newborn is conscious and aware. He soaks in the information and must somehow try to make sense of it. The only frame of reference for the child is his own internal feelings. He has no language, no strategies or cognitive (thinking) processes. Just the basic need to have the most basic human needs fulfilled.
As the child gets older maybe even before his first birthday, things have already changed. He is learning to communicate using language. Sight is now fully developed and he is inquisitive an actively wants to learn. This is really the time we as adults start to have a massive impact on the development of the child.
I said before that the child comes equipped with its own basic self concept. As he grows, that self concept gradually becomes more complex. Growing awareness of the internal feelings plays a big part, as does the formulation of cognitive processing in order to function. For example, “How do I tell mama I’m hungry” or “If I make this noise and point to that thing I will get something nice to eat”. Simple stuff, but the beginning of planning and strategising which will become more complex over time.
At the same time, we start to see something else developing. It is something in addition to the “natural or organismic self” which we can call the “self concept”. So what’s the difference? This new self concept starts to develop as a result of the interaction of those around the baby. It is a concept of self that is determined not by the baby, but by the judgements and belief systems of the people around the baby. How the significant others react to the child’s behaviour will determine just what the child comes to accept as being “this is who I am”.
For example, little 3 year old baby Johnny smacks the cat around the head with his toy hammer from the building set he got for Christmas. The cat screams and tries to scratch Johnny. Johnny has a narrow escape but thinks the whole incident is incredibly funny and laughs out loud! Mum however sees the whole thing and shouts at Johnny “Johnny you are a bad boy. Its wrong to hit the cat!” Sounds fair I suppose, from an adults perspective. However little johnny has just learned something contradictory.
His internal or natural self saw playing with the cat to be fun. He has no understanding or ability to empathise with the pain the cat might feel (a skill he won’t learn for a long time yet) and watching the cat jump is funny! But the external influence (mother) is angry and says this is wrong. The child will internalise her comments as “Its wrong to feel pleasure” which as I’m sure you can see is entirely incorrect. Yet the child will accept the idea as real if it is reinforced by similar chastisement over time. This idea then becomes part of the growing self concept of the child. Rogers called this “sublimation of external frame of reference” or the creation of “Conditions of Worth”.
Over the years of development for a child to gain a healthy personality it is important that the child gain a self concept that is largely in line with his own natural or organismic self. There will always be differences between the two, which is to be expected. But it is when the self concept is widely at variance with the natural self, that personality problems occur. They could take the form of any manner of anxieties, depression and even more seriously develop into mental “illness”.
Another very pertinent idea from what we have discussed so far is the difference between internal and external frames of reference. The child that is allowed to use their own internal processing to largely make choices and decisions is said to have an “internal locos of evaluation”. This provides for a much better possibility for the growth of self esteem and a positive and autonomous personality. The child that is constantly berated and chastised will often become reliant on an “external locus of evaluation” and thus will be reliant on the words and actions of others to determine a particular decision or course of action. Self confidence is usually much lower, but often increased when surrounded by others who support him. This is what we can tern a “dependent personality” and is highly prone to conformity and also unstable behaviour.
And the Muslim?
Ok so this article is supposed to be about the mindset of the average Muslim, so let’s begin by taking a look at their behaviour in a larger context, but remaining within the confines of what we see in Britain today. Let’s start at the mosque and Islamic worship in general. Islam requires that men and women should be separated. Men take the main space in the mosque, while women occupy a place which is partitioned from the men, effectively hiding them. All are required to sit on a carpet on the floor, and prostrate themselves before Allah, while repeating ritualistic utterances as a form of prayer. They must also orient themselves towards the most holy of Islamic places, the so called “Birthplace of Islam”, Mecca. They are required to pray in this manner 5 times a day, the first of which is around 5am.
When viewed from a Westerners perspective, this all sounds quite strange. From a psychological perspective it highlights a couple of interesting things. Firstly about the segregation of women and men. Being brought up within the strict confines of a religion that segregates women teaches the Muslim at a very early age that women are not equal to men. The Qur’an actually says so (Surah 4:34) and there are many other verses throughout, which denigrate women to a position of lowliness and servitude. It should be understood that the method of instruction within Islam is to have children learn passages by rote from a very early age. Despite the children not understanding the context, the message about the position of women in that society becomes clear due to the attitudes they see in adults around them (and children emulate those around them).
The messages from the Qur’an are taught as “the direct and unalterable word of Allah” and so the children are taught to accept and obey without discussion or question. Add to this idea the actions of total supplication to Allah in the method of worship we saw earlier, and we have an environment totally soaked in the notion that all people take their lead from a higher authority, whether that be a man (as Muhammad was a man) or Allah. The concept of total obedience to the ideology is supplanted so very early in a child’s life, and is reinforced on a daily basis thereafter.
Muslim Mindset: The Collective Personality Disorder
Let’s refer back to Roger’s ideas about learning and personality development. The idea of having an “external locus of evaluation” is an unhealthy concept for good personality development. It seems that the Muslim is taught very early in life to defer their own naturalistic (organismic self) wants and needs in favour of the an autocratic external influence (Allah, Qur’an and men in authority). Even in the so called “moderate Muslim” family, these concepts are infused simply by virtue of attending Mosque and watching the behaviour of others. The result is a form of cultural indoctrination geared towards the innate human tendency to conform.
Providing a learning environment such as this has the developmental effect of reducing the individuals’ ability to empathise with others, significantly lessening their willingness to listen to their own conscience, which in turn reduces their own internal self confidence and supersedes it with confidence (and belief) in the external authority. This leads to the development of a child’s self-concept which has beliefs which are much stronger and greatly removed from the naturalistic or organismic self. In other words, these are some of the building blocks for distorted personality development and the creation of a personality type that is heavily dependant on the words, behaviour and ideology of other people and the need to function as a part of a group, with a unifying group identity. Individualism is rejected and Islam becomes the central focus of all that is right and wrong.
Through his practice and research over 50 years, Rogers identified how personality developed, and parallel to those theories he saw the dysfunction of humans in many forms and theorised as to how abnormality of personality came to be. His work was not aloof in a laboratory, but working directly with people on a daily basis, his observations eventually (after many years) became a theory which he attempted to crystallise into 19 propositions. Proposition number 11 states:
“As experiences occur in the life of the individual, they are either, a) symbolised, perceived and organised into some relation to the self, b) ignored because there is no perceived relationship to the self structure, c) denied symbolisation or given distorted symbolisation because the experience is inconsistent with the structure of the self.” (1)
It is this “distorted symbolisation” that begins to give rise to what Rogers called “Conditions of Worth”, which are an ever growing and influential set of beliefs imposed by others, that increasingly form the basis for distorted personality development, thinking processes and which ultimately influence actions.
Muslim Mindset: Aggression in Action
What should be becoming clear so far is that the Muslim has to a lesser or greater degree, been brought up in a rigid, authoritarian, segregrationary and misogynistic environment, where men have all the power. What we should also be recognising is that the attitudes and behaviour that we see in the Muslims in general is ingrained within the personality. While we are all responsible for our actions at some level, the Muslim is programmed to behave in a certain way, to certain triggers.
Here’s the kind of things we see:
— group anger and aggressive behaviour
— blatant lying
— highly defensive behaviour
— insensitivity to understand any perspective other than the collective opinion of Islam
— enforcement of culture over and above consideration for human rights
— bullying tactics rather than discussion
— victim mentality
The triggers for this kind of behaviour can be categorised in one simple statement:
“Any comment, action or description which in even the smallest way is perceived to criticise Islam, Muhammad or the Qur’an”
Let’s take a look at something that we have all seen at some point in Britain, that being the Muslim “outrage” at even depicting a picture of Mohammed. The response is always in the form of a large group of people, they are always shouting and angry, they are always highly demanding, and always threaten violence if their demands are not met.
To non-Muslims British people, this kind of behaviour is shocking and also quite frightening and threatening. But there is something else behind this that we are not really aware of.
Let’s go back to childhood for a moment and try to remember the bully at school. If the bully picked a fight, did you notice that they often expect you to fight back? They would shout at you, saying, “What’s wrong, don’t want to fight? You’re a coward”.
Their expectation is that you would have the same attitude as them, which is dealing with a confrontation by the use of violence. If you don’t conform to their way of thinking, then you are deemed to be weak and a coward. In the case of the school bully, such behaviour is usually the result of being beaten at home by parents. They learn very quickly from their parents that anger is associated with violence, so should a situation occur at home where a child has done something wrong, the parent immediately resorts to anger and shouting, which can very quickly lead to violence. This is a typical domestic violence situation, of which I am deeply and personally familiar.
If we apply this understanding to the Muslim mentality, we can see quite clearly that rather than engage in a dialogue to rectify the situation, they will become angry and very loud. Some have said that this is a deliberate tactic, but I have to disagree. I believe it is “programmed in” so that aggressive and violence responses are automatic. This does not make it any more acceptable to us, but to the Muslim psyche it is normal.
Our Error in Understanding
If we look at the British non-Muslim we will by and large experience something wholly different from the Muslim attitude. We have a tendency to shun aggressive and angry outbursts, especially in public. Our reaction to such behaviour is to take a stance whereby we attempt to understand the complaint of the other party and engage in a dialogue in order to at least find a compromise solution. When dealing with Muslims, our attitude is gravely wrong. We fail to understand that he Muslim attitude is not one of compromise, but one of blind faith. Faith in the rectitude of their beliefs, their religion and their God. They are used to imposing the will of Allah on others, just as it was imposed on them from childhood.
Our reaction to such behaviour from Muslims is to (mistakenly) assume that they are so very upset about something that they are aggressive and violent. So WE must be in the wrong. WE must accede to their demands. To fail to do so would obviously result in the offended Muslims getting even more agitated!
Can you see our mistake? It’s quite simple really. We assume that the Muslims are like us. After all they have been brought up in Britain and many of them are 2nd generation British citizens. But our assumption about them is grossly mistaken. The Muslims segregate themselves and largely refuse to integrate with British society. They have mostly lived quietly among us, and us non-Muslims have been wholly unaware that these people have been living their lives by a whole different set of rules.
Dealing with the Muslim Community
Dealing with Muslims requires a whole new understanding….from us. The whole Muslim community value strength and domination as important. Therefore only a show of strength will subdue them. In other words, the only way to deal with Muslims is to “play their own game”. Instead of allowing them to bully us, we must do the one thing we have always told our children, which is to stand up to them. But the Muslims are not stupid. They have something on their side that gives them an enormous advantage. Its called “The Race Card”.
Probably 99.9% of all Muslims in Britain are of an ethnic minority. They have used our own political and legal shortcomings (political correctness)to their advantage. So today in Britain, what we will see at every turn is a new approach from the Muslims. They have learned that there is a much easier way to get what that they want which is to call every white person who criticises Islam a racist. This feeds into the paranoia that abounds about the fear of being seen to be a racist in our so called “multi-cultural society”. It is the cardinal sin which must be avoided at all costs.
So the Muslims now know that they can control anyone they wish. Not by force, but by their own societal rules and their own backwards principles. It seems yet another mistake that we non-Muslim British have made is to confuse race and religion. Let us be clear. You cannot be a racist to criticise a religion. But the Muslims have now invented a new way to deal with that one. They invented the term “Islamaphobic”.
If you think that this is not such a problem, then take a look at France. I learned yesterday of a French woman who has been fined by a court in her country for saying “Islam is a pile of crap”. As I understand it, the court was a Sharia court (Muslim and unofficial) which was upheld by a French court! (2) So we are a short step away from legally being prevented to even criticise Islam at all.
The “Moderate” Muslim
Very often we hear the comments to the effect that “The problems with the Muslim community in Britain are only a small minority of the whole”. Of course there are many Muslims who have responsible jobs and have relished their new life in this country by integrating with our society. Or so it seems. In relation to the whole British Muslim community, those who have integrated are a very tiny minority. Yet as an example of their integration, we only have to look at our own Conservative Party.
Recently, Baroness Warsi (a Muslim and Pakistani) who was a Cabinet Minister and member of the House of Lords, resigned on principle, stating that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet had not taken a strong stance with Israel against their incursion into Gaza. In an interview with the Independant (3) Warsi explains that she considered that Cameron and Company were “hypocritical” in their lack of condemnation of Israel’s activities in Gaza. It’s interesting is it not, that she chose this particular issue to resign over? Why was that? Why not resign over the lack of action of the Government to assist the thousands of Christians being beheaded in Iraq? Why not resign over the response to Putin over Ukraine? What about he Government sitting on its hands about the terrible Christian massacres in Nigeria at the hands of the Muslim Boko Haram group? So who is the hypocrite now?
The answer is simple. Because no matter how British a Muslim may seem, however integrated you think they are, their allegiance is always to Islam. If this is true for someone elected as a Cabinet Minister, then it is just as true for the average “moderate Muslim”.
The mental attitude of the Muslim is geared towards obedience. The rule of Islam is one of the rule by fear. Conformity comes from the sure knowledge that all Muslims have, that their religion has a deeply authoritative core. There are indeed a small number of extremist Muslims in Britain. They are working very hard to spread their influence in this country. We see Muslims now taking over areas of our cities and trying to enforce their own laws. They create no-go areas and enforce foreign customs on large swathes of Muslims. How many of those people are moderates? Many I would say. Yet will they resist the implementation of Sharia law on the streets of Britain? Of course not! Because they are programmed to obey. They know only too well the punishment for disobedience of the word of Allah.
It should be quite clear by now that these people in Britain who are Muslim for the most part are not British. Some of them may hold a British passport and even have residency here, but they are far from British. They live with a different mindset. They follow foreign customs and refuse to integrate into British society. This is not the mindset of a people who are grateful. This is the mindset of a people who are waiting to impose their will on us. You cannot change them. You cannot reason with them.
Remember that during the 1930’s it only took a relatively small number of Nazis to take over the population of Germany. Were all the people of Germany anti-semetic and hate filled people who wanted world domination? No. But they went along with it. Now we in Britain (and Europe and the USA and Australia) have the same problem.
So how do we deal with the Muslim problem? I can see only one way. Can you?
2. Woman in France fined for blasphemy of Islam YT10…: http://youtu.be/ompEA725lig