Mohammed’s Greatest Discovery, Part 1
Right Side News 18 January 2013
By Kenneth Roberts
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.
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.
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.