Psychology: Deradicalizing Muslim terrorists (very interesting)

As a prison psychologist I have dealt with more than a hundred criminal Muslims. Based on my professional experiences and conclusions, I have written extensively about the psychology of the Muslim mentality and violence, including being involved in the court case against the killer and Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr.

It is no secret that the Islamic texts, the Quran and the hadiths, are the main source of Islamic terror and crime: Islam teaches Muslims to hate, attack and kill non-Muslims, and it uses the same psychological tools to remove psychological hindrances to violence, as in all other kinds of warfare, by devaluing and demonizing the enemy. Combining mind-numbing repetition of hateful texts with a humiliating and violent upbringing in the family and in the Muslim madrassa schools is the ancient two-step recipe on how to break down human beings and make them submit to criminal doctrines and commit inhuman acts. Even the most cruel terrorist has also been an innocent child once, until he or she met with this classical method of brainwashing that has been integrated into many Muslim families, societies and schools.

But how to make a violent Muslim peaceful? This is probably one of the most important questions of our time, especially among people and authorities working with anti-terrorism.

Realizing the lack of and need for knowledge in this important area, I will here share my experience from working as a professional psychologist with more than hundred aggressive and violent Muslims.

As a psychologist I have not worked with convicted Muslim terrorists, so the advice that I give here is based on working with Muslims who have committed less radical types of crimes, including murder, attempted murder, arson and rape.

Based on my experience, I found eight emotional indicators that are important when determining whether a Muslim may use violence or even turn to terror: anger, honor culture, victim mentality, identity, religiosity, responsibility for oneself, ability to regret and tolerance. Thus deradicalizing Muslims should aim to reduce the first five and increase the last three. Unfortunately, Islam and Muslim culture has a tendency to do the exact opposite. Deradicalizing Muslims is therefore not just about changing a political mindset, but to a large extent about limiting the influence of the culture and religion that fuels and partly constitutes their political mindset.

I have described several of these aspects in previous articles, such as "Report from the therapy room: Why are Muslims more violent and criminal?".

Based on my work with criminal and violent Muslims, I will here describe eight psychological factors that contribute to violent behaviour among Muslims. Many of the factors are also typical for non-Muslim criminals brought up in a family with dysfunctional patterns. I will mention them here with three subdivisions: a) describing the mental factor. b) describing how Islam and/or Muslim culture enhances this factor. c) describing the sign.

a) Anger is a driving force behind most types of violence, including terror. Other emotions and ideas might be involved as well, but anger is almost always present, often as the most dominant emotion.

b) Muslims and anger. During therapy with violent Muslims it became clear that anger and aggression is much more accepted among Muslims. Contrary to Western culture, people brought up in Muslim societies see anger less as a sign of weakness than non-Muslims do. Anger is seen as a sign of strength and source of respect -- not a reason for ridicule and loss of social status as in Western culture. Therefore Muslims do not limit their aggressive emotions to the same degree as we do, and they see non-aggressive responses to aggression as a sign of cowardice and a weakness that can be exploited further.

c) Indicator. Signs of anger is a indicator when looking for risk of violent behaviour.

a) Cultures that build on the clan cultural concept of honor have a tendency to create aggressive and insecure individuals ready to use violence to protect the inherent fragility of honor.

b) Honor has an essential place in Muslim culture, and Muslims are expected by both themselves and their Muslim surroundings to react aggressively if they or whatever they identify themselves with or represent (family, clan, area, culture, religion) is criticised or under (perceived) attack.

a) A driving force among most types of terrorists, including Muslim terrorists, is victim mentality. People seeing themselves as victims being treated unfairly by hostile powers often see their situation as an excuse for going beyond the law, generally accepted social behaviour and responsibility for ones own actions (one is "forced" by the enemy to act violently).

b) Experiencing oneself as being under the influence of outer imagined or real forces, whether it is Allah, conspiring non-Muslims or religious rules and cultural traditions, is a mindset pervading Muslim culture. A large German study showed "a distinct victim mentality and heightened acceptance of violence among [Muslim] youth" and that among "Muslim youth who maintain Muslim religious affiliation, one finds that a greater amount of violence is acceptable."

a) Identification with a religion increases the tendency to take it personally when one perceives the religion as being under attack.

b) My experience from working with criminal Muslims, even though many of them were not practising their religion actively, is that Muslims identify themselves very strongly with Islam and the Muslim community worldwide. This is why criminal Muslims almost never -- unless it concerns rivaling gangs or women -- attack other Muslims.

c) Identification with the Muslim community increases the tendency to take it personally and react when one perceives Islam or Muslims as being under attack.

a) All through history religions have proven to be able to make people do what they would not have done without their religion -- positive or negative.

b) Since the Quran and the culture in most Muslim societies preaches aversion and in some cases even violence against non-Muslims, the degree of religiosity among Muslims is an important factor when deciding the risk of violent behaviour. A German study involving intense interviews with more than 40,000 people concluded that practising Islam increases anger and risk of violent behavior.

c) Strong religious feelings and the strong influence of a traditional Muslim upbringing is thus an important indicator when trying to identify and discover the tendency to use violence among Muslims and protect Islam against criticism and attacks.

a) The ability to feel responsibility for oneself is important for the ability to display positive behaviour. The less people feel responsible for their own actions, the more they are likely to act unacceptably, since they do not feel that they themselves deserve to face the consequences and do not feel guilty.

b) A defining characteristic of Islam and Muslim culture is the lack of responsibility for oneself. According to Islam everything happens inshallah (Allah willing) and individual freedom is substituted by religious rules, cultural traditions and the authority of the family and clan. Muslims to a large extend obey the expectations of their religion, culture, family and clan. As a result inner locus of control (experiencing oneself as being in control of one's life) is very weak while outer locus of control (experiencing outer factors as being in control of one's life) is strong.

c) Lack of responsibility for oneself is important when determining risk of criminal behaviour.

a) Being able to feel and express regret for one's own negative words and actions is crucial, especially when trying to determine the risk of recidivism (committing crime again after having served a sentence or being trained to abide by the law).

b) Since a victim mentality and a low amount of responsibility for oneself is characteristic of people brought up in the Muslim culture, regret is not characteristic. If one does not take responsibility for one's own actions, one simply can not fully regret them, as sincere regret includes insight into one's own role in the harm done.

c) Expression of regret based on insight into one's own role in the situation is an important indicator when trying to determine the risk of recidivism.

a) Tolerance is important when it comes to respect for others. Low tolerance often decreases respect and increases the likelihood of harming people. A classical psychological maneuver to make soldiers more able to harm the enemy is to lower their respect towards the enemy by spreading derogatory propaganda about him.

b) Islam and Muslim culture preaches intolerance towards non-Muslims, both in writing and as a way of living. Non-Muslims are categorized as inferior, and the Quran orders Muslims to suppress, attack and kill non-Muslims. Terrorists often act because of intolerance towards otherwise legal statements and actions.

c) The degree of tolerance is an important indicator when trying to determine the risk of violent behaviour.

A necessary basis for human change is the realisation of the benefits of changing. Since many assailants by experience know that threats and violence can be much more effective in achieving one's goal -- and even feel the right to act threatening or violent -- this it not always an easy task.

Everybody knows that changing one's views and habits does not happen by itself. It takes a conscious effort, and normally no radical and lasting changes happen unless we want to and make the necessary and often demanding effort. Often people are not always ready or willing to change. In these cases it is by doing -- or being tricked into doing -- things that maybe only indirectly point to the goal that one gets closer to the point where one can work on changing oneself more consciously, in a targeted manner and voluntarily.

Here are some of the things that I have worked with and would advise using for treatment of convicted Muslim criminals and terrorists.

Even though the psychological factors are clearly defined, my estimation is that even with very competent therapists, only few attempts of deradicalization are successful. This is because radical Muslims both have to want it, dare to go against the their own radical network and be able to go through the hard and extensive psychological and practical processes of abandoning psychological, cultural and religious factors deeply rooted in their upbringing and lifestyle, in order to deradicalize.

My experience from working with Muslims is that many have a heightened readiness to react to perceived threats. This includes the unpleasant bodily and mental feelings that often accompany anger, such as stress, anxiety, restlessness, lowered mood and unpleasant feelings in the head, heart area, stomach and other places. Throughout the therapy, I also managed to make many of the Muslim clients aware of the negative personal consequences that stem from angry behaviour, such as loss of friends, problems with the authorities, and the lack of ability to communicate the way one wants when angry.

Mindfulness exercises that relax the body (lying on a mattress, listening to relaxing music and being guided to tighten and relax the different muscle groups from toes to face) helped the clients to become more aware of their tensions and the unpleasant feelings that come from anger. The immediate benefits of relaxing by being less angry thus became evident to many of them -- they fell asleep, in spite of normally having great difficulties falling asleep.

Some of the Muslim clients were also open to learning ways of handling conflicts and irritation other than using threats and physical violence through psychoeducation.

I would not be surprised if anger-reducing medicine is one day be used on violent extremists -- individually or as a non-lethal weapon dropped on violent masses from airplanes.

Protecting honor is a defining characteristic of Muslim culture and has been the cause of countless killings of women, non-Muslims and Muslims from other families, clans and sects.

Since a fragile sense of honor is closely related to low self-esteem, improving peoples' self-esteem is vital to make them less emotionally vulnerable to criticism. Of course, Muslim culture itself has a strong tendency to instill its world-famous fragile sense of honor in Muslims, but unsolved childhood traumas can be an important key. Learning social behaviour that increases positive feedback and healthy pride can also help.

During my work with violent Muslims I realized the need for developing a therapeutic tool that decreases victim mentality and increases responsibility. For the tool to be useful it had to be simple and structured, because people brought up in cultures or families less familiar with psychology and the benefits of expressing inner states often find normal therapy meaningless or even confusing. I developed a four-step model that can also be visualized on a piece of paper or a white board. The four steps show how experiences awaken emotions, which motivate actions that have consequences that are experienced -- etc.

The steps are drawn and written in a circle, with step 1 at the top (12 o'clock), step 2 at 3 o'clock, step 3 at 6 o'clock and step 4 at 9 o'clock.

Step 1: The client is presented with a timeline on a paper or white board, going from birth until now. Above the timeline positive experiences are written, and below it, the negative.

Step 2: The client is asked to describe the emotions connected with the experiences. These are all listed below step 2 on the paper.

Step 3: The client is then asked what he did and normally does when he has the different emotions mentioned at step 2.

Step 4: The client is asked to describe what emotional and practical consequences these actions had and generally have.

This model makes it possible -- also visually -- for the client to see the connection between the way that he reacts to experiences and what he experiences. Depending on the client, this can help him to get insight into the mechanisms of responsibility for himself.

Identity is one of the deepest rooted psychological phenomena, and changing this is not easy. The problem with radical Muslims is that they identify with Islam and the Muslim ummah to such an extent that they perceive themselves as being under attack, no matter how and where Islam or Muslims are criticised or attacked. This includes a very strong loyalty that makes them prone to react violently when this happens.

I do not have any useful suggestions at this point except for maybe showing Muslim extremists that the biggest enemies of Muslims are other Muslims: nobody kills more Muslims than Muslims, and nobody oppresses Muslims more than the Muslim rulers of Muslim countries. The "one ummah, one body" slogan put forward by the self-proclaimed defenders of Islam against the West must be seen in light of the fact that Muslims are far from being one single unit protecting each others' back.

Muslim terrorists are most often very well versed in the Islamic scriptures, and trying to make them think that certain parts of the Quran should be seen from a historical perspective and not as guidelines in the modern world is futile. Since leaving Islam is punishable by death, one has to be able to present very convincing protection programmes to whoever considers leaving this religion.

Decreasing religiosity in Muslims who take the Quran literally is impossible as long as they are able to indoctrinate themselves and each other with the Islamic texts and practises. It can be necessary to deprive them of the source that fuels their hate and political ideas.

Making it so difficult to practise orthodox and therefore illegal Islam in our countries that they need to go elsewhere if they want to continue their way of life is a solution.

The ability to regret is necessary in order to change one's habits and feel empathy with others. The victim mentality and a lowered sense of responsibility for oneself decrease the ability to feel regret.

In many countries around the world, victims and offenders are offered a chance to meet, and in many cases it has a healing effect on both parties. Realizing the harm that one has done makes one able to regret and apologize, which is psychologically healthy. I think everybody knows the relief that follows when one has finally gotten oneself together and given an honest apology to somebody we hurt.

1) Realizing. First one has to realize that what one has done is wrong. Meeting with victims or survivors, reading about their suffering and that of their families, and knowing that innocent people were harmed is helpful to realize one's wrongdoing.

2) Admitting. Having reached a point where one can give an honest acknowledgment of one's actions, one simply does so. If one is not able to meet the victim in person, one can write a letter or give a public statement.

3) Regretting. After having admitted one's fault, one is ready to make the important step of deciding to never repeat one's mistake.

4) Opposite. In leaving one's habits behind, the last thing that has to be done to finalize the psychological process of regretting is to do the opposite. If one has previously harmed or hated a certain group of people, one starts helping them -- etc.

Going through these four steps may not feel very honorable or pleasant for the ego, but if one makes it through all four steps, one is truly reborn as a better citizen.

Tolerance is important because Muslim terrorism if fueled by intolerance toward non-Muslims and non-Islamic values and societies. Since intolerance are often created by misunderstanding, creating understanding is a very effective way to tolerance.

I wish I had had movies showing normal non-Muslims' way of life in their families' daily lives when working with criminal Muslims' anger against non-Muslims. Showing the innocent, happy and constructive lives of normal Danish children and parents would have been an eye-opener for them. There are so many lies and myths in the Muslim communities about Westerners, and removing them will surely increase Muslims' tolerance towards us.

You have the right of it in your posts #114 & #115.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390585/posts?page=114#114

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3390585/posts?page=115#115

Nice touch here:

Carry_Okie wrote: ...one that specifically commits them to violate the Constitution; else they face the penalty of death for apostasy.

I'll be using THAT one in the future. :)

I used to be a Constitutionalist when I first joined this site way back when.

After many years, I realized that the strategy of the ProgTard termites was to "quibble" over every word in the Constitution, seeking to tear it apart through "deconstructionism". You know the drill: "well regulated Militia", etc., etc. Apply "solution" liberally to rest of Constitution.

One day, I realized that the foundation of the "structure" known as the Constitution was the Declaration.

Now, the Constitution is fairly lengthy in relation to the Declaration, and it has many more avenues of attack available in it.

I then suddenly realized that there's one line in the Declaration that is stronger than any fortress that has ever been built on this Earth:

...that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

Now, ProgTards like to pretend that the Constitution "grants" you your Natural Rights, because they can strip you of them once the Constitution collapses into termite-chewed dust.

The Declaration is like a silver cross on a vampire to ProgTards. Many of them deny a Creator, so when you (for example) raise the silver cross of "endowed by [my] Creator with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" to their arguments, their tiny little heads explode.

I call them "Declaration Deniers", because it simplifies matters.

You either accept the Declaration, or you don't. And from the Declaration flows the broad river of the Constitution...

Muslims are Declaration Deniers, I reckon.

Well said! Please allow me to elaborate a bit:

Mohammed was not the first terrorist in World History, but he has been the most successful, by far.

Mohammed is held to be the “perfect” man by Moslems, and ALL Moslems are called by the their “holy books” to emulate his life.

And, what a life!

Between 622 and 632 AC, Mohammed was, as mentioned, a VERY successful terrorist, He was also a pedophile, a murderer, a liar, and rapist. He thieved, plundered and warred his way across a good part of the Middle East (and his followers continued that activity, all too well!), and was an accomplished slaver!

Bottom line? In excess of 270,000,000 non-Moslems have died because Mohammed was not killed in 622 AD!

Good Morning, CO!

---

The Constitution is a social contract among "We the people of the United States of America." Muslims have NO INTENTION of ever respecting that social contract. To them, you are not deserving respect for your rights or the Constitution as a fellow citizen participant in that contract.

I understand fully what you're saying, and I even agree. I never considered islam to be a religion as it doesn't promote the betterment of all mankind, but the subjugation of everything else.

But coming to a consensus among ourselves isn't the problem.

The problem is, as a country, we don't get to judge someone else's conscience. We can't assume guilt, it must be proven. Doing so is both hypocritical and dangerous, as it can create a legalistic weapon that can too easily be used for a purpose for which it was never intended.

Keeping that in mind, the only viable way I could see in extracting islam's adherents from the country while remaining true to the Constitution is by their nationality, not their religion. THEN we can figure out how to deal with the home grown ones.

---

BTW - as you can probably tell, this is one of those 'snowball' threads...you know - the ones where you say something, then your statement gets so twisted around by other posters that you know there's no way you'll manage to straighten it back out again, so you just sorta give up..

We can't assume guilt, it must be proven.

I think it can be, from the Quran itself.

Doing so is both hypocritical and dangerous, as it can create a legalistic weapon that can too easily be used for a purpose for which it was never intended.

Judaism suffers the same problem politically, Christianity not so much, for reasons I can discuss at length if you are interested.

I could see in extracting islam's adherents from the country while remaining true to the Constitution is by their nationality, not their religion.

There is such a thing as renouncing one's citizenship, which requires then not so much proof beyond a reasonable doubt as a finding. The combination of the Shahada and the death penalty of apostasy will do. Frankly, that one is easy and shares nothing pf a type with Judaism. Sadly, those guys who run our court system also wear those not so funny red hats. I'm not sanguine about how that would turn out.

BTW - as you can probably tell, this is one of those 'snowball' threads...

Ah, but after a time, the weather changes, the light appears (ahem!), and the snowman melts to its essences, a carrot, two sticks, and a few lumps of coal. Put them in the hat and go on. (I suspect you can tell, I hate this kind of mysticism by analogy that putridly infuses too many religions today... it is ignorance under the guise of wisdom).

Good Morning to you, MamaTexan, you're not done. It's why you were called. Yeah, you know who. :-)

Yeah, you know who. :-)

(grins) I won't presume to correct you on that.

Before I start, I'd like to thank you for stepping into the conversation. I know we're familiar enough to each other you don't automatically assume I'm a muslim apologist of some kind. Sometimes I think people just react instead of thinking about things.

Anyway -
I think it can be, from the Quran itself.

True, but therin lies the crux of the matter - if we accept the obvious by acknowledging ours is a Christian nation, do we not violate that ideal by using the tenants of a different set of beliefs to judge others? Do we not, in fact violate the 'judge not, lest ye be judged' concept of Christianity?

I think in order to avoid such philosophical conundrums, the country would be better served by targeting nationality, not religion.

----

There is such a thing as renouncing one's citizenship, which requires then not so much proof beyond a reasonable doubt as a finding.

True, but a law refusing to accept renunciation from certain countries wouldn't be out of line. If they want to renounce, force them to go home to their own countries to do it.

---

Sadly, those guys who run our court system also wear those not so funny red hats. I'm not sanguine about how that would turn out.

Frankly, neither am I. The real truth of the matter is that it's all a moot point unless and until we get control of our borders...but that's a subject for another thread. :-)

I know we're familiar enough to each other you don't automatically assume I'm a muslim apologist of some kind.

I don't think that is the problem they have. Lacking the knowledge of legal means to expel Islam under the First Amendment, they invoke Lincoln's "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" "clause" as an excuse to take their means outside it, when such isn't necessary once one remembers the Preamble. Out of a legitimate sense of urgency, they don't look at the eventual unintended consequences. They're always there. Just like abortion serves a (to them) "useful" demographic purpose (affecting mainly welfare babies), what it does to us is much worse.

True, but therin lies the crux of the matter - if we accept the obvious by acknowledging ours is a Christian nation,

I don't think that is necessary to the proof. Islam has uniquely disqualifying attributes, as are manifested in its behavior, simply from a mechanistic perspective. They MUST kill or force into submission followers of ALL other religions under penalty of death, meaning that for the dhimmitude there is no possibility of free exercise. Islam alone allows no other belief enforced on pain of death; it is the ultimate vow. Yes, I know that it tolerates "people of the book" to exist, but there is no equal treatment under the law. Even Judaism acknowledges other people who follow other gods without meaning to kill them all if they don't worship the G_d of Abraham. The only restriction there is that the Torah specifies there may not be any followers of any other gods within Israel itself except as visitors.

Sometime I'd love to go over Genesis 16 with you. It would blow your mind. Send me a FReepmail if you're interested.

I think in order to avoid such philosophical conundrums, the country would be better served by targeting nationality, not religion.

It's easier, but it won't work, or as we say in mathematics, necessary but not sufficient. Sometimes, forcing oneself to face said conundra is the path we must take. C'mon, you know you'd like that anyway. ;-)

As an adjunct to what I've said above, I suspect there is an aspect shared by the Declaration and the Constitution upon which you might yet wish to muse: It is their governing use of the word "We." It's one thing to cite the Natural Rights of humans. It is quite another to dedicate one's life to those principals FOR ANY ANOTHER CITIZEN-MEMBER on penalty of all that one possesses, including life itself. Hence there is a coupling of the two documents a little artful parsing makes clear: "We hold these truths to be self evident, [list citing the Creator]" therefore "...we mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor," and "We the people... do ordain and establish." This IS the original oath of American citizenship, the principles and specifications under which "WE" govern ourselves. The more I think about it, the more I realize one should not be allowed voting rights without understanding and making this pledge, with but the subtle change substituting the word "I" for "we" (try it and you'll see what I mean). These specific principles are essential to being an American. One cannot be a member of the America body politic without that sinew. One cannot expect others to lay down their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor in our defense unless we each have freely made that mutual pledge to do the same for them.

The corollary is that to shed or renounce that sinew, is to no longer be a member of that mutual pledge. Therefore, by rescinding that pledge, one is no longer deserving of its mutual protections (by the well regulated milita for example).

Now, posit this logical couplet against the Shahada and you'll see what I mean about it. In it there is not even a mention of the self making any pledge; one becomes by acknowledgment a non-entity if you will. It is acknowledgment of another divine and unlimited power rather than to each other ("we"). It is to commit one's life, fortune, and Sacred Honor to force ALL to submit to that power without any operating constraint (never mind that the details of its tenets and statutes are abhorrent to those listed in the Declaration and Constitution respectively). Because of that limitless power, one offers and therefore loses one's Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor. There is nothing left of a person to commit to ANY other, thus denying the mutual commitment essential to specifically American citizenship. This is why the Shahada is effectively a renunciation of American citizenship, because it is a renunciation of a commitment to ANY person or country. There is no Caesar to whom to render, no human authority acknowledged of any kind other than a quasi-hereditary hierarchy descended from Mohammad supposedly wielding divine authority whose nature of and qualification for accession goes unspecified.

BTW, I had not before recognized in the last phrase of the Declaration that it elevates one's property to a status coequal with life itself and duty to G_d. Nice touch there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.