Perhaps a Question is the Answer?

Have you ever been faced with the situation where you want to engage someone in conversation about the real nature of Islam and its inherent totalitarianism but felt that as soon as you said one thing on the subject that sounded at all critical of Islam you would be immediately classed as a bigot and therefore viewed as not worthy of further attention?

For many "progressives", to hold certain viewpoints does not signify that one has a set of opinions that can be contested on their merits; they simply invalidate one as a person. This creates enormous barriers to communication with this type of person because, having invalidated oneself with an opening statement, they simply stop listening.

I have felt this a lot - maybe I'm too sensitive. The fact is that the way the minds of many progressives work does lead to this outcome. It's really the effect of logical fallacies at work at an unconscious level.

The cycle goes like this:

1. I say something accurate about Islam which shows it in a bad light.
2. The listener sees it as a criticism of Islam on my part, although I have only stated a fact. The criticism is therefore only implied and actually is the product of the listener's mind.
3. The listener has been conditioned to believe that criticism of Islam is something that bigots do. I must therefore be one of those bigots. Other illogical associations such as "racist" are also blended together in the listener's mind.
4. The listener then falls for a "Poisoning the Well" fallacy. Having fallen into the trap of viewing me as a bigot, he/she then believes that anything I say is likely to be incorrect and merely designed to "stir up hatred". If the listener has had negative feelings aroused by my initial statement of fact, this will serve as confirmation that I am a bigot trying to stir up hatred. (Surely, if telling the truth about a subject stirs up hatred, isn't that all the more reason to be asking pertinent questions about the subject?)
5. Anything that I say from here onwards will arouse a defensive response in the listener - that is, he/she will effectively no longer be listening. In all likelihood, the person will now be marshalling all those arguments with which we have become so familiar: "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful therefore Islam must be OK"; "you're saying that all Muslims are terrorists"; "the Bible has lots of violent verses too", etc
6. The listener is also defending him/herself against the possible truth of what I am saying because, having become convinced that only bigots make statements which put Islam in a bad light, he/she does not want to agree with me and thus become one of those bigots.

I had been thinking that some forms of mental ju jitsu needed to be developed to address this problem. The principle of ju-jitsu was developed for overcoming opponents using their own weight and momentum, a principle which allows combatants to overcome opponents of superior strength. The principles of ju-jitsu use the action of no-action to bring an opponent off balance and use his/her own weight and momentum to bring him/her to the floor (preferably with a bang). In this case, the bang of awakening.

Something that might well serve this purpose is a question. A brilliant illustration of this was provided by Dennis Prager. As a radio host who often discusses controversial topics and in particular the topic of Israel, Dennis is often confronted by listeners who are hostile to Israel and question its legitimacy. Dennis has a perfect answer to this and it is a question: Do you ever question the legitimacy of Pakistan?

As Dennis shows in this article at Frontpagemag there are a lot of similarities in the formation of Israel and Pakistan and yet who ever questions the legitimacy of the latter? Pakistan, left out of the spotlight for many years to quietly get on with crushing its religious minorities whilst Israel has been called upon to defend itself for the very act of defending itself against hostile neighbours.

By means of disarming questions like the one that Dennis Prager asks we have avoided making any statements that start the cycle of perceptions and fallacies outlined above. We have not asserted anything that can elicit a counter-statement of any sort. We are simply asking a question.

Planting a question in someone's mind can be rather like leaving a window open in their house; they'll have to deal with it eventually.

Maybe you can think of some disarming questions that would be useful for us to ask our friends and acquaintances. If so, put them in a comment and I'll add them to a list at the bottom of this post.

---

1. Have you heard of the Banu Qurayzah?
2. Do you consider yourself to be inferior to every Muslim?
3. With regards to Islam: Are you going to submit or resist?
4. Do you think all cultures are equal? Followed by: do you think cultures that condone slavery are equal to cultures that condemn it?
5. Are you afraid to criticize Islam? Are you afraid to even talk about it in case you accidentally say something "offensive"?
6. If you believe that people of the Third World have a right to resist colonization by us; do you also believe that we have a right to resist colonization by them?
7. Do you think we'll surrender to religious terror during the next century?
8. Do you ever feel embarrassed by the behaviour of your prophet?
9. Do you think any beliefs or ideas should be beyond criticism?
10. Are you familiar with the law of abrogation as it applies to the Koran?
11. Do you ever wonder what is the effect on Muslims wanting to leave Islam of the Leftist urge to shield Islam from criticism in order to "protect" Muslims from hurt feelings?

---

So What Do You Base Your Opinions On?

Christmas is often a time to meet distant relatives and exchange views. Such was the case for me this Christmas when I had a occasion to speak to a rather smug and ignorant relative about Islam. So ignorant was he and so full of certainty that it was difficult to know where to begin. It was as if he had soaked up every cosy media homily about the real nature of Islam and regurgitated them without question.

What can we do when confronted by people of this type?

A recent post at New English Review gave me an idea. The post describes an interview between retired Hebrew University Professor of Islamic and East Asian History, Raphi Israel, and radio personality Tali Lipkin-Shahak. During the interview the familiar gap between the knowledgeable and the ignorant emerges; the difference between knowledge and ignorance with which all those who have studied Islam now carry like an historic responsibility. The original article was written by Dror Eydar in Israel Hayom.

"On Monday, radio personality Tali Lipkin-Shahak interviewed Professor Israeli. It wasn't the interview that was notable, but the style in which it was conducted -- a style shared particularly by many Israeli journalists and Western journalists in general. "You were ahead of your time," she said to him. Israeli replied that he had been investigating the Muslim "diaspora" in Western countries for over a decade, and that in that time the Muslim population has grown to alarming proportions.

"But why do you attribute violent intentions to the immigration process?" the interviewer asked him. "Joseph also immigrated to Egypt," she remarked, evoking the Book of Genesis.

True, the professor answered, remarking that he had written five books on the subject, "but Joseph's family had not proclaimed that it planned to conquer Egypt or to convert Egypt to become Israelite."

"The Muslims explicitly say that they did not come to Europe in order to become European, but to Islamise Europe." They have vowed that a Muslim flag will wave over 10 Downing Street in England and over Versailles Palace in France within 25 years, he explained.

Lipkin-Shahak then said that "one can always [always!] talk about those people in terms of a negligible, extremist minority, including the terrorist attackers." Even ISIS, she said, "has no more than several thousand members."

Israeli insisted that these atrocities are nothing new. In the past, Muslims who immigrated to Australia, Scandinavia and Germany, as well as other places, have perpetrated very serious attacks.

The overly concerned interviewers rushed to protect the ears of her tender listeners, saying "I have to be the one to tone things down, or at least present the opposing view," she said. "What you are saying, it is very serious. You are vilifying an entire population; you are contributing to the process of hatred and counter-hatred, which only causes harm and intensifies the violence."

Israeli was not surprised. "That is exactly what they told me in Australia, until they became the victims of a catastrophe…This is my job. Anyone who wants to listen can listen. Anyone who doesn't, they can wait for the next catastrophe."

Lipkin-Shahak stuck to her guns: "We listened, but we voiced a sceptical opinion. We disagree."

"What are you basing your opinion on?" Israeli wondered in desperation. "I am basing my opinion on thirty years of research, studying Islam, and you are basing yours on a trend, on the fact that it is not nice to say these things. We are talking on two completely different planes."

To which Eydar observed:

Indeed, two completely different worlds. Facts versus beliefs. Reality versus fantasy. Make love not war; imagine there's no countries and no religion too. A very special kind of liberal fundamentalism. The moment the truth comes knocking, they retreat into their politically correct shells and refuse to recognise the facts. There is no such thing as Muslim terrorism. The terrorists come from outer space. Islam is a religion of peace and we mustn't link it to all these terrible acts perpetrated in its name. Sadly, the people who think this way -- the politically correct -- have the microphone. The researcher with the facts is only a momentary guest."

Israeli's question is crucial: What are you basing your opinion on? This is the question we should ask our interlocutors. Next time you get into one of these discussions, allow your the person to offer all his ill-informed, assumption-laden opinions. Rather than trying to counter them, draw him out in order to make a retreat impossible.

Then, pose the question: What are you basing your opinion on? Perhaps he will feel the gulf of ignorance opening up beneath him and will find the motivation to actually learn something about Islam and its core teachings and the actions of its prophet. Perhaps the opportunity will arise to point out how little evidence there is for the opinions he holds and that he has never bothered to seek it out but merely assumed it was there.

A supplementary question might be: have you read any of the foundational texts of Islam?

This experience could just provoke a learning opportunity where any attempt to counter the opinions of which he is already so certain will fail.

IS, Islam, and Obedience

In the aftermath of WWII people began to ask how the perpetrators of atrocities such as those who ran the Nazi death camps were not restrained by conscience.

Nazis shooting Jews 

One explanation put forward was the “Germans are different” hypothesis. This suggested that Hitler was only able to put his evil plans into operation because Germans had a basic character defect which meant they tended to obey orders without question, regardless of the acts demanded of them.

For the purposes of psychological research, obedience is defined as doing what one is told to do by someone else. In real life, this usually works in conjunction with conformity where the example of others and social pressure also drive behaviour.

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, set out to test the “Germans are different” hypothesis. He set up an experiment in which subjects were told that they were studying the effects of punishment on learning.

The "learner" is connected to the electrodes

When the subjects were taken into the experimental situation they were met by a man in a laboratory coat who introduced himself as Jack Williams, the experimenter. Also present was a Mr Wallace, supposedly another subject, in his late fifties, an accountant.

The subject and Mr Wallace were told that for the purpose of the experiment one of them would be the teacher and the other the learner. Their roles were determined by drawing pieces of paper from a hat. In fact both pieces had “teacher” written on them. Mr Wallace (actually an accomplice of Milgram) always went first and called out “learner” so the true subject was always the teacher.

They all went into an adjoining room where the learner (Mr Wallace) was strapped into a chair with his arms attached to electrodes which would deliver a shock from a shock generator situated in an adjacent room. The subject (teacher) was given a 45 volt shock to convince him that the voltage was real.

The machine had the appearance of being able to deliver a range of shocks from “slight” (15-60 volts) all the way to “danger: severe shock” and “XXX” (450 volts).

The teacher had to read out a series of word pairs (e.g. Blue-girl) and then the first of one pair followed by five words, one of which was the original paired word. The learner had to press a switch to indicate which word belonged to the original pair. This showed up on a light panel in the teacher’s room.

Each time the learner made a mistake, the teacher had to deliver a shock, and each successive mistake was punished by a shock 15 volts higher than the one before.

In response to the shocks, the learner made progressively louder and more anguished groans of pain. At 315 volts he let out a violent scream, protesting that he was no longer willing to participate. After 330 volts there was ominous silence.

So, how many people in Milgram’s study were prepared to take follow orders into the danger zone?

65% of subjects continued to give shocks to 450 volts - beyond the danger level. All subjects continued to 300 volts.

Of course, it was all faked but the subjects believed they were giving electric shocks. Just in case you’re sceptical: many ‘teachers’ showed intense anguish, laughed nervously, twitched and grimaced; three ‘teachers’ had violent seizures.

When the subjects hesitated or questioned the experimenter, Milgram offered the following prompts:

1. ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’
2. ‘The experiment requires you to continue’
3. ‘It’s absolutely essential that you continue’
4. ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’

Why did people obey?

Whilst being told what to do, we can argue that what we are doing is not our responsibility. As Milgram stood beside them and insisted they continue, they assumed he knew what he was doing and who were they to argue with a psychologist?

However, there was clearly for many an intense conflict between what they were being told to do and what their conscience was saying, and indeed how they felt about hurting someone.

In this type of situation, people will often enter what‘s known as the ‘agentic state’; that is, a mental state in which they exonerate themselves from all responsibility by submitting themselves totally to the authority figure and doing his/her bidding. “I was only following orders.”

Milgram summed up his findings in this way: “A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.” (Milgram, Obedience to Authority, 1974)

Summarised from Richard Gross “Psychology: The Study of Mind and Behaviour”

So, given Milgram’s conclusion above, what happens when the authority is believed to be the ultimate authority – God?

Within Islam, the chain of command is Allah > Muhammad > Muslims. Between Muhammad and Muslims there are a series of intermediaries in the form of scholars, clerics, writers of commentaries (Ibn Kaldun), Sharia jurists, mullahs, imams etc, who articulate what the ‘orders’ are.

The Koran can be read by anyone and, contrary to what some Muslims say, verses generally mean what they appear to mean and are taken to have those meanings by ‘radical’ Muslims (that is Muslims who go back to the roots – the roots being Muhammad (the Sunna ) and the Koran.).

The Koran contains hundreds of instructions, both plain and oblique, to believe. Read it and you’ll see it over and over again. Many verses begin with, “Oh ye who believe!”; warnings for those who fail to believe are abundant; the rewards for those who do believe equally so. This theme is endlessly repeated.

To command belief is to command a form of obedience. This is the first act of obedience in Islam. The failure to believe (kufr) is one of the worst sins in Islam.

Those who do not believe are denigrated and despised. The central dynamic of Islam is for believers to attack and subjugate non-believers.

9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

9:14 Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people.

The first act of obedience is encapsulated in the saying of the shahada: there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.

Upon this premise further claims to obedience are built.

64:12 So obey Allah, and obey His Messenger: but if ye turn back, the duty of Our Messenger is but to proclaim (the Message) clearly and openly

8:24: O you who believe! Answer Allah (by obeying Him) and As His Messenger (obeying him) when he calls you to that which will give you life.

9:24 And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.

The following verse commands that what the believer does not like must still be followed. Even those acts which would arouse moral revulsion in a morally healthy person should be carried out.

2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

IS shooting captives

Mark Durie reports an account of an ex-Salafi from Egypt who told him that a great deal of effort is expended getting believers to do things they find repulsive, thereby erasing their natural conscience.

The psychological study of obedience has also found that people suppress their consciences when obeying instructions that they would otherwise reject on moral grounds. They abdicate personal responsibility.

Having submitted to the first act of obedience and committed to the proposition that Islam is the true religion, the believer finds himself in the position of determining what he must do. The whole edifice of Islamic scripture and the example of Muhammad supplies the answers. The believer must obey these instructions as he has committed to the premise that they are God’s instructions, otherwise he ceases to be a believer and is deemed to be an apostate. There are also clear instructions for the believers on what to do with apostates: “Whoever leaves his Islamic religion, kill him.” Bukhari 9.84.57 

Commands to kill are very common in Islam.

Unlike Milgram’s subjects, Islamic believers are under pain of death to believe and therefore comply with the instructions given. The parallels with Nazi Germany are obvious. If anything, Nazi Germany was less totalitarian than Islam.

Where Milgram prompted his subjects with a gentle, “Please continue” or “You have no other choice, you must go on”, Islam has the full weight of God and accusations of apostasy for non-compliance. The common tendency among all of us to follow the orders of authority figures is greatly amplified in Islam where the religion and the cultures dominated by it are heavily authoritarian.

Muslims are brought up in an environment where there is no alternative to Islam – only persecution and death. Non-Muslims are generally vilified and instances of persecution are common. How does a person wrest themselves from such a state of submission and obedience?

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the current situation in Iraq and Syria is the fact that millions of Muslims are actually drawn to Islamic State rather than repelled by what is being done. Apart from psycho-pathological reasons, the explanation for this is that Islamic State are fulfilling Allah’s will. They believe (and their scriptures and imams given them every reason to believe) that what Islamic State is doing is the will of Allah and they too wish to obey his will. To do otherwise is disobedient.

Such people must be well down the road of erasing their conscience in full submission to Islamic authority. The beheading of four Christian children in Baghdad is all the evidence one needs to realise that these devout followers of Islam have jettisoned their consciences in favour of obedience to Allah’s will. To become a mindless instrument of His will is after all the goal of Muslim devotion.

In summary, Islam builds on a common human tendency to obey authority. Muhammad claimed to have the authority of God. He instituted a religion in which submission and obedience are key. The obedience demanded of Muslims by Islam conditions them to erase their conscience and submit to instructions to kill, persecute and dominate.

We must always count on the obedience of Muslims to the doctrines of Islam because the doctrines of Islam are principally about obedience. That which should not be done and that which must be done are defined down to the tiniest detail.

Unless Muslims are prepared to abandon Islam and thereby reject that first obedience, we must assume that they will “follow orders” when the time comes.

---

It is perhaps those four brave children from Baghdad who have shown us what is needed. Faced with the demand to submit to Allah or face a gruesome and cruel death, these four brave souls responded with, “no, we love Yesua; we have always loved Yesua; we have always followed Yesua; Yesua has always been with us”. They thereby demonstrated both great love and great courage. It is these qualities that we all need. They don’t have to be expressed in a Christian context but they do have to be expressed.

They are the qualities which distinguish those who are faithful to their humanity from those who are not; the qualities needed to rise above obedience and submission.

While Israel creates...

While Israel creates the first e-story books with sign-language,
Nigerian Muslim leader accuses Israel of school bombings;

As Israel creates the first global social network for doctors,
ISIS urges Muslims to bring about global volcanoes of jihad;

While Israel becomes a world leader in satellite technology,
Ansar Jerusalem beheads four Egyptians accused of being Israeli spies;

As Israel revolutionises the monitoring of premature babies,
Norwegians ban Jews from attending commemoration of Kristallnacht;

While Israel invents a t-shirt that can monitor your heart,
Palestinians celebrate rocket attacks on Jerusalem;

As Israel reinvents the wheel to make wheelchairs shockproof,
Iranian ayatollah tweets for the annihilation of Israel;

While Israel creates an anti-viral fabric that can protect against Ebola,
Polio vaccination teams are under attack in Pakistan;

As Israel invents eleven new treatments for wounds,
Anti-Israel protestors vandalise Istanbul synagogue;

While Israel develops gentler techniques to combat cancer,
Another Israeli woman falls victim to jihad knife attack;

As Israeli zoo saves rhino's sight with unique mask,
Jihadists in Kenya gouge the eyes of captives in mall attack;

While Israeli city competes to become cyber capital of the world,
Israeli Imam says Jerusalem will be capital of world Caliphate;

While Israel creates, much of the world hates...

---

With deeply felt gratitude to Pamela Geller for being an indomitable champion of freedom and sanity.

The Fossilised Paradigm of the International Elite

Thomas Kuhn in his classic work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions showed that changes in the dominant framework of scientific thinking did not occur gradually in step with the experimental evidence. It was not a purely rational process in which theoretical models are abandoned in favour of more comprehensive theories with greater explanatory power. Evidence that runs counter to the dominant theory or paradigm is often discounted or treated with scepticism. The paradigm proves very resistant to change in many cases. Only when the contrary evidence becomes overwhelming is the paradigm eventually discarded or modified to fit the new data or take of account of new insights.

One of the best known cases is the Aristotelian model of the universe which dominated astronomical thinking for 1500 years. Its dominance was based in large measure on the philosophical authority of Plato and Aristotle; it was heretical to challenge it for many centuries and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for arguing that the universe was infinite and thus had no celestial body at its centre, an idea that ran counter to the fixed universe of the Aristotelians and the Church which placed the Earth at the centre of everything. It is the few that pioneer the change in thinking. The mass of people resist to the end. See Refusing Galileo's Telescope.

This dominance was finally broken when observable discrepancies to the model became too great to ignore and there was a theory in place that could explain the motion of the planets far better, that of Johannes Kepler. Once the revolution in thinking began, the momentum was unstoppable and a new paradigm took its place, the Newtonian model.

A similar situation prevails today in the fossilised thinking of the international elite with regard to Islam. Anyone with the necessary courage and clarity of mind can study the system of ideas at the heart of Islam and recognise that the subjugation of non-believers is central to the religion; that a religion based on the character and deeds of Muhammad must inevitably be a predatory one.

But analysts who are highly paid to study and understand the causes of international conflict are stuck in an outmoded paradigm which does not account for the predatory dynamism of Islam and the lethal effects that this has. Apparently incapable of the leap of imagination necessary to move from the old paradigm to one that offers a better understanding of the facts, they reiterate the same stale explanations and offer the same failed "solutions".

Ignoring evidence that contradicts the model and more than happy to rely on received assumptions instead of research, they defend their position with intellectually lazy attacks on those pointing out the failings. They often substitute what they want to see for the reality that is actually there. For example, when Tony Blair said of the Koran, "What's so remarkable about the Koran is how progressive it is.", he was injecting his own world view into a book that is totally regressive, not progressive.

In the article below, Robert Spencer dissects the moribund thinking of the Brookings Institute. It appears that even the theologically based savagery of IS has been unable to break up the fossilised paradigm of the august body.

Brookings Institute presents the failed analysis of the past yet again.

The tenacity of personal worldviews

One really has to marvel at the tenacity of personal world views.

Daniel Greenfield looks at the story of Theo Padnos at FrontPageMag in which the naive Mr Padnos falls captive to various jihadist outfits in Syria and is introduced to attitudes very different to his own. In spite of this he finds it very difficult to alter his world view.

Without the understanding that Islam is a completely different world view that has a completely different philosophical centre to the liberal/Western world view, it's very hard to make sense of the way Muslims behave; Islam's very divergence from Western/liberal norms makes it hugely difficult for committed liberals to see it for what it is; to do this would require them to recognise that the values they hold dear (like equality; non-discrimination; respect for difference) are not shared by Islam (I'll state it this way because one does not know how committed or conversant with Islam individual Muslims are), in fact they are haram (forbidden).

 Muslims will of course try to portray Islam as the religion that championed equality, tolerance and diversity centuries before anyone else but this is pure sales pitch for Western liberals. Muslims were certainly not interested in presenting Islam in this way until they came to infiltrate Western liberal societies. This very divergence from Western liberal world views actually protects Islam because people tend not to believe any religion could be so antithetical to what they expect of a religion,

Lacking the understanding of Islam's prime imperative liberals look for explanations of Muslim behaviour in terms of alienation, poverty, inequality, and oppression, all of which are categories that are important in the liberal world view but not to Islam. Islam has to be understood in its own terms. Muhammad is the centre of the whole system, the reference point for everything else. The system is an elaborated code of life based on what Muhammad said and did. The prime imperative of the system, which is in many respects an extension through time and space of Muhammad's character, is self-expansion. A system always expands at the expense of its environment. Islam is no different. It's raison d'etre is to keep expanding. That which is not Islam is despicable, disposable, and only fit to be devoured by the system. Islam exists to take the place of all that is not Islam. The means of achieving this is through jihad in its many forms.

Once this insight is gained, Islam is properly understood as an organismic entity driven towards self-expansion. The enmity to outsiders; the deception; the creed of pseudo-martyrdom; the rewards offered for sacrificing one's life to the system; the slavish obedience to anti-human codes of conduct, etc,, all these make sense once one abandons liberal preconceptions and respects the differences. This attitude is a true embodiment of respect for diversity (not thoughtless acceptance of it).

Surely liberals should be far less closed in their thinking; taking a more scientific view in which the current truth is only provisional; something to be displaced by a more comprehensive understanding which accounts better for the observable facts and which in turn helps to interpret those facts.

Do not be cowed

Take a look at the first video which features an interview between Jamie Glazov and Mark Durie. During the course of the interview Jamie asks Mark about his views on the effects that Islamic encroachment, intimidation, and bullying are having on non-Muslims. Mark points out that some of us are unable to face the threat because we can't see a solution. He looks at the physiological effects of this stress situation on our bodies and our psychological condition. Whilst listening to the video take particular note of what he says about this and the visceral level at which it affects us. From the basic hormonal level of each one of us to the craven submission of entire nations towards their Muslim minorities, the toxic relationship between Islam and non-Muslims is being played out.

Here is the first video:

When you have had a chance to reflect on the messages in the first video, have a look at the second.

Amy Cuddy is a professor of psychology at Harvard. She has studied the effects of body language on our mental state. Our bodies affect how we feel. If we look up rather than down we configure a more positive biochemical environment in our bodies. (Yes, it really is that simple) This makes us feel better. It makes us feel more assertive, more hopeful, and less cowed.

Here is the second video:

What Amy Cuddy says here has far-reaching implications. Mental habits and visceral responses are notoriously difficult to counteract. But through the use of body language that is non-submissive and empowering we have a very significant counter-measure to Islamic bullying and domination. By adopting one posture rather than another we can alter the balance of testosterone and cortisol in our bodies. The psychological environment that this creates helps us to win instead of lose; to be assertive instead of fearful; to be straight instead of cowed.

As she points out in the presentation, small tweaks lead to BIG CHANGES. We can use this to our advantage to help us overcome the difficulties so well articulated by the wonderful Mark Durie.

As a footnote, have you ever noticed how Islamic clothing gives Muslims a greater physical presence? Because their clothing is typically loose and gown-like they tend to cut larger physical figures. The amount of social space they take up is generally greater than a person dressed in more Western style clothing. This may affect the way we perceive them as in some sense larger and more dominant than ourselves.