Gad Saad is broadcasting on Larry King’s online streaming TV network, Ora.tv. More about Nicolai Sennels here: Robert Spencer interviews Nicolai Sennels: “Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant”.
Watch Saad’s interview with Sennels here.

Angemon says
Gad Saad is awesome. I still chuckle every time I remember how he fend off the threat of a lawsuit by a “feminist” angry at his criticism of what she said 😀
jihad3tracker says
I just got home —- and have not listened to this audio yet, but am very glad to see Nicolai Sennels back on Jihad Watch radar — even if for one post.
The subject is also covered in his essay “Why Islam Creates Monsters”, published several years ago, and probably available with a search here or on the web.
Highly recommended.
Angemon says
Dr. Sennels is a contributor to this site – if you look carefully, you’ll notice he was the one who posted this article 🙂
But yeah, great to hear more from him.
duh_swami says
Islamic mentality…that’s an oxymoron, ainit? I heard of that, but I have never seen one…
quotha raven says
The Saad-Sennels (neither of whom was previously familiar to me)interview is great. Be patient with Sennels’s accent. He will get the points across.Danish prison psychologist Nikolai Sennels says that, according to a study by German psychologists who interviewed 45,000 Muslim young people, Islam is the only religion wherein the stronger their faith is, the more violent they become. Interesting interview, with a unique (to me) perspective.
At the very end of the program, Sennels’s final message is to propose that their government (or ours, or any western country’s govt)) fashion a translation, an “approved” version of the qur’an which has edited out all the illegal acts condoned or required of good muslims in that book. This will be the “official” qur’an, approved by the government, who will require that all imams in all mosques use the approved text…and they must speak in the language of the country, not Arabic, etc, in the mosques, so “cops can listen in and know what they’re talking about.”
While I (unlike the Obama Admin which had all reference to Islam, jihad, moslims REMOVED from all law enforcement manuals and training materials, from local police districts to the FBI!) fully support law enforcement at all levels of govt being trained to be alert and aware of what’s going on in mosques, and I heartily approve of Arabic-or whatever language- speaking cops infiltrating and conducting surveillance of mosques, the idea that the govt should exert power over what a religion can teach or preach was not examined in ethical terms at all, and I find the suggestion of granting a government such power over religion superficial and unsavory at best. Perhaps Sennels finds this a cheaper, easier and more permanent way of coping than training linguists at all levels of law enforcement, so they can be effective at gathering critical intelligence within mosques.
At the very heart of our US Constitution is freedom of religion, and this proposal of Sennels’s sets a precedent not addressed in the interview. For me, although I am not personally practicing any particular religion, I hold the first Amendment in high regard. Think about it: Starts down a very slippery slope if you’re as anti-totalitarian government as I am.
Cheers!
quotha raven
katherine says
The crux of the problem here is that Islam is still being defined as a religion when in fact it is fundamentally a Satanic Cult which should not be protected at all. It is also a Totalitarian concept of government that is designed to undermine all other forms of civil administration through the instrument of Sharia law which Western governments stupidly allow to co-exist with civil law.
This is analogous to allowing Nazis, Communists, and Satanists to hold court within secular democracies. We badly need a legalistic movement to re-define Islam as a cult to remove its ‘religion’ status.
quotha raven says
Katherine – I agree, but I prefer calling it a theocracy rather than a satanic cult. Seems more objective, less incendiary. Shall we compromise on “evil, treacherous, totalitarian theocracy”?)))
Cheers!
quotha raven
linnte says
I agree it is a Satanic religion. And I define it that way now, but to get non religious people to HEAR us, it is important to use language that they understand and can relate to. If I am talking to a Pagan friend about Islam, and Insay it is a Satanic cult that Pagan will reject my argument completely. If I am discussing Christianity with a Pagan friend, THEN I can use the term Satan, and have it be acceptable.
Wellington says
For First Amendment purposes, Islam, katherine, is clearly a religion. For that matter, so is Satanism. Thus, asserting that Islam is not a religion here in America is of no import whatsoever. Moreover, it is simply legally and constitutionally incorrect.
Is Islam also a totalitarian ideology? Yes, you bet it is, but so what? Other totalitarian ideologies like Marxism and Nazism are also protected by the First Amendment. Remember, during WWII the American Nazi Party was legal and during the Cold War the American Communist Party was legal. I do wish people would try and educate themselves more than they have to date about the American Constitution. If I come across as a bit exasperated, it is because the evidence exists OVERWHELMINGLY that stating that Islam should not be protected under the First Amendment is a LUDICROUS statement.
What does need to occur is that Islam is identified for the iniquity that it is, much as Nazism and Marxism have been identified as such. Free societies can tolerate ideologies that wish to destroy free societies but what free societies cannot tolerate, should never do, is pretend that an evil ideology is a good one. Here is where the real issue lies, to wit, finally having Islam properly characterized for the malevolency which it is. Thereafter, things will take care of themselves.
Champ says
Katherine,
I completely understand what you’re stating, Katherine. Yesterday I spotted another “Tolerance” bumper sticker–which shows a broad assortment of religions (you’ve probably seen the one) lined up together in a row as if they’re all the same. But *islam* stands out among the others due to the fact that it’s a religion of murder & mayhem.
Upon seeing this bumper sticker I immediately thought of the game we played as kids: What doesn’t belong in this picture? And of course *islam* is the “religion” that doesn’t belong among the others on the “Tolerance” bumper sticker, but they try to portray islam just like all the rest: peaceful. Nevermind that islam is inherently evil and violent and not at all like the others represented.
linnte says
I really did like to hear this Psychologist say that the Qur’an has hateful things in it and he would like to see that book become illegal! We can’t DO that in America because of the first Amendment. But the more we encourage people to read the Quran, they will see for themselves the hate that eminates from it.
Bob says
Careful Katherine,with your choice of words – ‘crux’ there might inflame their peaceful, ever-loving anti-Christian feelings!
Fessitude says
“Islam is the only religion wherein the stronger their faith is, the more violent they become. ”
Good thing that (1) violence is all we have to worry about with Muslims and that (2) there are apparently innumerable Muslims whose faith is weak and weaker along a spectrum extending from the two extremes of Very Weak up to Very Strong. This makes me feel so much more secure about the millions of Muslims roiling and percolating throughout our West (with many, many more to come over the coming decades, seeing that it’s highly unlikely the West will do anything to reverse this trend — for after all, we wouldn’t want to “paint all Muslims with a broad brush” — especially since we (think we) know that so many (how many? who knows? who cares?) Muslims are “weak” enough in their faith so as not to constitute a danger to our society.
Hang on, let me crank my Sarc faucet off again… CRUNK! There, that should do it!
quotha raven says
LOL, Fess. Good one!
Cheers!
quotha raven
Angemon says
Fessitude posted:
“Good thing that (1) violence is all we have to worry about with Muslims”
Well, we certainly don’t have to worry about them integrating and assimilating since it’s proven they can’t or won’t.
“and that (2) there are apparently innumerable Muslims whose faith is weak and weaker along a spectrum extending from the two extremes of Very Weak up to Very Strong.”
Well, aren’t there? If not, how do you account for apostates? Were they muslims whose faith was “Very Strong” one moment and left islam the other?
“This makes me feel so much more secure about the millions of Muslims roiling and percolating throughout our West”
Awwww, don’t tell me you’re going soft – am I to believe you will no longer say something like “ALL muslims” or “total deportation”?
maghan says
So what makes someone a Muslim? If a Muslim is on the very weak portion of the spectrum metric, is he/she still a Muslim? Can a Muslim be an atheist?
Angemon says
That I can not say. And I doubt any muslim can, seeing how the islamic history is filled up to nowadays with muslims killing other muslims who are deemed not muslim enough. Remember how the chief executer of the islamic state was beheaded for allegedly smoking? As for muslim atheists, my reflexive reaction would be to say that there can not be such a thing, but “muslim atheist” sounds like a sure way to win over the NYT or HuffPo, so there’s probably someone somewhere claiming to be a muslim atheist and being lauded as the face of “moderate” islam, no matter how absurd that sounds.
Angemon says
quotha raven posted:
“The Saad-Sennels (neither of whom was previously familiar to me)interview is great.”
Dr. Saad has a YT channel where he discusses more than just islam:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLH7qUqM0PLieCVaHA7RegA/videos
It’s a shame that some here consider him to be a “Jewish Cenk Uygur” – those morons know nothing.
And Dr. Sennels is a contributor to this site. Feel free to browse his history:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/author/Nicolai
quotha raven says
to Angemon – Thank you for these links. I will explore them. What is a “Cenk Uygur”, for heaven’s sake?!
Cheers!
quotha raven
Angemon says
He’s one of the hosts of The Young Turks, a progressive, liberal-leftwing show. Born muslim in Turkey but now allegedly agnostic or atheist. Meaning he’s the proverbial skinless person living in a sand-paper world and with a propensity to shout, insult and diss anyone disagreeing with him. Look up “Cenk Uygur rants” or “Cenk Uygur freak-outs” on YT. In short, and to say the least, not a very nice (or balanced) individual.
quotha raven says
Angemon – Thanks for letting me know. When I’m feeling appropriately masochistic, I’ll check out his rants, but I’ll bet I don’;t have the stamina to last for more than a few minutes. qr
Fessitude says
“find the suggestion of granting a government such power over religion superficial and unsavory at best…”
Certainly granting government such power is superficial and unsavory — when dealing with “religion” in general (i.e., with all non-Islamic religions on the planet). And it may be superficial and unsavory even with regard to Islam. But rounding up Japanese-Americans and putting them in camps was also unsavory. It was nevertheless deemed to be a rational measure in relation to the danger we rationally assessed at the time — the U.S. President, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the American people all agreed (with only the Angemons and Wellingtons of the day demurring who — thank Allah! — were then only a wee minority). Their like has in the subsequent decades mushroomed into a dominant and mainstream culture throughout the West. Today the Higher Court of PC MC dictates that not only ought we never do such a thing again, even the original act was a “shameful chapter in our history” — one of many “Never Again” mantras profoundly botched in the framework of this new worldview of PC MC.
The second salient point is that quotha raven’s misgivings about granting government such powers as they would acquire were they to put the Sennels program of trying to manage the Mohammedan beast in our midst into effect is that it is not only “unsavory” — it is positively illegal and would require a transformation of Western democracies (whether “Republics” or otherwise) into temporary dictatorships. Even worse than dictatorships — dictatorships which target only one population inside them, a population who seems “ethnic” and is certainly a non-Western culture. Post-Caliphate Turkey under Ataturk’s regime and its ongoing legacy did something similar — but Turkey is not a democracy in anything but an Orwellian sense; it is a military dictatorship.
I.e., the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Softies when they are flexing their Pillsbury Doughboy biceps don’t even realize how incoherent they are, advocating measures that would be no less illegal and counter to democracy than would be the total deportation they recoil from in ethical horror. But like I said elsewhere on this page: it’s a good thing that the problem of Islam metastasizing in our time just so happens to be only so bad as to fit like OJ’s glove the soft measures the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Softies in their robust timidity propose.
I think I left my Sarc-Off crank out in the car…
Angemon says
Fessitude posted:
“Certainly granting government such power is superficial and unsavory — when dealing with “religion” in general (i.e., with all non-Islamic religions on the planet). And it may be superficial and unsavory even with regard to Islam.”
And here we go again – going from “religion” to “islam” as if that justifies giving the government such power over religion in general, which was the talking point. Because if you oppose giving such a power to the government while excusing just one tiny little exception, there’s no way that exception becoming a precedent, is it?
“But rounding up Japanese-Americans and putting them in camps was also unsavory. It was nevertheless deemed to be a rational measure in relation to the danger we rationally assessed at the time — the U.S. President, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the American people all agreed (with only the Angemons and Wellingtons of the day demurring who — thank Allah! — were then only a wee minority). Their like has in the subsequent decades mushroomed into a dominant and mainstream culture throughout the West.”
And here we go again. I’ve debunked this nonsensical comparison several times before, but that doesn’t stop you from using it, does it? Or maybe you “didn’t read” me debunking it because, as you’ve shown, you only read my posts when you can reply with a bit of sophistry and sleight-of-hand – when you can’t, you say you’re ignoring them and asking others to read them for you.
First of all, not all Japanese-Americans were interned in camps. Do you want to intern ALL muslims or just the Tiny Minority of Extremists? Because that’s who the internment camps were for. US navy cracked the Japanese codes and learned the identities of collaborators in US soil. That posed a problem: how to neutralize them without letting the Japanese know they were on to them? The answer found was arrest a whole bunch of them and pretend the collaborators just happened to be among them. There were Japanese-Americans with family members in camps who served in the US military and fought against Japanese. Do you expect to see muslims fighting in the US military while they have family members in internment camps?
Second, the Japanese-Americans were identifiable by their physical features. How do you propose to identify a muslim who hides his faith (doesn’t grow a bear, goes by an American name, doesn’t go to the mosque, drinks, eats pork, etc)?
Third, the US government later acknowledged they arrested many innocent, patriotic Americans. The government apologized and paid reparations. Do you, in your “muslim internment camps” scenario, acount for a situation where you acknowledge you wrongfully arrested muslims and pay reparations?
Fourth, you can’t control yourself, can you? Do you also check under the bed and inside the closet for Angemons, Wellingtons and the rest of the people you dislike before going to sleep (assuming you do sleep)?
“Today the Higher Court of PC MC dictates that not only ought we never do such a thing again, even the original act was a “shameful chapter in our history” — one of many “Never Again” mantras profoundly botched in the framework of this new worldview of PC MC.”
Yes, shame on them for not wanting to arrest and sentence innocent citizens without a shred of evidence of their guilt. What were those “softies” thinking?
“The second salient point is that quotha raven’s misgivings”
Huh, you can address QR directly instead of talking past her, you know? Sure, that doesn’t let you build the narrative you’re pushing, but… oh, wait, that’s your whole MO – talk past people and push a scenario, regardless of what those people say. We, smelly peasants, are just supposed to listen and believe everything you say – that is, when we’re not busy attending to our turnip fields or repairing our mud huts who stubbornly melt away under the constant rain…
“about granting government such powers as they would acquire were they to put the Sennels program of trying to manage the Mohammedan beast in our midst into effect is that it is not only “unsavory” — it is positively illegal and would require a transformation of Western democracies (whether “Republics” or otherwise) into temporary dictatorships.”
Huh, you’re one to talk, seeing how you want to round up and “deport” ALL muslims, which would not only entail the illegalities and transformation of Western democracies you’re decrying, it would also entail forcibly removing citizens form your own country and moving them to another country, with the target country not getting a saying on the issue.
“Even worse than dictatorships — dictatorships which target only one population inside them, a population who seems “ethnic” and is certainly a non-Western culture. Post-Caliphate Turkey under Ataturk’s regime and its ongoing legacy did something similar — but Turkey is not a democracy in anything but an Orwellian sense; it is a military dictatorship.”
Again, you’re one to talk about dictatorships – didn’t you support a police state? You know, having the police investigating citizens to figure out who was a muslim or not? Of course, such investigations would have to be thorough and constant – after all, citizens vacationing in, for example, Britain or France, could have very well converted to islam while abroad…
“I.e., the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Softies when they are flexing their Pillsbury Doughboy biceps don’t even realize how incoherent they are,”
From a remark made by QR to CJ mainstream – the exact same reasoning as “I know a nice muslim, therefore all muslims are nice”, except even more egregious and grotesque.
“advocating measures that would be no less illegal and counter to democracy than would be the total deportation they recoil from in ethical horror.”
Are you talking about the same mainstream you often accused of looking the other way and doing nothing to stop the islamization of the West? Or is it a completely different CJ mainstream? Because your accusations of “incoherence” reek of projection.
Marcel Berube says
Mohammed , Coran and islam don’t give a dam about the first or second or whatever amendment. Coran is god’s law so it is good , superior and eternal to all men’s law.There is not even a possibility of discussing that first premisse. The only things that will stop islamists will be war and lack of money.Islam.As it is islam is incompatible with democracy. One will have to win and it is surely not islam even though they might be 1,6 billion muslims in the world.
Westman says
Nicolai Sennels suggested that some of the “refugees will” return to their native countries. I wonder about that.
I think that there may be more than war factoring into the migrations from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. These are countries with very little rainfall to support crops and livestock. Take a look at the rainfall maps of the ME.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/regional_monitoring/3cpcp13.png
It is Northern Iran, the borders of Turkey, and a strip of Israel-Lebanon-Syria facing the Mediterranean Sea that get most of the rain.
I believe the warring has pushed Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq beyond the ability to sustain the population and that the migration to Europe is partly fueled by the need for consistent daily food and the long-term survival that these socialist countries offer. The writing was on the wall.
Iran and Turkey have enough rainfall to support their populations, with Turkey particularly blessed in that regard. It was likely a strong factor in the progress of Turkey under the secular Ataturk administration. Strangely, it now appears than southern Turkey may be tending toward drought.
Here are some graphics of ME rainfall change. I don’t accept the unproven man-made aspects of the article but the measurements are real and useful.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20111027_drought.html
Given the trend is to increasing ME drought, I can’t see the “refugees” voluntarily returning. Instead I see people fleeing an increasingly hostile environment to Europe and other Western countries.
Fessitude says
Sennels has a deep spot of soft nougat, as does Gad Saad. No wonder Angemon likes them with such unreserved and indiscriminate ebullience. Good thing the problem of Muslims pursuing their Islam in our century isn’t a systemic danger metastasizing horribly in violence and stealth, and that thus squishy, half-ass measures (which seem robustly mean & lean when seen in relative contrast to the Western Mainstream) will be adequate to deal with the global train wreck coming down the pike in horrifying slow-mo. I.e., it’s a lucky thing the problem of Islam isn’t so great that we can’t handle it with half-ass measures, eh? What a co-ink-i-dink — the problem of Islam is only so bad as the needs of our ethical anxiety and narcissism make it! Why didn’t I think of that! (I could’ve slept more easily at night all these years if I had…).
Where’s my handy Sarc-Off crank…? I keep misplacing it…
Angemon says
Fessitude posted:
“Sennels has a deep spot of soft nougat, as does Gad Saad. No wonder Angemon likes them with such unreserved and indiscriminate ebullience.”
First of all, didn’t you say you were done reading my posts? Second, Sennels and Gad have shown to understand the muslim issue, let alone the freedom of speech issue, much better than Trump. Whatever cognitive dissonance drives you to exalt Trump while demonizing Dr. Gaad and Dr. Sennels is probably beyond the help of modern medicine.Third, unreserved my ebullience may be, but indiscriminate? Nope. I don’t agree with any and everything they say. I suspect this will come as a shock to you, but people living in the real world and interacting with real people can like other people without subscribing to any and everything they say or think.
Now, remind me again why you’re playing bloodhound for someone who accused Mr. Spencer and Mrs. Geller from “provoking” muslims and why should anyone not assume you have the same stance as he does – that Mr. Spencer and Mrs. Geller “deserved” what happened in Garland because they irresponsibly “provoked” muslims (“couldn’t they have drawn something else”, etc)…
Westman says
True. I should have said, I see people fleeing an increasingly hostile environment to Europe and other Western countries AND bringing that awful progress-destroying religion/ideology with them.
Their deserts are inhospitable, ISIS and other militants kill them, many cities are rubble, other Muslim countries won’t let them in, and Allah is watchful, merciful, wise? Such nonsense. It is Europe that is being merciful for people, many who, in supremist attitude, will ascribe all offered to Allah, form enclaves, and spit on their infidel benefactors.
Georg says
I’ve heard Syrians, as well as Algerians, are particularly resistant to assimilation and insistent upon a supremacist trajectory. Does anyone know of research regarding this distinction, or have anecdotal experiences?