First, I offer my condolences to all Norwegians who have lost loved ones in the horrific attack that claimed the lives of close to 100 people. AWR has many Norwegian readers and friends. I called one of my friends, Leif Larsen. He has not lost any relatives or friends, but he certainly feels the pain of this tragedy.
Immediately after the horrific attack in Norway, many commentators suspected that al-Qā‘idah or another Islamic terror organization was responsible for the attack. Although two Islamic groups did falsely claim responsibility immediately following the attack, this speculation was premature, as was soon discovered. The perpetrator, in fact, seems to be Anders Breivik, a Norwegian. Al-Qā‘idah and other Islamist extremist organizations have certainly shown they are capable of carrying out such horrific and advanced attacks, but immediately assuming that an Islamic terror organization committed this crime is wrong and clearly shows the eagerness of the media to link terror with Islam.
The case of Anders Breivik shows what is possible if people who are not familiar with Islam are constantly exposed to material that continuously blames Islam for all evil. American blogger Kevin I. Slaughter has done a great job discovering Anders Breivik’s manifesto entitled, "2083: A European Declaration of Independence," which was posted on Stormfront.org, a white supremacist website. In this manifesto, he refers to himself as Andrew Berwick, but this is likely his way of Anglicanizing his Norwegian name.
The manifesto refers to a movie called “Knights Templar 2083,” which had been placed on YouTube, but was removed after the massacre. The manifesto can be read in Slaughter’s blog. In addition, Blake Hounshell wrote an excellent analysis on his blog at Foreign Policy Magazine.
Anders Breivik not only prepared a manifesto, he also produced an online horror video – one that, in my estimation, shockingly resembles Dutch Wilders’ production, entitled “Fitna.” Don't believe it? See Wilders' video for yourself here. (Norwegian police have confirmed that this video was indeed produced by Breivik and with this leaving little doubt that the author of the manifesto and producer of the video are the same person.)
Both Breivik and Wilders’ videos present the same basic message: Islam is violent and Muslim immigrants to Europe threaten European culture and existence. It is important to note that Wilders immediately disassociated himself from Breivik, saying, “I despise everything he stands for and everything he did.” However, while one can immediately distinguish between the actions of Breivik and Wilders, it is much more difficult to discern their ideological differences.
The manifesto and video suggest that Breivik first developed his ugly ideology before carrying out his well-planned massacre. His manifesto and video were placed online only very shortly before he committed his crime, which shows he wanted the world to know his motivations. Motivations which appear to be influenced by, and even directly and repeatedly reference, Muslim-bashers as Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer. Of course, Wilders and Spencer did not call for violence such as Breivik’s, but their ideology certainly has the ability to generate and fuel hatred against Islam. Their language tends to be combative against Muslims and Islam in general, without taking the time to show that millions of Muslims abhor the violence that is committed by extremists in the name of Islam. In addition, both Wilders and Breivik also view Muslim migration to Europe as an existential threat for the identity of Europe, this being their main drive to incite against Islam.
Some claims made by Breivik:
- Islam is bent on world domination and will soon accomplish this goal
- There are various types of jihad – propaganda/media is one of them
- Muslims have raped 750,000 European women. This most likely refers to European women married to Muslims. People with ideologies such as Breivik find these marriages disgusting and oppose this. Breivik calls this “rape,” and he is certainly not the only one.
- Muslims engage in demographic warfare, meaning Muslim populations grow faster than non-Muslim populations in Europe. Interestingly, the idea of “demographic jihad” is a major theme in Breivik’s propaganda.
All these arguments I have also heard in circles around Wilders. In fact, these theories, particularly the ones related to Islamic immigration, have been the theme of several online propaganda videos—some no doubt you’ve
received in your email inbox from well-intentioned but ignorant friends.
Breivik shows in this video and refers in his manifesto to “Christian crusaders” and other European leaders fighting against Islam. In fact, Breivik even makes a direct evangelistic appeal for the viewer to join in the cause of holy war.
In Breivik’s estimation, anyone not adhering to his radical views is not thinking with common sense, as the screen grab from his video portrays:
But how is this common sense? It needs to be made as clear as possible that this is not common sense.
Islam bashing is stupid.
It creates anger and brings out violence within a number of Muslims who feel they need to pay back in similar ways. In this way, Breivik’s ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. But he is too ideologically blinded to see this. What sense does it make to continuously incite large groups of people in their religious beliefs – beliefs that are, per definition, emotional and thus easily able to raise tensions.
Islam bashing is not only stupid, but it also relies on misleading arguments, is continuously and consistently negative, and refuses to see the positive of human beings.
Recently Jayson Casper
wrote an in-memoriam in AWR about Professor Ahmed El-Sayeh, a great Azhar scholar who strongly opposed the violence that is preached by many Islamic extremists. I am blaming Western media for paying so little attention to voices as those voices such as Ahmed El-Sayeh. We should not neglect the extremists who commit violence in the name of Islam, but we should also certainly provide a voice for those Muslims who dedicate their lives to opposing this.
I would be willing to bet that Breivik has almost certainly never lived for any extensive period of time in a Muslim country, and probably knows nothing of Muslim figures like Ahmed El-Sayeh. Breivik’s manifesto and video show a deep hatred for Muslims, but would he have developed his ugly ideology if he had known Muslims such as Ahmed El-Sayeh-first hand? I highly doubt this.
"Berwick" declares himself in his manifesto and video to be a "Justiciar Knight Commander," a leading member of a "re-founded" Knights Templar group formed at an April 2002 meeting in London. He claims the founding group has 9 members, whom he does not name, and that three other sympathizers were not able to attend the original meeting.
Breivik also claims that Europe has been deeply brainwashed since the second World War by what he calls “Cultural Marxists,” people who believe in multiculturalism. He says European media is deeply infected by this belief in multiculturalism. Breivik rants against multiculturalism in a truly unbelievable way.
He states on his video:
“Multiculturalism is an anti-European hate ideology designed to deconstruct European cultures and traditions, European entities, European Christendom and even European nation states. And, as such, it is an evil genocidal ideology created for the sole purpose of annihilating everything European.”
I have heard people around Wilders using similar language.
Breivik then presents a quote of a Norwegian professor who calls for the deconstruction of Europeans “so they may never be able to call themselves a majority again.” I cannot imagine a university professor would make such a claim, but even if this quote is correct, it would make sense to criticize such a professor, but one, two, or several such idiotic statements are no justification for the ideology Breivik has developed.
Breivik goes on to blame the BBC and other media for brainwashing their listeners/viewers:
Breivik then writes about 50 Muslim dictatorships and 45 Christian democracies in the United Nations all having one vote. I have also heard members of Wilders’ party saying the same thing.
Breivik advocates attacking "traitors" across Europe who are supposedly enabling a Muslim takeover of the continent.
Just as Wilders claims the Dutch Labor Party (PvdA) and other political parties are enabling Muslims to take over Europe, Breivik obviously had in mind the Norwegian Labor party when he scribbled his mad diatribe. He placed a bomb in the center of Oslo to create maximum damage to government offices, including that of the Socialist Prime Minister and then went on to a Socialist youth camp where he was able to kill whomever he could find for 90 minutes! The word “traitors” or words having a similar meaning are frequently heard in right wing circles and has at times even been used against AWR.
The manifesto is filled with hateful rants against Islam and Muslims. Specifically, Breivik speaks of the supposed Islamic concepts of taqqiya (intentionally deceiving non-Muslims) and abrogation (which he says allows Muslims to disregard peaceful verses in the Quran). These are tired and baseless arguments that have repeatedly been used by Islamophobes across the globe, and sad to say, have often found their origin on websites such as Robert Spencer’s “Jihad Watch” website.
The problem, however, with these concepts is that Muslims themselves are not in agreement about their interpretation and application Highlighting the radical view of some Muslim extremists and presenting this as supposed “primary Islamic doctrines” is both unjust and dangerous. Breivik did not invent these views on Islam. He has, no doubt, done his homework through searching anti-Muslim websites. The very reference list on his manifesto even supports this theory.
Breivik, just as other Islamophobes do, claims that Muslims are on their way to taking over Europe and erase its culture patrimony. This supposedly will be done through immigration and a larger population growth than that of Europeans.
Again the similarity to Wilders ideology is undeniable!
With the next slight from his video it becomes more sinister. Sacrifice…Martyrdom. This is clearly a guy who is not afraid to die for his ideology.
Breivik writes "The time for dialogue is over. We gave peace a chance. The time for armed resistance has come.” He even describes in his manifesto how he built his fertilizer bomb.
Breivik, just as other anti-Muslim militants do, showed admiration for al-Qā‘idah’s militant organization. "If Muhammad was alive today," he writes, "Usama Bin Laden would have been his second in command." But through linking the prophet Muhammad to Bin-Laden, he links the founder of Islam to the extreme violence we have seen from Bin-Laden and with this he ignores the hundreds of millions of Muslims who have a very different image of their prophet. The truth is that we know very little of the prophet of Islam. The Qur’an hardly mentions him. Most information about him stems from hadiths (sayings attributed to the prophet) that date to the 8th and later centuries, thus at least 120 years after he died. We thus should be extremely careful about the many things that were attributed to him. The problem with the hadiths is that it is indeed possible to find pretty nasty material, but Islam bashers who use extreme statements from hadiths often have no idea about the discussions raging in the Islamic world on which hadiths should be accepted and which ones discarded. The problem with these hadiths is that Muslim militants certainly can find what they want to support their militant struggle against the non-Muslim world. And Islam bashers can equally use the material to show the alleged evilness of Islam. The fact is that both sides ignore moderate voices such as those of Ahmed el-Sayeh.
Breivik sees himself in this manifesto as the opposite to Jihadi warriors who are, according to him, the cream of the Muslim world (
ummah). And as Jihadi warriors are to Muslims and Europe, so Breivik sees himself similarly for Europe and Christianity.
My friend Leif Larssen is a committed Christian, but neither he nor I see the need for such “warriors” in Europe or Christianity. This is absolutely disgusting and I will fight such ideologies with my pen until the last breath of my life.
Chillingly, the manifesto ends:
I believe this will be my last entry. It is now Fri July 22nd, 12:51.
Sincere regards,
Andrew Berwick
Justiciar Knight Commander
Knights Templar Europe
Knights Templar Norway
A few hours later he committed his well-prepared crime, leaving close to 100 innocent Norwegians dead.
Breivik has shown where extreme ideology can lead. However, he is still alive and will no doubt use his court case to proclaim his extreme ideology. That is not very different from the ideology of the Gama’at al-Islamiya in the 1970s and 1980s. Egyptian authorities sent preachers in court to convince them to abandon their beliefs in militant “solutions.” I doubt Norwegian authorities will do this. They don’t need to, but this is not only a man who deserves the death penalty – that Norway does not know – but also a man whose sick ideology must be addressed.
The crime of Breivik leads to a number of observations:
1) His manifesto shows he must have had access to hate literature. As I explained in
my comment on the Wilders' verdict, I am in favor of freedom of expression, but I question whether this should include the right to preach hate against others. Of course the lines are hard to draw, but this discussion is needed.
The judges in the Dutch court case against Wilders have given him greater freedom to lash out against Islam and Muslims then earlier was possible.
The discussion about freedom of speech is obviously shifting. Today one is allowed to say much more than only 20 years ago when Hans Janmaat, leader of the Centrum Partij, was shunned by Dutch political parties. But their stances started to shift when he obtained in 1994 three seats in Parliament. Rather than actively ignoring him, they also started openly addressing the issue of immigration, just as this happens today under the influence of Wilders’ PVV. Janmaat was convicted for statements that are now commonplace due to changes in the political climate.
2) Breivik claimed to be a defender of Christianity. Committed Christians find such claims horrible and reject this. But Breivik is not the only right-wing lunatic making such claims.
Janmaat started his political carrier in the Catholic Peoples Party (Katholieke Volks Partij). He left the party, joined a no longer existing middle of the road liberal party and then formed his own right wing party. In his rants against migrants, in particular from Muslim countries, he did refer to Christian values. Wilders is not much different. He is certainly not a committed or observant Christian, but he does refer to European Judeo-Christian values that are threatened by Muslim migrants coming to Europe. I fully support Christians who reject such unwanted defenders of their culture (Breivik, Janmaat and Wilders do not speak about faith) but I also sympathize Muslims who struggle with the uneasy fact that among those calling themselves Muslims are those who commit violence in the name of Islam. Just as I in no way want to be associated with Breivik so I understand and support Muslims who do not want to be associated with Bin Laden and the like.
3) Breivik’s distorted claim of being a defender of Christianity is outright dangerous and could be the beginning of more violence in the Muslim world against Christians. There is already a strong sentiment in the Islamic world that the Western (Christian) world is turned against Islam. This could very well incite some radicals to commit new violence against Christians. I would hope Christian leaders in the Muslim world will publicly and strongly speak out against Breivik.
4) One should not think that this massacre will be easily forgotten. The discussions on this will continue for years to come. No doubt the Norwegian court will give him a chance to speak and media will broadcast this widely. Someone with such a strong ideology as Breivik may be able to create a group of sympathizers around him, in particular because now he will end up in prison and will be seen as a hero by co-believers in his cause.
Breivik must be swiftly convicted, but more importantly, this ideology that calls for so much hate must also be dealt with.
