There now seems to be little doubt about why Anders Breivik massacred nearly 100 people in Norway on Friday.
The blonde-haired, blue-eyed Norwegian terrorist has not only confessed to the crime, he also left behind a manifesto and a video that explicitly link his radical anti-Islamic beliefs to his murderous actions.
Many have pointed out how his propaganda draws heavily from the material of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, American blogger Robert Spencer, and other activists who exploit the acts of Islamic extremists in order to advance their own narrow-minded and bigoted view of Islam and Muslims.
AWR Chief Editor Cornelis Hulsman observed that Breivik, Spencer, and Wilders share the same message: Islam is violent and Muslim immigration threatens our way of life.
However, the obvious difference is that while Anders Breivik's material calls for violence, the material of Spencer and Wilders, stops just short of doing so.
In his own defense, Wilders immediately attempted to dissociate himself from Breivik when his anti-Islamic motives became clear, saying, "I despise everything he stands for and everything he did."
While Wilders' second claim seems reasonable enough, it is hard to see how his first argument holds any weight. Compare for yourself the videos of Breivik and Wilders. Is there any identifiable difference in message or attitude?
Meanwhile, the American Robert Spencer has been less graceful thus far in his response, at first stubbornly insisting that Breivik may have been an Islamic convert, despite his Norwegian features. In any case, Spencer has now himself attempted to distance himself from the act, saying that he should not be blamed for the "supposed" anti-Islamic views of a "nutcase" like Breivik.
Others who routinely peddle in the cottage industry of Islamic fear-mongering are also on the defensive. One common argument among this crowd says that since Christianity is a peaceful religion, it is outrageous to call Breivik a Christian, claiming that "no true Christian" would ever commit such an atrocious act of terror.
The true irony here is that Islamophobes routinely force Muslims to use these same exact arguments when they hold the entire global Muslim population accountable for the misdeeds of a few.
And these arguments are not completely without merit. We cannot very well hold any entire ideological group accountable for a single act of violence, whether Muslim or anti-Muslim. To do so would be to fall prey to the logical fallacy of "guilt by association."
Of course, there is one obvious difference between the message of Islamophobia and that of Islam. While Islam is not inherently hateful, the material of Spencer, Wilders, and others, sadly, is.
In the end, it is impossible to know for certain whose propaganda played what role in the mind of a madman. And rushing to place blame on anyone other than the terrorist himself is speculative and misguided.
But Spencer and Wilders should now know well the feeling of being blamed for something they did not do. And for God's sake, they should stop the hate speech.
