The Pro-Islamic Aspects of Breivik’s Manifesto


Pages: 1 2

Jan Oskar Engene, an Associate Professor in Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen specializing in terrorism, warned observers against trying to construct an elaborate ideology behind Anders Behring Breivik’s mass murder, since it’s not clear that the uneducated Breivik espouses a coherent ideology. He suggested that what ABB stated in court was rather incoherent and did not always appear genuine, and feared that others might try to create a more sophisticated ideology where Breivik himself appeared mainly to harbor confused ideas.

Unfortunately, Engene’s timely warning has not always been heeded. The mass murderer is just too useful as a stick for the ruling Multiculturalists to beat their opponents over the head. Any serious attempt to analyze his so-called manifesto will find it full of inconsistencies, however, including a few surprisingly pro-Islamic views.

Left-wing organizations love to highlight the fact that the absurdly long manifesto/compendium of 1,518 pages contains a few citations of or references to the Center for Security Policy‘s President Frank Gaffney, the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Director Steven Emerson, as well as the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Yes, but these are individuals and groups dedicated to tracking and monitoring terrorism, not promoting it. Breivik also quoted many Muslims and Marxists, even the Communist leader Fidel Castro.

As good and recommended literature, ABB highlighted the Bible, Machiavelli, George Orwell, Thomas Hobbes, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Ayn Rand and William James, which can hardly be called terrorist literature. One has to question very seriously just how much Breivik has personally read, let alone understood, in most of these works.

Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has analyzed over 1,600 personal names mentioned in Breivik’s manifesto 2083 — A European Declaration of Independence. IPT’s research establishes that quite a few conservative writers are mentioned there, but also many liberals and leftists as well as various Christians and Muslims plus numerous historical figures and writers.

All together, the IPT counted 84 names mentioned ten or more times in 2083, encompassing a wide and somewhat unfocused range of different figures and ideologies. Among leftist thinkers, Karl Marx was mentioned 27 times, followed by Theodor Adorno (26), George Lukacs (26), Herbert Marcuse (24), Antonio Gramsci (23), Thomas Hylland Eriksen (21), Colin Barker (20), and Friedrich Nietzsche (10).

Hylland Eriksen may be described as a center-left ideologue in favor of mass immigration, whereas Nietzsche’s complex and controversial ideas defy simple political characterization.

Leftist politicians mentioned in the manifesto include Tony Blair (20 times), Barack Hussein Obama (19), Andrew Neather (15), Javier Solana (12), Romano Prodi (12), and Gordon Brown (11).

Muslims: Anwar Shaaban (48 times), Islam’s founder and prophet Muhammad (36), Osama bin Laden (29), Yasser Arafat (19), the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid (15), Abu Talal al-Qasimy (13), Ahmad Abu Laban (12), Ibn Khaldun (12), Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (11), Hasan al-Banna (11), and Sayyid Qutb (11).

Christian figures: Jesus Christ (mentioned 63 times in the text), Pope Urban II (13), Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir (12), Michael the Syrian (11), and Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (10).

Random historical figures: Charles Martel (53 times), Adolf Hitler (50), Winston Churchill (23), Duke Odo of Aquitaine (21), John III Sobieski (19), Thomas Jefferson (18), Napoleon Bonaparte (17), Sitting Bull (14), and Benjamin Disraeli (10).

Some of the great many writers encountered were Aristotle (25 times), Ivo Andrić (20), William Shakespeare (20), Plato (16), Salman Rushdie (16), George Orwell (12), Wilhelm Reich (12), and Sigmund Freud (11).

The most frequently mentioned individuals in the manifesto are: Bat Ye’or (71), Fjordman (63), Jesus Christ (63), Robert Spencer (54), Charles Martel (53), Shaykh Anwar Shaaban (48), Adolf Hitler (50) and Mohammed (36). The American author Daniel Pipes shares ninth place with the Dutch politician Geert Wilders and the Islamic Jihadist terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, all with 29 mentions, just edging out Karl Marx with 27.

As Dr. Pipes commented, it is somewhat bizarre to be ranked alongside Osama bin Laden and ahead of Karl Marx in importance. I’m sure it is. It is even more bizarre for me to share the same ranking as Jesus Christ. The entire mix is quite bizarre. Breivik’s manifesto comes off as a mixed bag; some would say an incoherent mess.

Left-wing critics might suggest that the conservative names are quoted in a positive light whereas the left-wing ones are seen in a negative light. Yet this is not always the case.

Breivik has been routinely described as “anti-Islamic” in the mainstream press. I was therefore surprised to encounter a significant number of implicitly or explicitly pro-Islamic viewpoints championed in his manifesto. His understanding of “martyrdom” as linked to murder is much more closely tied to a Muslim shahiid, an Arabic term often translated as “martyr” in European languages, than it is to traditional Christian martyrs.

A Muslim shahiid is not just one who dies for his faith, as Jesus did, but can be understood as one who murders others for their beliefs and happens to die himself in the process. Breivik openly praises this Islamic concept of martyrdom and wants to emulate some of the Islamic rituals performed by Jihadists. On pages 1,074-1,075 he wrote about “Learning from the Muslims,” especially when it comes to “martyrs” and the treatment of them.

Pages: 1 2

  • Steeloak

    You prove the point made here many times – that Islam is an agressive political-religious system that makes war on all who are not of Islam. Your explanation of self defense in Islam – defending yourself against those who are resisting your aggression – illustrates the twisted logic of Islam. We are not fooled by taquiya here, so take your propaganda elsewhere.

  • Schlomotion

    Fjordman, using the cowardly pseudonym for Peder Jensen that he hid behind until he was outed, is back to his old tricks of whitewashing his central role in the development of Anders Breivik. He reduces again Breivik's flagrant, copious, and slavish copying of page after page of Jensen's angry writings in an attempt to absolve himself of being the prime motivator for Breivik. Perhaps Mr. Jensen thinks that if he keeps writing it, it will be true. More likely, however is his patently craven attempt to use Breivik against the multiculturalists and the Muslims. One can only assume that Jensen is writing to the next Breivik, urging him not to commit the same mistakes as the last one.

    True to the Hasbara genre, Jensen tries to also absolve his gods and masters, Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney, cast hate and filth against purported leftists but was himself a member of the Soci.alist Youth. What a joke.

    • http://madaboutmahound.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

      Are you a cultural Marxist?

      • Schlomotion

        No. Did you just read that phrase somewhere? That's cute.

        • Martin Konvicka

          Then, it is very likely that you are one of those self-hating, west-bashing and women-hating free-riders, who developped the hatred to your civilisation without even reading Marcuse and Adorno. Congratulations :(

          • Schlomotion

            It is? You think I hate myself? I think I pay enough taxes to not count as bashing "the West" in any way. I think I bankroll the West. And really, from my perspective, "the West" means cowboys and wagon trains. I certainly don't hate women, as you claim. Who can hate women? They're like men, only pretty. And I don't hate civilization. I use elevators all the time, and buses. I read Ayn Rand and have a chuckle in the park.

    • UCSPanther

      Hasbara in Hebrew means "Explanation". I'm anti-Hasbara because I don't have to explain my existence to the likes of you.

    • Ghostwriter

      And true to your nature,you bash Jews. And,it's getting old. Real old.

  • Demetrius M

    Which quran would that be Tahir, the Mecca or Medina? By reading your comments I would determine it's probably the Meccan version.
    Let's read a section of the Medina version: quran 8:12 – Then your Lord spoke to his angels and said "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the kafirs' hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!"
    quran 33:60 – The kafirs will be cursed, and wherever they are found they will be seized and murdered. It was allah's same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in allah's ways.

    Not so easy to lie when there are classical arabic language researchers is it Tahir? And I could go on with the other "holy" books in the trilogy such as the hadith and sira if you like…

  • http://madaboutmahound.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

    The article doesn't end there, you ignorant arselifter. Try reading the second page, assuming you've got enough brains to comprehend how to do that.

  • Gee

    Your comments do not fool us – we have been on the recieving end of your terrorism and racism for 1,400 years now.

    The most intolerant people on the planet are Muslims. You subjugate, rape, enslave and murder people because of your blatant racism.

  • curmudgeon

    it has been obvious from the beginning that brievik was copying islamic techniques—he slew a camp full of islamosympathizers, dhimmis, leftists, and multiculturalists. has anyone ever heard of muslims murdering anyone that they perceive to be aiding and abetting any of islams many enemies? actually, the slaying of those who do not toe the islamic line is routine in any area where there is even a significant minority of muslims, let alone a majority. brievik's mistake was in thinking that europeans would respond to terror in a way any different from the muslim response. when muslims are terrorized by islam, they become more islamic. when europeans are terrorized, they do the same. they become more islamic. the problem is that nothing brievik could do would fool the norse. they still know that the dangerous ideology is, and always has been, islam, and a little terrorism by a nonislamic changes nothing. the norse are still determined to surrender to the greatest threat–islam.

    • oogenhand

      In a way, chickens coming home to roost. Copying islamic techniques is fighting fire with fire; qisas.

  • UCSPanther

    I've always enjoyed reading Fjordman's essays. Well written, well thought out and very rational.

    His detractors have tried using every accusation in the book against his writings, but none of it sticks.

    Brevik was just another nut who compacted a bunch of random stuff into a rambling, nonsensical manifesto and used it to justify his crimes. He was no different from the likes of Jared Loughner.

  • Ghostwriter

    So what did the victims of 9/11 do to be murdered,Mr. Nasser? There's a simple answer to that question. They were Americans,and many Muslims have a violent hatred for Americans and Israelis. Your lovely words aren't going to change that FACT.

  • Ghostwriter

    What's been forgotten here is that Breivik was a lunatic and a madman. He wanted to kill people and he did. It's a shame that he's not being put to death. He deserves it.

    • curmudgeon

      no. the lunatics and madmen are the fools in the west who invite muslims to conquer, enslave, then genocide them. compared to the suicidal multiculturalists of the west, everyone else is quite sane.

  • KingLearBear

    Breivik was trying to bridge counter-Jihadism with white nationalism and European autarky; thus, he truly doesn't care about Muslims in the middle east under a caliphate, suggesting that Lebanese and other Mid-East Christians should be exchanged for Albanian and Bosnian Muslims; and the caliphate would not be a threat because it would be kept in check and out of Europe.

    I think the reason many people haven't realised this is due to Breivik's views on Zionism and Jewish people. Had Breivik talked about a "final solution to the Jewish problem" he would have been easily consigned to white nationalism. However, he supported Zionism as a nationalism that removed what he saw as a non-European people from Europe, stands for national autonomy against multiculturalism, and he did write about America and France having a "jewish problem," something that would be out of place among counter-Jihadists.

    Breivik's ideology is a cross pollinisation of Fjordman with David Duke, and thus he's reframed the opposition to immigration as genocide of European peoples by a Marxist elite (whom Breivik does not see as Jewish), and sees any means (including terrorism) as necessary to stop the genocide of the Norwegian people especially and white people more generally. This is why his manifesto comes across as incoherent, because he's attached the general ideas of both counter-Jihadism and white nationalism, to his core goal to end social democracy in Norway, and he is not quite an intellectual who could smooth over the conflicting ideas of counter-Jihadism vs white nationalism.

    I'm not endorsing Breivik, white nationalism, or even counter-Jihadism here, just trying to put my perspective out there in regards to his ideology and motives.

  • Micke

    The sunni sharia law schools about jihad and legitimate warfare.

    "Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. Its performance by cetain individuals may dispense others from it. We Malikis maintain that it is prefeable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah excepts where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (Jizyia), short of which war will be declared against them" (Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, Maliki jurist).

    "Sincelawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is Gods´s entirely and God´s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought. As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words and acts" (Ibn Taymiyyah, Hanbali jurist)

    "It is not lawful to make war upon any peolple who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war…. If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistence, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us to do". (From primarily the Hanafi school, as given in the Hidayah of Shaikh Burhannudin Ali of Marghinan).

    "The mushrikun (infidels) of Dar al-Harb are of two types: First those whom the call of Islam had reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them … in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun … Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah had made manifest the call of his Messanger … it is forbidden to … begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofess as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they
    are treated as those whom the call has reached." (Al-Mawardi, Shafi´i jurist).

    (The Legacy of Jihad. Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims. Ed. by Andrew g: Bostom.Prometheus Books. 2005 s.27f)

  • Martin Konvicka

    How long will these obsessive liars, also called "pious muslim", continue with their unshameful crap?
    As small kids, we would just beat up a classmate who displayed no basic decency while pursuing his goals. Well, this was "uncivilised". But no meaningful discussion is possible with people who disobey all possible communication rules.

  • Antichrist

    Actually, Anders Behring Breivik is a pious Christian and a devout follower of Jesus Christ, because his action is based on Jesus Christ’s war-mongering and hate-mongering adages in the bible:

    “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” (Matthew 10:34)

    “If
    anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and
    children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person
    cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

    It should be noted Jesus was not only a warmonger, but a very successful warmonger. Throughout history, Breivik is nothing but a tip of the iceberg.
    http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=1841107
    http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_reformation.htm
    http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
    http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_reformation.htm
    http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-List-of-Christian-Atrocities