The Pro-Islamic Aspects of Breivik’s Manifesto

Pages: 1 2

One crucial point that Western mass media have frequently failed to highlight is that although Anders Behring Breivik sees Muslims as enemies, he very much views them as enemies to admire and emulate. The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is mentioned as frequently as he is partly because ABB greatly admired his al-Qaida terror network and wanted to create a European counterpart to it. When Breivik stated this during his trial in 2012, this revelation appeared to take many members of the general public by surprise. That’s because the mass media had not done a good enough job at truthfully and accurately presenting the full contents of the manifesto.

I was not surprised at all, having read the full text myself. It was quite evident from certain parts of the so-called manifesto that Breivik greatly admired the “martyrdom” operations of Jihadist terrorists and wanted to copy key aspects of their methodology and mentality, including their view of terrorism as a political tool. A little bit of the same can be seen with his admiration for organized Marxist ruthlessness, which he also wanted to copy.

The bomb in central Oslo on July 22, 2011 was not made by a Muslim connected to al-Qaida, as many observers had suspected at first, but it was the work of a man who consciously copied al-Qaida. It’s also worth recalling that while not a single right-wing group in Europe supported this terror attack, Islamic Jihadist terrorist groups, one of them calling itself Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, initially claimed responsibility for the Oslo bomb, citing Norway’s military presence alongside the rest of the Western military defense alliance NATO in Afghanistan as well as insults to Islam’s founder Muhammed, presumably referring to reprinted Danish Muhammed cartoons.

From page 1,472 until the final page of Breivik’s manifesto are listed “further studies” about assorted militant organizations around the world, revolutions and fourth generation warfare. These include a reading list with references to various works of supposed revolutionary interest, from Michael Bakunin, Eric Hobsbawm, Timothy Garton Ash, Leon Trotsky, Naomi Klein or Vladimir Lenin to Antonio Gramsci, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Among successful militant organizations worthy of study and emulation, Breivik specifically highlighted the Islamic terror organization al-Qaida, due to its superior structural and methodical adaptation.

He further wrote (page 958 of the manifesto) that he is willing to see a restored Islamic caliphate in the Middle East, presumably dominated by such groups as the Muslim Brotherhood. This is certainly not a viewpoint supported by most conservative Islam-critics. On the contrary, virtually all of the Islam-critical authors quoted against their will in this text, from Robert Spencer, Bat Ye’or and Andrew G. Bostom to myself, have for years warned against advances made by the MB and similar groups, both in the Islamic world and in the Western world.

In this case, Breivik did not side with conservative Islam-critics at all, as the press likes to claim. On the contrary, he sided with the Multicultural, Globalist, pro-Islamic political and media establishment of the modern West: The BBC, the CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Le Monde, the Australian government, the Canadian government, the EU and the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama in the USA.

Nearly the entire Western establishment cheered on the so-called Arab Spring in 2011-2012, which has swept a Muslim Brotherhood regime to power in an important country like Egypt. Western governments have in some cases actively intervened on the side of forces known to contain people with connection to al-Qaida and similar Islamic terrorist networks, for instance in Libya and partly in Syria. These policies would have been applauded by Breivik, but have been vocally opposed by the conservative Islam-critical writers quoted and abused by him.

This is just one of several examples where Breivik’s incoherent and confused ideas have been misrepresented and misused for political purposes.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

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.

    • 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…

  • 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)

    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.