Are Muslims Calling the Shots in the Breivik Trial?

In Norway, Muslim leaders say Breivik trial should focus on gunman’s anti-Islamic ideology

Why? Are Muslims victims even when he didn’t kill any of them?

Breivik killed socialist youth at Utøya,  which he described as part of a “preventive war.”

“AUF is very similar to the Hitler Jugend”–

So, nothing to do with Islam. Right?

Breivik says he was inspired by Al Qaeda. 

According to Breivik, Norway after World War II became a “culture-marxist dictatorship.” The Social Democratic Labour Party introduced, “feminism, quotas and the sexual revolution, to name but a few. A socialist egalitarian society was created.”  

Breivik stated that, “Norway has been transformed into a multicultural state and the country takes on so many immigrants that we risk becoming a minority in our own country.” He singled out Muslims, in particular. Breivik labeled them as violent, saying they must be stopped.


OSLO, Norway — Muslim leaders in Norway say they are concerned that the anti-Islamic ideology of Anders Behring Breivik, the far-right fanatic now on trial for killing 77 people, is being overshadowed by questions about his mental state.

The self-described anti-Muslim militant shocked Norway on July 22 with a bombing and shooting rampage targeting the government headquarters and the Labor Party’s annual youth camp. Since he has admitted to the attacks, the key issue for the trial is to determine whether Breivik is sane enough to be held criminally responsible.

“I’m not a psychiatrist, but what is important is what he has done. That should be the focus, not how crazy he is,” said Mehtab Afsar, head of the Islamic Council in Norway, an umbrella organization of Muslim groups in the country.

“He wants to get rid of Muslims and Islam from Europe. That is his main message. So I don’t see the point of using so much energy on is he normal, is he insane?” Afsar told The Associated Press.

Breivik has told the court his victims had betrayed Norway by opening the country to immigration. He called for a “patriotic” revolution aimed at deporting Muslims from Europe.

In a 1,500-page manifesto he posted online before the attacks, Breivik frequently cited anti-Islamic bloggers who say Muslims are gradually colonizing Europe. But so far, much of the trial has focused on his mental health, rather than his ideology.

Some Muslims question the validity of pathologizing Breivik, saying the Norwegian is easily comparable to Islamic terrorists.

“Nobody questioned Osama bin Laden’s sanity,” said Usman Rana, a doctor and newspaper columnist, following Friday prayers at one of Oslo’s largest mosques, the Sufi-inspired World Islamic Mission.

The mosque, richly decorated inside and out with blue and white tiles and Arabic calligraphy, is open to passers-by, and a reporter was allowed free access as long as shoes were removed.

A few hundred men and boys of all ages attended prayers, many arriving in a rush to make it in time for the call to prayer. Switching easily between greeting friends in Urdu and in Oslo-dialect Norwegian, Rana questioned the excessive focus on Breivik’s mental state.

“I believe he is sane, definitely. Those who think he is insane don’t know anything about terrorism,” Rana said.

The first of two psychiatric reports concluded that Breivik is psychotic and suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, the second report deemed him sane enough to go to prison for his crimes, which he has admitted.

The 33-year-old Norwegian has admitted all his actions and freely explained to prosecutors the planning and execution of his terror attack, only refusing to explain anything concerning other members of Knights Templar, his alleged anti-Islamic militant network. Prosecutors believe the network does not exist.

Breivik’s emotionless appearance in court as witnesses give gruesome testimony and bereaved families sob audibly has left many baffled at his state of mind, wondering if he is exercising superhuman self-control or simply feels no emotions.

“The reason we are focusing on him as a crazy person is because we have difficulties accepting that ‘one of us’ could do such a thing. In many ways a natural reaction, but still wrong,” said Shoaib Sultan, an adviser on extremism at the Norwegian Center against Racism.

Norway is becoming increasingly diverse. According to official statistics, 13 percent of the 5 million population are either born abroad or children of immigrants. Most of them have European backgrounds, but large groups have also come from Asia and Africa. The government does not register people by faith, but just over 100,000 people, or 2 percent of the population, are members of Islamic communities in Norway.

A report by the government-run Central Statistics Bureau showed attitudes toward immigrants became more positive following the July 22 attacks. Those disagreeing with the statement that “immigrants are a source of insecurity in society” jumped from 48 percent to 70 percent, the agency said.

But just after the bombing, before the perpetrator was known, many Muslims say they were harassed by Norwegians who thought Islamist terrorists were behind the attack.

When it became clear that an ethnic Norwegian was to blame, questions were raised about whether the threat of right-wing extremist violence had been underestimated.

“There’s nothing new in the hatred of Behring Breivik, except for his gruesome actions,” Sultan said.

Nothing new?  Not really. But hatred of the infidel is a  fundamental ingredient, the lifeblood  of Islam. Why  is  Sultan omitting this? 

10 thoughts on “Are Muslims Calling the Shots in the Breivik Trial?”

  1. “But hatred of the infidel is a fundamental ingredient, the lifeblood of Islam. Why is Sultan omitting this?”
    Not to get arabic on you, but the camel can’t see its own hump, or one could say “the butcher is blaming the sausage maker”. Either way, it is the height of hypocrisy when hatred of the ‘other’ is key in the moon god religion. Shouldn’t throw stones when living in glass houses.

  2. Beck is correct, Stephanie.

    I know for a fact how pervasive socialist indoctrination in Norway and Sweden is.

    Their international socialism is wrapped in Jew-hatred and anti-Israel agit prop.

    Glenn Beck: Young Norway victims like ‘Hitler Youth’

    “There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth, or whatever,”

    “I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing,” Beck said about the Labour Party youth camp on the island of Utoya where 68 people, mostly teens, were killed.

  3. “culture-marxist dictatorship.” The exessive invention and use of neologisms is a behavior symptomatic of paranoid schizophrenia.

    The psychiatrists who wrote the original assessment of this person after weeks of interviews and observations found him to be just that.

    It is clear he is guilty and clear he is a paranoid schizophrenic. He belongs in an institution for the criminally insane.

  4. Questions about his mental state? Questions?

    What questions could there possibly be about the mental state of someone who believes he’s the rightfull heir to the throne of Norway?

  5. Truthiocity,
    It is pretty clear that you are either a muslime (yes -islamists are slime) or a left wing moron. A brief examination of your comments shows that you have taken every thing (that the accused (Breivek) has said) out of context. You are either stupid (if you are an islamist then this is likely true) or you are trying to manipulate readers here. The sad part of this whole sorry tale is that precisely because of idiots like you people like Breivek will not be able to take their very legimate concerns to a public forum where either they will be shown they are in error or that they have valid points. And if they have valid points then the community can seek solutions rather than leaving one desperate individual to solve an issue that no single person can. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that many of the young socialists who died had acted, or had to potential to act, against the best long term interests of Norway. Having made this rather obvious point, another needs to be made to the stupid left wing jerks that troll the internet – what Breivek did was wrong and under the circumstances murder is NOT justified. However, scum like you will now act to twist the meaning and the purpose of the law to your own blind and inadequate views and stifle all opposing views to the failed notion that all cultures are equal, and that an eye should be turned away from those, especially muslims, who do not seek to integrate, but rather dominate and steal.

  6. The Breivik blame game

    Some people seem to believe that because Anders Behring Breivik quoted them in his mad manifesto, journalists like Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips and Jeremy Clarkson bear some responsibility for the massacre he carried out on the island of Utoya last year.

    So convinced are some liberal observers that these right-wing journalists stirred Breivik’s seething cesspit of a mind, making him go out and kill, that they’re now demanding that such hacks “tone down” their rhetoric.

    In this week’s New Statesman, Peter Wilby says the similarities between Breivik’s mindset and that of mainstream right-wing writers are “striking”.

    Breivik was a fan of writers who opposed mass immigration and who are critical of certain aspects of Muslim culture, Wilby points out. So surely it is now incumbent upon such writers to “mind both their language and their facts”.

    In short, journalism can be dangerous, especially strongly worded, right-leaning journalism, the kind that brings decent-minded folk out in hives. And if such journalistic excess is not reined in, says the New Stateman’s editorial, we may well see more of Breivik’s kind.

    But hang on – if Steyn, Phillips et al bear some moral responsibility for Breivik’s crimes, is Noam Chomsky to blame for 9/11?

    Osama bin Laden loved Chomsky. In 2006, he described him as “among the most capable of those from your side” and praised his theories on the “manufacturing of public opinion” and his “sober words of advice prior to the war [in Iraq]”.

    What about Robert Fisk, the left-wing Middle East correspondent for the Independent who is loved by radicals? His words also moved and inspired bin Laden.

    In 2004, bin Laden advised people in the White House to read “Robert Fisk, who is a fellow [Westerner] and co-religionist of yours, but one whom I consider unbiased”.

    In fact, he “dared” the White House to “interview [Fisk], so that he could explain to the American people everything he has learned from us about the reasons for our struggle”.

    Wow, OBL was clearly a close follower of Fisk’s writings. Maybe Fisk should tone down his rhetoric lest it inspire further Islamist terrorism?

    Or maybe American author William Blum should be held accountable for Al Qaeda violence.

    “It is useful for you to read [Blum’s] book The Rogue State,” said bin Laden in 2006. Bin Laden made it clear that he had imbibed Blum’s theories about America being the real rogue state, talking about the “war merchants” who “supported Bush’s election campaign with billions of dollars”.

    Alongside Blum, Chomsky and Fisk, bin Laden was also influenced by Western think tanks (he favourably cited the Royal Institute for International Affairs) and Western environmentalists.

    In 2002, he said one of the reasons he hated America is because “you have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto Agreement.”

    You could read the same words in any respectable newspaper on just about any day of the week. So maybe greens should “mind their language and their facts”, since it seems pretty clear that they are giving ideas to anti-Western, anti-modern terrorists.

    Of course, it would be barmy to blame Islamist terror on Fisk or Chomsky. Just as it is crazy to blame Utoya on Steyn or Phillips.

    Individual terrorists, the men who press the buttons on their bombs and pull the triggers on their guns, are solely responsible for what they do, not the writers whose articles they happened to have lapped up.

    There is something deeply censorious in the demand that right-wing writers curb their rhetoric in order to prevent “another Utoya”. It is a kind of emotional blackmail, where writers whose views are unfashionable in chattering-class circles are effectively told that if they carry on criticising Islam or ridiculing multiculturalism then more neo-fascists will rise up and gun down innocents.

    The New Statesman’s editorial says that so long as the “mainstream press” keeps “fuelling Islamophobia through misinformation and distortion”, there will be “more of [Breivik’s] kind”. Given bin Laden’s reliance on the writings of Western leftists, you could just as easily, and just as crazily, have said in 2005: “So long as the respectable press keeps arguing against the war in Iraq, al-Qaeda will keep blowing things up.”

    But that is the striking thing: no-one held Chomsky and Co. responsible for Al Qaeda outrages, whereas there is now a palpable rush to hold Steyn and Co. responsible for Utoya.

    There is an extraordinary double standard here. When terrorists cite leftist writers, it’s downplayed. Yet when terrorists cite right-wing writers, it is held up as hard proof that certain political ideas lead directly to violence and therefore those ideas must be urgently rethought and watered down.

    In fact, the double standard is so enormous that where respectable commentators now rush to condemn Breivik’s rantings and all those who are allegedly responsible for making him think that way, in the recent past they embraced bin Laden’s rantings. The media, especially the liberal media, frequently pored over and even empathised with Al Qaeda’s rants.

    The Guardian once published a bin Laden statement on its actual op-ed pages, raising it from the level of terrorist rant to respectable commentary. The leftist publishing house Verso published a collection of bin Laden’s statements, beautifully bound, under the title “Messages to the World”. In the introduction, bin Laden was described as a “rational man”, while enthusiastic broadsheet reviewers of the book described him as an “eloquent preacher” and a “wonderfully briefed” politician.

    I invite you to imagine the stellar fury that would be unleashed if the Daily Mail published Breivik’s words on its comment pages. Or if a publishing house released his rantings in book form. Or if a commentator described him as “eloquent” and “wonderfully briefed”. The intellectual elite would go beserk.

    This double standard makes it pretty clear that the real reason illiberal liberals are now linking Breivik’s violence to writers such as Steyn and Phillips is simply because they hate those writers’ ideas, and they long to squish them through a process of post-Utoya fearmongering about “bad journalism” giving rise to fascist killers.

    But the ideas propagated by Chomsky and Fisk? They like those ideas, and so they don’t mind if they occasionally inspire the odd bit of terror.

    Brendan O’Neill is editor of Spiked in London. View his full profile here.

  7. Kaw,

    Well, that sure was wierd. I suggest you read the first very extensive evaluation of Mr. Brievik conducted by a few psychologists over an extensive period of time. They determined him to be Paranoid schizophrenic and related his biography, which conforms to similar biographies of other paranoid schizophrenics (including two I have known personally).

    One of the reasons they determined him to be schizophrenic was that his communication was associational. That is when one sentance relates to the last but not to any over all point.

    People got angry at this objective observation so the government assigned someone else to evaluate him and they pumped out an evaluation that was more politically acceptable.

    Paranoid Schizophrenics become obsessed with order and theories because they are uncomfortable that they can no longer order their thoughts and perceptions. But because they can’t order their minds they can’t see that the source of the anxiety is coming from them so they externalize the source of their discomfort.

    R.D. Laing or Anna Freud would say that his obsession with the “purity” of his country is really his externalizing of his own anxiety over his own deteriorating mental state. A deterioration he himself wrote of in his “manifesto”, along with the fascinating and very relevant information that his mother and sister were sluts and had venerial diseases.

    To assist them in the task of making order out of their minds and the world they write extensively in journals. It’s a spontanious phenomena that schizophrenics start doing without being told to by anyone.

    My ex girlfreinds schizophrenic brother has a room filled with such journals. He says it is his lifes work and will explain everything. After 25 years I’d bet it’s pretty long, but he doesn’t have the internet to cut and paste from like Brievik did.

    When I heard there was a 1500 page “manifesto” I knew it could only be one of these journals and not really a manifesto. That’s when I knew he was cookoo for cocoa puffs. Only an honest and objective psychiatrist could tell us where on the Schizophrenic spectrum he is though.

    But if you still don’t believe me just look at his photographs.

  8. truthiocity
    You have completely missed the point. The environment which drove Breivek to act in the manner he did is still there in your country, and you waste time by spitting out badly digested undergraduate psychiatry babble. The human mind is incredibly complex, and the standards required for analytical evaluation of human behaviour are notoriously slack – most of what you have read can be flushed down a tiolet – you need to analyse on a case by case basis. Your government, which has been enforcing a left wing agenda on your poulation is the prime cause of Breiveks actions, and moronic attempts by you and other left wing churls to shift all blame solely to his side so that you do not have to ask the difficult questions is becoming tedious!!!!!! The simple fact is that Breivak has it right – mass muslim migration is a major problem – and I come from Asia where I lived side by side with these thugs, only to see left wing politicians import the same problem into Europe on a massive scale. I have no solution, and I believe that only by open discussion and communiity concensus, together with strong application of laws to force integration, can the situation be reversed and our cities and towns made safer. However, this seems to be precisely what Breivek believed could not be done in your political system and the behaviour of the government as well as people such as yourself simply reinforces the notion that his fears (Breivek) were not baseless.

  9. You have missed the point – Breivek appears to have acted as he did because the left wing politics prevalent in Scandinavia encourages silence on problems that demonstrate a failure if socialist policy. Last year a 13 year old Norwegian girl committed suicide ater having been raped multiply by mohammed scum in her school, and then being told by government appointed councillors to “take it for the country”. So, rather than spitting out flawed theory of human behavior from undergraduate texts, why dont you start asking the difficult questions. Trying to pretend that Breivek is “insane” is simply the cowards way out and aviods challenging the difficult issues that really chalenge your country.

Comments are closed.