The claim that I “inspired” the Norway mass murderer Breivik because he cited me in his “manifesto” has become a staple of Leftist and Islamic supremacist polemic against people who are trying to defend freedom against Sharia. But it founders on the facts: never mentioned is the fact that Breivik cited many, many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson — who are just three of the many who are never blamed for his murders.
Also swept under the rug is the fact that whether he is sane or not, Breivik’s manifesto is actually quite ideologically incoherent — so far was he from being a doctrinaire counter-jihadist that he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups.
Above all, of course, the people who like to insist that I inspired Breivik are trying to establish the claim that my views lead inevitably to violence. Yet I’ve never advocated any kind of violence, but only legal means to defend the principles of freedom of speech and equality of rights for all people: the one thing that is nowhere in Breivik’s “manifesto” or in any of the hit pieces blaming me for his murders is a quote from me calling for any kind of violence against anyone. In fact, when it came to violence, Breivik wasn’t inspired by me at all, but himself explained that “we have drawn from al-Qaida and militant Islamists.”
None of this matters, of course, to Reza Aslan’s gunsel Nathan Lean, author of this Daily News farrago. Lean is so intent on protecting Islamic jihadis and supremacists and destroying opposition to them that he has knowingly republished lies about my record even after the truth became known to him (see this piece and especially its second update); and has repeatedly sent me detailed information about what he thinks are my whereabouts and my relatives, in a veiled but unmistakeable threat (an FBI agent has informed me that they’re looking into Lean’s threats to me).
It comes as no surprise that a thug like Lean would call for freedom fighters to be silenced; after all, he cannot refute us. And he has done it before. It is somewhat surprising that even a Leftist rag like the New York Daily News would publish such an open call for the subversion of the freedom of speech, but considering how abjectly the Left follows the Islamic supremacist agenda, it is not all that surprising. In any case, Lean calls below for freedom fighters to be “systematically” driven out of the public discourse — he doesn’t explain how this should be done, but mentions “judicial systems” in this connection. Apparently, if Lean had his way, those who oppose Sharia’s contraventions of human rights would be given Stalinist show trials and jailed. If that does happen, thuggish enemies of freedom like Nathan Lean (who once ran afoul of the law for shouting obscenities at a City Council meeting) will be responsible for bringing it about.
“Expose the Islamophobia industry,” by Nathan Lean in the New York Daily News, July 9 (thanks to David):
…The 33-year-old Breivik is charged with terrorism and murder. On Aug. 24, judges will announce if he is sane enough for prison. The 10-week proceedings against him resembled a freak show more than a judicial event: Shoe throwing, self-immolation and far-right salutes were among the happenings that animated a normally humdrum process.
What was absent from the scene, though, was blunt discussion of the anti-Islam ideology that influenced Breivik and caused him to be so fearful of Muslims that his only response was to slaughter fellow citizens whose politics he blamed for their presence.
Breivik carried out his bloodbath alone, and his idiosyncrasies give him the appearance of a sociopath. But his delusions are hardly products of his imagination. Instead, they are the workings of a cabal of fear merchants who roam the post-9/11 world scaring people about Islam.
I don’t scare anyone about Islam. Who scares people about Islam? Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; Nidal Hasan, the successful Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer; Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber — they scare people about Islam. All of them and many others invoked the Qur”an and Sunnah to explain and justify their deeds. That’s what scares people about Islam.
Breivik”s 1,500-page manifesto offers a clear view of the people and ideas that shaped his actions.
“About Islam, I recommend essentially everything written by Robert Spencer,” Breivik gushed in one of 162 shout-outs to the blogger, whose website is a one-stop shop for everything anti-Muslim. Spencer has waged a populist campaign against “stealth jihad,” “creeping Sharia” and even Campbell”s soup (which offers halal-certified cans of its famous products).
Actually, I just pointed out that Campbell’s was using Hamas-linked ISNA to certify its halal food as halal, but don’t go to Nathan Lean for facts.
Breivik cited Spencer”s partner, blogger Pamela Geller, 12 times. Geller and Spencer co-founded Stop Islamization of America, the American branch of a European hate franchise, Stop Islamization of Europe, a group whose soccer hooligan members have whipped the populations of Britain and Denmark into nationalistic frenzies.
It looks as if Nathan Lean has a future as a fiction writer.
SIOE”s motto states: “Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity but Islamophobia is the height of common sense.” Both Geller and Spencer organized the vitriolic protests against the Park51 Islamic Center in 2010.
Breivik mentioned Frank Gaffney, who runs the Center for Security Policy, seven times. Gaffney provides legal counsel for Spencer and Geller and is famous for decrying the threat of Sharia law and claiming that President Obama is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood. He is also on the board of the Clarion Fund, a group that produced the now-infamous anti-Muslim film “Obsession.” Breivik”s manifesto linked to that movie 10 separate times.
No one denies that violent adherents of any religion are a serious threat. But Spencer, Geller and Gaffney and their ilk see Muslim demons in every shadow.
That”s had pernicious consequences. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. was at low levels. Two months after the attacks, polls showed that 59% of Americans had a favorable opinion of Muslims . Eleven years later, Islamophobia is at a record high. Half of Americans report that they would be uncomfortable with a woman wearing the burqa, a mosque being built in their neighborhood or a Muslim man praying in an airport. This despite the fact that Muslim-led attacks inside the U.S. have dwindled over the same course of time.
The Islamophobia industry insists that it is not just a fringe minority who distort an otherwise peaceful faith. Instead, they point to the Koran and suggest that terrorists derive their world views from its messages. If that is so, these anti-Muslim agitators are guilty based on the logic of their own argument. After all, Breivik read and interpreted the writings of people like Spencer and Geller. He deciphered their diatribes much like Osama Bin Laden interpreted the Koran. Both men were compelled to act on the messages they digested.
The Qur’an calls for violence against unbelievers (2:190-193; 4:89; 9:5; 9:29; 47:4); we do not.
Society has a responsibility to counter these individuals with overwhelming overtures of pluralism “” and to systematically push the fearmongers out of public discourse. The consequences of inaction are grave. Just as Bin Laden had several copycats, so too may Breivik. In his closing statement, the Norway killer said that, “My brothers in the Norwegian and European resistance movements are sitting and watching this case while they plan new attacks.”
Judicial systems must absorb the true scope of the Islamophobia industry”s rhetoric and rage. In the case of Breivik, examining the role of anti-Muslim sentiment would have been a logical first step. A second would be finding Breivik “sane,” and acknowledging that his plot was not the result of a deranged mental state but the product of a twisted ideology that turns the fearful and unstable into holy warriors.