How Jihad influenced the Norway massacre

In a globalized world where images of jihadi terror have metastasized in the media, it is clear that despite his own comments to the contrary, Breivik got the inspiration for his attack from Muslims and not from Christian crusaders

jihadist 311 R (photo credit: REUTERS/Erik de Castro)
jihadist 311 R
(photo credit: REUTERS/Erik de Castro)
In his manifesto, Anders Breivik, the perpetrator of the Norway massacre, wherein some 80 people were killed, mentioned the Crusades and aspects of it as an inspirational factor.  Predictably, Western elites and effetes—especially through the MSM—have begun a new round of moral, cultural, and historical relativism, some even conflating the terrorist with former President Bush for once using the word “crusade.”
RELATED:Comment: A time to heal?
The fact is, there are important parallels between the Crusades and Breivik’s actions—but hardly the way portrayed by the media.  Rather, this terrorist attack, like the historic Crusades themselves, was influenced, not only by the presence of Muslims on formerly Christian land—during the Crusades, in the Holy Land, today, in Europe—but by the very notion of jihad itself.
While some are cognizant that the Crusades were a retaliation to centuries of Muslim aggression (see Rodney Stark’s ), few are aware that the idea of Christian “holy war”—notably the use of violence in the name of Christianity and the notion that Crusaders who die are martyrs forgiven their sins—finds its ideological origins in Muslim jihad.  As historian Bernard Lewis puts it,  “Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation.”  How?  The popes offered
forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel.  These ideas … clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad, and are precursors of the Western Christian Crusade.
 Still, Lewis makes clear some fundamental differences:
But unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory. … The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule. … The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.
Yet, if the Crusades find their ideological origins in jihad, arguably, so too does much of modern day terrorism.  For instance, the medieval Hashashin— archetypal figures of terror who gave us the word “assassin”—were a Muslim sect that employed fear and terrorism for political gain during the Crusading era (circa. eleventh-thirteenth centuries).
Because much of this is missed by the media, ironies abound.  For example, many point to Breivik’s fascination with the Knight’s Templars, a Crusading order, as proof that he was motivated by the Crusades.  Yet, as one AP report indicates, “The Knights Templar was a medieval order created to protect Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land after the First Crusade in the 11th century.”
How exactly a military order devoted to protecting Christians inspired someone to kill innocent children in Norway is left unanswered.  As one Templar historian put it, the original Templars, a “very devout people,” would be “horrified” to learn that terrorists like Breivik look to them for inspiration.
Even more ironic, the Knights Templars were frequently on the receiving end of the Assassins’ terror; that is, far from being inspirations for terrorism, they bore the brunt of one of the earliest manifestations of Islamic terrorism.
In short, Breivik’s actions are more inspired by the Jihad than the Crusades, by the Assassins than the Templars, by al-Qaeda—“which he cherishes great admiration for”—than the IRA.  Even CNN’s Fareed Zakaria correctly asserts that in Breivik’s view, “the Knights Templar resembles nothing so much as al Qaeda.”
The parallels are evident: Medieval Europe, in an effort to retaliate to an expansionist Islam, articulated a means that was directly influenced by the jihad—“holy war,” the Crusades; today, modern Europeans like Breivik, in an effort to retaliate to an expansionist Islam, have articulated a means directly influenced by al-Qaeda—jihadi-style terrorism. 
Some may argue that there are non-Muslim terror groups for Breivik to draw inspiration from.  Even so, in a globalized world where Islam has by far the lion’s share of terrorism—where images of jihadi terror have metastasized in the media, and thus the mind—it is clear where Breivik got his inspiration.
The writer, a widely published Islam-specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. He can be contacted at