Like most people, I was horrified when I heard about the Norwegian massacre just over two weeks ago. Such an act has rightfully been condemned throughout the world, and my prayers go to those who have suffered such an unimaginable tragedy.
What I also found disturbing were the discussions that emerged from this incident. Certainly, it came as a surprise that a terrorist of recent times was a European – a self-proclaimed Christian, at that. More surprising was his motive – the eradication of what he perceived to be a liberal establishment, responsible for facilitating the destruction of Europe through mass immigration and the spread of Islam. Hence, as events unfolded, the focus became less on the tragedy itself, and more on scrutinising the increasing Islamic presence in Europe, and a subsequent loss of European values that allegedly followed.
Indeed, while rightfully condemning Anders Breivik’s actions, it is interesting to see that many of his principle motivations are shared not only by groups such as the British National Party or the English Defence League, but have found a means to become acceptable in mainstream politics. Both Angela Merkel and David Cameron have been dismissive of the value of multiculturalism, and throughout Europe, the imposition of arbitrary immigration quotas, the banning of minarets and headscarves and the various acculturation programs all indicate a deviation from pragmatic policy in favour of attaining the sympathies of hard-line social conservatives. All this, of course, makes Breivik’s philosophy much harder to classify (something less problematic, apparently, with Islamism) and certainly, more difficult to criticise.
I believe that an obstacle to understanding the tragedies of extremist ideology is the condition of the media’s narrative. Norway’s tragedy has exposed the problematic nature of discourse surrounding modern extremism. Rather than being viewed rationally, it is often seen through the prism of conflicting views described in Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations (indeed, commentators like Ayaan Hirsi Ali suggested that the book was mandatory literature for understanding Islam’s relationship with the Western world). Subsequently, inaccurate or imagined judgements are made, whereby groups of individuals are arbitrarily placed into monolithic ‘civilizations’ based around geography, a loosely defined culture and distorted histories. Such a judgement, when taken as the blueprint of these debates, ignores individuals, favouring gross generalisations associated with the civilization itself.
Such an abstract view presents more danger than we would like to think. Breivik’s motivations bear a striking similarity to those of many jihadists, who view their actions as necessary to preserve the sanctity of Islamic civilization. Both types of extremism have fed into this narrative, believing that these structures of civilization must be protected at all costs; even with violence, if necessary. Furthermore, the dangers of this point of view are usually contaminated by manipulated history. Breivik’s own group referred to themselves as the ‘Knights Templar’ – a Christian military order closely tied to the crusades of the Middle Ages.
Such feelings of historical grandeur turned Breivik’s struggle into one that not only protected Western civilization, but also re-ignited what writers like Reza Aslan have called the ‘cosmic war’: a transcendental war between Islam and Christianity, through which only one side can be victorious. Such notions of historical grandeur are not exclusive to Breivik, however. Islamist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir also fashion their objectives towards a “higher purpose” – in this case, the replication of the Islamic Caliphate. The media, by playing towards this extremist mentality, not only present a distorted view of current global problems, but also exacerbate such imagined struggles.
As we all deal with the aftermath of this tragedy, a re-examination of how extremism is understood must also be undertaken. Rather than through dogmatic, civilizational terms, I believe that a more individualist approach can be beneficial. After all, we should remember that the victims of extremism are not civilizations, but rather, the individual men, women and children who reside within them.
In my opinion it’s not Islamism that is the biggest threat facing citizens in ‘Western’ countries, it’s the fact the political class are more than happy to rob us of our liberties in the name of combating it. The paranoia that has been generating by both politicians and the media is astounding. Many Muslims feel alienated as a result of being treated as potential terrorists, even though in their eyes Islamist groups are about as Muslim as the Westborough Baptist Church are considered Christian by most Christians.