Andrew MacLeod is a “visiting Professor at Kings College London and a former UN and Red Cross official who served in countries like Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and others.” What sloppy writing. What countries are like Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? “He has negotiated with warlords and terrorists.” He explains here that a Muslim who screams “Allahu akbar” and kills people may not be a terrorist, but just a lonely publicity-seeker committing the Muslim equivalent of “suicide by cop.”
His evidence? The Australia jihadi who murdered Mia Ayliffe-Chung and Tom Jackson, as well as “the Orlando murderer, the Sydney siege murderer,” and “the Nice murderer,” all “did not appear to be part of organised groups. We know none of the Nice, Sydney and Orlando killers had a deep religious history. All three rarely prayed in mosques. They drank, had sex out of marriage, failed to fast in Ramadan. None was a ‘devout Muslim’, according to anecdotal evidence from people who claimed to have known them.”
What MacLeod fails to take into account in this analysis is that they may have been trying to make up for all that sinful activity by doing a great good deed. A hadith has a Muslim asking Muhammad: “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” Muhammad replied, “I do not find such a deed.” (Bukhari 4.52.44) The Qur’an teaches that Allah will place a Muslim’s good deeds on one scale and bad deeds on the other, and send them to Paradise or hell depending on which scale weighs more. A Muslim who is worried about his eternal destiny can decisively tip the scales in his favor by waging jihad, the deed that is greater than all others. He can seize the Qur’an’s promise of Paradise for those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (9:111).
In light of that, it is wrong to assume that Muslims who were not devout and then kill while screaming “Allahu akbar” have no jihadi motive. Also, the Islamic State and al-Qaeda have repeatedly called upon Muslim individuals in the West to engage in random attacks. That means that a Muslim who has no ties to any jihad groups could still be heeding their call.
What really needs investigating in light of the murders of Mia Ayliffe-Chung and Tom Jackson is the psychic landscape that Islam provides for a Muslim such as their killer, Smail Ayad. Ayad may indeed have been non-devout and not interested in jihad or Islam in general. But at a moment of distress, at a time of upset and upheaval in his life, he was only able to provide a context for his anger and hatred in Islam and its call for warfare against unbelievers — hence even if his motive was being rejected by Mia Ayliffe-Chung, he screamed “Allahu akbar” and didn’t kill Mia only, but Jackson as well, and attacked police also: his rage at her became a generalized jihad against the Infidels all around him.
That is a scenario worth studying, as it could happen again, anytime, anywhere. But the willfully ignorant and politically correct such as MacLeod and the Independent will never venture into such territory.
The Independent says that MacLeod “can be followed on Twitter @Why_slow_down,” but he seems to have deleted that account. I wonder why.
“Who killed Mia Ayliffe-Chung and Tom Jackson? Not necessarily a terrorist – even if he did yell ‘Allahu akbar,’” by Andrew MacLeod, Independent, August 30, 2016:
…I respect and agree with Rosie Ayliffe when she writes the killer “is not an Islamic fundamentalist, he has never set foot in a mosque.” But this won’t stop those who seek to link this tragic death with another cause. This tendency to jump to terrorism as a foregone conclusion plays right into the hands of Isis.
Isis understands well the propaganda machine that is social media. It has used the medium effectively to inspire people to join its cause. Calling people terrorists who may not be, latching on to reports that a killer shouted, “Allahu akhbar!” before stabbing two young tourists, or banning the Australian-invented burkini from French beaches are all gifts that Isis is more than happy to receive.
While there is no doubt that some recent killings, such as the coordinated attacks in Paris last November, were conducted by organised fanatics who follow a twisted and flawed interpretation of Islam, other isolated loners have been given an elevated status they do not warrant.
Not all those who claim that they kill in the name of God are terrorists; some are mentally unstable, or taking advantage of a media landscape in order to gain themselves notoriety. Crying “terrorist” before even Isis has the chance to is a grave error.
By rapidly naming certain loners as Islamic terrorists and incorrectly giving them status, the media ends up doing Isis’ propaganda work for them.
For example, were the Orlando murderer, the Sydney siege murderer, or the Nice murderer terrorists? Like Mia and Tom’s killer, these three did not appear to be part of organised groups. We know none of the Nice, Sydney and Orlando killers had a deep religious history. All three rarely prayed in mosques. They drank, had sex out of marriage, failed to fast in Ramadan. None was a “devout Muslim”, according to anecdotal evidence from people who claimed to have known them.
But what did they have in common? All three men had broken relationships with their wives and partners. They were all estranged loners who didn’t “belong”. They all had a history of family violence. In the case of the Orlando killer, he had a long history of steroid use, which has been linked to aggression. Although claims were made during the attacks, no formal links with Isis have been found.
But if they weren’t terrorists, what were they?
In the Nineties in the US we saw a sudden spike in what became known as “suicide by cop”. A group of deranged people decided to end their lives in a burst of publicity and misery, killing others in their wake and then forcing others to kill them.
In death, sick loners like these look for a sense of belonging. They look to die in publicity, being labelled a hero of a group. These people don’t kill because they are Muslim; they kill because they want to be on the front page. And they know if they yell “Allahu akhbar”, they will get the publicity they crave.
Why give these people what they are looking for in death? Why give them what we want, and risk encouraging more fools like them to follow?
These men were killers, but they weren’t terrorists and do not deserve to be given the right to terrorise us. We should follow the French lead and no longer publish these murderer’s names. We shouldn’t falsely attribute to them a cause, as if they had a proper reason to do what they did.
Rosie Ayliffe wrote today about preparing for her 21-year-old daughter’s funeral: “After talking about the misrepresentation of Mia’s death in the media as an act of terrorism on the part of an Islamic fundamentalist, the minister delivering the service suggested we include a Koranic reading, and he will find something suitable with a friend who is an Islamic scholar.” If this brave woman can stand against prejudice and Islamophobia even now, then we can all manage to resist the easy narrative and pay attention to the more nuanced one….

Allan says
Ok, got it. Such killers are not Islamic terrorist loners but common Muslim loners who kill people in a nuanced way for publicity and with suicidal ideation.
Now who says that a humanist university education is stupifying?
Rob says
Andrew MacLeod demonstrates the kind of wobbly logic one is likely to get at some Colleges, if you are influenced by visiting professors like him.
His ‘reasoning’ is perhaps sound – the killers may not be part of “organised terror” – but the message we get from his statement tells us nothing useful, except that tortured discussions of the intentions of those who kill “In Allah’s Name”, makes no difference to the victim.
The fact that some immature- or disturbed human would use the words of the prophet as an excuse to kill is enough to denounce the violent messages and injunctions its scriptures contain.
The longer rational governments take to recognise that these indoctrinated people can never be reformed; and that any apparent capitulation on their part is merely Taqiyya, the more violent and brutal will be the push-back against the religion itself; and against its adherents once reality kicks in.
Allan says
You are correct about the reaction which may emerge—assuming that people shake off their relationship of dependency upon government. And outgrow 20th century pop culture—sex, drugs, rock and roll, spectator sports, sitcoms, and so on. The brutality will be proportional to the frustration which has built up while the tender minded, the multiculturalists, politicians, academics, etc. were feeding us half-truths and lies about Islam. Of course, the obstructionists will refuse to accept their share of responsibility for the carnage and destruction which is certain to bury a few of them, at least.
Meanwhile it won’t hurt any of us to learn some skills like krav maga. Just in case firearms become so difficult to obtain that we need to obtain to ours from the Muslims’ own stockpiles.
john spielman says
stupid says what stupid is
common sense says
Nice try McLeod Mr. “there can be only one” way to view the world as you see it.
Muslims with Muslim names who had more than partial exposure (I’m willing to bet) to Islam and the Koran committed these acts of terror.
I’d like to know the history of exposure to mosques these murderers had as children and who the Imam’s were when they did attend as adults. He did admit that all the above
killers went to mosques at some point.
McLeod the stuffed haggas does not give those details only details on how we should view the despicable horror show going down across the world. Irresponsible reporting at best and manipulation of people who are looking for real answers to this problem of Islam or maybe even worse, McLeod himself does not get it at all.
Suggestions of reading the from the koran at the eulogy makes me sick. Think of the 21 year old girl who was just a kid and this is the best this air bag can do. Truly pathetic!
Oliver Grant says
There have been a lot of attacks by muslims or persons of muslim heritage with no link to terrorism other than screaming allah ackbar which they are trying to prove that as long as there is a cover story of infatuation, drugs, accident, or mental illness, it cannot be an Islamist attack. There have also been a number of people who act like Islamist terrorists who are not Islamist or terrorists but are apparently just angry or mentally ill, or pretending to me. Terrorism i suspect recruits people of all kinds, but only the Islamists cry out their motive, and now they are trying to hide their motive even when screaming God Is Great.
http://ninjapundit.blogspot.com/2016/08/smail-ayad-australia-allahu-ackbar.html
BlueRaven says
Allah Akabar is not God is Great – it means Allah, the devil is great. It is MSM that wrongly translates the meaning each time. If the Muslims were to mean Allah is God, then God is Allah, as a consequence there is no Indidel. If you worship the same God then you can do that as you want – God doesn’t make stupid rules only people make them.
gravenimage says
Actually, “Allahu Akbar!” means “Allah” is *greater*. it is a taunt–my “god” is greater than yours.
Eirene says
Good – about time someone noted this! Perfectly correct and accurate!
Jay Boo says
Good point for the sake of accuracy
In which case then, BlueRaven’s comment would suggest that the arrogant devil taunts that he believes he is greater than God.
mark says
and its that allah is the greatest of the 360 odd other pagan gods of the pagan kabbah, of which allah, the pagan moon god was from.
Oliver Grant says
1st rule of terrorism: any arab or muslim who act like a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter their cover story. 2nd rule: anyone who acts like a Islamist terrorist is also a terrorist regardless of religion or race
Richard says
Oh, these jihadis are seeking attention all right. They’re bringing the attention of Allah upon themselves at the moment they slaughter Kafirs, to ensure the deed is noticed and their reward of paradise is confirmed. The same principle applies to recitation of Koranic verses in sing-song Arabic; it’s not the meaning of the words that counts but rather the WAY they are recited that draws the attention of Allah. Screaming “Allahu akbar” also of course has the added benefit of striking terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and Muhammad.
Kepha says
Hmmm. as Roy Cohn told the young Donald Trump, all publicity is good publicity.
Richard says
Another factor universally overlooked in every effort to determine the motivation behind Muslim on Kafir violence is the Arab concept of honor. Only in Arab and traditional Japanese cultures is honor so critical to personal and familial identity that blood must be spilled to regain it. In traditional Japanese society, lost honor can be recovered by killing oneself, by seppuku or ritual suicide. In Arab society honor can be reclaimed by killing someone else, usually the perceived source of the shame or degradation.
Given that Arab and Islamic culture do not promote personal responsibility, but rather inculcate aggrieved victim-hood and a proclivity to blame some “other” for one’s misfortune (even if totally self-inflicted), when a Muslim man is humiliated by a Kafir the deeply ingrained immediate response is to restore honor through bloodshed. So as far as Smail Ayad was concerned he was enacting righteous vengeance against a socially inferior Kafir woman who had shamed him by spurning his advances, and also rightfully killed Tom Jackson, another inferior who had the temerity to interfere in Ayad’s avenging his impugned honor. The dog would likely have been considered an evil jinn, in league with Satan to further dishonor Avad, to be killed regardless.
All these cultural phenomena are well described in Raphael Patai’s scholarly book “The Arab Mind”. Every counter-jihad activist should read it.
Nathanael Hoernlé says
Some Mark Twain ought to write a book in which a clever lad figures out a way to get someone else to whitewash Islam for him, because he’s too lazy to do it himself. Show the dupes lining up around the block for a chance to take part.
gravenimage says
Funny…
Peter says
Maybe they say it to build up courage before committing ritual slaughter? Maybe they are just reminding themselves that they have no free will, and that their ritual slaughter is not only mandated by Allah, but a reflection of divine predetermined design and will, for which they are not accountable? Maybe they needed two sequential words that start with “A,” and “Automatons Anonymous” doesn’t quite have the same ring as the call to prayer? Maybe they were drunk, and really saying, “Al’s at the bar”? Yes, that’s it. They were drinking Muslims, and therefore not really Muslims, as they had thus perverted, misunderstood, or corrupted their faith. Give me a break.
Angemon says
Good, old argument from ignorance.
If, in fact, these kind of attacks have nothing to do with religion, we would expect to see an even distribution of similar occurrences in other religious groups, as well as in non-religious groups.
He didn’t shout “long live steroids”. He didn’t pledge his allegiance to any leading brand of steroids.
And here it is – the ignorant, dangerous notion that you must have formal ties with a recognized member of ISIS to be linked to them. Let’s add 1+2:
1 – Al-Baghdadi exhorted muslims to wage “lone wolf” attacks on non-muslims
2 – Muslims worldwide pledge their allegiance to ISIS before or during lone wolf attacks.
1+2=3 – Muslims who pledge their allegiance to ISIS before or during lone wolf attacks were influenced by ISIS, even if they never had any formal contact with a recognized member of ISIS.
An optimistic outlook would be that law enforcement are on this and are simply trying to keep the general populace calm. A pessimist (realistic?) outlook is that law enforcement is hamstringed by political correctness from above and prohibited from adding 1 and 2.
Lucretius says
So unless two or more terrorists are gathered in Allah’s name, there’s really no Islam in their midst. Got it.
Nigel GFF says
“…organised fanatics who follow a twisted and flawed interpretation of Islam,…”
Interesting that we are never, ever offered a straight and correct Islam.
Oh yeah, Mr MacLeod, none of it is done in the name of God. Allah does not = God.
abel & solomon says
Part Seven; Is Allah the same as the God of the Jews and Christians? (taken from The Undoing:Islam by its own words, the amazing free e-book that’s turning heads in some very high places. Get your free copy or read it online here;- http://abelandsolomon.simplesite.com/424568444, for the bigger picture read our full length book Islamic Apocalypse;- https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AS09LYW )
One God, or different deities?
The word “Allah” today simply means “the deity”, so religions other than Islam also use this word in Arabic to refer to their gods. This does not mean that they are the same spiritual entity, we have to consider their attributes as revealed in the sacred writings to discover whether or not they are the same. The Koran says; (9:2) “ye cannot escape Allah…”, (113:2) “…the evil He created”, (74:56) “He is the fount of fear”, (16:70); “Allah… causeth you to die”, (22:6) “Allah quickeneth the dead”, (32:13) “will fill hell with the jinn and mankind together”, (2:167) “They will never get out of the fire”. From such verses it is very apparent that Islamic Allah is not the same as the God of the Bible who is described very differently; “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (Gospel of John 3:16), “God is love” (1 John 4:8), “Save others by snatching them out of the fire (of going to hell)” (Jude 1:23), “He is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Gospel of Mark 12:27). Islam’s Allah is very clearly not the same as the God of the Christians and Jews.
There is no god but God, so who is Allah?
Is Allah the Satan of the Bible? As we have seen Allah admits urging people into hell, he and his fallen angels are in charge there (74:30); “have We not only appointed angels to be wardens of the Fire…”. He assigns a demon to each Muslim (7:27); “We appointed devils as companions…” and thus fits Satan’s description as “Beelzebub, Prince of Demons”.
The Star and Crescent
One of the “Seven Wonders of the Ancient World”, was “the temple of great Artemis, of her image (idol) which fell from heaven” (Book of Acts 19:35). Artemis is the Greek name for the crescent moon goddess Diana and her image was much like Mecca’s Black Stone. John of Damascus in the Fount of Knowledge tells that the Black Stone has the likeness of Aphrodite (the Greek name for Venus), “who they (the Arabs) named Akbar in their own language”. Hence that Islamist shout of “Allahu Akbar” really is an invocation of the ancient goddess of war Venus, whose symbol is a five-pointed star. During WW2 author John Van Ess visiting the Ka’aba noted; “in one corner is the Black Stone, probably a meteorite, the kissing of which is now an essential part of the pilgrimage”. If the Hajj Pilgrimage and the direction of prayer of all Muslims are focussed on this egg shaped idol, once addressed as a female pagan deity, then it is evident, as many experts maintain, that Islam is actually paganism packaged as monotheism.
Angry Aussie says
What utter nonsense. There were two terrorist events in Sydney. The first involved Sheik Haron Man Monis. He was most definitely religious. He often wore robes and always demonstrated in Islamic clothing. The person he slaughtered in accordance with Islam, was Tory Johnson, the manager of the Lindt Cafe, who happened to to gay. The second incident in Sydney involved Farhad Jabar, a 15 year old, who was given a pistol inside the Paramatta Mosque, and used it to slaughter a Buddhist police station employee named Curtis Cheng. Jabar wore black Islamic robes and danced around waving his gun, screeching Allahu Akbar.
These people were religious.
The only lunatics being honest about these events are ISIS members. They tell us what their intentions are, then they carry out the very acts they promise. The media and politicians, and apoligists, then tell us it has nothing to do with Islam. ISIS, Mohammed and Allah all agree, that it has everything to do with Islam.
gravenimage says
Independent: Muslim killers scream “Allahu akbar” to get publicity, not because they’re jihadis
…………………….
Why would anyone yelling “Allahu Akbar!” “get publicity” in the first place? Why, because Muslims scream “Allahu Akbar!” before they slaughter Infidels in violent Jihad. That gets their attention….
But then, what do these supposed wannabes do? Well, in almost all cases, they then slaughter Infidels. Sounds like Jihad to me…
But those in denial will jump through any number of hoops to convince themselves and others that this is *anything* but Jihad.
mortimer says
Andrew MacLeod (whatever his cv says) is a total ignoramus about jihad … apparently he is proud of it.
Why else would a Muslim scream the ISLAMIC WAR CRY if he did not consider he was conducting an act of jihad-warfare against the disbelievers?
Andrew MacLeod is making up his own pleasant, soothing facts.
mortimer says
Those who spin a whitewashing ‘narrative’ about jihad-warfare and murder are reprehensible fools giving comfort to the enemies of civilization.
They will be among the first victims of the jihadists when the jihadists take over the West.
Peggy says
They should be among the first of our victims so that jihadists don’t take over the West.
An enemy is an enemy no matter even if they are our own.
Stendec says
The Muslims are slaughtering, maiming, raping, and torturing in order to please Allah. They scream “Allahu Akbar” to make sure the final judge of all things, Allah, gives them full credit on their list of Islamic good deeds. So, it seems to me that this behavior is, actually, “seeking publicity” in a way. They don’t care about the press. The Muslim attackers are really screaming “Look at me, Allah! I’m killing for youuuuuuuuuuuuu!”
This Allahu Akbar cry reminds me very much of that chilling scene in one of the Damien horror movies, wherein the Satan-worshiping nurse spies, from the 3rd floor window of his father’s (an American ambassador to Britain) mansion, the young child Damien (Damien is the Anti-Christ) having a tea party with his school friends down in the garden below. She puts a noose around her neck, climbs onto the ledge outside the window, shouts “Damien, this is for you!!!!” and then leaps out into the air to hang herself instantly with a loud snap as the rope pulls taught against the side of the building.
Peggy says
How does Andrew know all this to be true?
Has he evaluated these killers and come to this conclusion as a result of long sessions he had with them?
He needs to be asked this.
D J says
As a Protestant I prefer the Catholic Hail Mary pass to any Islamic version.
Baucent says
I’m tired of “so called experts” like Andrew McLeod speculating on the motives of musllim terrorists. This man is not expert on Islam or the Koran.
“By rapidly naming certain loners as Islamic terrorists and incorrectly giving them status, the media ends up doing Isis’ propaganda work for them.”
So this is the strategy of the “hush squad”; Let’s not call terror attacks terror attacks. That way we remove the propaganda value and eventually (fingers crossed) these unpleasant incidences will cease.
I don’t buy it Andrew.
Eirene says
And neither do I, Andrew – furthermore I am sick and tired as well of weirdo
so called experts on Islam and the Koran who obviously know nothing. But, wait,
he did work for the UN – Oh, enough said! That explains his abysmal ignorance!
Can’t believe anyone bothered to publish his remarks!
Manuele says
All three rarely prayed in mosques. They drank, had sex out of marriage, failed to fast in Ramadan. None was a ‘devout Muslim’, according to anecdotal evidence from people who claimed to have known them.
THEY ARE STILL FUCKEN MUSLIMS AND MURDERERS
duh swami says
Since Allah doesn’t exist except as a replicating meme on the pious, there is nothing to be great, greater, or greatest about.
‘God’ has no name…The word ‘God’ is a title not a name…Allah, ‘The God’ is not only a name, it is a duality…If ‘God’ is singular, Allah cannot be God…
Only ‘things’ have names…Allah then is a ‘thing’, not God…
Frank Courtney says
It’s well worth reading the reader’s comments under this Indie article. Almost all are critical. and satirical.
Frank Courtney says
readers’ (there’s more than one!)
Jay Boo says
OVERT MUSLIM
Pious Jihadi may not study all the details but is full of passion in carrying out the goals of Islam.
COVERT MUSLIM
Pious ‘Moderate’ studies the details while practicing stealth jihad and letting the passionate Jihadi do the dirty work.
Carolyne says
I have had some experience with Muslims who, on the surface, appear to be not religious. But when a Muslim kills an “Infidel” they seem to defend the action. Islam is more than skin deep. It is ingrained in their brain for their entire life, no matter how civilized they appear to be. Scratch the surface and………
Blackrod says
Professor, UN, Redcross and the country’s he’s been in pretty much says it all. This guy almost makes me resent my Macleod grandmother.
jayell says
“Muslim killers scream “Allahu akbar” to get publicity, not because they’re jihadis….”
Oh for God’s sake pull the other one. And the moon is made of cheese.
mark says
I am assuming that there are some professor’s that actually know what they are talking about in the uk, we, I suppose, only get to hear of the idiots like the above, who display a total ignorance of that which they speak on.. or of course are cowards.
Is there a link to islamic funding of so many uni’s around the world but especially in the uk?
Mirren10 says
What *is* heartening is that 99% of the comments are excoriating this fool and his whitewash claptrap.
I posted the link to the Jihad Watch story, but he deleted it. 🙂