Interpreting the Russell Square attack

There are some interesting aspects to the attack on Russell Square. For example, I am strongly sympathetic to the idea that someone who barely lived in an Islamic culture, spending their time in Norway and the UK instead is not a person I would naturally assume to have acted ideologically, however, I do not – as is usual for white male individualists – have strong feelings toward my biological origins, and I am sure others do. I lack the perspective to say for sure that an ethnic Somali would not self-identify with Somali culture, in which Islam plays a significant role. Also, I have not yet heard anything said about who raised the perpetrator.
Of course, white males do convert to Islam and non-White Western males are at least as likely to do so.
In addition, I do not think that where a person (any person) is both mad and religious that we ought to disregard their religious positions. After all, are we not also told not to assume that people are violent just because they suffer from illnesses that have made others violent? It seems to me that being mad and being a totalitarian-Muslim both have a relationship with one’s propensity to kill, and in both cases that does not all go one way for any individual. I have certainly met mentally ill people and Islamic people rendered less violently inclined for both reasons (although I have not met any Muslims of a totalitarian disposition for whom I would extend that courtesy).

Aside from issues of interpretation, there are questions of fact. Did the police engage a mental health professional before suggesting publicly that mental illness was a factor? Also, the police making such a public statement has the potential to undermine a trail, and in the event mental illness is not a supportable defence would a verdict have been endangered? It is certainly inconsistent for the police to rush to such judgements and that inconsistency leaves them open to accusations of political motivation with respect to their statements, as does the notable omission of the perpetrator’s name.

Of course, none of the above adds any real clarity, but does also mean it is fair game for people such as Razi G to make their own minds up elsewhere in this blog.

LATER: details of the suspect are in the Standard.


  1. Actually “culture” is what limits Islam – loyalty to family, clan leaders, local cultural traditions and so on.

    Take that away from a Muslim and all that is left is Islam.

    And Islam is not what Mr Blair and Mr Bush think it is – it is much more like what David Wood (see his Youtube films) argues it is.

    By the way it is the “bad Muslim” who is often most likely to be an attacker.

    As Islam offers a way out for people who have drunk booze, gambled, chased women and so on.

    Die killing infidels – and your sins are forgiven.

    Even Mohammed doubted what his fate would be in the afterlife – but those who die killing infidels are assured of paradise (regardless of their past conduct).



  2. Yes, Paul, that’s an interesting point that Prof. Wood makes. And I theory I haven’t heard elsewhere. It sounds a bit cerebral to me, but it does make sense and I daresay it’s true of some.

    Along somewhat similar lines, converts are famous for being “more Catholic than the Pope.” Wouldn’t this also apply to folks who were once only nominally X-ist, but who have just “converted” to True X-ism? I should think so.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s