Top Menu

Man Claims Cannibalism Was Act Of Revenge Against Muslims







Christian mobs kill innocent Muslims, in retaliation for Seleka mercenaries, ex-rebels, and bandits killing innocent CAR citizens, many of them Christians, it is then reported by the media in highly charged, sectarian terms, eventually feeding a vicious cycle. Violence in the Central African Republic is spiraling out of control.

In a shocking round of violence, angry Christians brutally murdered a Muslim passerby and desecrated his corpse. One of the murderous rioters, Ouandja Magloire, ate the victim’s leg, and even saved a portion of the flesh for later, as if it were restaurant leftovers.

Magloire put the leftover flesh of his victim between two halves of a baguette and ate it, with a side of okra.

Imagine the coverage on so-called counter jihad sites if “Mad Dog” Magloire had been a Muslim.

Months ago, when a Syrian rebel bit into the heart of his victim, we saw headlines like this: Syrian Jihadist Eats Human Flesh In The Name Of Allah. In the name of Allah? Cannibalism is not sanctioned in Islam.

If we were to mirror this response, our headline might read something like, “African Christian Eats Flesh in the Name of Jesus.” No context, no complexity. Just agenda-driven blame.

But this isn’t Jihad Watch, and we don’t employ the misleading tactics of so-called “counter jihad” sites. Christianity, like Islam, does not sanction cannibalism, and we do not reflexively claim everything Christians do is “in the name of Jesus.”

The agenda should not be to demonize one side or the other, but to bring this tragic conflict to an end.

 CAR cannibal: Why I ate man’s leg

Paul Wood’s report, via the BBC

Sectarian violence in the Central African Republic has reached a new extreme with an act of cannibalism in the capital, Bangui. The BBC’s Paul Wood has heard a graphic first-person account, which some might find upsetting.

The buses throwing up clouds of red clay dust had yet to rub out the ugly bloodstain in the dirt. A Muslim man had been murdered here a few days ago, by Christians. His limbs were hacked off. Then one of the crowd ate the flesh in a public demonstration of cannibalism.

We were filming nearby when a young man in a yellow T-shirt came up to talk to me.

“I am the naughty one,” he said in broken French. Puzzled, I shook his hand and was trying to ease past him when I noticed the machete tucked into his skinny jeans. “I am the naughty one,” he repeated.

I ate his leg, the whole thing right down to the bone – with bread. That’s why people call me Mad Dog. ~Ouandja Magloire

With a sickening feeling, I realised I was talking to the cannibal.

Camera phones had captured the crime. The pictures show a charred and dismembered body being dragged through the street by a screaming mob. A man held a severed leg and bit down into it.

The same, slightly built figure was standing in front of me. He was even wearing the same yellow T-shirt as in the video.

A few minutes earlier, I had spoken to a horrified witness, Ghislein Nzoto. He said it began when the Muslim man was dragged from a bus.

“People started attacking him, kicking him. They smashed a rock against his head. They kept going even after he was dead.”

He went on: “They set the body on fire. There were about 20 youths. They cut a whole leg off. Then one of them started to eat it. He bit into it four times and swallowed. It was raw, not burned.

“This was right in front of the Burundian peacekeepers. One of the soldiers vomited. Then he chased people away with his gun.”

‘I swore revenge’

The cannibal’s name was Ouandja Magloire – though he told me he was now known as “Mad Dog”.

There was a busy market either side of the street, people hawking brightly coloured cloth, skin-whitening creams, and piles of fresh loaves. We went somewhere a bit quieter so I could ask him why he had done this awful thing.

He told me that Muslims had killed his pregnant wife, his sister-in-law, and her new baby.

The media is blamed for presenting political conflicts in highly charged, sectarian terms.

He saw a man sitting on the minibus – he thought he looked Muslim so he decided to follow the bus. More and more people joined him until he was at the head of a mob.

“We followed him,” he said. “If he reached the intersection, the Burundians would protect him. So we told the minibus driver to stop. The driver said: ‘You’re right. He is a Muslim.'”

He described what happened after the man was dragged off the bus: “I kicked his legs out from under him. He fell down. I stabbed his eyes.

“Muslim! Muslim! Muslim! I stabbed him in the head. I poured petrol on him. I burned him. Then I ate his leg, the whole thing right down to the white bone. That’s why people call me Mad Dog.”

On the video, “Mad Dog” is seen happily chewing, his cheeks bulging. He waves a leg about in between mouthfuls. I returned to the question of why he had done this.

“Because I am angry,” he said. He had no other explanation.

During our interview, he betrayed no sign of that anger, or of pride, or regret, or of any emotion at all. His tone was neutral, his eyes and face blank.

Everyone’s so angry with the Muslims: No way anyone was going to intervene ~Ghislein Nzoto Witness

The witness I’d spoken to, Ghislein Nzoto, said no-one in the busy street had tried to help the victim.

“No-one at all,” he said, shaking his head. “Everyone’s so angry with the Muslims. No way anyone was going to intervene.”

But the most disturbing thing happened the next day, he said. “Mad Dog” returned, having saved some of the dead man’s flesh. He put it between two halves of a baguette and ate it, with a side of okra.

Ghislein didn’t agree with Muslims being killed but it was at least something he could comprehend, he said. Like most other Christians I spoke to, he was both appalled and baffled by the act of cannibalism.

Perhaps, he agreed with me, this atrocity was simply the act of an unbalanced individual. Or it might be the result of sectarian hatreds.

Or – his final explanation – this had something to do with sorcery.

Many of the Christian fighters we met – the anti-balaka – believe in magic. They go into battle wearing a variety of amulets. A group of fighters at a checkpoint told me some of the amulets contained the flesh of men they had killed.

“We are bullet-proof,” their commander told me, chuckling.

There has been, as far we know, no other act of cannibalism is this conflict. There is, however, precedent in the Central African Republic.

Sectarian feeling against Muslims is running high in Bangui

The “Emperor” Bokassa, who ruled from 1966 to 1979, was accused of having his enemies cooked and served at state dinners. Paris Match published photographs it said were of the body parts of children in a fridge at his palace. (After he was deposed, Bokassa was tried. While he was convicted of murder, he was found not guilty of cannibalism.)

There is no long history of sectarian hatred in this country. It exploded out of nowhere after Muslim mercenaries from Chad and Sudan joined the Seleka alliance that swept to power.

‘Polarising’ reporting

The Seleka were accused of murdering Christians in large numbers, of raping women and looting as they crossed the country. Christians formed self-defence groups, doing their own share of killing.

Western diplomats here blame the foreign media, too, in particular French TV and radio.

Reporting a simple “Muslim against Christian” story misrepresented what began as ethnic and political violence, they say: It polarised the two communities.

This is a complex country – with perhaps 200 ethnic groups and languages – but increasingly people see themselves this way. Last Friday, when the president resigned, we filmed a Christian crowd happily singing: “Today, we’re going to kill Muslims.”

“Mad Dog” Magloire’s crime was a singular act. It might have been the result of his own demons, not a symptom of a sectarian conflict.

But as we interviewed him, a small crowd gathered, all Christian. They shook his hand and patted his head, smiling and laughing as he, for the first time, smiled broadly. To them, he was a hero.

That does not augur well for the future of the Central African Republic.

Read the original article and see graphic video footage here.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: The Intrigue of Children | thenightsowl()

  • To be clear though I would have more problem with mohammedan than I would Islamist, especially when Christians actually worship Christ, and Judaism is centered around lineage of the Judaic line.

    I say that now as I do not have to deal with it however, most Christians referred to Muslims by that term often without rancor in academic texts feeling it was appropriate as we followed Mohammed, like they do Christ, but it may just be that I can not see the snideness of it now when I have no opposing historical background.

    I have no idea of the environment. Looking back is not always 20/20 when you weren’t there and it is not accepted today, hopefully due to a better understanding and not just because it went the way of the other slurs from the past that have merely fallen out of fashion.

  • More to the point

    Do you really, honestly, think it’s any wonder that I consider you to be a racist individual, even if most Swedes are not?

    You are not only an Islamophobe, but pretty much against anyone other than yourself, in the name of Swedish nationalism. Your ranting on how all people will one day be cultivated in vitro and without gender as the solution to cultural inferiority is a laugh and very improbable. To those who object, you cite cultural female circumcision as proof of your moral superiority. I found it quite amusing.

  • Backbiting, talking behind someones back, is described as “eating the flesh of another” to show its insidious nature in the strongest of terms in Islam. Mankind was never meant to eat another man. Both are clearly against Islam. Shame on the Syrian comes not just from man, but from Allah himself (himself being the royal HE in English translation).

    All GOOD things should be done bis’millah (in the name of Allah).

    Again Allah rebukes him.

  • I just want to thank the man Ghislein Nzoto for his brave account of the incident. He is a hero in my eyes, no matter what his faith might be. Thank you.

  • Especially if “Islamist” arrogantly (or derogatively) implies someone who practices Islam to the letter, thereby implying perfect goodness (or, in the Islamophobes’ view, perfect evil)

    As we both agree, I assume we both also agree that that matters related to detail and not the basis of our faith are a blessing from Allah and not a dividing factor. We only disagree as to whether the taunts and implications placed upon those by a word that to some have no meaning or have no proven derogatory meaning should be avoided because of that implication or reject the implication being placed upon the word with its positive, though not extrapolated usage.

    I reject the implication, you reject the word. These are two different approaches to the solving of the problem.

    Historically, I might have a different perspective than most, especially in light of the history of my madhab, the Ibadis, or the Al Muslimun (to reject the rejection) as we have always regarded ourselves from the very first Shahada taken in Bayat to the prophet Mohamed.

    Later, others placed the name khawarij upon us, though we follow the same religion as other muslims. Khawarij has two meanings and was both used by those who wished harm and those that harm was done to.

    It is a long topic that most muslims take as one way or the other, but was settled by most throughout time by calling us both Ibadis and khawarij, but not muslim.

    Ibadi, was simply a term to describe our scholarly school based on a chain of scholars and leaders from the time of Ibn Abdul Ibad (even though we never parted from the Muslims, in fact in Spain, Lines of our scholars had not even heard of the word Ibadi, only using the words Al-Muslimeen to describe their presence) and…

    Those that deny Unity call us khawarij (those cast out).

    Those that are for Unity understand the term as “those who stood up” (against wrong), also khawarij.

    Both are correct, however we were often killed for having it applied negatively (as islamist is used today). The killing stopped (or at least slowed) when Ibadi muslims reached out to their Sunni and Shia Muslim brothers in understanding and shared scholarship (not just ours, it was mutual) on the term and several other issues after we helped them (the Sunnis) to defeat the Italians in Algeria, opening up dialog and scholarly exchange (the negative usage of the term khawarij led them to believe that we thought we were non-muslim, the positive that we thought we thought we were better and would refuse to help).

    Through thorough and honest rejection of the negative meaning, and not the term, we went from being killed as rebels to being accepted by Ijma (consensus of scholarly opinion) as muslims by those groups that misunderstood our positions based on the misuse of terms applied to us, because by discussing and upholding it instead of dropping it we were able to compare our views and leave the negative taste of the word in the past as it had no real separate meaning to our group alone nor when viewed correctly, could even be negative in truth or carry arrogance in the positive.

    The khawarij never has been, and never can, be applied to ANY single muslim group as it was defined negatively, for one can not be “kicked out of Islam” , but we could never distance the historic fact that the qarra (reciters of the quran) that we have always aligned ourselves as lay muslims did indeed “stand up” and speak out on things we saw as wrong (indeed we did so in the name Al-Muslimin), leading to us following them.

    I only wish unity in the muslims when the invaders (and haters) wished to destroy and divide us.

    The negative use of the term is still used, by those who ARE arrogant in their use of force and viewpoints on others, but for most muslims this is seen as extreme, and they reject its negative use.

    The root of the word kharuj is not longer avoided, indeed seen in its positive sense. One of the largest Muslim dawah organizations worldwide “Tablighi Jamaat” goes out on “kharuj” to spread the message of Islam daily.

    It is the root of the term once used by corrupt politicians and robbers to justify us as non-muslim rebels so that they could do wrong without persecution for it…

    We did not change the term for them, I am not that arrogant, but we reproached the term and its usage in tandem with them to rediscover its true meaning, through the use of the Quran and the arabic language they so well knew, to explain why the term was used at all, before its twisting.

    I can 100% see why you feel the way you do.

    The two (my discussion above) and the use of the word Islamist are not 100% the same. I do not wish to conflate the two.

    I just wanted to give insight into the historical perspective that guides my view of the issues that helped to form my mindset.

    It does not reject yours. It is a minor issue, though one I have strong feeling about. It could never divide us, or cause me such strong emotion that I would see you as offending my intelligence or honor by disagreeing, or even think that your intelligence is less than mine or your honor not a duty for me to protect.

    There are more ways to fight oppressive aggression than there are types of oppressive aggression, as to fight it is based on knowledge, and oppression ignorance.

    That puts us both on the same side, and that is what matters.

  • But they do call their domain in medieval Europe and beyond Christendom. I can not say if that is just in current academia or was used during the periods in question or by the Franks themselves.

  • LLisha and other moderators, please be fair to my response as I know we may not agree. It is long to be clear, not argumentative, and I feel that some might even see my viewpoint as extremely important in fighting Islamophobia, my reason for participation (other than all of the great food discussions) 😉


    I would first like to thank you for your interest in this important topic and know that I respect your views and imput. I have no problem or hard time wrestling with my viewpoint on this issue or have reduced my faith to political propaganda however.I only struggle withovercoming the damage already done by those that have a plan of attack on the Muslim when explaining this view to both the muslim and the non-muslim who might not be aware of this plan.

    Of course I do not take offense, especially after reading your reply. I do feel that this is an important topic that often is the root of Islamophobic attack. Even worse, it has been one of the most effective.

    The day of twisting Arabic terms has indeed lapsed into misapplying intent through the English language with the creation of different meanings for English words that carry no such intent.

    With the word Jihad now commonly known to english speakers as “struggle” to those who are thoughtful enough to research facts, the misuse of the word Islamist has been much more effective in dividing us and creating a separate Muslim type, one that does not exist, to justify opposition to those who refuse to see Islam and Muslims in toto as an enemy while at the same time feuling their fears of those who do not have secular leanings.

    The biggest divide has been accomplished between Muslims themselves, their ultimate target.

    My perspective might be different that some of those here, and that is OK, but I hope that my side is allowed to stand for review.

    I believe it is based on clear reasoning and all of it can be supported by logic and sound facts.

    1. I imply no opposite meaning creation. ist means one who engages in or applies through utilization (like guitarist) I think you might be referring to words such as racist. They do not mean against race, but utilizing race. That is why white pride, black pride etc, are racist.

    2. “Islamism” = Islam – never said it. I said Islamist = muslim

    3. ISM was never said because it denotes “a system or ideology of” which I agree is incorrect when the word Islam already has a wider composition and scope than the spiritual, ideological or political components of Islam.

    4. The propaganda lies in the fact that people equate Islamists (those who utilize Islam) instead as a practitioner of Islamism, and only has political and authoritarian ideological motives instead of being one that follows, utilizes or applies Islam in all of its aspects.

    5. You seem to imply that “Islamist” might be someone who follows a purer form of Islam, if there is even such a thing. – I hope you see that I rigidly deny that.

    That would mean I said muslims (as the word Islamist has the same meaning) practice a purer form of Islam – a non statement (better than who?)

    6. Since you provided no definition – Muslim = Islamist

    7. The fallacy that my “propaganda” attacks (I do not mind that dirty word either in its pure form) is that there is a secular spiritual and worldly divide within Islam at all or that political involvement or the boycott of it guided by our religious principles should divide us.

    8. Non secular does not mean that the Shariah is applied to non-muslims, as it is only those that see the non-secular administrative function of the faith as an administrative oppression of other faiths which our religion forbids.

    You are right that Islam does not impose administrative function or religious laws (other than mutual contracts – MUTUAL) on non-muslims, a person who finds and spreads peace through submission to Allah in both belief and action would not be loyal to his faith if he did so.

    9. If an Islamist in the minds of most merely means one who imposes Islamic legislation on non-muslims through a theocracy, you would be right. But this is not inherent in the word even if it is seen as such, theocracy is alien to islamic practice and thought.

    10. I am not Islam, so I would never say Islam=Islamist. Nor am I implying an extension of political thought seperate from the multicultural and democratic (not to be confused with liberal, individualist democracy- a political ideology that this term is forcefully associated with) principles of Islam when I use the word Islamist, but instead oppose it.

    11. The first thing many Americans ask, without (giving benefit of doubt here) meaning harm, is to ask a muslim if the are “of the type that believes in Shariah or not”.

    The reason they ask is they are told there are two types of Muslims in their mind, Islamists (extremists) who do, and “moderates” (capitulators to secular thought) that do not.

    Where I do not give the benefit of doubt is that there is a purposeful demonizing of those who are muslim who engage in putting their faith into action by labeling those that do as extremist.

    The actual term that is incorrect is that moderate muslims (non extremist) reject the principles of Shariah. The Shariah mandates moderation.

    12.It is also incorrect that an Islamist or Muslim is oppressive to others or extreme in their views for believing in Shariah as the source of both religious rite and worldly governance.

    In fact it is the Shariah that can not have its multicultural and peaceful views revoked and still be Shariah.

    Secular codes have no path to guide their interpersonal relations other than personal choices alone, denying Allah has a right to assist us in those mutual endeavors through revelation to Mohammed, Jesus, or through other beliefs based on other than worldly means.

    My problem in composing the reply was not a struggle for words, or that I am unfamiliar. I do not see you as harsh either.

    My problem in composing was explaining it in a way that overcomes the emotional response to anti-Islam propaganda that has made Islamist a negative term in a concise manner. The problem is widepread.

    13. I do not see the word Islamist as a political designation any more than muslim is a term of the apolitical. That is WHY my definition fails to ” imply that “Islamists” may be political whereas plain old “Muslims” are not.”

    Please re-read my comment about those that refuse to participate in concert with those politics they seem as harmful to the muslim or mankind in general. The boycott statement exposes the myth that the peaceful Muslim is one who avoids “keeping faith strictly personal”.

    Sometimes negative propaganda is fought with propaganda as well.

    The practices of a few might make people steer clear of certain terms that others innappropriatly associate to them who do bad deeds, or instead force them to distance the actions from the word they have co opted inappropriately for that use.

    Islamist does not equal Islam. no more than a guitarist is a guitar, but one who utilizes a guitar IS a guitarist.

    Some guitarists play melodic tunes that people enjoy. Some guitarists are better at smashing them than they are at playing them.

    Instead of refusing to deny the word guitarist, most people who play guitar would instead more logically deny the term for those who can not play them correctly.

    That is my intention.

    Nothing with Islam (wording) in it should be allowed to denigrate Islam.

    I agree.

    So I cannot allow it myself.

  • Chameleon_X

    So do you honestly believe that Christians have not beheaded others in the name of their religion? Are you really that naive? Would you like to be embarrassed by insisting that they have not done so (even in your exalted “western world” culture) or would you prefer to remain silent and just slink away, hoping that no one will notice what a propaganda pawn you are?

    As for the U.S. military publicly beheading its enemies, what kind of idiotic logic is that? Their entire premise for invasion and occupation rests on the propaganda of having the moral high ground. If they did such acts publicly, they would surrender their moral argument for occupation and power. That’s why they take great measures to commit their atrocities privately.

  • I already wrote and erased a too-long reply about the term Islamist (look at my comments…for me to feel that way it was sure to have been overkill).

    But to keep it short. I call myself an Islamist.

    Islamist is the English word for the Arabic term Muslim.

    Muslim is Arabic word for the English term Islamist.

    ist in the romantic tongues is the same as mu in arabic.

    Islam-ist = mu-slim

    I have been told that here it is a dirty word. I would like to see that change in light of the above understanding.

    Muslims/Islamists can and are religiously obligated to live peacefully in a peaceful secular society.


    Islam is not a secular faith.

    Separating the two as Islamists as not secular, but saying Muslims can peacefully coexist, is more helpful to the Islamophobe than it is in combating political extremists who use the name of Islam (or secularism) as a slogan in their misdeeds.

    There are Muslims who are totally dead set against political participation of any kind due to their religious beliefs in context to current political events.They are also overt Islamists even in the misused secular-derogatory and narrow definition. Boycott is a political act. It is also a religious act.

    As it fits nicely with those who see Islamists as a threat, they see only the religious and call them apolitical Muslims.

    I am far from apolitical. But I am also far from extrajudicial in my politics.

    For me to say that The highest ruling office in government should be held by a Muslim, they would focus on the political action, seeing it a deviation from acceptable religious expression and soon the accusations of The Undemocratic Islamic threat start flying. I become an overtly religiously political Islamist.

    Hogwash… that only makes me a straight ticket voter….

    I applaud you seeing the denigration of muslims with the term Islamist as absurd. I just wanted to point out that it is not really made up, or anti-grammatic in form.

    Just misaligned.

    Isms and Ists are just easier to hate.

    Somehow beef always goes down easier than cow. LOL.

  • You kid… but what label would be applied to the Lord’s Resistance Army, who in fact did want a theocracy based on the ten commandments. Joseph Kony’s group was routinely simply labeled as one of many rebel groups in Uganda that wished tribal traditional rule. Because the ten commandments was often used as the base for rule and he was a professed Christian, should it have been a judaic-christianist ideology?

    Once the US found their way into the situation, the LRA was designated as a terrorist group, which gave it International recognition and the legal clout (though not the rule of law) to enter Uganda and seek for his destruction.

    The worst part for muslims was the fact that he was also listed as a syncretic Islamic cult leader, even though his religion had nothing to do with Islam. The correlation between the two was based on the fact that he used child slavery as his fighter conscription mechanism and also held captives for the sex slave trade. His use of extortion was labeled jizah by local tribes when reporting to authorities, but only in Christian held areas with religious church representatives to the government, but this designation was not used by animist tribes attacked and represented by a council of elders instead being referred to as kwew, or theft. Some started to report him as a syncretic Islamist, when there is no such thing.

  • Friend of Bosnia

    He simply resigns from the human race.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    We do more or less agree and my position is pretty clear:

    You wrote: I think it is important to emphasize that there are no political groups that I am aware of identifying themselves with the English non-words “Islamism” or “Islamist”.

    As I noted in a previous exchange in fact these groups do translate Islamiyoon as Islamists, as Rachid Ghannouchi did at the Brookings Institute or as the MB does on its English website, Ikhwan Web:

    I hope with the failure of most of these groups and their ideologies that they drop this term though if you follow Arabic media and lierature, Islamiyoon is quite entrenched in the lexicon.

Powered by Loon Watchers