Could the Bondi Attackers Have Really Connected with ISIS in the Philippines? It’s a question that’s sparked intense debate and left many scratching their heads. While initial reports suggested the alleged father-son terrorists, Naveed and Sajid Akram, might have met with Islamic State (IS) operatives during their trip to the Philippines, a former jihadi with insider knowledge of IS operations in the region is casting serious doubt on this theory. But here’s where it gets controversial: he insists their actions were far too chaotic and ill-planned to align with the group’s typical modus operandi.
The Akrams’ journey to the Philippines, from November 1 to November 28, just weeks before the devastating Chanukah by the Sea massacre, has raised more questions than answers. Authorities in both Australia and the Philippines are still piecing together the purpose of their visit and their activities after landing in Davao City. Speaking anonymously to Guardian Australia, the former jihadi—who has since renounced his extremist views—argues that Davao is an unlikely hub for meeting IS militants. “Everything about it looks very haphazard,” he remarked, suggesting the pair seemed clueless rather than calculated.
And this is the part most people miss: if the Akrams genuinely intended to connect with IS representatives, their approach was remarkably amateurish. “Someone planning something nefarious wouldn’t leave such an obvious trail,” the source explained, pointing out their flight from Manila to Davao and lack of discretion. His primary suspicion? Authorities may be investigating whether the duo sought an ijāzah—a religious authorization to carry out an attack. However, he emphasizes the difficulty of establishing such connections, especially for outsiders. “The Philippine government struggles to locate IS-aligned militants,” he noted. “A random Australian wouldn’t stand a chance.”
Experts like Prof. Rohan Gunaratna, head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, echo this skepticism. While he suggests the Akrams might have sought approval from a cleric, he also proposes a less sinister motive: a “bonding trip.” Analyzing videos of Naveed proselytizing in Sydney in 2019, Gunaratna identifies his teachings as Salafi jihadism, a radical departure from mainstream Islam. IS’s recent praise for the attack, he warns, is a dangerous call to action that authorities must counter. “The Bondi attack should be a wake-up call for Australia and beyond,” he urged.
Clarke Jones, an Australian National University academic with experience working with extremists in the Philippines, adds another layer to the discussion. He highlights the presence of unregistered madrasahs run by self-trained clerics, which could have provided spiritual preparation but not tactical training. Meanwhile, Eduardo Año, the Philippines’ national security adviser, confirms the Akrams never left Davao or received military-style training.
Investigators are now combing through CCTV footage and taxi records to map the Akrams’ movements, focusing on the area between the GV Hotel and a nearby Jollibee restaurant, where they were spotted buying meals. With numerous establishments in the vicinity, the possibilities are endless. But here’s the burning question: Were the Akrams truly part of a larger network, or were their actions the result of misguided self-radicalization?
This case raises critical questions about the nature of extremism and the challenges of preventing lone-wolf attacks. What do you think? Could the Akrams have successfully connected with IS, or was their trip a poorly executed attempt at something far more complex? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s keep the conversation going.
