About Book

In this article, Herrington explores the phenomenon of suicide terrorism in Europe by proposing that a significant share of lone‑actor jihadist terrorists share a background of chronic substance abuse, and that Islamic fundamentalism can function structurally as a “substitute program” or agent of socialization for these individuals. He hypothesizes a radicalisation pathway where vulnerable men, previously engaged in substance use, are drawn into isolation, ideological obsession, resentment, and ultimately martyrdom, framing this process as not only ideological but deeply psychological and social. The author suggests that prevention strategies should address addiction and social marginalization by integrating faith-based rehabilitation alongside counter‑extremism efforts. The relevance of this work today is profound: it offers a novel lens on radicalisation that shifts focus from purely ideological drivers to personal crisis and social dislocation. For policymakers and intelligence actors, this implies that counter‑radicalisation programs may need to incorporate substance abuse recovery and community-based social support, not just surveillance or ideological counter‑narratives, thereby extending the toolkit for preventing suicide terrorism in Europe.This article is a thought-provoking and original contribution to the literature on radicalisation and terrorism. By linking substance abuse with ideological extremism in a novel theoretical model, it deepens our understanding of the root causes of suicide terrorism and provides fresh ideas for prevention.The article’s primary strength lies in its innovative hypothesis — that substance abuse history among terrorists is an underexplored factor in radicalisation. This perspective expands the conventional narratives about terrorism, adding psychological, social, and substance‑use dimensions to radicalisation theory. Herrington’s use of intelligence‑style analysis gives his argument an applied edge, making it potentially useful for security practitioners. However, there are weaknesses. The hypothesis is based largely on retrospective intelligence data from a relatively small population, which may limit the generalizability of his model. There is also a risk of stigmatizing individuals with substance-use problems by associating them with terrorism. Moreover, the proposal for faith-based drug recovery as prevention may overlook secular or non‑Islamic contexts and could face significant ethical and practical challenges in policy implementation. Compared to other scholarship in radicalisation (e.g., social-psychological models, socio-economic analyses), Herrington’s work is distinctive in bridging substance use and extremist behavior — but it may require more empirical validation (especially longitudinal studies) to move from hypothesis to policy.