I found his discussion of the difference between Christian and Islamic music -- in the comments -- even more interesting and thought provoking.

I found the music samples quite eye-opening, actually (or ear-opening, I guess). The only jihadi song I had heard before was the one of al-Zawahiri letter fame (the one that goes "if you're heading to Fallujah, say hello to Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi"). That one sounded more or less as I would have expected.

But, oh boy, do some of those other jihadis ever like to harmonize. I had no idea. In fact, I can't think of an Arabic song that sounded to me less Arab than "Allahu Akbar" on that site. Didn't anyone tell them functional harmony was a Western conspiracy to destroy Asian melodic modes? I think with just a little editing "Allahu Akbar" would have made a top-rate, say, Ukrainian pop tune. The Backstreet Boys meet The Red Army Choir, as it were.

More incidentally (being partly a function of synthesizer tuning), but very entertainingly, whenever the jihadis manage something creative with their a capella musings, they find themselves firmly within the choral traditions of European Orthodox lands. These, to my ears, have certain recurrent though vague commonalities, from the Balkans to the Causasus. If you can make your ears squint, you can maybe spot the relevant traces of medieval Byzantine liturgy. Notably, that doesn't seem to extend sound of the Bosphorus. I'm not sure what to think here, except that Europeans just seem to like to have many voices with different melodies at once, and since a certain time (some 300 years now), individual melodies have been mostly subordinated to the sequential logic of harmonies they make together. And that is precisely what has historically distinguished European music from music in the Arab and Persian and Indian cultural spheres, which has concentrated on elaborating a single melodic line.

Therefore... listening to jihadi propaganda as a budding knee-jerk traditionalist, I certainly have to bemoan that today's youth is neglecting its heritage and is being seduced by influeces of Western capitalist globalization.

If you'll excuse me, I'll go put on to some songs from Sana`a now.

Notably, that doesn't seem to extend sound of the Bosphorus

SOUTH of the Bosphorus.

"the jihadis manage something creative with their a capella musings, they find themselves firmly within the choral traditions of European Orthodox lands. These, to my ears, have certain recurrent though vague commonalities, from the Balkans to the Causasus. If you can make your ears squint, you can maybe spot the relevant traces of medieval Byzantine liturgy. "

Speaking as a choir geek of many years' standing, and as one who owns the first two albums you linked and has studied (and sung) Balkan and Georgian choral and folk music, I'm just not hearing the similarities. I went through and listened to most of the jihadi songs on the page you linked, and there were only a few fleeting instants of any harmony that wasn't just straight octave intervals, and really no polyphony to speak of. And there certainly wasn't any of the weird, funky 9/8 or 7/8 or 11/8 time signature wackiness you find in the Balkans, or any of the precipitous modulation you find in either region you mention. Maybe I'm just not squinting my ears hard enough.

one who owns the first two albums you linked and has studied (and sung) Balkan and Georgian choral and folk music

That's very impressive! I frankly didn't know there were such people in the world. I don't have anywhere that level of expertise.

What I meant was not what the jihadis sing, but the sonorities their synthesizer sometimes gives them. Some of them are actually rather nice. Eastern-European choral singing is what they reminded me of. Except that it sounds much less like Western (or Western-flavored) pop music than the jihadi songs.

By the way, do you hear a vague familiy resemblance in choral singing of the "Orthodox belt"? It actually never occurred to me before that Georgian and Bulgarian and Byzantine singing could have anything in common, except that I was distinctly reminded of all at once, and not of any early Western music (in modern classical music you can find anything, of course). Hence the amusement. Maybe I'll snap out of it after a good night's sleep.

That was an interesting post. For anybody with an interest in the psychology & neuroscience of it, I posted some musings with links to supporting papers here. The short version is that it bears a passing resemblance to the neuroscience and sociology of drug use.

Heh, I have to agree about "Allahu Akbar", it really could be a Backstreet Boys songs. Two of the other songs sounded a little more like the modernized traditional feel I was expecting, "Hubbu Hubbu" and "Nahnsu Ansaar". The last in particularly has the religious trance-like quality similar to the video. (My own exposure to Middle Eastern music is mostly from my father's nostagic tapes he played repeatedly on the very un-scenic drive to Jeddah, and some classical Persian music).

The soundtracks sound like what you'd expect from any group effort, especially violent, drawing strength from religious conviction, be it soldiers in the American Civil War, knights on a crusade, or Islamic militias (for instance): a trance-like, hymn-like, solemn song alluding to an other-wordly happiness and resolute struggle. Best not to focus on the possibility of painful death in the real world. I can't really say it gives much insight into Islamic terrorists in particular, but it is interesting to think about music and psychology.

The last in particularly has the religious trance-like

Maybe someone who knows Arab music better than me will be kind enough to place these songs in wider context. I would guess Nahnu Ansaar might be what tribal music of the Gulf and Western Desert sounds like, but I really don't know. However, listen to the part that goes lil-jihadi madayna... That's not something I'd expect a couple of bedus to do. Maybe I just haven't socialized with the bedu enough?

Anyway, I listened to some pop-inshad this morning, and it looks like (octave-like) use of vocal hamonizers and assorted new-age effects is normal. Still... "Asad il-Falluja", for instance. What the heck is that?

My main observation is the following. The people who make these songs are obviously in touch with the tastes of their target audience. And they make them "Islamic" in a very superficial way - no instruments. But it looks like in order to be effective with prospective jihadis these songs have to be more rather than less Westernized than is normal for Arab music. And you have to be really desensitized to differences between traditional Arab music and Western pop to not find it jarring that the promised rivers are evidently flowing with diet coke.

That's not the only kind of jihadi music out there. The Falluja song I mentioned in a previous post is quite different, much more suited to traditional tastes. I couldn't find a copy on the internet just now. The poem it sets begins:

يا خاطري كل ضيقـة مفروجـة

It doesn't seem to have been written specifically for purposes of recruitment, however.

Thanks for the link. I'd be particularly itnerested to hear from Arab readers how the various Jihad nasheeds differ from other songs in the Islamic and Arabic music traditions.

Well, it's hard to talk about subjective issues like music to be frank. Far too easy to confuse personal preference with some objective measure or standard.

Look at the comment in Roach post thread, calling Arabic music "high pitched" and painful. I'm at a loss at how one would call most Arab language music 'high pitched' (expect the over-syced shrieking of modern Cairene pop perhaps). Or the rather silly stuff about Xian music versus Islamic. The comments was largely unteresting mistaking taste for objective observation.

That aside, I find it surprising there is use of "music" in Jihadi circles, but I suppose that I should not be.

What I found interesting from the few links I listened to, was they seemed like generic pop. Of course, that's merely a small selection that I bothered to listen to. Not uncatchy, sort of any B Beiruiti sound. Raf Bey, shou raiek?

There are standards of aesthetics in music, and they vary somewhat by culture, and those standards tell us something important.

And what exactly was silly about the "stuff about Xian [sic] music versus Islamic."

You've written a few conclusory assertions. Do you have anything interesting to say?

"There are standards of aesthetics in music, and they vary somewhat by culture, and those standards tell us something important."

Would you care to explain exactly what that aesthetic variation does tell us?

I read some of the linked comments above, and the bit about liturgy in minor keys reflecting anything whatsoever about the relationship of followers of any given religion to their respective deities is ludicrous. The tradition I was raised in, Reform Judaism, is chock-full of minor-key liturgical music, and for the most part is closer tonally and structurally to its Middle Eastern roots than the Catholic or Protestant liturgical music most of us in the West are familiar with, which is not so terribly different in structural or harmonic terms from non-religious music of the same time and place (and before you ask, yes, as a choir geek of long standing, I’ve performed tons of it, and could probably recite a Latin Mass as easily as, if not more easily than, I could sing a typical Friday night Shabbat service).

I actually looked online for some sample mp3 files, but the melodies for any given Jewish liturgical text vary so much from congregation to congregation, not to mention between Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative synagogues, between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, and among geographical areas, that it’s practically pointless to draw any conclusions about the relationship between the modality of the music to the content of the text. (I’ve never heard the exact same melody sung in two different congregations.) And at least in the Jewish tradition, there are plenty of minor-key settings of texts that are not inherently depressing or sad or speaking of an angry Old Testament God.

Try for a minute, if you can, to wrap your head around the idea that just because minor keys are conceptualized as “sad” in Western musical thought, that that means the rest of the planet perceives them that way; for that matter, there is plenty of non-Western music that sounds horribly atonal and/or unstructured to Western ears, but I’m sure that, say, the Chinese don’t think their entire musical tradition is off-key.

"Asad il-Falluja"... is apparently another Backstreet Boys song.

American style Western pop music is probably the US's most successful cultural export, or at least the easiest to export. Music speaks a universal language, and can fully disconnect itself from ideology. Not the lyrics, of course; since I don't understand Arabic the songs might come off as less disturbing to me than to someone that does.

I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe the songs sound even more Westernized (or globalized, really, considering its success) than regular Arab music because it sounds simpler or lighter without local musical influences. Or maybe it's just easier to compose that way, simple structures and no need for much traditional musical knowledge. Since the target is very young recruits, they may not need the more obvious musical connection to local traditional sounds to satisfy their musical tastes. In other words, they may, in terms of music, be more globalized than their parents.

There are standards of aesthetics in music, and they vary somewhat by culture, and those standards tell us something important.

I am unaware of any "standards" in aesthetics, beyond the vagaries of the aesthete, let alone in Music, so perhaps you could enlighten me.

And what exactly was silly about the "stuff about Xian [sic] music versus Islamic."

The idiotic comparisons of Xian hymms based on verses with some silly riffings by Jihadis - it's rather trite and stupid to compare presumably familiar Xian [no sic is needed, a fine and ancient abbreviation mate, regardless of whatever unlearned objection you may have] body of music with which the commentators may have at best a passing familiarity. At best. In short, it seems unlikely from what I saw there was anything but uninformed whanking about idiosyncratic personal preferences dressed up in faux-objective language.

You've written a few conclusory assertions. Do you have anything interesting to say?

I have no idea, I write at Aqoul for my personal entertainment. Should you find what I write interesting or not is utterly and completely uninteresting to me, to be frank.

If there are reasons why you should pay attention to an old MENA hand from the private sector, they're yours to investigate, else fuck off if you like. Or not.

Regarding Zurn's comment:
I'm thinking out loud here, but maybe the songs sound even more Westernized .... than regular Arab music because it sounds simpler or lighter without local musical influences.

Given what I listened to, the songs sound like they're half pulled from typical Cairo/Beirut Pop.

As this is "regular" Arabic music, I really don't see a basis for opining in an informed manner these Jihadi "hymms" (to translate the name they're using) sound "more Westernised."

In other words, they may, in terms of music, be more globalized than their parents.

Or maybe they're ripping off the Eastern Pop that they and their parents already listen to but you're not aware of.

Someone needs a hug.

As for the earlier point on minor keys not necessarily being sad, I concede that. And I concede that minor-key music of all kinds does sound alien to the Western ear and that it might be misinterpreted. That said, I found other important differences that I thought relevant. First, there seems more repetition. And I tried to contrast the extremes of rhythmic, pagan repetition--African drum music for instance--and the rhythmic but less sexual sounds of the Jihad songs with the in-between, and less repetitive Christian songs. I think my point on the aesthetic standards is best laid out in some of my comments to my own post.

Finally, as for aesthetic standards, there are a number of standards in music in particular based on, for example, meter, harmony, etc. Burke's Essay on the Sublime and the Beautiful has a good discussion of aesthetics. So does Aristotle's metaphysics.

Roach: re hugs: well, that's an entirely different discussion. But do you really think anything is more repetitive than, say, the fugue section of a Bach oratorio?

Baroque music is pretty interesting in that it is so repetitive and abstract. Schopenhauer, I believe, though it was the highest and most rational music. It strikes me as similar to the abstract and idealized traditions of Islamic music in general. But I don't know enough really to say anything that intelligent about your comparison.

Interestingly, I concede that it's amateur night when I'm analyzing music, and, in particualr, two musical traditions. I just think it's interesting no one else has written before in any depth or at any length about what al Qaeda's music says about al Qaeda and its message.

My Dear Roach:

Finally, as for aesthetic standards, there are a number of standards in music in particular based on, for example, meter, harmony, etc. Burke's Essay on the Sublime and the Beautiful has a good discussion of aesthetics. So does Aristotle's metaphysics.

In short, the subjective measures of the aesthetes , or aesthetes whanking (as the Schopenhauer obs supra. While fun for the aesthete, I don't mistake this for anything but aesthetes self-pleasuring.

I am utterly unmoved. Trying to take one tradition of aesthetics and blundering into another as if it were objective standards (or that one set in reality sheds some light on the other) is stupidity.

Most Amazigh music sounds like cats being beaten to me, but I am not so stupid as to pretend that this is anything but my personal aesthetic or that I can draw any particular conclusions about Amazigh culture (even having a fairly decent and personal understanding and acquaintance with the same) based on my preferences.

Anything pretending to draw conclusions about differences between Xian or Islamic religion based on superficial musical comparisons is mere whanking (as was all the commentary on the same at your page).

At the same time, I agree with your original post and observation above that the subject is interesting (i.e. the Jihadi-Salafi activists using music) and bears examination.

I simply reject as moronic supposed comparisons between Xian hymms and some random "nasheeds."

Now, if you wish to agree that unlearned comparisons between different musical traditions really simply redounds on the fairly uninteresting personal prejudices of the listener (likely driven by other factors, as religions prejudice), then we can agree that looking at "nasheeds" from an objective context (at the least, the various traditions internal to Islam).

Now, personally I have a penchant for Maghrebine stylings (ex Amazigh which as I said sound like cats being beaten, but that says nothing about the Amazigh and everything about my personal aesthetic, which while obviously refined, and quite personally pleasing, has fuck all to do with anything deeper).

You have no manners to speak of; you're a peasant, and it sounds like you picked up your English from some Cockney trash. What are you an aristocrat from Algeria? That makes you about a trailer park resident here in the States. You're still a third-worlder who talk gibberish as far as we're concerned.

Constant foul language, constant insults. Who do you think you are? Why don't you leave the reasoned debating to us Westerners and get back to goat-herding or something. It's not like anything anyone from Tunis or Morocco or Egypt says deserves much respect or notice, and the fact that you don't know how to have a proper debate says a lot about the backwards culture whence you hail, i.e., primtive, violent, full of bravdo, unreasoning, immature, childish, feminine, etc.

I realize your culture has been surpassed by ours for like 700 years and Napoleon took over Egypt in two weeks, and you all have been thin-skinned and paranoid and resentful ever since. But did someone forget to give you the news: we run the show and you all get to watch us put men on the moon, build computers, etc.

Oh, I am suddenly filled with delicious anticipation.

"Asad il-Falluja"... is apparently another Backstreet Boys song.

Yep.

Music speaks a universal language, and can fully disconnect itself from ideology.

From ideology, yes, but rarely from cultural associations.

I never cease to be amazeed by the capacity American (and some Anglo) pop trends to turn global. That's not a given, and very unusual in fact, even if you factor out marketing. There is some other Western stuff with fairly globalizing appeal, most notably from Brazil. Its inroads into Middle East seem limited, though. It's not so much a matter of universal language as a common denominator. In the general case, music is universal only if you make an effort to get into it. The difference is in the ease of penetration across cultural boundaries.

I'm thinking out loud here,

It may be true that there are some corners of Lebanese and Egyptian pop I just don't know, as Lounsboury suggests. I haven't heard anything that sounded so much like Backstreet Boys, though. The stuff I glimpse when I tune to internet radio all puts things together in peculiarly Arab ways, except some particulary gallicized corners, maybe. I find it heart-warming to hear robust popular music traditions that are in no danger of slipping into homogenized globo-pop.

I would guess it works roughly like this. The song writers need the music to be maximally catchy, but without using instruments (Islamic purity and all that). Western pop provides more immediately available recipes for accomplishing that than Arab pop. And apparently the penetration of Backstreet Boys & Co. is such that prospective jihadis don't associate direct imitations thereof with the West and buy it as proper Islamic inshad. I, personally, find that very striking.

Michael: the funny thing about the Backstreet Boys, et. al. is the obvious link of their a cappella harmonies with the gospel tradition. Ironic, no?

dear all,

why do i feel like i'm sitting in an arena where a big, buff guy (in the left cornerrrrrrr ... he calls himself the ROOOOOAAAAACHHHHHHH!!!) is facing a ... rather normal-statured samurai with a razor-sharp katana (you think he's harmless ... buuuuuuuut you betterrrrrrrrrr THINK AGAINNNNNN!!!)?

oh man ... the best thing about this is that "le cafard" can't delete his comment.

am i dreaming this? pinch me QUICK! could it be, did i REALLY live to see the day?

please ... SOMEbody send me an e-mail the moment L responds.

i almost envy him for having been attacked that way - i have to deal with boring people, like "mary at exit zero".

no fair.

--raf*

My Dear Roach

Well your reply is amusing on a number of levels.

You have no manners to speak of; you're a peasant, and it sounds like you picked up your English from some Cockney trash.

On the first, certainly have heard that on websites before, but not in person. Re being a peasant, that's innovative - normally I am accused of being an insufferable snob. Re Cockney trash, again, innovative, first time any one has gone for that angle.

I guess those whanking of aesthete remarks hit a bit too close to home, eh?

Well, self-pleasuring is a fine and useful activity, one merely should not endow it with too much meaning.

What are you an aristocrat from Algeria?

Nope, as the name might suggest, pure Anglo Saxon. (Well, not that there is any human being that is really pure anything, but you know how the expression goes).

Funny how you went for the bloody WOG insult though.

Especially with this angle:
That makes you about a trailer park resident here in the States.

Oh my aren't we full of ourselves?

Firstly, of course, the pretension that merely being American makes one superior to all and sundry is... well so hideously pedestrian and stereotypical. As well as so very, very uninteresting. I guess the wounded aesthete in you is over-reacting against my observation that your aesthetics are nothing but some empty whanking, but what can I say, but, well, tough?

Of course, on a factual basis, insofar as I work in finance, and have had the professional pleasure of getting to know what I guess would pass for the real aristos of the Maghreb, I can attest to the fact there is no comparison between American trailer trash and Maghrebine aristos.

First, Americans are generally obese (a factual matter, although often eliciting some defensiveness on the part of the empty headed faux Patriot parrots).

Second, Americans are generally monolinguals.

Third, Americans generaly know fuck all about any geographic space outside of America.

Trailer-trash rather raise the odds of those three unflattering facts being 100 percent true.

Maghrebine aristos are usually quite svelte in a Euro sort of manner, speak at least 3 languages, and generally are well travelled.

The comparison is, at best, unflattering. For the average American, let alone trailer trash.

Of course, that's not particularly enlightening about the worth of the average Maghrebine or American, although is a sad statement as to the socio-economic opportunities in the Maghreb.

You're still a third-worlder who talk gibberish as far as we're concerned.

Well, thanks for this fine statement of ignorant, knee jerking racism. Or bigotry to be more exact. It's most amusingly wrong, but good to see the old WOG hating traditions of the Anglo Saxon world have not been entirely lost in this, the 21st century.

Constant foul language, constant insults. Who do you think you are?

I think and I am "The Lounsbury" as my internet handle goes.

You are, of course, a thin-skinned snobbish arriviste of an aesthete with easily wounded pride and a fine vein of stupidity lurking under your faux polite exterior.

Why don't you leave the reasoned debating to us Westerners and get back to goat-herding or something.

Again, amusing little tirade, both for the presumption that "reasoned" debating (not sure what that is supposed to mean, perhaps a circle jerk of uninformed whanking about subjects one is not learned in or even minimally informed on?) is for Westerners alone or that I would be goat herding.

Of course I've often thought that if I did not have a passionate hatred of goats and sheep, that perhaps a retirement as a goat-herder might be relaxing, but sadly I am cut off from this ancient Middle Eastern past-time by my sheer hatred of the cloven footed beasts.

It's not like anything anyone from Tunis or Morocco or Egypt says deserves much respect or notice, and the fact that you don't know how to have a proper debate says a lot about the backwards culture whence you hail, i.e., primtive, violent, full of bravdo, unreasoning, immature, childish, feminine, etc.

Well, what can I really add to this?

I think it rather speaks for itsself, really, the unmasking of our aesthete's most special feelings towards my presumed ethnicity (queerly wrongly informed, but I guess knowing arch and quiant aesthetics makes Lounsbury sound vaguely Arabic).

I realize your culture has been surpassed by ours for like 700 years and Napoleon took over Egypt in two weeks, and you all have been thin-skinned and paranoid and resentful ever since. But did someone forget to give you the news: we run the show and you all get to watch us put men on the moon, build computers, etc.

Well, speaking from my culture, I am afraid that "your" culture hasn't surpassed anyone in particular, since it hasn't existed for but a short time.

Well, no matter, this was really quite funny - and revealing. I guess the styling of Hogan that "paleo-conservative" means "literate red-neck" wasn't that far off.

Eva Luna,

Yes, that didn't occur to me. You think they might be ready for some antiphonal nasheeds with the fire and brimstone crowd?

Ah, a Briton. Didn't we kick your ass in two wars and save you in two more? Your profile said you reside in North Africa; hence, my contempt for your part of the world. I guess you're just from our forbears, now decadent and with little useful to contribute.

Oh, this is going to be bloody, isn't it?

:: sigh :: So much leaping to conclusions. There wouldn't be so much blood on Aqoul if people didn't leap to conclusions without looking first. Off a cliff, even.

Well, self-pleasuring is a fine and useful activity, one merely should not endow it with too much meaning.

Well, you sound like a man who speaks from experience. Ta ta. And don't forget about Yorktown. Do you know that little piece of geography?

As for the Maghrib, I can't imagine the average Berber running around the Rif mountains knows half as much about geography as I do, but I could be wrong. And as for comparisons, it's true we're a tad fat here in the US and monolingual (after all we speak the universal language) but unlike these Tunisian arisotrcrats, we don't do that much whoring in Sweden making a mockery of our religious principles, and we don't blow ourselves up too often either. But perhaps I'm missing something and need to move to Libya to see what I'm missing. Do I get to be a Colonel?

Louden has a classic problem of Europeans. They're in many ways more sophisticated than Americans, but they're not as efficient, their centers of learning are more boring and predictable, their opinions are rife with shibolleths that impede independent thought, and they're so resentful that this seemingly adolescent and crude nation such as ours is so powerful, so rich, so much more influential, and so much more relevant than the once and future wankers across the pond. As we say in hold 'em, sorry about your luck.

dear all,

oh my ... there's an ENCORE.

dear roach,

in which of those 2+2 wars did YOU fight? and if you have "contempt" for north africa - why are you even here @ aqoul?

--raf*

Eva I'm just having fun; but if part of the point of this site is to bring people together, I must question the selection of authors. One of them appears to be a guy whose vocabulary is straight out of the Cokney gutter or perhaps the pederasty-infested English "public" schools. Either way, he appears to have nothing interesting to say other than clever declerations of his own nihilism about aesthetics and a lot else. . . . but hey, at least he's learned to emit Pavolovian condemnations of America and "racism" and anything else that will get him disinvited from the right parties.

Go have an Irish Whiskey, on me, Louden. Speaking of geography, what's 26+ 6

Sorry, Raf, a little too young for those wars and my eyesight kept me out of the Marines (and the joy of killing Arab terrorists) for this one. But both my brothers are in and have the satisfaction of a confirmed kill or three.

And as to why I'm here, I was linked, remember? I thought I'd put my two cents in.

I don't really hate anyone. I do think the Arab world and Africa are monumentally screwed up to the detriment of their residents. They have contributed little to the world and are miserable places worse off than they were under colonialism. It's sad really and a testament to how far a once grand culture can sink. Andalusia it ain't.

That said, I've liked many individual Arabs and Muslims I've met and found them charming and friendly and decent. That said, most of them are a little nutty, with Holocaust-denying theries and wack-job conspiracy theories that make Michael Moore look sane in comparison. I accept them as they are and am happy when they bring some lamb along to a pot luck.

In my defense (though I really am acting a bit juvenile), I was provoked. And when I'm provoked, the gloves come off. Sorry if anyone's offended. Maybe you can riot on account of it.

Why don't you leave the reasoned debating to us Westerners and get back to goat-herding or something

Ah, a Briton. Didn't we kick your ass in two wars and save you in two more?

The irony is simply too much, but I will bite my tongue.

Anyway, Roach, this little display of clumsy racism is less than impressive. Debating with swords drawn is fine (particularly if the ripostes are stylish and clever), but unapologetic bigotry is gauche and rather boring.

dear roach,

your answers are ... confirming your earlier "presentation".

btw, i have another one for you: is spewing culturalist abuse all you can do?

in reference to the arab world and africa you said "It's sad really and a testament to how far a once grand culture can sink." i keep hearing the same thing about the contemporary u.s. of a. it's all bullshit. but hey ... 1st amendment rights and all that.

and what do the counties of ireland (you know, 26 in the republic and 6 in northern ireland) have to do with MENA? or do you actually think that spouting r.i.r.a. slogans would provoke anyone here?

i do hope that your brothers are coming home safe, that their confirmed kills have not been innocent civilians (whether mistakenly or not), and that the horrors of war are not clouding their minds.

as for being offended ... not so much as amused. when i read on your blog that you described yourself as "have no specific expertise" i didn't think you'd be attempting to fulfil all negative sterotypes about "them arrogant americans" that are floating about. great - you've just made it harder for people like me to explain to un-, under-, and miseducated inhabitants of MENA that "the americans" are actually not looking down on them. bravo.

and as you may have noticed, we here @ aqoul don't really riot. L cuts people to pieces with intelligence. but nobody gets clubbed to death. that would be ... barbaric.

--raf*

ps: once you've actually done something noteworthy yourself you MIGHT be rightfully use the grand deeds of your ancestors (when exactly did yours immigrate to the u.s.?) to toot your own horn. what you do is rather reminding of those egyptian "tour guides" who keep telling tourists to pay them a lot of money because "vee bilt za biramidz".

It's not racist to be a cultural chauvinist. And while I think all cultures have something valuable to them, it's hard to see those things these days in the Ummah.

We're looking down on MENA because of what we see: riots, poverty, kleptocracies, stupid conspiracy thinking, people that want to kill us, 9/11, honor killings, screaming in the streets, and utter lethargy about this centuries-old pathos.

dear roach,

your list of what you see in MENA could be, almost verbatim, be thrown back to you by a MENA inhabitant.

it's almost too funny if it wasn't so sad.

just out of curiosity: from where do you get your information on the world?

--raf*

Oh Roach, where does one even start? Bless you, and all of your ilk. I would have partaken of this little skirmish were I not too busy screaming in the street as I was escaping my father who caught me with a cousin in the goat shed. Because I am also afflicted with that utter lethargy of which you speak, I honestly cannot be bothered to comment any further.

Cockroach,

unlike these Tunisian arisotrcrats, we don't do that much whoring in Sweden making a mockery of our religious principles

With two brothers in the army, I guess you're rather a working class young guy trying hard to catch up to the middle class. Your rethoric showing huge inferiority complexes tends to confirm that. In any case, you sure display such a meskeen behavior. You remind me of those working and middle class Western expats, Cockroach. They'd ostensibly wear the lastest shiny watches and imported clothes to constantly remind themselves they're not from there. They'd poke fun at whatever perceived difference to feel secure and compensate for the failures they've been at home. They'd show off the few elements of pseudo-culture they have like you'd try to spread a leftover of butter on a huge piece of bread. It made them feel better I guess, to boast about their "American" or "European" superiority as a substitute to the nothingness of their individual lives and accomplishments.

Cockroach, for whatever it's worth, aristocrats whoring whoever isn't really the problem. Aristocrats will continue living a joyful life with the insignificant unnoticed. You're irrelevant to them, you don't exist. They have a saying, "kelb yenba7 3ala tayyara". A dog barking at a plane ya3ni. They make the rules, they can break them, all the same time your conditionned frustrated self abides by them without ever daring to step outside of the crosswalks.

Cockroach,

Item plus,

You wrote both my brothers are in and have the satisfaction of a confirmed kill or three.

Before that, you wrote about Arabs that they were primtive, violent, full of bravdo, unreasoning, immature, childish.

Ironic.

Well, I see Mr Roach is contributing to inter-communal love and understanding. Why I am sure that given a large enough platform he would have just enough talent to turn most of the non-US world into America haters.

Thankfully most readers of ‘Aqoul know better than to judge an entire nation, state or people by the blithering of a minority or just an online idiot. Those that don’t, well they’re contemptible morons who shouldn’t be reading ‘Aqoul.

And all this started not so badly with an interesting issue of Jihadi types using music and a bit of criticism of ignorant whanking contaminating the commentary. Then an explosion of bigotry – most amusingly misdirected, and so very, very, very revealing. Pity.

This aside, as to the comments

Ah, a Briton. Didn't we kick your ass in two wars and save you in two more?

Nationality guessing games online are so very uninteresting, and since I prefer to, for professional reasons, not to blither on about the same I’d rather focus on your vulgar pseudo-Patriotism claiming of "victories" over our dear British confreres (no doubt you were part of the equally vulgar and ill-informed crowd of chimpanzees whooping about the French surrender monkeys as well) for a moment. If one were to indulge in equally shallow and vulgar jingoism, one might observe that Americans have not shown quite the gumption of either the British or French in terms of stomaching percentage of population lost in either of the World Wars.

The unkind might make comments on that basis, but that would in fact be stupid, so I merely find your flailing and grasping at various tedious little chauvinisms and the like to try to lay a hand on me personally, when my sin was pointing out your little aesthetics game regarding music is just, well, rather dated, self-indulgent whanking, of rather arrivist pretension. Fun, I suppose, although very last century, but not particularly enlightening (above all when done from total ignorance of an entire portion of the equation).

Now, moving along:

Your profile said you reside in North Africa; hence, my contempt for your part of the world.

In short, you went for some easy, simple-minded bigotry, and put on display not only your facile, fairly boring and pedestrian knee jerking bigotry, but fairly poor reading skills as well.

Wonderful, nice item. Like I said, interesting that you’re confirming the stereotype of the characterisation of ‘paleo-conservative’ as ‘literate red-neck’ – I’m actually a bit saddened that you did, above over my rather light beating up on your comments thread, and had you any grace or in fact any of the culture that you so loudly proclaim, well, you might actually apologise for the nasty display of your terribly tedious bigotry (all set off by a mere location tag, making it yet more transparent).

I guess you're just from our forbears, now decadent and with little useful to contribute.

I'm sure I am absolutely useless, but that hardly matters, I get paid well enough for it.

Moving along,

It's not racist to be a cultural chauvinist. And while I think all cultures have something valuable to them, it's hard to see those things these days in the Ummah.

Amusing claim, the cultural chauvinism thing. I guess a bit of backpeddling: but frankly chauvinism is hardly more enlightening. It after all means excessive and blind patriotism at its root, and in general, undue, excessive partiality.

In your case, since you know little to nothing about the Islamic world (other than the negatives that you seek out to confirm the biases), calling your self-proclaimed preference for “your” culture “chauvinism actually seems appropriate.

We're looking down on MENA because of what we see: riots, poverty, kleptocracies, stupid conspiracy thinking, people that want to kill us, 9/11, honor killings, screaming in the streets, and utter lethargy about this centuries-old pathos.

Keep the We for your own site, presently it’s “you.”

As for “looking down on” – well sounds rather like what the bigots wrote and write about Black Americans and the like (and historically Catholics, and others). So very enlightening.

A few comments on accuracy.

First, with respect to riots, well you see that the US, in UK, etc. etc. etc.

Human condition, queer reason to look down on the Islamic world – and rather stupid taking an entire billion odd people and ‘looking down on them’ because some few hundred or even thousands in certain specific places have, once and again, rioted? Well, that’s an interesting “culture” you have there – I thank, of the Creator I guess – glad it is not mine. I had been under the impression in your vaunted Western culture (and certainly that Western culture I am a part of) one tries to engage in rational thinking and avoid such basic and common logical errors as, say, the fallacy of composition. Should you require an exposition on logical errors of I and my inferior WOGish colleagues can give it a shot, me as WOG lover and them as mere WOGs.

Second, with respect to poverty, well, contempt for the poor is so very 19th century.

Now, there is a lot of poverty in the MENA region. And Latin American (dirty filthy Catholics with large families you know). And Asia….. and so on and so forth.

Sadly the culturalist explanation is a bit tedious here. I am sure every culture and sub-culture has a universe of positive and negative characteristics that can, in combination with happenstance, climate, accidents of personalities, geographies and the moment, as well as sheer fucking chance, produce either wealth or poverty.

As the most recent post notes, the issues in the MENA region at present re the economies are very institutionally focused. I would agree with my brother Shaheen that there is a wealth of entrepreneurial spirit in the region – indeed I decided I would focus against all reason on MENA after some highly personal experiences with the same some 15 or so years ago.

Third, kleptocracies…. Well they’re not so novel either to the region, but I’m getting repetitious and this can repeat number two. Pity the US supports with vast amounts of cash one of the worst, and tends to shore up others, for fear of Islamists.

It’s a rational calculation at some level, so I shan’t rant on about the ‘evils’ of US FP, I simply personally think the calculation should be redone. Of course this is about risk and balancing between rewards and downsides. Not easy.

Of “stupid conspiracy theories” – well the US is the place I have been regaled with some of the most peculiar and idiotic tales / theories about the UN from not-poor American Bolshy Righties (as well as the rather more international Lefty Petrol Companies Running the World etc. etc. stuff, but that’s rather less US specific), at least the Arabs have the excuse of being poor, uneducated filthy Wogs. Looking down on the MENA region for this reason is… well, amusing at some level.

Moving along to 11 September, well, you have every right to be angry with the Salafis and the bloody-minded murderous scum that are al-Qaeda, although it’s foolish to look down on them. It was a brilliant job in an evil sort of way, looking down implies under-estimating – a mistake.

As to wanting to kill you, well, I can put you at ease to let you know very few Arabs I have known over the years had the slightest motivation to kill Americans. Queer your logical fallacy, resembles that of the Jihadis. Although post 11 Sep US Administration incompetence seems aimed at increasing exponentially the number of people who dislike, hate, loathe, etc. the US , and international polling suggests this is working, US Admin. political incompetence has not quite yet pissed away all support.

Honour killings. Well, I like that this comes up from people like you. You’ve heard about honour killings and it feeds your sense of superiority over others. And you feel free to generalise over the entire scope of the Islamic world etc., regardless of the fact honour crimes are hardly unique to the Islamic world, and practically are unknown in the non-tribal areas. An issue of backwardness to be sure, but then when your red-neck areas are free of domestic violence and killing I shall be more impressed with your sense of superiority. In the interim, I tend to regard these sorts of barbarity as an issue to be solved and not something for bigoted and faux senses of superiority.

Screaming in the streets is nonsensical and bizarre; I can’t see wasting time on this. Given what I see in US streets…..

Utter-lethargy…. Ah well, what can we say? Great White Father and all that. I congratulate your accidents of birth.

Well, this is getting boring.

I think all that is useful to be said has been, although I can randomly change my mind – however I should be working on another project or five.

Pity we had to have a clear example of why the al-Qaeda types have such successes.

Wow. The Roach v. Cerebus, and I missed it.

I'm so sad.

Just one quick point.

When looking at cultures and countries we're forced to generalize. People live in certain milieus and these milieus create the likely range of their ideas and beliefs. The ideas and beliefs of the Middle East are (1) distinct from ours (2) contribute in part to the alienation and hostility of many members of the Middle East to the US and (3) this hostility is confirmable (a) through various polling data that show extreme hostility to the US across broad swaths of the population and (b) the cultural acceptance of things like Osama bin Laden bumper stickers, kids dressed as suicide bombers, the Palestinian "car swarm," rallies complete with shooting and masked men, death threats, nutty sermons in Saudi mosques, and the ubiquitous "shaheed" propaganda posters.

Now you may say this is a minority, the equivalent of our lower classes. That it did not say something important when certain Arab Muslims publicly and unashamedly cheered in the streets after 9/11. But if that's true, then to whom are these displays aimed? And how small can that minority of freaks be if the ringleaders think this kind of thing will get an audience?

The Middle East is in the grips of an internal crisis. And that crisis has arguably existed with it from its beginnings. The stated reasons for actions by al Qaeda and others should not be ignored. They claim to act in the name of religious piety, and the textual basis for their acts (while arguably wrong) seems not laughable. This is a big problem, because if the only thing holding back the other Muslims is a relative lack of piety or seriousness about their religion, then the roots of reform will not be in the Islamic religion but in its diminution.

You mistakenly assume critics of Islam must not understand Islam and the Middle East. But I confess the more I've learned, the less hopeful I've become for any kind of internal reform of the situatio that has led to friction with the US and the Western World. And while you can blithely claim that I "know ittle to nothing about the Islamic world" but I've done my best to learn. And if Qutb and Ajami and Bernard Lewis and the Koran and lots of other sources are not good enough, then I guess they're not. But don't assume everyone will look at the Middle East and be as enthralled as you apparently are.

PS Your use of undefined acronyms--WOG, MENA--is kind of tedious. Go read Strunk and White or something and try not to be so impressed with yourself, though your pathological narcissism seems incurable.

When looking at cultures and countries we're forced to generalize.

Qualifying one’s statements is sometimes helpful in preventing one’s statements from appearing uninformed and/or bigoted.

(i>The ideas and beliefs of the Middle East are (1) distinct from ours

What are “our” ideas and beliefs? Who is this mythical “we”?

(2) contribute in part to the alienation and hostility of many members of the Middle East to the US

And vice versa

(3) this hostility is confirmable

See above

(a) through various polling data that show extreme hostility to the US across broad swaths of the population

See above

(b) the cultural acceptance of things like Osama bin Laden bumper stickers, kids dressed as suicide bombers, the Palestinian "car swarm," rallies complete with shooting and masked men, death threats, nutty sermons in Saudi mosques, and the ubiquitous "shaheed" propaganda posters.

Many of these have parallels in modern American society, e.g. abortion clinic bombers/protestors, perpetrators of various hate crimes, and I would dare say quite a number of Christian fundie churches, and don’t start me on the “Support the Troops” bumper stickers.

wow.
truly, that was a thing of beauty.
shukran, all.

and roach, please don't cite Bernard Lewis as an expert. his dreadful unskilled attempts at cognitive science and cultural anthropology make me nauseous.

Oh come now, wog isn't that archaic. Wiki it.

MENA refers to Middle East - North Africa, the region.

And if Qutb and Ajami and Bernard Lewis and the Koran and lots of other sources are not good enough, then I guess they're not.

They are useful, unless one reads them selectively or without context (e.g. Lewis, whose political views interfere with his ability to analyze modern Mideast history).

'Aqoul has a bibliography section (http://reviews.aqoul.com) and most of us can recommend books if you are curious about specific topics.

You mistakenly assume critics of Islam must not understand Islam and the Middle East.

This is often true. Now, I'm not going to hand you useless cliches about Islam being perfect yet misunderstood, but mischaracterizing/oversimplifying the issues results in bad, often counterproductive policy. Apostates like Wafa make problems sound very simple, particularly for those without any background. Apostates like me will tell you that the problems are a bit more complicated, but not beyond the grasp of anyone interested in dispassionate investigation (as opposed to merely searching for Muslim/expert opinions to "justify" one's xenophobia).

dear roach,

MENA = Middle East & North Africa

Wog = derogatory term for non-white people

if you don't know a term, chances are that the wikipedia does. looking up words and terms one doesn't know has proven quite effective. and only 'cause YOU don't know something doesn't mean that it is generally unknown & needs defining. after all, you did not define your "26 + 6" geography either ...

nobody at aqoul is "enthralled" about what we see when looking at MENA politics. but as people who are specialists in the region we refuse to tar it with one brush just as much as most americans refuse to be viewed through the prism of the country's most extreme voices.

interestingly enough, you seem to be on the extreme fringe yourself, with your support to overturn Roe vs. Wade (your blog entry "Why South Dakota" of 7 march 2006).

you are also, despite being a lawyer, not particularly knowledgable in international law, as you allege that if iran is providing iraqi insurgence with weapons that would constitute "an act of war" (your blog entry "Act of War" of 14 march 2006). in fact, the selling of weaponry by nation A to nation B at war with nation C is not an act of war committed by nation A against nation C. all sorts of countries provide all sorts of other countries with weapons without automatically becoming part to the buyers armed conflicts. you wrote that you are young, but i'm sure you read some books about who is supplying whom with what weapons in the middle east. the united states is supplying BOTH israel AND a number of arab states with weapons, the two sides being at war with each other. does the u.s. selling weapons to saudi arabia mean that it is committing an act of war against israel? or is the sale of weapons to israel meaning that the u.s. is committing acts of war against syria?

if you want a list of good books on the middle east (i.e. NOT fuad ajami [a.k.a. the person who, while testifying to congress said "the difference between a shi'i and a sunni is that the first is suicidal and the second homicidal."] or bernard lewis et.al.) you're more than welcome to peruse the shelves at aqoul's "books & media" section.

i don't doubt that you've done your best to educate yourself about the middle east. alas, it is hard to discern what's wheat and what's chaff, to but it mildly. well, we're here to help.

--raf*

Many of these have parallels in modern American society, e.g. abortion clinic bombers/protestors, perpetrators of various hate crimes, and I would dare say quite a number of Christian fundie churches, and don’t start me on the “Support the Troops” bumper stickers.

This kind of false parallelism impedes understanding. Abortion clinic bombers get little support in America. I've never heard them praised in Church and I'm a pro-life Catholic. Acts of violence in general by Christian extremists find little support in the broader Christian community. One does not hear even in Baptist and Catholic Churches kind words for those that would defy the law and use violence again, for example, abortionists or others that deviate from their religious and moral teachings. Hate crime perpetrators are pariahs. They exist, but you won't find posters praising them on city streets.

And "supporting the troops" (which I do) is a far cry from praising the 19 Lions.

That's right; I go out for a few minutes to pick up groceries and leave y'all to a civil mututally enlightening discussion on music, religion, and terrorist propaganda and come back and look at the messes you've made. Despite preemptive warnings about Aqoul's resdient [Freudian] id, Mr. Lounsbury, and Chris R's paleoconservatism.

Back to the higher level. I do think that esthetics are taste driven. And one can find in Pentecostal churches hymns sung and arranged with effectively sensual passion. And rock and roll, a Western distinctive music, is partly the product of "gospel music". As one whose reaction to Arabic music is mostly closer to the cat-screech, I can recognize that familiarity and taste will make it have a different effect on listeners of a different background.

Random points:

Chris R, I do think that cultural relativism is wrong and some cultures can have better manfestations than others. On the crudest level of culture even this is illustrated, one set of foods can be more healthy from one society and also more tasty to more humans than others. This can go up the chain to technological and moral levels.

I will reverse Eva's point on abortion though in her response. I am not unsympathetic with the pro-life position as you are as well and this may hit closer to home. If we have a society where the casual killing of unborn human organisms is sanctified by constitutional law, and celebrated by large sections of society as fundamental liberation of the person, and partaken by literally millions, how does that compare with celebrating a few suicide-murderers in a difficult political conflict over land? It's not so easy to make a distinction if one holds to that side of the abortion debate.

I do think our society is superior on key sociopolitical levels than say Afghanistan and mid east north africa (MENA -- the acronym saves alot of typing)and most of Thrid World but it has taken a lot of relatively struggle to get there.

One can find about as much (actually as little) endorsement of religious liberalism in key Christian, or especially Judeo Christian texts, as in Islamic, including Scriptures. Christianity has a certain advantage of other-worldliness (and being founded by people who had no political power at the time) that neither Judaism and Islam have in making it easier to put spiritual matters into the private sector.

Back to musical styles: "multicutluralism" in christian worship is encouraged by the biblical Revelations passage on the unnumbered host praising God and Messiah from every triebe, nation, and tongue. And Christian music across the globe varies profoundly. Ethiopian hymns - especialyl modern -- sound like Arabic but to my ears far more melodic.

I do agree that Aqoul's commitment to rational discourse is sometimes more limited to the substance of matters than the style. I commend your persistence through the gauntlet of anger (even if provoked by comments of yours that really are kind of unnecessarily too um "paleo") and your undoubtedly sincere apology for overreacting.

To All --

Back to music, I find that certain categories of Western music are designed to appeal to the fighitng machismo of adolescent males -- heavy metal and rap. Not just the words but the rhythm. Heavy metal is 4/4 martial. What little I heard of al-Qaeda -- my Arabic is rudimentary -- does not seem to have a driving rhythm and I think this may be what would get me and other Western guys curious about the appeal of the music. Or is the audience for the videos more the fundgivers (older men) than the recruits?

roach, ann coulter excused tom hill, abortion-doctor-muderer, by saying he was justified in what he did because he had tried to change the abortion laws and failed.
I watched Sir Richard Dawkins' The Root of All Evil, where he interviewed a pastor in Colorado Springs who was a supporter of Hill's. The pastor said Hill was definitely in heaven.

oh...ummm, sorry matthew.
back on topic, are vocal stylings more popular in MENA because of the popularity of quranic recitation?
i think it would be interesting to compare fMRI's of subjects listening to quranic recitation, bible readings, and different kinds of music.
It is my hypothesis that quranic recitation (for arabic speakers of course) pegs somewhere between music and aural prose.

Well Roach came back with a perfectly decent reply.

First, I commend him. It's good to step back.

Second, the content.

When looking at cultures and countries we're forced to generalize.

Very true.

Generalising is both necessary and dangerous. Useful and useless.

It's rather like the porridge in the nursery rhyme, brilliant when just right.

People live in certain milieus and these milieus create the likely range of their ideas and beliefs. The ideas and beliefs of the Middle East are (1) distinct from ours (2) contribute in part to the alienation and hostility of many members of the Middle East to the US and (3) this hostility is confirmable (a) through various polling data that show extreme hostility to the US across broad swaths of the population and (b) the cultural acceptance of things like Osama bin Laden bumper stickers, kids dressed as suicide bombers, the Palestinian "car swarm," rallies complete with shooting and masked men, death threats, nutty sermons in Saudi mosques, and the ubiquitous "shaheed" propaganda posters.

Well, here we go.

First, let's return to the generalisation versus over-generalisation.

You cite a number of items that are specific to certain places in MENA w/o being general to MENA.

The kids dressing up as suicide bombers.

Let me assure you, that's not general. It's a freakish Palestinian thing, and there quite disturbing.

Good generalisation would be about how fucked up Palestinian society is getting, the evil that such celebration of death represents, etc.

Sure, you're generalising about all Palestinians, but it's a fair cop generally.

Extrapolating something very specific to Palestinians to the entire Arab world is called gross over-generalisation and leads to (i) all kinds of incorrect assumptions, (ii) bigotry, (iii) people like me mocking you.

I grant you (1) and (2) easily; and I am not happy to see it. Nor am I happy to see rising alienation between the US and MENA (or Europe and MENA, closer to home). It is a bad thing for me personally, as well as in the abstract.

Our thesis here at 'Aqoul is that some of this can be addressed through education and better communication. Some are more fundamental, but in the end addressable for most. Not all.

The other items you mention are, again, largely Palestinian (ex the Saudi mosques).

The complaints laid out I think will attract very little criticism per se here at 'Aqoul.

If you look back you'll see we very early on were .... well unkind critics of the exploitation by the extremists of the Cartoons issue (while not I suppose being particularly fans of the Danes either, taking a degree of variation among the authors).

The issue of difference on hand is not are there problems in region, but not making sweeping over-generalisations - which are negative on your end for rendering problems more intractable and far scarier looking than they actually are.

Now you may say this is a minority, the equivalent of our lower classes.

No, I'd say it depends on where we're talking about.

I'd say there are different components of radicalism in the region.

The mass numbers are made up of working class types, in an urban setting. I would say that is generally true.

Minorities in most places, in some places not.

That it did not say something important when certain Arab Muslims publicly and unashamedly cheered in the streets after 9/11.

Sure, some people really hate the US.

And some people who only kinda hate the US cheered the images when it was simply abstractions of buildings coming down, but sobered up when a human face was put on that.

Typically human.

Not that much different than Americans cheering the TV images of bombs hitting their "enemies" - even when they were going astray.

Percentage out in the streets cheering, versus not? I don't know. Certainly again location matters. I never got a sense in the Maghrib there was any cheering - but the long Algerian war, the distance from US interventions makes them different.

Palestinians, well..... As the recent polling in Jordan showed, Palestinian exiles have a huge reservoir of pent up hatred. At Israel, at the US.

Specific places. Generalising to the whole Middle East / Arab world gives unique voice to the minority of radicals over the literally millions who are not.

Rather as I observed during the Cartoons crisis: the headline "Millions of Maghrebines don't protest, go to work normally" is weak copy.

That should not be read as poopooing problems, the problems are severe. But one, I think, finds it far easier to get one's mind around the specifics, rather than over-generalise. Again in the cartoon instance, while quite clearly a lot of Muslims were genuinely offended, the numbers actually smashing and burning were trivial; rather like the numbers who smashed up Seattle for the WB meetings. Real problem, but nothing to paint all of the region with.

But if that's true, then to whom are these displays aimed?

Themselves, obviously. When Americans uncharacteristically get off their bums and march, it's largely for internal consumption to try to motivate political change/radicalisation. The present US Anti War movement, e.g.

And how small can that minority of freaks be if the ringleaders think this kind of thing will get an audience?

Freaks?

Radicals. Often smart.

Well, leaving that aside, it's all about making your own numbers. The true believers always believe that God and his sundry followers are on their side (or will be soon). But it's political agitprop 101 to have people out in the street working to legit your POV.

Let me take a trivial example:
Morocco post 2003 bombings (relying on my amigos, as I was out in the Mashreq, the old Middle East), the Brotherhood types made a move to "take back the beaches" and set up a more Islamic bathing regime.

Now in Morocco - and I am talking not foreigner beaches, but lower-class beaches where only Moroccans go - you see a really astounding mixture of people wearing everything from French bikinis and speedos, to conservative one pieces, to jellabas covering all. Bizarre mix to be sure. The Brothers' project, men's and women's sections. At least in some areas for "their people."

That was all about showing their flag, and providing an issue around which they and their sympatherisers could rally against the ongoing Westernisation of the country.

The King rolled out the mounted police to prevent this (although in theory a relatively harmless idea actually). Agitprop and mobilisation.

Numbers are made by agitprop and mobilisation.

The Middle East is in the grips of an internal crisis.

Well, yes. Economic crisis largely, demographic-economic crisis.

And that crisis has arguably existed with it from its beginnings.

Rubbish. Only in the sense humanity is in crisis from its own stupidity ever since fire was discovered.

The stated reasons for actions by al Qaeda and others should not be ignored. They claim to act in the name of religious piety, and the textual basis for their acts (while arguably wrong) seems not laughable.

Yes, they're Salafiste extremists. They are acting in the name of religious piety and some parts of their program is popular or semi-popular in the abstract.

Thus here at 'Aqoul we've been talking about "the pious middle" and real moderation versus the alienated for Western consumption "Islamic reformers" like Irshaad Manji.

If one is to engage and win over support, one has to fight on the right battle fields.

This is a big problem, because if the only thing holding back the other Muslims is a relative lack of piety or seriousness about their religion, then the roots of reform will not be in the Islamic religion but in its diminution.

That's complete and utter tripe.

Complete and utter tripe written from the point of view of fear and likely hatred of another religion.

Most Muslims in region I know are pious, moderate and simply interested in living their lives.

You mistakenly assume critics of Islam must not understand Islam and the Middle East.

No, I see that most online critics of Islam and the region have a superficial understanding of the religion and the region. And they generally fear and hate it, as the grotesque unknown.

It's painfully evident, if not particularly unique in history.

But I confess the more I've learned, the less hopeful I've become for any kind of internal reform of the situatio that has led to friction with the US and the Western World.

Selection bias as far as I am concerned.

And while you can blithely claim that I "know ittle to nothing about the Islamic world" but I've done my best to learn. And if Qutb and Ajami and Bernard Lewis and the Koran and lots of other sources are not good enough, then I guess they're not. But don't assume everyone will look at the Middle East and be as enthralled as you apparently are.

I would never assume that anyone would like the region as much as I do, or even as little. I enjoy challenges and love risk.

That aside, Bernard Lewis is a good historian, but knows fuck all about modern MENA politics. He's a trained historian of the Ottomans, and one I recommend, but trying to learn about modern MENA issues from Bernard is like picking up a Rennaissance historian of Europe who's gotten it into his head to comment on the run-down state of Aesthetics. Read Lewis' historical works (although they do tend to excessively to rely on and favour legalisms to describe reality and in re Islam, Lewis simply doesn't get Sufism and tends to write about Islam as if the legal scholars were and are the only game in town. In my view, a grave error. That said, Legalistic Islam as it was shaped in the Ottoman centuries he describes well. Keep in mind that whatever his pronouncements, the Sufis were (and are) a competing game).

Ajami - well Ajami I don't care for. His peronsal bitterness colours his writing, but in any case, at least he's a proper analyst of the modern period.

As for Qutb, well, he's the Salafi source.

But not everyone's.

When it comes down to it, the issue is not the negative factors, but how widespread one sees them.

I don't think any of the 'Aqoul authors, all of whom have a long, pre 11 Sep relationship with the region would make the mistake of either thinking there are not serious problems or that al-Qaeda is all of the MENA region, tout court.

PS Your use of undefined acronyms--WOG, MENA--is kind of tedious. Go read Strunk and White or something and try not to be so impressed with yourself, though your pathological narcissism seems incurable.

Quite true, my pathological narcissism is extremely hard to cure.

However, I give you extra points for a good, well placed shot that amused me immensely.

In any case, if we cured my pathological narcissism, I wouldn't be half as amusing. Rather like the entertaining alcoholic who you know is boring as a straight sober type, presents a dilemma.

What little I heard of al-Qaeda -- my Arabic is rudimentary -- does not seem to have a driving rhythm and I think this may be what would get me and other Western guys curious about the appeal of the music.

Some of the rhythms are about as driving as one could get in a capella singing. But I think, apart from the catchiness, the main effect of the music is supposed to be not martial, but rather sweet and somewhat otherwordly. As far as I can tell, it's intended to be consumed in combination with violent imagery, a Gesamt-agitprop-werk.

Here, I'll keep the other jihadi tune I mentioned at this link for a couple of hours, because I think the first minute of it illustrates this effect nicely in purely aural terms: a pensive and austere chant overlayed with a stirring and martial poem.

But maybe someone with a better perspective on young jihadi minds has a different take.

One minor international law point. It is an act of war--a belligerent act which neutrals are not traditionally entitled to do--to supply arms to belligerents when this act is done so only to one participant in a conflict; it violates neutral status and can classify one legally as a belligerent. And, more important, it is a belligerent and unlawful act to ever supply arms to nonstate actors such as terrorists. Nonstate actors have no rights to engage in armed conflict under the law of war that has evolved prior to and after Nuremberg. This is especially true if they do not observe the requirements of ordinary participants, i.e., carrying arms openly, chain of comand, distinctive uniform, etc. In other words, there is no way that Iran could think anyone in Iraq other than the Iraqi regime could be legally armed through imported arms. The various Iraqi resistance groups are, from a law of war standpoint, no different than pirates; they and their supporters exclude themselves from the protection of the law of war and no one may lawfully suppor them.

There are not active hostilities between the various Arab neighbors and Israel and thus it's not an act of war to supply any of them with arms.

OK I'm bored now, who's got the remote?

We really should write little blurbs about ourselves on the Authors page.

I'm also very amused by the idea of Lounsbury as Cerberus. Need to stick a warning/photo somewhere.

Michael-
Some of the rhythms are about as driving as one could get in a capella singing. But I think, apart from the catchiness, the main effect of the music is supposed to be not martial, but rather sweet and somewhat otherwordly. As far as I can tell, it's intended to be consumed in combination with violent imagery, a Gesamt-agitprop-werk.

Since I have the dubious honour of being more familiar with young jihadi type minds I would disagree with the imagery combination, the tunes are powerful and usually are distributed and consumed mainly in audio form. The imagery is superfulous and indeed even detracts from the message of the lyrics. Even lyrics that lament the state of Muslims can be considered martial as they provoke the young jihadi to act plucking on the strings (no pun, seriously) of cultural subjugation, dis-honouring of women etc. The pathos rather than the drum beat of war is the vital factor from what I have seen. You are dead on with your 'otherworldy' description, and that combined with the lyrics that inspire shame, sadness and anger at the aggressor, and hence spur one to jihad. The harmonial acapella effect is valid in Western music as well, I have one cousin who was madly into Backstreet Boys, spent too much time in the mosque, and is now driven to tears by songs like 'Allahu Akbar' (the chorus is 'God is greater than the schemings of aggressors') add a few machine guns echoing in the background, some harmony and voila, you have a jihadi song. Incidentally, I am a big fan of that particular tune on a purely musical level, sadly, I am not of the jihadi ilk, unless you count this as some form of greater jihad (how's that for spin?)

We really should write little blurbs about ourselves on the Authors page

Ooo do we get to write it? Better yet do we get to choose a picture too? That beast is wicked, then again, so is L. Perfect.

I have no idea who "Cerebus" is.

Cerberus/Kerberos is demon in Greek mythology. 3-headed dog that guards the gates to Hades.

(also the name of a TCP/IP authentication protocol using encrypted keys, but I suspect this is amusing only for nerds)

Cerebus is a variant spelling, I think from a comic book.

What are you talking about? There ARE no nerds around here! I protest!

Depends on the definition.

I may be classified as a nerd (computer/science/gadget mastery), a geek (obsessed with arcane areas of knowledge), both (see 'Aqoul) or neither (attractive, socially adept, seemingly normal).

Meph,

That's enlightening. I got the effect you mean from the jihad nasheed I downloaded from a further link, ayna jaysh al-muslimeen, but I wouldn't have guessed it for the soundtrack songs I heard.

Incidentally, I am a big fan of that particular tune on a purely musical level

Oh I can't get that thing out of my head for a third day running. If we mean the same tune... I heard the chorus as allahu akbar ya afghan (with Afghans, as afgantsy in Russian and algériens in Maupassant, presumably referring to compatriots who fought there).

Roach,

first, my calling you Cockroach. I didn't realize Roach was your real name, and in my quick reading, I just got it that way - no really, this is not a joke, so sorry about the bad misunderstanding. It was a silly mistake.

My apologies shouldn't be taken as any kind of sympathy towards you though. I find your expressed satisfaction at murders by your two brothers (whether real or imagined) to be absolutely barbaric and despicable.

Depends on the definition.

Does it count if you once spent an entire evening debating the finer differences in meaning between the words "nerd" and "geek" for the benefit of a couple of non-native-English-speaking Fulbright scholars?

I believe that all you nerds and geeks should just bloody well keep it to yourselves.

If all of us kept it to ourselves, Aqoul wouldn't exist, remember?

Matthew Hogan: That's right; I go out for a few minutes to pick up groceries and leave y'all to a civil mututally enlightening discussion on music, religion, and terrorist propaganda and come back and look at the messes you've made.

You're telling me. Maybe I should check Aqoul more than once a day. Or maybe I shouldn't.

collounsbury: Or maybe they're ripping off the Eastern Pop that they and their parents already listen to but you're not aware of.

Sure. Like my disclaimer noted, I was speculating, drawing loosely on personal music theory/composition/performance knowledge. On the other hand, Eastern Pop may also be influenced by Western pop. (Yeah, more subjective speculation, and very dependent on particular bands/composers of course.) But yes, my listening experience with Eastern pop is limited, as noted. And I'm certainly not buying any of Roach's thoughts on this.

Matt McIntosh: I would guess it works roughly like this. The song writers need the music to be maximally catchy, but without using instruments (Islamic purity and all that). Western pop provides more immediately available recipes for accomplishing that than Arab pop.

That's what I was thinking as well.

Cerebus is an aardvark, from the comics of the same name. An extremely violent, take-no-prisoners barbarian with a serious vicious streak - at one point, after he's been named Pope, he illustrates a sermon by picking up an innocent bystander and chucking him over the parapet. (Point of trivia - Abu Aardvark is named after Cerebus).

The Cerebus comics also included a character named "The Roach", who was used as a generic stand-in for any superhero the author felt like satirizing that issue.

Thus my extremely geeky amusement.

dear roach,

according to your argument, the u.s. supporting non-state actor "mujahidin" in afghanistan who not only refused to wear uniforms but also fought against the legal and internationally recognized government and its soviet comrades whom the government had asked for help ... was an act of war by the u.s. against afghanistan AND the soviet union?

as for iraq, the u.s./allied invasion was and is not sanctioned by the u.n. and thus illegal. (please note that i am not talking about RIGHT or WRONG here. sometimes illegal actions are right and legal ones wrong.) therefore, according to international law, iran would only support the iraqi population in resisting an illegal occupation. interestingly enough ... that is precisely the argument the u.s. (and others) brought up to explain why their support of the muj in afghanistan was legal.

remember, one person's "terrorist" is that person's enemy's "freedom fighter".

cheers,

--raf*

*raf --

Ah, but you are wrong, *raf, and Mr. Roach is right.

Go here.

And this is official Security Council talking (2004). Security Council decisions are binding on all members. Technically, the UN doesn't endorse the invasion per se, but it endorses coalition governance.

"10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its tasks, including by preventing and deterring terrorism, so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities "

“14. Recognizes that the multinational force will also assist in building the capability of the Iraqi security forces and institutions, through a program of recruitment, training, equipping, mentoring, and monitoring;

"15. Requests Member States and international and regional organizations to contribute assistance to the multinational force, including military forces, as agreed with the Government of Iraq, to help meet the needs of the Iraqi people for security and stability, humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and to support the efforts of UNAMI;"

31. Requests that the United States, on behalf of the multinational force, report to the Council within three months from the date of this resolution on the efforts and progress of this force, and on a quarterly basis thereafter;

"32. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter."

AND . . . this means you, Iran, it seems:

“17. Condemns all acts of terrorism in Iraq, reaffirms the obligations of Member States under resolutions 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001, 1267 (1999) of 15 October 1999, 1333 (2000) of 19 December 2000, 1390 (2002) of 16 January 2002, 1455 (2003) of 17 January 2003, and 1526 (2004) of 30 January 2004, and other relevant international obligations with respect, inter alia, to terrorist activities in and from Iraq or against its citizens, and specifically reiterates its call upon Member States to prevent the transit of terrorists to and from Iraq, arms for terrorists, and financing that would support terrorists, and re-emphasizes the importance of strengthening the cooperation of the countries of the region, particularly neighbours of Iraq, in this regard;

Raf, arguably our actions against the Soviets there--or their's against us in Vietnam--were acts of war. Hence the name of that era: the Cold War. Both sides essentially agreed to fight these proxy wars without escalation.

Whether the Iraq war is sanctioned or not by the UN is unclear. There was a UN security counsel resolution on the eve of the war that noted Iraq's material breach of various UN and treaty requirements. Second, the US was a signatory to a armistice after the First Gulf War that Iraq violated, among other ways, by not permitting full access to WMD inspectors. The violation of the armistice means two things. First, there was no comprehensive state of peace between the US and Iraq from 1991 to the present and two the violation of the treaty resumes the previous state of hostilities. Finally, it's not obvious that any particular war must be sanctioned by the UN. And even if it were, arming a belligerent in an illegal war is still an act of war and resisting an "illegal occupation" does not authorize violations of the customary law of war mandating the use of uniforms, chain of command, deliberate targetting of civiliains etc.

Also, Shaheen, it's not a murder to kill an enemy combatant (in this case an unlawful combatant) in a war. Should I be instead upset when enemies of my country and of the Iraqi people, people that blow up polling places and mosques and police recruits, are killed. I don't think so.

You have no manners to speak of; you're a peasant, and it sounds like you picked up your English from some Cockney trash.

This needs to be added to L's fan section, pronto.
BTW, raf, it appears your points went whoosh right over the guy and landed somewhere past him. (the Afghanistan part, that is. Back when we were, you know, allied to Bin Laden.)

Is it also to the eternal shame of the US that we cooperated with Stalin to defeat Hitler? Because we, you know, armed him and gave him substantial aid even though it was forseeable when we defeated Hitler he would prove problematic. This is a necessary thing to do frequently in foreign policy. Nothing is stable and the fact that we armed someone who would prove to be an enemy proves absolutely nothing.

Is it also bad that we eliminated the major threat to the US in the form of the Soviet Union by cooperating with certain unsavory characters---ranging from China, to the Contras, to (some of) the Mujahadeen---even though we might have to deal with after that conflict had ended? There is no way to avoid this problem of shifting alliances and cooperating against a common enemy makes perfect sense. It is noteworthy that Ahmed Shah Massoud Ismael Khan and other leaders of the Mujahadeen turned into Bin Laden's enemies too when the war ended.

Incidentally, the Soviets killed upwards of 1,000,000 people in Afghanistan. Is that possibly worth the US addressing even if it has some risk?

Sure, if it makes perfect sense to you to get into a conflict in a country who's name was a byword for obscurity and irrelevance before 9/11, first, and for giving conquering armies a very bad time of it, second.
We know the risk; what, pray tell, was the possible reward? Remembering that the Afghans were going to fight the Soviets regardless, with or without our help, btw, a fact also known at the time, given that it fit with fact number two in the first paragraph.
Also, the original point, which you are still ignoring, is that the Afghans didn't follow any of the customary rules of war. So, the Soviets would have been perfectly justified in treating them as terrorists and unlawful combatants, which you seem to think is some kind of prerequisite to resisting an occupation.

The reward at the time was that it hurt the Soviet Union, prevented their expansion towards nuclear-armed Pakistan, and ultimately led to their downfal as a regime.

To the extent the Afghans did not follow the law of war--and I don't know if all of them didn't, but many did not--then the Soviets were justified in treating them as terrorists and unlawful combatants, which, in fact, they did. Many were shot on sight, which was the Soviets' right. This is why Geneva limits its protections only to certain kinds of combatants, regardless of the legitimacy or not of either parties' side. That's one of the points of the law of war: to humanize and limit the collateral harm of all forms of conflict, justified or not.

The question of just war and unlawful combatancy are distinct. Civil wars are not always unlawful. Nor are all forms of resistance to invasions. Militia may resist. Organizations that follow the law of war may do so too even under Geneva. Under the UN charter any nation may resist an offensive and unjust invasion, as the Soviets perpetrated in Afghanistan. But when that resistance takes the form of an unlawful means of resistance--terrorism, no uniforms, etc--then the lawful belligerents are entitled to treat the captured belligerents as unlawful and punish them for the mere fact of belligerency. That's the price you pay when you break the law of war. When that organization invovled is not even a nationalist organization defending a particular place or fighting for control of the government, but committed to some abstract international principle like restoration of the caliphate, it truly loses all rights under the law of war. Because war may not be waged against states by private parties; this is the fundamental keystone of the international system after the Treaty of Westphalia.

The Soviets, of course, broke the law of war too by indiscriminately shelling villages and killing thousands of people in various terror campaigns. So that arguably took away their own right to claim the protection of the law of war. The law of war permits certain reciprocal acts of reprisal in the face of violations by other combatants.

The law of war has at least two components. One has to do with the rights of belligerents. The other, more under the umbrella of public international law, has to do with whether a particular conflict is lawful. Even an unlawful conflict does not transform the belligerents' soldiers into unlawful combatants who may be, for example, shot on site as spies, saboteurs, etc. It just means the leadership might be held accountable in post war trials or international trials (as in the case of the Serbs), or the war will be recognized as illegtimate internationally and the nation at war will be isolated, or some combination of the two. But what do I know, I'm "not particularly knowledgable in international law."

Nice bit of showing off, but you didn't get to the actual point: that we were arming unlawful combatants and, arguably, terrorists. Among these was Bin Laden. For the sake of a nation that was and is quite literally in the middle of nowhere.
BTW, Pakistan wasn't nuclear at that time. Arguably, had they been, the Soviets might not have invaded.

Roach, give up.
we did the sovs in Afghanistan exactly like they did us in VietNam. we armed and supported the mujahideen 'zactly like the communists armed and supported the Cong.
and the outcome was the same, the indigenous guerillas sapped the strength and will of the invaders.
at least we learned from 'Nam.
but it was truly isomorphic.
proxy wars using primitive people between two ideologies.
you can argue that democracy is a nobler calling than communism, i don't care.
the methodology was the same.

Say you face a retarded moron. I have always wondered whether it was better to just call him so and move on, or try to educate him. I know the latter is supposedly one of the purposes of Aqoul, but sometimes, it's also a bit naive to assume mental ability.

Well, Shaheen, there is aways my style of education.

Say you face a retarded moron. I have always wondered whether it was better to just call him so and move on, or try to educate him.

If you are referring to Mr. Roach, I can assure you he is neither retarded nor a moron. While I don't know him directly, I have engaged him in debate numerous times and know him reputationally through others and those who heartily disagree with him but know him attest to his character and intelligence.

He has some views which one may fairly find offensive, especially if it hits home personally and rudely to one's identity, and certainly he did so after being duly abused by our merciless in-house critic. However, Mr Roach did apologize and I don't doubt its tendered sincerity.

Also, he tends to be correct in general on the international law issue vis a vis Iraq. One can challenge the initial invasion but retroactively the legal authorities that be have more or less validated the coalition presence as the proper one, and such are binding on at least UN member states.

It is a separate question whether the US intervention is good policy, how, if wise, to get out, and what to do about it. It is a separate moral question, as law and morality dont always coincide, where right and wrong lie in the whole picture.

Back to music: I listened to the alQaeda stuff and its encouragement not to fear the reaper.

What it needs: more cowbell.

Lounsbury

You know what? I seriously thought about presenting your way of educating as a third option.

But after giving it some reflexion, I came to the conclusion that a Lounsburyesque "let me offer you some education, you retard", though great fun, doesn't exactly achieve the best result. At least not with the person you're addressing anyway:)

Matthew

If you are referring to Mr. Roach

I didn't mention Roach, did I?:) But since we're at it,

He has some views which one may fairly find offensive, especially if it hits home personally and rudely to one's identity, and certainly he did so after being duly abused by our merciless in-house critic.

Very frankly, I don't find him offensive at all. I sense too much of the arrivist underclass manners in him. I'd lie if I said that what he said left me indifferent, but what it has provoked is much more scorn than offense. I'd also be a hypocrite if I said that his apologies changed that feeling, I tend to believe that one's behavior when one loses temper says a lot about who one is. Roach didn't do me any wrong, so he has nothing to apologize for and I have nothing to forgive. But he sure gave a pathetic image of himself, very different from the educated civil one he wants to convey.

[I] know him attest to his character and intelligence (...) he tends to be correct in general on the international law issue vis a vis Iraq

Well, Matthew, just based on what I've seen on this very page, I'd guess we have different criteria for intelligence if that's the case. I've known engineers and PhDs who were technically good, yet had very limited creativity and poor social analysis abilities. Roach can have learnt the technicalities of international law and may have learnt to spin on them (or sincerely think that his unbiased views are objective), it doesn't make that more than some basic education you can get for a few bucks at any university.

Now, away from Roach and back to music: I dont'think heavy metal is macho:)

Shaheen, if I may make a suggestion. It seems alien and "working class" to you that I am (a) conservative (b) contemptuous of certain foreign values that I consider illieral and backwards (c) patriotic and (d) proud of my brothers in the military (both college-educated officers, mind you).

It's true, I'm no blue blood. And I suppose a certain American disdain for snobbiness infects my writing. Pride in being born into wealth and not actually having accomplished very much always struck me as kind of lame; it's a value-system that has contributed, I would suggest, to the lack of wealth creation in large parts of the third world. It's the aristocrat contempt for work and the Protestant/Western/American pride in it that has made our country so incredibly powerful and wealthy in short order. I am happy to live under the aegis of that value system.

If there are certain virtues of having maid-servants, concubines, and leisurely hours chewing khat, then I confess I have missed out on them and failed to develop a proper appreciation for them. But I should think a bit more humility would be in order for those from countries where running water can be a luxury, books are the province of the few, and the poor live under the heel of the rich and are so quiescent about it.

It seems alien and "working class"...

It doesn't. But you might want to learn reading.

Pride in being born into wealth and not actually having accomplished very much always struck me as kind of lame

This is very much part of my point Roach. Where we might disagree is that it isn't just about papa's wealth, it's also about your tribal one.