The most acute observation Reza Aslan makes, is that Al-Qaida's leaders do not formulate "any specific social or political policy" but instead they have "grievances—many, many grievances". Aslan seems surprised by this, but there is no reason to be.

For this is nothing but the normal behavior of any group of people who are irrational in their convictions. In this Al-Qaida is not that different from believers in astrology or homeopathy, holocaust negationists, creationists, the followers of Dan Brown, or the latest anti-scientific fad -- global warming skepticism. All aggregations of people around an irrational basis have in common, that their ideology in the end consists of a series of objections and rejections. They reject factual reality and the logical systems that describe it. They do not substitute a logical system of their own, because they don't need one, and it would be impossible to construct one anyway. Any attempt to construct a coherent theory would only produce a shambles. Objections against other ideas suffice. That they are "so heterogeneous, so mind-bogglingly unfocused" does not matter. The motto of the irrationalist is "Just say No!"

The question is, what does Al-Qaida actually reject? Every indication suggests that ultimately, they reject our form of "modern society"; the type of secularized, liberalized, gender-equal, religion-neutral, human-rights-based society that radiates out from the rich west and finds followers everywhere. It pains me to admit it, but when G.W. Bush says that "they hate our freedoms", he actually has a point. It is mind-bogglingly arrogant and unproductive to equate "freedom" with the American Way of Life, as Dubyah too often seems to do. But yes, I think it is defensible to say that Al-Qaida hates freedom, in the liberal sense of the word.

The modern usage of the term 'liberal' dates back to the early 19th century when political debate raged in the Spanish Cortes in Cadiz, in the part of Spain not occupied by the French, and the political left, those who rejected the feudalism of the old regime, were called liberales. The right-wing groups of the time were dubbed serviles, 'the slavish ones', because their political ideal was the absolutist reign of king Fernando VII. They were traditionalists who wanted to keep royal absolutism, the fiscal privileges of the nobility, the supremacy of the Catholic church, and even the inquisition.

It is probably best to think of Al-Qaidas leaders as serviles. They are traditionalist radicals. Their political dreams hark back to a golden age that never existed -- That is the irrationality of it.

The rank and file, of course, are likely to have their own very diverse motivations, and many recruits would just as likely fight under another banner, if that gave them an opportunity to take revenge for their grievances. Fighting an intellectual battle with Al-Qaida is probably rather pointless.

Sorry, but I can't grant any credit to George W's claim "they hate our freedoms," or your extension "they reject our form of "modern society"; the type of secularized, liberalized, gender-equal, religion-neutral, human-rights-based society...." If those are our freedoms then a good number of W's supporters hate them as well.

What is most striking in Reza Azlan's analysis is the incoherence of Al-Qaida in opposition to a different kind of 'freedom' that has always been the dark side of liberalism -- the freedom of Exxon's and other global corporations to exploit natural resources and people without constraint or mercy.

Grievances against this exploitation and oppression are not irrational per se. The expression of them in Islamic fundamentalism is. Fundamentalism and reaction provide poor vocabulary for opposition to say, global warming. Thirty years ago the vocabulary would have been Marxist -- as in the earlier days of the Palestinian opposition. Since that vocabulary is now discredited and off the table, the myriad of grievances in the world now seem to cluster around various forms of Islamic fundamentalism.

Your conclusion seems correct: "The rank and file, of course, are likely to have their own very diverse motivations, and many recruits would just as likely fight under another banner, if that gave them an opportunity to take revenge for their grievances. Fighting an intellectual battle with Al-Qaida is probably rather pointless."

But what is the next step from there? We desperately need a new vocabulary for the claims of real freedom and justice and new leadership and action to realize those claims.

The plan is the Koran, same as the Bible is for Bush's base. It is of course really driven by right wing corporate interests same as an elite ruling class would emerge in any Islamic government. Still other fundamentalist Islamic groups are very successful in gaining support though offering goood social services. So you think Al Qaeda should start writing a constitution?

They are not irrational, they simply reject your rationality and substitute their own. They do not debate. They sow confusion. It is a tactic. Their argument is the Koran. They are Wahhabi. You will submit or die. In submission there is peace.

The dichotomy is not 'liberales' versus 'serviles' ... it is 'slavery v slavery'. It is the chaos of modernity versus the comforts of the ancient regime.

It is tragic ... but also funny! How they rage against the machine! Shaking their little fists! Exhorting Allah to save them. But, Allah is dead and gone (just a shadow in a cave). And the Juggernaut is upon them! The slayer of gods. The eater of souls. The destroyer of worlds. It sodomizes all they find holy! ... They can watch it all on the web ... or buy the DVD!

So if the US was under the rule of a strict dictatorship which was non-Islamic and at odds with Al-Qaeda, you don't think they'd still hate the US if US foreign policy was just as dominating in the Middle East as it is today?

So the only reason Al-Qaeda hasn't declared war on China is because the communists mistreat their people and has nothing to do with the fact that China doesn't have permanent military bases in the Middle East, does not directly support the Israeli war machine, does not publicly support the unpopular House of Saud and generally has a fairly neutral and hands-off Middle East policy?

Al Qaeda might hate freedom, but their definition of freedom is anyone who is not under their strict Islamic control. In that sense, even Saddam's secular Iraq was a target. However, their specific targeting of the US has more to it then that. The US is easy to hate because it's done many things that people hate. The MD car bombers in London tell us that educated people of wealth can find reason to fight Osama's war. Did they hate the freedoms they enjoyed? A more plausible explanation is that they shared one or more of the many grievances they had against the Western powers and followed Osama's lead (or should I say, Osama's followers lead - Osama hasn't attacked anyone personally, he just cowers in a cave somewhere letting others do his dirty work).

So what's the purpose of al-Qaeda? Simple: al-Qaeda. It's a self serving entity. Al-Qaeda needs conflict to survive, and making enemies with the US is the most sure fire method of keeping the conflict alive. And conflict is like a cancer that spreads and grows. The war in Iraq can never be undone, and by the looks of it can't be stopped either. It's only a matter of time before it spills out of Iraq into other nations. In that sense, the US is helping Al-Qaeda grow.

If your answer is, "They hate our freedom" (although I grant you a far more sophisticated view of this than the GOPig unconscious reductum ad absurdum version), I think you are asking the wrong question. I mean, what is the point of worrying about what anybody in the world hates about whatever it is they think we are? I have my own set of things about this nation that I hate.

What makes Bin Laden's attitude more worthy of discussion than mine? Frankly, I think my views are more on target and relevant since I live here.

What makes him important is his willingness to commit mass violence against us-- not his attitude. He hates women showing their tits around here, surely. But I see no evidence that he is willing to commit acts of mass violence against us for that. Or for our thousand and one other hedonistic, un-Koranic attitudes and behaviours.

The real question is not what gets his goat, but what is motivating him to orchestrate terror against us. Terrorism by its very nature is designed to force the target population to change some policy. There is no way in hell anybody is going to make us give up tits and all the rest short of full out, absolute defeat of not only are armed forces, but all of us who would carry on the fight as Iraqi insurgents do now. He'd really have to go Hitler on us, and Bin Laden just isn't that kind of creature. He's a terrorist, and like all terrorists before him, he's weak and unable to do anything else but create fear and try to stampede us into some change in policy. Not a change in culture.

So, then, when we ask the real question, what motivates him to attack us, we can actually arrive at some manageable, discrete issues: occupation of Arab lands (us first in Saudi Arabia, now in Iraq), the maintenance of repressive regimes among the Arabs are pretty much it. If we could figure a way to change those things, he still wouldn't bbq with us, but he would definitely try to stop bbq'ing US.

I mean, did he follow the Soviets home after Afghanistan? Nope. In fact, far as we know, he isn't doing a whole lot for the Chechnyans.

Here's the ironic thing-- most, if not all, of what he needs to make peace is probably the best for us here anyway. Getting off our oil addiction would eliminate our need to be so controlling over the Gulf and Middle East as a whole. I'm for ending the Empire, so getting rid of those bases over there is a fine notion as far as I see it. Hell, I'm for cutting of aid to Israel and full support of Palestinian rights.

You do those things, which makes sense completely apart from what Bin Laden wants, and he'll leave us alone. Which is why Bin Laden is the best thing that ever happened to Israel and the petroleum industry. Now, try to advocate those smart policies and you have to overcome the "surendering to terror" bullshit.

Which makes me wonder who really is facilitating this guy's survival and reputation......

Very well put.

It is an interesting window into the thought process the groups that are cast together in this reply. Writing that rejecting factual reality by homeopathic believers and global warming sceptics is fact dilutes some of the potency in the piece. Even conventional medicine has grudgingly accepted certain homeopathic treatments as valid. One might say that global warming enthusiasts fit into the model here because some of them are bordering on cultism when rejecting any argument that does not align with their "belief". For instance, it has become very popular for the global warming crowd to declare " the discussion is over". That in itself shows a closed mind that does not wish to hear anything other than its mantra.

But back to the subject, it would seem that groups like Al-Qaida do have a general view that the world was better off "in the old days" by the "old ways". This is irrational because humans are not static; we do want stability in our lives but cannot allow it because we also cannot leave anything alone; we must see what is over the next hill.

I agree that this seems to leave us with a set of irrational people whose value system clashes with almost everyone they come in contact with. Whatever set them off to cause them to come out on their crusade to rid the world of "American influence", it seems certain that words will not placate them. History has shown that wars fought in the shadows are protracted affairs and difficult to manage. Attrition seems to be the way to resolution; who can hold out longest?

Please, comparing Al-Qaida to those who are skeptical about Global Warming? That is to far a stretch. First off, nobody against the idea of Global Warming ever proceeded to violent actions as a means of resolution. This is the major point missed.

And, your stance on people who are anti-global warming as "irrational" is irresponsible and ignorant. For all the things that we are told, see, read, etc to point out the fact that "Global Warming" is occuring, there are faults, counter points and factual evidence that this event is not occuring. And those of us who are of the opinion that global warming is a construct, and is not occuring can back it up with a logical system, and not one based on models that can not be called scientific.

...and YET, while there certainly IS a rationale for "liberals" (that term meaning something other than freedom these days in academic circles and coffee shop encounters among those who label themselves "liberal") to fight what is surely one brand of "fundamentalism" that actually IS dangerous, they cannot and will not. Liberals have found a fundamentalism they enjoy playing PC footsie with--albeit they have to get hit in Manhatten or search overseas to do so. Yes, Islamic warriors are not some radical wing of the NEA or NOW. Having said that, it would seem that the very fact it "pains" some people to admit to about 1/2 the equation here (the hate our freedoms), the lie is given that liberals are truly disturbed by Jihad. Not enough people died at the WTC, as has been pointed out by better men than myself who specialize in security issues. The wakeup call of the danger from Jihad has not been heard. The clarion call is mute. We Americans are so daft and piddle with PC and multicultural hodgepodge, a al Netherlands in her dreamy state that all just hold hands and "get along"---when it is painfully obivous that whatever else can be said of Islam's radicals is that they have a fighting creed. Instead, liberals are at war with Bush, not Al Quiada, or make absurdist statements about what "we" did to "them". Which leads to the other half of the "hate" equation---to wit: Bin Laden and co have very much made their goals known. One book is not the full story. Their own words are. They want Israel to simply go away and for the US to have utterly no influence in the world and for all to marvel at Allah's ways. This is, of course, impossible, as the US can't simply divest from the entire planet or those areas of the third world (about 80%) where Islam holds sway,but we'll feel the wrath unless and until we understand that those with fighting creeds give no quarter to those who hide and compromise, because in their minds such is not deemed worthy. There is no where else to hide anymore. Eureop as we know her will be extinct in about 50 years given current demographers and "liberal" and enlightened lifestyles and sumptious secular living designed to minimize childbirth and maximize fun. Childless sex is the God of Europe except among the very believing Islamist corners where their numbers will outgrow everyone else in less than a generation. How nice. Secularism will not save us, nor science, nor PCism, nor liberal ideology about government handing everything. At least not per se. War is coming--whether you like it or not is beside the point. One might think in passing that liberal societies (in the general freedom sense) would see the necessity of at long last fighting. It seems that trumpet has not blown yet either here, or in the criticisms of Iraq policy where in serendipity the Islamists have even offered to confront and not hide and get shot dead by US military firepower. Hmmm.

Probably one of the best posts that I've read in quite some time. Excellent!

As far as "Why" they hate us... I thought that this was already common knowledge to anyone who pays attention.

They list three main grievances... and I for one have no reason to think that they are kidding.

1. Our support of Israel.

2. Our "occupation" of the Holy Land... Saudi Arabia since the 90's.

3. "Our" treatment of the average Iraqi during sanctions in the 90's.

I can't remember the name of the reporter who met with bin Laden in the late 90's, but these were the main grievances given by bin Laden to him.

But even if we were to meet their "conditions", I still think that they'd find more reason to hate us. They are consumed by hate at this point.

. Even conventional medicine has grudgingly accepted certain homeopathic treatments as valid.

Not to go off subject, but which homeopathic treatments are considered valid? Not one has even shown to be effective in scientific studies.

I don't think I have ever heard absurdist statements about what Bush did to Al-Queada, just what he did to Iraq. Big difference.

They hate us because it is a convenient vehicle to reach their goals. These goals are to gain control of a country or region and in that part of the world religion no matter how corrupt it may be from the original source is an easy tool to use.

It is no different than a group like the Branch Davidians where David Koresh used the Christian religion, and mutated it into something evil, but in this case they were only a small group.

<>Very good Mutis, I agree completely with you - and were our own nation in such a state of degradation as is the Islamic world, if we had fallen so far from power, (which may still lie in our future), I believe that the fundamentalist Christians (the "dominionists") would be a force similar to Al Qaida. That the hate-filled Islamacists represent the "Religion of Peace", is no different from the Crusaders representing the "Prince of Peace". When the Crusaders first entered Jerusalem, the first thing they did was to kill all of the Christian Arabs who came to welcome them (after killing large numbers of European Jews as a warm-up exercise). The "Holy" Catholic church burned heretics alive, why, because Jesus said, "You shall spill no drop of blood in My name." My guess is that Jesus did not mean to add, ", but you may strangle, burn, drown or beat to death in my name."

<> Where is the shame in the Islamic world - where is the shame of the Sunni that are killing innocents? Where is the shame of the Shi'i that are killing innocents in revenge? Were their mothers born Shi'ite would the Sunni torture and kill them? That's the only difference between two groups of people who both consider themselves Mulim, the Sunni don't convert to Shia nor the Shia to Sunni, there is no spite involved - they are born one or the other, take their vows to become good Muslims (which they interpret as "good people"). The Koran proclaims that to be a Muslim one need only say the Sohadat - state that there is one God and Mohammed is his Messenger - and surely all Sunni and Shi'i have done so. That means that all of these killers of innocent Islamis are bound for Hell - no matter what their Mullahs tell them. The are merely murders, not martyrs.

<> The daily killing of civilians, whether Sunni or Shi'i goes against what anyone with a consience can condone. With the Sunni making daily war against women and children, drilling holes into the heads and bodies of hapless captives - how can anyone, certainly any non-Muslim consider Islam the "Religion of Peace" - the very term," Salaam" must mean something closer to "the peace of death following extreme torture" than any other meaning we have of peace. A far better name for the Islam practiced by all of these people would be "The Religion of Hate" - and "al Islam", "the surrender" would be a surrender to all of humanity's most base and dispicable instincts. The hateful messages of the Christian "deminionists" make them the brothers and sisters of the Muslim extremes - uniting them into one religion - the religion of intolerance and hatred.

<>How could anyone in Isreal (for example) possibly believe that it would be possible to live in peace with Muslim neighbors, when they are killing each other for religious differences that seem, to an outside, like fine points.