Archive

Islam

Wassim Dourehi  is a spokeperson for the Islamic organisation Hizb ut Tahrir in Australia. It is considered a radical group that considers Europe and the US the enemy and supports a Global Caliphate. It is permitted to operate in Australia. In 2014, he gave an interview for Emma Alberici on Lateline, Australia.

The first set occur one after the other.

RS: See dumb serfs – gives more fact since lie in/lyin’ the Garden of Eve   

FS: .. make it very clear, you’ve invited me on to this platform to express my views …

Here, we see a reference to ‘dumb serfs’, and of course, serfs are those who are (or should be) legally bound to the governership and control of another. The second part appears to refer to the act of lying being as old as man.

see dumb serfs – e[xpress my views]

see [views] – [iew] creates [ee]; the [v] lightens and forms the [d] in the following word ‘dumb’.

dumb – sense of [d] occurs after release of [v] in the FS; [m] comes at [m] in ‘my’

serfs – e[xpress] the final [s] comes from the [s] sound in [x] (ks) in the FS; [f] comes from frication occurring around [p].

gives more fact [platform to e]xpress – [c] in ‘fact’ is not evident; however, I will make an assumption it is meant to be ‘fact’, and not perhaps ‘fat’. Of course, in forward speech not all isolated words are clear, and we must use a holistic listening and grammar knowledge to understand what is being stated. Before an audible [t] at the end, there is a rough frication occurring and an extension of the vowel, so I am settling for this word, although I could be wrong. The [p] has disappeared, allowing a [t]; [f] comes from [f] in the FS. With ‘gives’, [g] comes from the onset of the [x] (ks), [s] comes from [t] on ‘to’, and a sense of [v] occurs in the aspiration from ‘to’ to ‘ex’ in the FS.

since lie in/lyin’ the Garden of Eve

since [to this] – [th] creates the perception of [n]; [t] creates frication to produce [c].

lie in/lyin’ – [me on] – [n] creates the alveolar [l]; [m] actually produces a discernible [n] in reverse.

Garden – [invit]ed – although an alveolar can be discerned at [t] in ‘invited’, which is the position of [g] in ‘garden’, there is some distortion allowing one the perception of [g]. In light of the the rest of the section, it might be reasonable to assume it is meant to be [g]. The [v] disappears, leaving a glottalisation (which occurs between the [n] and [v] in ‘invited’) to give the sense of [d] in ‘Garden’.

of Eve – [clear you’ve] – interestingly, there is a [v] at [cl] in ‘clear’,

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In this set, last four occur together. The first one in the audio is followed by another potential reversal which is featured in the second audio below. In the first pair, Badar possibly refers to the Irish, which may be a reference to white Australia, as Irish ancestry had traditionally been the most common in Australia. The one that immediately follows (No’ all of us get knocked/lock(ed)) seems to be related to the first (not in first audio following this). The set of 4 will be discussed further below.

RS: We last the Irish; The sharks are now; they see no-one/seen you on exit; Sydney leaders; Swede the Sydney 

1. RS: We last the Irish

FS: Why is the focus, given the context of War of [Terror, entirely] upon what Muslims doing or are not doing?

We last the [entirely] – ‘last’ clear behind [tirel]; with ‘the’ a lot of flexibility can occur providing it gives a sense of the word (in forward speech, ‘the’ can be heard in different ways).

Irish [terror] – short [sh] occurs at end from [t] in FS. As there is a potential reversal following immediately on, this is quite natural.

Immediately following (without pause) ‘We last the Irish’ is the following:

2. RS: No’ all of us get knock(ed)/lock(ed).  

Not all – [war ‘n] – [ll] comes from [w]; glottal [t] rather than alveolar [t], which is acceptable (no’ all).

of us – conte[xt of] war – [s] comes from the [s] in [ks] in ‘context’; [f] comes from [f] in the FS.

get knock(ed)/lock(ed) – [contex]t of war ‘n – [g] comes from [k] sound in [x]; an assumption is made about the ‘-ed’; as there is potential continuing language immediately following (I haven’t included this), and ‘-ed’ can become weak to the point of almost disappearing. [n] from FS can sound like [l] as in ‘lock(ed)’.

3. Below, in the first part, he refers to ‘the sharks’, and in the second, I am assuming the pronoun is ‘they’, which probably suggests ‘the sharks’ see no-one exit/seen you on exit. So, who are the sharks that either see no-one exit, or seen you on exit? This may refer to being monitored. I am uncertain about the 3rd part – it may be meant to be Sydney, or not. The final one perhaps mentions Sydney, but also mentions Sweden, making a connection to the Muslim migration in that country and the results of it.

The following 4 sections have no pause between them. They represent interesting language; however, one or parts may have slipped into gibberish.

FS: (…ia) This is the absurdity o’ this disgettin’, ‘f of this entire discussion

‘N the sharks are now

The sharks – di[scussion] – sense of ‘the’ occurs at [ion] along with ‘and’; ‘sharks’ occurs at [scuss].

are now [entire di]scussion – [n] comes at the point of onset of [d] in the FS, and the [d] itself disappears;

There is a different accentual quality to this following part. The natural fluency of the English language does not occur. A strong Arab-like accent appears separating words rather than a natural, native flow of speech.

They see no-one/seen you on exit   

see no-one/seen you on – disgetti[n ‘f of this e]ntire – here, Badar slips while trying to say ‘discussion’.

Final [n] in ‘no-one’/‘on’ comes from the [n] in the FS; first [n] occurs at [f] in ‘of’ (therefore [v] sound). [v] can be heard, as there is frication; it is only in a more general listening one may get a sense of the word ‘no-one’ (or ‘see you on’). If it is meant to be ‘see no-one’, there is no [w] sound in ‘one’; if it is meant to be ‘seen you on’, there is no [y] sound in ‘you’. Although ‘exit’ is clear, I am taking a guess at what it could be.

exit [disget] – [x] comes from [sg] in the FS; [t] in FS disappears.

Sydney leaders (?) 

Sydney – absurdit[y of this] – rather than [n], there is a frication occurring (th), and really, on close listening it is like “Sy’thee”, therefore I cannot be certain that is it meant to be Sydney. Possibly gibberish.

leaders – ab[surdit]y – [l] occurs at [t]; [d] at [d]. There maybe a possibility of ‘need us’ as well.

Swede the Sydney [(…ia) This is the abs] – This section is not completely from Badar; the interviewer provided the [ey] in ‘Sydney’ to complete the word. This is worth noting because Badar had just (potentially) said ‘Sydney’, and contextually has value. Here, two speakers create the reversal. This is one of those nuances of RS that occurs occasionally, and warrants further investigation..

Swede [the abs] – the [b] weakens to an approximant [w]; [d] comes from [th].

the [is]

Sydney [(ia) this] – [ey] occurs from the interviewer; [n] occurs just before the the onset of [th] in ‘this’; [d] occurs at [th].

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One needs to be careful about reversals with apparent names, as not all of them will be genuine. This may refer to a man, Nazeef who is in Fingal (a township on the border of Queensland and New South Wales). ‘Certain’ can be heard more clearly once it is separated from the strong syllable following it. This reversal is from Uthman Badar of Hizb ut-Tahrir

RS: We certain Nazeef in Fingal  

FS: Well, what’s wrong with us with us [holding different views then Tracy]?

We certain – the[n Tracy] – [n] comes from ‘then’. [t] in ‘certain’ comes from the position of the tongue on the alveolar ridge, followed by a glottalisation of the [t] occurring in reverse. However, this can sound like [k] possibly due to effects of nasalisation of preceding [n] creating more of a sense of a velarisation. To make any sense, I have to assume it is ‘certain’.

Nazeef in Fingal – [holding different views then] – there is some sense of a [g] at [d] in ‘holding’; [d] in ‘different’ disappears enough to permit [F] and [n] in ‘Fingal’; ‘in’ comes from [n] in ‘different; [f] in ‘Nazeef’ comes from [v] in ‘views’; [z] comes from [s] in same word.