ruminations on the owner of Jihad Unspun
Sep. 12th, 2004 12:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerI'm continuing to read this site, specifically the owner's personal testimony. It's fascinating. I find myslf more and more uncomfortable with her, the more I read about her. I'm struck by how she seems, by her own account, unable to move in anything except sudden, sweeping life-altering changes. Her story of going from being a crippled child to a fully functional teeanger to a rock-bottom addicted teenager, from a alcholic to an overnight, miraculously cured teetotaler, from a devout and utterly convinced Christian to a devout and utterly convinced Muslim: none of it sounds unbelieveable to me, but all of it taken together suggests to me someone who is fundamentally unstable and unable to operate without an absolute certainty of *something* (doesn't really matter what). Which makes me very reluctant to accept her judgement or her analysis of *anything*.
I'm also struck by how often the words "I had no idea" or "I knew nothing about" come into play, followed almost immediately by a sudden, rapid change of direction in her life story. More than anything, she seems to have lived most of her life without much knowledge of or interest in the world outside a very tight little ambit around herself. When this self-imposed barier was breached, she seems to have been overcome by all the information she had been either blocking out or allowing to pass her by for so many years, as if all of it had suddenly happened *just then* because it was just coming to her attention.
Another facet of her reaction to information: her seemingly unbounded arrogance. One of the best examples I've come across is her declaration "There was still one big problem as far as I was concerned and that was Christ, the Savior. Over a two week period, I research this whole matter extensively and it became very apparent that Christ could not be God and that God can not, by His very nature, have partners." There, that was easy. Humans have been chewing over that one for, oh, at least 5700-5800 years, longer if you go back before the monotheists; but this lady, with no theological, historical, anthropolgical background, no research training or (apparently) any higher education at all has figured it out in two weeks. Gee, what has mankind been wasting all its time over?
But what bothers me most is her black/white vision. She begins by saying that she wanted JUS to show "both sides" of the story. As if there were ever only *two* sides to any story that involveshuman beings! Then she goes further and adds that she wanted JUS to be a voice for Muslims (so, then, not wholly impartial?) Then she concludes by saying that she's convinced that the "war on terror" is a cover for a decades-old war on Islam that has been propogated by a desire for oil and which is based on 9/11, an event that she states the US government knew about beforehand and did nothing to stop. She then descends into gross hyperbole and name-calling worthy of an al Jazeera broadcast.
What makes the whole thing almost comic-opera, and what makes me wonder how much of the roots of this story are not total fabrication, is her shaky grasp of English. This is someone who claims to have been a publisher and web enterpreneur, but her text is filled with spelling errors, punctuation errors, other typos, and screaming grammatical errors that completely reverse the sense of what she's notionally saying, such as:
I'm sorry, "the very fabric of our beliefs that pits brother against brother"? If that's what Islam is about, then I'lll pass; I'd prefer a religion that seeks to unite brother with brither. Is there really someone being held hostage out there somewhere who is trying to send SOS messages with text like this?
It's an interesting read, but it convinces me that JUS is a propaganda site; doesn't mean it's not still worth reading, but its claims to evenhandedness seem to me laughable.
I'm also struck by how often the words "I had no idea" or "I knew nothing about" come into play, followed almost immediately by a sudden, rapid change of direction in her life story. More than anything, she seems to have lived most of her life without much knowledge of or interest in the world outside a very tight little ambit around herself. When this self-imposed barier was breached, she seems to have been overcome by all the information she had been either blocking out or allowing to pass her by for so many years, as if all of it had suddenly happened *just then* because it was just coming to her attention.
Another facet of her reaction to information: her seemingly unbounded arrogance. One of the best examples I've come across is her declaration "There was still one big problem as far as I was concerned and that was Christ, the Savior. Over a two week period, I research this whole matter extensively and it became very apparent that Christ could not be God and that God can not, by His very nature, have partners." There, that was easy. Humans have been chewing over that one for, oh, at least 5700-5800 years, longer if you go back before the monotheists; but this lady, with no theological, historical, anthropolgical background, no research training or (apparently) any higher education at all has figured it out in two weeks. Gee, what has mankind been wasting all its time over?
But what bothers me most is her black/white vision. She begins by saying that she wanted JUS to show "both sides" of the story. As if there were ever only *two* sides to any story that involveshuman beings! Then she goes further and adds that she wanted JUS to be a voice for Muslims (so, then, not wholly impartial?) Then she concludes by saying that she's convinced that the "war on terror" is a cover for a decades-old war on Islam that has been propogated by a desire for oil and which is based on 9/11, an event that she states the US government knew about beforehand and did nothing to stop. She then descends into gross hyperbole and name-calling worthy of an al Jazeera broadcast.
What makes the whole thing almost comic-opera, and what makes me wonder how much of the roots of this story are not total fabrication, is her shaky grasp of English. This is someone who claims to have been a publisher and web enterpreneur, but her text is filled with spelling errors, punctuation errors, other typos, and screaming grammatical errors that completely reverse the sense of what she's notionally saying, such as:
As long as Muslims allow the enemies of Islam to shred the very fabric of our beliefs that pits brother against brother, and we ignore the obligations Allah has prescribed for us and remain ignorant of our deen (religion), our Ummah will remain weak and we will continue to be the target of aggression.
I'm sorry, "the very fabric of our beliefs that pits brother against brother"? If that's what Islam is about, then I'lll pass; I'd prefer a religion that seeks to unite brother with brither. Is there really someone being held hostage out there somewhere who is trying to send SOS messages with text like this?
It's an interesting read, but it convinces me that JUS is a propaganda site; doesn't mean it's not still worth reading, but its claims to evenhandedness seem to me laughable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 04:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 05:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-13 12:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-13 04:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 07:50 pm (UTC)I totally agree with your assessment about the webmistress. She sounds brilliant, and if her life story is true, her accomplishments in the face of adversity, punctuated by many low points, make me believe that she is bi-polar. I respect the hell out of her, although I don't agree with her much of the time.
Anyway, your entry took me on a 3 hour odyssey. Thank you very much. :)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 08:36 pm (UTC)I'll have to have a look at JihadWatch one of these days, maybe, just for balance. not today; too exhausted (in a thinking sense).
These folks say that JUS is "radical Islamic" and a vehicle for hatred.
Do they? Interesting. Of course, if it's being true to its original calling, that's just what it is, since the owner claimed that she set it up not to represent a point of view but to present all points of view (or, as she rather simplistically put it, "both sides"), and representing that would include being a vehicle for hatred from all sides.
By her own admission, however, it's stopped being that and is trying to be a _protagonist_ of the "Muslim" POV. (Again, wildly simplistic; IMO only the very simple-minded, the meglomaniacal, or the devious assert that any faith has only one POV). And the quote from Abu Dawa towards the end of her essay and her call to Mulims to "be strong" certainly sound like a (not very) coded call to violence. So I'm not sure I would entirely disagree.
In the meantime, Jihad Watch alludes to Palestinians as being "Nazis"
Obviously silly, since "the Palestinians" are no more united on one predetermined political and cultural path than the Israelis are.
...and reported that Palestinians partied on 9/11.
Well, that's certainly true enough. *Some* Palestinains partied big time, while others sent condolences and sympathy to the US. And both are understandable. Some Palestinians are so broken and twisted by 60 years of disenfranchisement, humiliation, and destruction by our allies the Israelis that they're happy to celebrate when someone finally inflicts enough pain and suffering on the American giant to make us stop short and cry out. Other Palestinians react to their same history of cruelty, suffering, and inhumanity by empathizing with our loss and our hurt.
There were probably lots of Somalis celebrating on 9/11, probably Serbs, Chinese, some older Vietnamese, and lots of North Koreans (if they were even allowed to know about it at all). But there were TV cameras all over them, I assume because it wasn't in anyone's geopolitical interest to remind us of those particular enemies in order to bind us closer to particular allies.
I totally agree with your assessment about the webmistress. She sounds brilliant, and if her life story is true, her accomplishments in the face of adversity, punctuated by many low points, make me believe that she is bi-polar. I respect the hell out of her, although I don't agree with her much of the time.
Well, apart from agreeing with you about her probably being bipolar (which makes me wish she'd stop finding new religions and try getting medical help), I think we probably don't actually agree on her much. I must not have been very clear before, or maybe a few shreds of fever were still around. I don't think she's brilliant at all. It sounds to me as if she's led a very intellectually limited life. She may have a very strong will, but she doesn't sound very smart, and I'm afraid that I found her auto biographical essay more of a warning than an encouragement. She sounds like a person who needs lots of help, didn't get it, and has decided to self-medicate with religion in a not terribly healthy way. To the extent that I find news items through her site, I'm more inclined to query them, suspsect them, and want to know more about their sources *after* reading her essay than I was before.
But, for whatever it's worth, you're welcome. :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 10:12 pm (UTC)This, I base on the 9/11 Commission's report that Bush had received a briefing on August 6th entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside United States", on the subsequent actions of the Bush Administration, and on the writings of the Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org), which called for just such an invasion of Iraq, and also stated that such an agenda would be unacceptable to the American public "without some major catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."
The paper in question is on the PNAC site, named "Rebuilding America's Defenses", written by Paul Wolfowitz. Other members of PNAC included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and others now high up in the Bush Administration. The "new Pearl Harbor" quote is on page 63. There's also a sentence of note on page 72: "[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
My point in all this? She may not be right about everything, but she seems to be right about something.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-13 01:29 pm (UTC)precisely. rash judgments, rash analysis. Of course, that deosn't excldue it from the grist for the mill, as it were. . .
no subject
Date: 2004-09-13 03:04 pm (UTC)I suspect that she is unable to hold, process and reconcile two (let alone more) opposing POVs in her head at one time, and lurches from one to the next as each one proves untenable or unsatisfactory in her eyes. Either that, or she is addicted to the power-rush of revelation that comes with discovering and embracing a new faith or ideology that claims to Explain It All.
I also suspect that her "strong will" is merely strong emotion that overruns reason when differing views reach her ears.
Your description of her reminds me of many "neoconservatives," who seem to have overreacted to the stupidity of the far left by religiously embracing the stupidity of the far right, and who seem to see all debates as clashes of extremes, with no moderation or compromise possible.