
I’ll never forget the moment I uncovered Umm Muthanna Al-Britannia’s real name. Back in early 2015, she was a brazen British propagandist and recruiter for the Islamic State. I’d been tracking her for months, almost marvelling at her shamelessness: she had posted pictures of herself brandishing an AK-47 on social media; she had justified the beheading of Western aid-workers; she had celebrated the 2015 Paris attacks; and she had scolded other Muslim women for not covering their faces (and eyes). She was terrifying, tormented and terrible. But who was she really?
Her name was Tooba Gondal, a then 21-year-old from East London. She was a savvy operator on social media and had revealed little about her personal life in her numerous pro-Isis Twitter accounts. But she couldn’t do anything about that tweet from an earlier account she had used before she became an Isis true believer. It was innocuous enough, but there it was: a casual reference to her father by his full name.
Last month, Benedetta Argentieri’s documentary The Matchmaker premiered at the Venice Film Festival. The film is about Gondal, who, in her incarnation as Umm Muthanna Al-Britannia, sought to enlist foreign women and girls to Isis, where they would become the wives of the male fighters. The film’s title self-consciously appropriates Gondal’s tabloid name (“the Isis matchmaker”), but there’s nothing remotely sensationalist or cheap about the film.
Argentieri first met Gondal in March 2019, where she was filming at the Ain Issa Camp, and where Gondal, now 28, had surfaced with her two young children shortly after Isis’s final territorial defeat at Baghuz. Never shy of media attention, Gondal was a willing participant in the documentary. The entire project is a riveting case study in the psychology of denial and dissimulation: Gondal portrays herself as a victim, flagrantly lies and contradicts herself. 1
“It’s a mystery why anybody talks to a reporter,” Lawrence Wright has observed. Why would you willingly expose yourself to a cold-hearted stranger with a story to tell? Of course, Wright knows all-too-well why people talk to reporters: because they want to be heard and understood, because they enjoy the attention and feel important, and because they want to shape or control the narrative about themselves.
Yet often they come to regret their credulity, realising that their journalist-interlocutor is not, in Janet Malcolm’s words, the “permissive, all-accepting, all-forgiving mother” they’d imagined, but “the strict, all-noticing, unforgiving father”. Even the most powerful and privileged people are susceptible to this delusion: earlier this year, when Mohammed bin Salman agreed to an interview with The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood, he must have thought that Wood would be a soft touch. (He wasn’t.)
Gondal, I suspect, will come to regret her involvement in Argentieri’s film. Perhaps she thought she could project an image of herself that would go some way towards reversing the negative press she’s received in the UK. Almost certainly, she would have enjoyed being at the centre of attention and welcomed the distraction it offered from the ball-breaking grind of life in the camp. No doubt she thought she was dexterous enough to walk the boards and avoid any trap doors that might lie in wait. On this last count, she failed.
Of all of Isis’s many war crimes, the genocide it perpetrated against the Yazidis is one of the gravest. It is by now well-documented that not only did the group brutally slaughter Yazidi men, but also subject thousands of Yazidi women and girls to sexual enslavement. It’s also well-documented that many Western men and women who joined Isis were active participants in this horrific genocide. Some of the most affecting scenes in The Matchmaker centre on two of its victims: 15-year-old Rawa and 22-year-old Salwa. Rawa was bought and sold 13 times. “The Isis women were really violent to us,” she says, adding: “My god, the women were worse than the men. They beat us up thousands of times, put us in obscene clothes, and sent us to the men.” Salwa concurs: “The women were the most guilty in the selling of our girls.”
Argentieri takes this up with Gondal, who denies knowing anything about the involvement of Isis women in such barbarity. Argentieri, who is a highly skilled interviewer, knows better than to express incredulity, much less outrage, at this response. She calmly follows up by asking Gondal if she’d ever met a Yazidi. Gondal bites: she says yes, but only once and at a dinner with other Western foreign Isis members. “She was maybe 13,” Gondal says of the Yazidi slave-girl. “She was very happy and in love with him,” she continues, referring to the girl’s Islamist slave-master. Having now fallen squarely into the hole, Gondal keeps on digging, caking herself in dirt and grime:
“He had spoiled her with everything that she wanted. She had her own phone, her own tablet, it was like very, very good treatment. I don’t know how much he bought her for, but she was crazy in love with him. I remember he wanted to eventually get rid of her, like he was just tired, she was just too clingy or I don’t know what the problem was. He wanted to sell her off to someone else and she was crying and she didn’t wanted to… I think one man from Saudi bought her.”
This is an astonishing piece of testimony, not simply because of the way in which Gondal inverts the victim-perpetrator relationship, but also due to the psychopathic insouciance with which she delivers it, and the utter contempt she shows towards a child victim of rape.
Another piece of striking testimony concerns Allison Fluke-Ekren (Umm Mohammed), who led the Khatiba Nusaybah, an all-female battalion based in Raqqa, and had plotted attacks on targets in America. In June, Fluke-Ekren, a 42-year-old former school teacher from Kansas, pleaded guilty to one count of providing material support to Isis and admitted to training over 100 women and girls for defensive combat.
Although Gondal doesn’t name her, she says she knew Fluke-Ekren “personally”, disclosing that “I saw her planning, I saw her training the women and everything… she was real, real American”. Gondal is adamant that she was not part of the Khatiba Nusaybah, yet she confides that she saw one of the Khatiba’s “training sites”, which she describes as a “very dark, underground basement”. Their aim, she says, “was to target every woman”. Despite clearly knowing a great deal about the Khatiba Nusaybah and its leader, Gondal claims that she didn’t even know how to use a gun.
Her tweets, however, tell a different story. On 1 March, 2016, she told her followers: “Muhajirat muaskar [an all-female training camp] is the best thing so far for me loving it! Alhamdullilah [“Praise to God”]… firearm training is wajib [duty] in the land of Jihad.” In another tweet, using a different account, she declared that she was about to buy a Makarov [a Soviet semi-automatic pistol] and a suicide belt.
When asked to address accusations that she acted as a recruiter for Isis, Gondal says: “No, it’s not true, I never recruited any women.” The film then cuts to Gondal’s tweets where she openly invites Isis sympathisers at home to message her so that she can help them come to Isis-controlled territory in Syria and Iraq. It isn’t known just how many girls and women she recruited, but it’s a matter of public record that she tried recruiting her younger sister to the group.
In another tweet, in late 2015, Gondal declared: “I came here to die. I will not leave till I get what I came here for: shahadah [martyrdom].” When Argentieri raises this, Gondal laughs and feigns surprise. “Oh god, was that really my tweet? That is a really distressed tweet.” Later that year, after the Paris attacks in which 130 people were killed by Isis terrorists, Gondal gleefully tweeted: “Wish I could have seen the hostages being slaughtered last night with my own eyes. Would have been just beautiful.” Argentieri asks her to comment on this. Gondal doesn’t deny writing it, but says she has no memory of doing so. “I’m shocked that I even said that,” she says.
Who, really, is Gondal and how or why did she radicalise and leave Britain to join Isis? The film sheds only a partial light on this, chiefly because Gondal can’t or won’t convincingly explain it herself. According to Gondal, she lived a very secular life as a teenager in London: “I tried clubbing, I tried smoking, drinking, I tried having a boyfriend… everything you can imagine to find happiness.” She didn’t find it. Instead, she found misery and a spiritual void. But returning to Islam, she says, helped fill the void and gave her “inner happiness”.
But if Islam had indeed given her inner happiness (Gondal reverted in late 2012), why travel to war-torn Syria? Perhaps what Gondal was really searching for was not happiness at all, but struggle, excitement, danger: an all-engulfing emotional experience that would give her life a deeper meaning. Gondal, of course, can’t voice any of this, because it would directly contradict the other voice she’s assiduously learned while in detention. This is the passive voice of denial and dissociation.
When Argentieri asks how she became “pro-jihadi”, Gondal says that she was “manipulated” and “brainwashed”. On only one occasion does Gondal break cover from this and level with Argentieri. This is when Argentieri expresses her puzzlement as to why so many Western women joined Isis. Gondal, with uncharacteristic directness, says: “It’s clear, they were looking to live under Sharia.” When pressed on what she found so appealing about Isis, Gondal falters and invokes the register of contrition: “If I’m honest, I regret that I even travelled to Syria.”
The Matchmaker has no thesis to advance about how Gondal came to renounce her life in the UK, where she had the support of a warm and well-off family, and join Isis. Nor does it have a view about what should be done about Gondal, who fled from her detention at the Ain Issa camp after it was shelled by Turkey in October 2019, is now in custody in France, where she was born and lived as a child before coming to London with her family. What it does have is the thing that all journalists and filmmakers long for but rarely find: a grippingly dire character with a story to tell.
One of the great merits of The Matchmaker is that it doesn’t judge or condemn Gondal and it certainly isn’t interested in forgiving her. That would be boring and political. Instead, it holds a mirror up to her and lets her do all the talking. The result is an absorbing incursion into the cursed complexity of radicalisation and human malevolence.
“Every villain,” Janet Malcolm writes, “wears a mask of goodness.” At many points in Argentieri’s film we see Gondal’s mask drop. But the woman it reveals remains a puzzle — to me, to Argentieri and even to herself.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMost of us aren’t obsessing over it Tom. It is only the wretched BBC that is obsessing over it in their vicious and demented desire to discredit the government in any way they can.
I agree that as usual, journalists are being unhelpful. But there is nothing wrong with a stretch target, a very common and normal business tactic. Whether you get there or not, it makes the workforce try hard..
I agree with the sentiment behind the points made in this article but politicians and governments should be held to account when they make pledges of any kind.
Even in the case of the arbitrary 100,000 number, Hancock pledged that this would be the number of tests carried out daily by now, and has since changed his statement and spoken in terms of capacity. He offers no rationale for the change of phrasing and thus should be pressed to provide one.
Although this particular case of moving the goalposts is ultimately irrelevant in real terms, the principle of politicians promising things only to go back on them at later date without acknowledging that they have done so, is a habit that needs to be booted out of politics.
The minute journalists cease to press politicians to explain their u-turns or subtle rephrasing of explicit pledges, we encourage the cycle of dishonesty and ambiguity, and hand more power from the people over to the politicians.
The Government has been very clear, the target is for tests carried out, not for testing capacity.
That’s what they initially said, yes. Then in the last week of April, Hancock et al switched and started talking in terms of capacity rather than tests carried out. They moved the goalposts without explanation or acknowledgement. Not very clear at all…
And today (1st May) we find out that the government is claiming to have met (and exceeded) its target. However, when looking at the numbers, “people tested” falls well below the 100k threshold. They topped up the numbers with “number of tests sent out to people”. Even if we take your comment as correct (which it isn’t), they have still fudged the numbers without explanation or acknowledgement. It’s shady, dishonest, and should be queried.
Absolutely 100% agree. It has just become another foil for bloviating TV and Radio 4 pundits to gibber about.
The German testing success, which the media and government keep referring to has nothing to do with testing. On Marr on Sunday the next German Ambassador to the UK (Andreas Michaelis) distanced himself from the assertion. How can it have? The best guesstimate for the number of Germasn having had the virus is 7.5 – 10 million. Their test program has found 160,000, That represents circa 2% of the cases that are beleived to have occurred. What difference does that make? The German success is the death rate not the case rate. They must have wrapped up their old and vulnerable exceptionally well. We need to ask them how they did it.
Hancock set himself up to fail, he panicked pulled out a figure to satisfy press scrutiny and then crossed his fingers that it could be done, it wasn’t a goal it was a wish.Clearly he’s never been in business, if he had been he would have known that this situation was crying out for the classic under promise over deliver. As a result Hancock, I am afraid, is serving on borrowed time.
I hope so. Another chancer in a cohort of charlatans.
Tom Chivers identified the system which the TV Leftwing political hacks used to try to get a GOTCHA over a Tory government minister. This was just a political ploy to rubbish the government.
The trap the Luvies failed to see: Criticism of the governments efforts over their COVID-19 campaign have now brought calls for a review, which will bring the beloved NHS into the spotlight. NHS Quangoes may not be able to dodge.
But he did not fail. He smashed his target. Obviously he had to pull a number of stokes to do it, but it was important to show the immense challenges could be overcome and thereby give confidence that the even bigger challenge which is to get out of this mess and get our economy back in some semblance of order can also be met.
Hear hear
A program to avoid
Don’t you mean progrom? Or have you resorted to American spelling as a means of stressing your Celtic identity?
All pogroms should be avoided. They’re beyond the Pale of Settlement.
Having bee sexually active since the early 1970s, I believe I have the experience to state that sex between brain-functioning men and women need not be continually punctuated by requests for permission, apologies, self-doubt, etc. A truly “normal” person can sense how far to go, what to do or not to do, and just enjoy him or herself and get on with it.
It was certainly foolish of Hancock to pluck an arbitrary figure out of the air and then commit to reaching it by a specific date. However, Tom, I can tell you that, now it looks like – amazingly – the target might be met, the media have already stopped obsessing about it and changed the goalposts.
See the BBC website yesterday: “Is who we test more important than how many?”
But .. an independent review of a global pandemic is impossible, unless Star Trek is real and you have some Vulcans handy
Meantime, here is an alternative point of view. It makes for difficult reading, but an uncomfortable amount of it rings true: https://medium.com/@indica/…
“Judge Wilson believes that if a living thing is not a person, then one has the right to end its life. She also believes that a foetus is a person. Therefore, Judge Wilson concludes that no one has the right to end the life of a foetus.” This is the logically unsound argument (I think).
If I’m right then an initial reaction might be to pat myself on the back and tell myself how rational and logical my thinking is. I would, however, also do well to notice that the focus of that particular syllogism (i.e. abortion) is a topic that I am uncertain of and have yet to formulate a strong opinion about…
Following the idea that partisanship blinds in the face of confirmation, my indecisiveness and non-partisanship on the topic of abortion meant that the syllogism stuck out to me like a sore thumb as logically unsound, whereas this may not have been so glaring if I was strictly “pro-life” or “pro-choice”. In other words, my opinion that “I don’t yet have a firm opinion on the topic of abortion” may have meant that syllogism stuck out to me immediately as logically unsound because it does contain “firm opinions” on the topic of abortion – effectively the opposing stance to mine.
Or I’m over-thinking things and it’s simply just the one that is logically unsound and not actually that difficult to spot in any case. But at least I was right…
Unfortunately the government and the various supporting quangos have shown themselves to be repeatedly wrong and easy targets. The testing is just one area, the others insufficient and inadequate PPE, ventilators, beds, general preparedness when they have even run scenario exercises, centralisation, logistics (only worked with support from the military). The bloated ineffective quangos such as PHE who nobody is tackling. They should thank themselves lucky the news system is not more thorough.
This comments system is glitching, replacing about half a dozen comments with just one.
Great opinion piece from Sarah. On a minor point, “recherche theories” might be better written as “recherché theories”. The English language gets along quite well without any diacritical marks for homegrown words, and there is a temptation to omit them all from all words borrowed from foreign borrowings as well. In Canada, my country, where French is an official language, one is more likely to see the diacritical marks included, but usage varies in English-language publications, so one will find, for example, both Rivière-du-Loup (it means “Wolf River”) and Riviere-du-Loup being used for the city in Eastern Quebec, but no Anglophone would ever pronounce “Riviere” with two syllables instead of three. The word “recherché” poses a particular problem, because unlike “rivière”, the unaccented word is a noun with a meaning, “research” or “search”, quite different from the adjective, “exotic” or “pretentious”. It would seem to me that hear the danger may be, not so much that the use of the diacritical mark may be seen as an affectation by an anglophone reader as its omission may be misleading to a francophone reader with imperfect grasp of English, who might misleadingly think that the idea that girls’ eyes are specially adapted to spotting berries is one of the most carefully researched theories of sexual differences, which is not what Sarah is saying. I presume Sarah is already reaching an international audience; I am reading her after all. To my mind, even if the diacritical mark is generally omitted, it should always be included where the omission implies a difference in meaning, and therefore a chance of misunderstanding. Incidentally, the great Henry Fowler, who was opposed to the pretentious use of French in English, seemed to have no objection to diacritics as such, and lists “recherché” as a French word in common use in his “Modern English Usage”.
To eradicate the virus we’ll need the capability to test millions a day and get more or less instant results. I’d like to see journo’s sticking that on the table and challenging the government to say it’s unnecessary or unachievable.
Yawn. UnHerd is losing it with this sort of sub-women”s page filler (which is sexist in itself). More generally, UnHerd seems to have moved to too much in quantity, too little in quality. Time to get back to the basics that made it so refreshing as a start-up.
Developers looking to buy up hotel blocks at quiet spots in the UK e.g. Heathrow.
“
What sort of sexist are you?
The superficial niceness of benevolent sexism allows boys to hang onto it more easily”
Isn’t your headline sexist?
Well said, Peter. I hope all the people who read Giles Fraser’s condescending column, “What Peterson Shares with Pelagius” read yours, which almost appears to be written as a rebuttal.
I didn’t know anything about Claire Lehmann before I read this, so I watched an interview of her with John Anderson, and she is simply marvelous. Thank you so much, Peter, for getting me interested in her work. The “intellectual dark web” sounds like something Doctor Strange will have to defeat if there is a movie sequel, and it is just some NYT journo’s pejorative term for a gaggle of conservative thinkers who can be found on the internet. It shows how the woke left seeks to demonize conservatives rather than to understand them. By the way, Peter makes no mention of Debra Soh, the brilliant Ontario sex researcher who is an ally of Jordan Peterson, although she is mentioned as a member of the intellectual dark web in the NYT article. Peter may have inadvertently given the impression that the so-called IDW intellectuals are all Caucasian, or even worse, that one must be a Caucasian to be a member of the club. That’s not the case.