Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA),

will deliver a prayer at the National Prayer Service on January 21st. This
designation has prompted many people to ask, “Who is Ingrid Mattson?”

Our friends at the Center for Security Policy released the research brief
below that reveals who Mattson is and what she believes – in her own
words.

It is sufficiently problematic that ISNA, the organization of which Ingrid

Mattson is president, was designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the
Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial (which produced guilty
verdicts on 108 counts). Mattson’s words and views beg the question:
When there are Muslims in America who have publicly spoken out against
Jihad, against shariah law, and against ISNA, why was Ingrid Mattson
chosen for this interfaith prayer service?

Prayer Service.
ISNA's Ingrid Mattson in Her Own Words

Center for Security Policy (Research Brief)

August 23, 2008
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?sid=140&categoryid=140&subca
tegoryid=141
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/5544

1) Mattson places loyalty to Islam before loyalty to the United States of America:

If Muslim Americans are to participate in such a critique of American policy, however,

they will only be effective if they do it, according to the Prophet's words, in a "brotherly"
fashion. This implies a high degree of loyalty and affection. This does not mean,
however, that citizenship and religious community are identical commitments, nor that
they demand the same kind of loyalty. People of faith have a certain kind of solidarity
with others of their faith community that transcends the basic rights and duties of
citizenship.

2) Mattson on the possibility that Americans may "rise to the challenge of defining
themselves as an ethical nation":

The first duty of Muslims in America, therefore, is to help shape American policies so
they are in harmony with the essential values of this country. In the realm of foreign
policy, this "idealistic" view has been out of fashion for some time. Indeed, the American
Constitution, like foundational religious texts, can be read in many different ways. The
true values of America are those which we decide to embrace as our own. There is no
guarantee, therefore, that Americans will rise to the challenge of defining themselves as
an ethical nation; nevertheless, given the success of domestic struggles for human dignity
and rights in the twentieth century, we can be hopeful.

3) Mattson denies the existence of terrorist cells in the United States:

There's a prejudgment, a collective judgment of Muslims, and a suspicion that well "you
may appear nice, but we know there are sleeper cells of Americans," which of course is
not true. There aren't any sleeper cells.

4) Mattson defends Wahhabism:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: What can you tell us about the Wahhabi sect of Islam? Is it true
that this is an extremely right wing sect founded and funded by the Saudi royal family,
and led by Osama bin Ladin? What is the purpose of the Wahhabi?

MATTSON: No it's not true to characterize 'Wahhabism' that way. This is not a sect. It is
the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of
cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really
was analogous to the European protestant reformation. Because the Wahhabi scholars
became integrated into the Saudi state, there has been some difficulty keeping that
particular interpretation of religion from being enforced too broadly on the population as
a whole. However, the Saudi scholars who are Wahhabi have denounced terrorism and
denounced in particular the acts of September 11. Those statements are available
publicly.

This question has arisen because last week there were a number of newspaper reports that
were dealing with this. They raised the issue of the role of Saudi Arabia and the ideology
there. Frankly, I think in a way it was a reaction to the attempts of many people to look
for the roots of terrorism in misguided foreign policy. It's not helpful, I believe, to create
another broad category that that becomes the scapegoat for terrorism.

5) Mattson on the negative effects of the end of the Islamic Caliphate:

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Osama bin Laden made a reference that Muslims have been
living in humiliation for 80 years. Did he refer to the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 that
dismantled caliphates and sultanates?

MATTSON: Yes, he is referring to that, to the overthrowing of the caliphate, which was a
plan of European powers for many years. This deprived the Muslim world of a stable and
centralized authority, and much of the chaos that we're living in today is the result of
that.

6) Mattson teaches the jihadists Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abu'l-`Ala Mawdudi in her course
at Hartford Seminary – see the syllabus here.

7) Mattson praises the jihadist Mawdudi (aka Maududi):

In response to another question, "Please suggest any comprehensive work of Tafseer
(Qur'anic commentary) for us Muslim youth," she said, "There are different kinds of
Tafseers. For e.g. there are ones that contain detailed interpretations of grammatical
aspects of Qur'anic language. And there are others that serve to explain the general
message of Qur'an, coupled with the experiences and insights of the author of the Tafseer.
However, there aren't really any Tafseers that combine the both aspects. So far, probably
the best work of Tafseer in English is by Maulana Abul A'la Maududi.'"

Maududi on jihad (Jihad in Islam, page 9): "Islam wishes to destroy all States and
Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and
programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose
of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of
which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation
is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. It must
be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate
the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule.
Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the
aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Maududi on denial of rights to non-Muslims (Jihad in Islam, page 28): "Islamic 'Jihad'
does not recognize their right to administer State affairs according to a system which, in
the view of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic 'Jihad' also refuses to admit their right to
continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the public
interest from the viewpoint of Islam."

Maududi on Shariah Law's precedence over any other legal system (Islamic Law and Its
Introduction, p. 13): That if an Islamic society consciously resolves not to accept the
Sharia, and decides to enact its own constitution and laws or borrow them from any other
source in disregard of the Sharia, such a society breaks its contract with God and forfeits
its right to be called 'Islamic.'"

8) Although she recommends and teaches Abdul ala Maududi, who advocates violent
jihad against non-Muslims (see above), Mattson is highly critical of Christians who make
the factual statement that texts by Muslims support violent jihad against non-Muslims --
and she equates Christian critics of violent jihad with Osama bin Laden, who wages
violent jihad. Mattson on critical statements by Christians about Muslims:

"These kinds of statements are really irresponsible, because they can lead to violence
against ordinary people......I don't see any difference between that and al Qaeda and
Osama bin Laden [using] Islamic theology to justify violence against Americans. What's
interesting is if you compare [their] statements about what Islam is and what Muslims
believe, you'll find they are almost identical, and I reject both interpretations -- both the
non-Muslims who are saying that Islam justifies violence against Christians and Jews,
and the Muslims who are saying it. Certainly these statements have a very unnerving
effect, especially when they continue, when more than one person says it."
9) Mattson is a traditionalist on Shariah law and the legitimacy of Shariah authorities:

"As a practicing Muslim, I believe that there is a core of fundamental beliefs and
practices that distinguish authentic Islam from deviations. I also believe that apart from
this essential core, the task of interpreting the application of Islamic norms to human
society is an enormously complicated task, which inevitably leads to a broad range of
opinion and practice. I agree with " Sunni" Muslims, the majority of the Muslim
community worldwide, that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, no one has the
right to claim infallibility in the interpretation of sacred law. At the same time, this does
not mean that all opinions are equal, nor that everyone has the ability to interpret law.
Without the intense study of Islamic texts and traditions under qualified scholars and
without the presence of a stable Muslim community through which one can witness the
wisdom of the living tradition, the chances of an ordinary believer arriving at a correct
judgment about most legal issues are slim."

16) Mattson limits dialogue:

"Thus, it is not permitted for a Muslim to maintain a close friendship with a highly
intelligent person who engages him or her in stimulating conversation, if that person
continuously derides the sacred (Qur'an 5:57-58). Indeed, since preserving faith is the
highest priority, it is important that Muslims avoid demoralizing dependence on other
faith communities for their protection and material needs....Clearly there are groups
among American Christians and Jews who are so hostile to Muslims that we should not
join with them even in shared concerns, lest we lend any credibility to their organizations.
There are many other groups within those communities, however, who are eager to work
respectfully with Muslims to further just causes."

Click here to continue reading this article.