I wrote to the NYT, as below. There's no chance of their running this as a letter or as anything else, but there's always the hope that sub-editors will read it and something may stick....
Ingrid Mattson, head of ISNA, at left in full clobber.
"ISNA"?
Read on, and learn....
RE: White House Quietly Courts Muslims in U.S.
By ANDREA ELLIOTT
Published: April 18, 2010
Why would you give space to Ingrid Mattson, head of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)? And report favourably on the permission given to that smooth salesman Tariq Ramadan? And report uncritically on the Administration’s efforts to “reach out” to the Muslim community which amount — in the words of the article itself — to no more than further extensive accommodation of Muslim (over)sensitivities....
Mattson’s ISNA is a front of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) has been identified by the Department of Justice and the FBI, as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood - a global Islamist movement with the stated mission in America of "destroying Western civilization from within."
Like other Brotherhood operations, ISNA's purpose is to promote "soft jihad" - the task of steadily insinuating the draconian Sharia Law in the west, by proselytizing and social-networking.
ISNA is unindicted terror organisation, and gives money to terror-linked “charities”.
Your article points out that ISNA has also been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the United States' largest alleged terrorism financing conspiracy, and that funds have gone to Hamas [which we know is a nominated terror organisation, with a viciously murderous and anti-Semitic Charter]. In your article, Mattson’s ISNA denies these links and those to the Brotherhood, but so what? They are clearly and unambiguously on record and unimpeachable. That should have been researched and stated by Elliot. Why was it not?
Mattson teaches from radical texts:
A course taught by Dr. Mattson at the Hartford Seminary entitled "The Koran and Its Place in Muslim Life and Society" features readings from texts by two of the Islam ideology's most revered — and extreme -- figures: Syed Abul A'la Maududi and Sayyid Qutb. Qutb was the “father” of al-Qaeda’s ideology. Mattson has publicly credited Maududi with producing "probably the best work of [Koranic commentary] in English”:
Maududi has described the Islamists' agenda as follows:
"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the Earth which are opposed to the ideology and program 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 program, 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. ... 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."
This is pretty clear. Why are we dealing with people like Mattson who believe this sort of dangerous stuff??? And not just classroom theoretical stuff, either, but stuff people act on.
Mattson supports Wahhabism:
In a CNN Chatroom on October 18 2001, she defended Wahhabism, the progenitor of Taliban and al-Qaeda ideology:
MATTSON: No it's not true to characterized '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. [sic!!]
Tariq Ramadan is no moderate
There are similar problems with the so-called “moderate” Tariq Ramadan, and allowing him entry to the U.S. just because Obama wants to “reach out” to the Muslim community is just playing with fire, for this man is also working for the grand sharia project. He is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and has never renounced their ideology. Guess what the thinks about that, then.
What cooperation from Muslims?
You say Muslims and Arab-Americans are an “increasing partner in countering the threat of homegrown terrorism”. This is refuted by the detailed FBI evidence in “Muslim Mafia” a recent book which shows that mainstream and so-called moderate Islamic voices such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are worse than useless in the fight against terror: for while saying publically they abhor terrorism, behind the scenes they are working against the ability of counter-terrorism bodies to do their work. The book contains exhaustive and detailed documentation to support this conclusion. As one of the FBI officers said: “CAIR never met a counter-terrorism measure it didn’t hate”.
Elliot’s own article gives lie to the statement about “partnership”, as every case mentioned is something which has been done to accommodate Muslims: less “intrusive” screening at airports, changing surveillance guidelines for Muslims, reducing “no-fly” lists, and so on. There is NOT ONE example of how the Muslim population or any of its organisations -- ISNA, CAIR or any other -- has actually helped in the effort to thwart terror attacks. Why is there no such example? Because none exists.
Meantime, I wonder how that Obama offer to reach out the open hand to Iran, I wonder how that “courting” is going. Hmmm... Not too well, by the looks....
Shame on Andrea Elliot for her poor article and shame on NYT/IHT for running it.
Yours, etc.
PS: for more information on Mattson see link here. Atlas Shrugged, August 23, 2008.
