| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
More fluff from Islam’s “poster girl,” Ingrid Mattson. “Facing Challenges: breaking down stereotypes,” by Barabara Karkabi, for the Houston Chronicle, July 11:
Ingrid Mattson lost her faith as a teenager. Years later she found it again in the pages of the Quran and the teachings of Islam.You know, for good PR.Since then, Mattson has been somewhat of a poster girl for Muslim women. Two years ago she made headlines when she became the first woman and first convert elected to head the Islamic Society of North America.
Mattson wears a head scarf, or hijab, and dresses modestly in long sleeves and ankle-length skirts or dresses. She also has strong views on the role of women in Islam, which she backs up with examples from the life of the prophet Muhammad and the Quran.Which verses? Perhaps these?
"The thing to understand is that Islam treats women as spiritual equals to men," Mattson said. "Muslim women have the same obligation to pay charity, to perform community service, all of those things. What looks different is that women wear more modest dress, not to oppress or demean them but to allow them to be in the public space without being harassed or distracted."“Use” Islam, she says—as in “exploit,” “distort,” and “misrepresent.” Seems that any Muslim who wants four wives, conquered women (ma malakat aymenkum), the ability to beat them all for misbehaving, while expecting double their inheritance, is not "using” Islam, but simply enjoying his rights under shariaShe acknowledged, however, that problems exist. And she is not shy about discussing them.
"It doesn't mean there aren't people who use Islam to justify oppression against women or other actions," she said.
[…]Newsflash: anyone who is knowledgeable of Islam and who also says "that Islam treats women as spiritual equals to men," is sugarcoating things. Aside from the above link, and as for the "spiritual" aspect, Muhammad had a famous vision showing that the vast majority of the denizens of hell will be women."She is very knowledgeable about Islam and its history, and I think she understands and respects the challenges we face here as American Muslims," Razzack said. "She doesn't try to sugarcoat things.
[...]Nothing in the Quran says women must be segregated in the mosque, she said. "When people are immigrants, they have given up so much that they tend to hang on to these cultural markers."
Here, once again, we get the famous “it’s not in the Koran” argument. True. But just as there are a number of authentic hadiths that make it clear that the apostate from Islam is to be slain—and thus, based on sunna, killing apostates is approved by the major madhhabs, irrespective of what the Koran says—so too is sexual segregation sunna. Hence, the segregation of women in mosques and elsewhere, while not a part of the Koran, is a part of Islam.
Posted by Raymond at July 15, 2008 1:52 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"The thing to understand is that Islam treats women as spiritual equals to men,"
She obviously couldn't say that Islam treats women legally as equal to men.
Posted by: Cornelius![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 15, 2008 1:59 PM
"Ingrid Mattson lost her faith as a teenager."
-- from the article above
Oh, is that what she lost? And then she went on a Spiritual Search, and the bus stopped at "Islam" and she got off, and her new companions have made sure she hasn't gotten back on that bus to stop somewhere else -- no, she's found her final mental resting-place, and it's good enough for her, and no doubt, like others with adult-onset Islam, she finds the rules and regulations about every last thiing positively exhilarating, for the necessity of thought is reduced to an absolute, religiously-sanctioned minimum.
What could be better?
There are those who lost other things, of course, in their own teenage years, different from what Mattson apparently misplaced, things that, though in Islam are regarded as colossally important and if you should lose them, you deserve death -- indeed, even a kiss can get you that among some male family members, eager to protect that family's "honor" through, if necessary, sororicide or filicide -- but we who live in more relaxed, bemused, tolerant, understanding, grown-up parts of the world, find that concept of "honor" entirely dishonorable, and are more likely to tap our feet or sing along with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skx3qNBfUm8
at July 15, 2008 2:19 PM
The sola scriptura canard is an aspect of Muslim apologetics that needs all the exposure it can get. Particularly in the mainstream press, the notion that if something isn't specifically spelled out in the Qur'an (though, of course, so many troublesome things are), it's not Islamic, has been allowed to bring many a discussion of problems in the Islamic world to a premature halt.
Part of that problem is the fact that so few Westerners have examined the Qur'an for themselves and appreciated the dependence of the text on commentary and interpretation, and the credibility certain important undertakings (e.g., Tafsir al Jalalayn) find in consensus among Islamic scholars. Bottom line-- more people need to be aware of their role, and of apologists' willingness to throw them under the bus when discussing an uncomfortable issue of Islamic doctrine, tradition, and practice.
Then there are the ahadith, which become equal bus-fodder in the same situation. Qur'an 33:21 (covered in depth in Robert's Qur'an blog this week) provides a sort of elastic clause whereby the sayings and actions of Muhammad, as the supreme example of conduct, become another source of Islamic law. And the depths of taqiyya become apparent when an apologist throws Muhammad himself under the bus (and the "Sahih" collections of Bukhari and Muslim) to ostensibly "win" an argument.
Posted by: MarisolJW at July 15, 2008 2:40 PM
Western converts to Islam like Ingrid Mattson and Bob Crane are arguably the most confused people of all. Someone raised in a Muslim environment from birth is understandably more likely not to know any better, but folks in the West who convert to Islam, especially well educated people, are living proof that a portion of mankind is devoid of the most important intelligence of all, common sense.
Posted by: Wellington at July 15, 2008 2:40 PM
Is she married? Did she gift her womb to a Mohammedan as well? Did she fulfill her role as a tilth?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 15, 2008 2:43 PM
I believe the appropriate phrase is "given over to a reprobate mind".
Posted by: undaunted at July 15, 2008 3:06 PM
Wellington and undaunted-- you're probably familiar with Hugh's term, "psychically marginal." One of my favorites from the Hugh lexicon.
Another aspect, on top of the fact that many potential converts are made highly suggestible by multiculturalist indoctrination, is the level of deception and half-truths in the dawa efforts themselves, which too many people aren't properly informed to question. Dawa often reminds me of timeshare sales pitches (listen to a short presentation and get a free trip!), or those ads in the Sunday paper that used to promise 10 cd's for $1 (or before that, 10 cassettes for a penny): They get their foot in the door with a promise of a lot for so little ("and no obligation!"), but pile on more costs and demands once they've snagged a customer.
The moral of the story: Read the fine print before signing on the dotted line.
Posted by: MarisolJW at July 15, 2008 3:18 PM
"Mattson would like to see women included in the prayer hall instead of being isolated in another room behind a screen or curtained off. It often makes it hard to hear, she said, especially during lectures on Friday, the main day of prayer."
Hard to hear? Funny, I've seen several video clips in which the cleric speaking was extremely vocal ... when calling for the destruction of the West, that is.
at July 15, 2008 3:25 PM
Right on, Marisol.
Posted by: undaunted at July 15, 2008 3:29 PM
Marisol: Yep.
Posted by: Wellington at July 15, 2008 3:34 PM
Great analogy Marisol. Maybe if presented THAT way more people would get it.
I'm not buying one bit of Ingrid's argument. It doesn't hold up at all. More whitewashing in my opinion.
Posted by: gymgal at July 15, 2008 3:42 PM
So is Ingrid Mattson willing to prove her claim?
It is very easy to make a 'verbal claim' and not back it up, in this case Ms. Mattson can prove it.
I suggest the following verifications:
She is to drive in Saudi Arabia without special permission from the goverment.
She is to enter the mosque and sit with the men, she can choose to be veiled or not.
She is to go to Mecca and approach the 'cube'.
She is to have four husbands.
She is to 'marry' only to have sex and 'divorce' an hour later.
She is to castrate muslim men as they would women.
She is to go to Saudi Arabia and leave the home with men and meet other men and talk with them for coffee.
She is to become a female Iman.
Since men are to get 72 virgins upon entry to Paradise, she is to 'identify' what women will get upon entering Paradise.
I will not ask that she do anything with young boys as the muslim men would do and have the legal right to do with young girls.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at July 15, 2008 3:47 PM
Marisol; I'm going to quote you at my blog and link back to this thread for more light from... from all of you.
Thanks.
Posted by: undaunted at July 15, 2008 4:10 PM
I suggest the following verifications:
She is to drive in Saudi Arabia without special permission from the goverment.
She is to enter the mosque and sit with the men, she can choose to be veiled or not.
She is to go to Mecca and approach the 'cube'.
She is to have four husbands.
She is to 'marry' only to have sex and 'divorce' an hour later.
She is to castrate muslim men as they would women.
She is to go to Saudi Arabia and leave the home with men and meet other men and talk with them for coffee.
She is to become a female Iman.
Since men are to get 72 virgins upon entry to Paradise, she is to 'identify' what women will get upon entering Paradise.
Posted by: alaskan1000
I'm guessing that, to each of the above she would say, "that's part of Saudi culture and not part of islam". And if she saw the AP video of the Taliban executing two Afghani women, she would blame "Afghanistan Culture" and not islam.
Posted by: walterc at July 15, 2008 4:38 PM
"The thing to understand is that Islam treats women as spiritual equals to men," Mattson said. "Muslim women have the same obligation to pay charity, to perform community service, all of those things."
Equal obligations perhaps, but what about equal freedoms?
"What looks different is that women wear more modest dress, not to oppress or demean them but to allow them to be in the public space without being harassed or distracted."
In more developed societies there is no need to dress in a sack because harassing women is both culturally and legally forbidden. So what she's really saying is that Muslim men can't keep it together when they see a woman wearing a t-shirt.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at July 15, 2008 5:35 PM
This is not just a problem for women or Westerners. Most Muslims do not know classical Arabic and yet they have to recite it in classical Arabic. This rule would be fine if people wanted to know classical Arabic, but the Q'uran should be allowed to be recited in other languages. I believe this is not done because if it were, all decent people in the Islamic world would question and maybe even leave their faith.
Posted by: Christian at July 15, 2008 6:30 PM
alaskan1000,
All of the things you would have Ms. Mattson do could be ascribed to the physical world. How a man and woman are treated here doesn't matter (to her). What does matter is that all are equal before their god (which would be a first for Islam).
Men and women are equal before God in Christianity too, even though the Catholic Church doesn't allow a woman to become a priest.
That, I suggest, would be her answer to all of your points.
at July 15, 2008 6:31 PM
Western converts to Islam like Ingrid Mattson and Bob Crane are arguably the most confused people of all.
by Wellington
How much of that is deliberate? Do Muslims intentionally sugarcoat Islam when dealing with potential converts? It wouldn't be necessary when dealing with someone born into the faith because that person is locked in. But when you're trying to make a sale, you need to focus on the good points (whatever they are in Islam).
Are converts devoid of common sense or do they just not know any better? It's a thin line between the two but there's a difference between being unable to reason and not having sufficient information to make an informed decision.
Why wouldn't those who seek converts just plain lie about what Islam is all about?
at July 15, 2008 6:42 PM
PMK: Well, in any calculation respecting why Westerners (and again, particularly well educated ones) would convert to an ideology which is so inimical to so much that the best of the Western tradition stands for, I think Marisol's post above recommending Hugh's term, "psychically marginal," should be seriously considered. And I would add that to the extent that someone is psychically marginal, then to that extent that person is also deficient in common sense, my favorite type of intelligence.
Marisol's post also mentions in different phrasing what you too noted and that is the "sugar-coating" aspect of selling a bill of goods, in this case the Islamic faith. Finally, and this would apply most especially to those Western converts to Islam with above average intelligence, what George Orwell remarked about long ago should be kept in mind. He said something to the effect that some ideas are so stupid that they will most appeal to intellectuals. Paul Johnson put it a different way when he noted that no one has done more harm to the world over the last two centuries than the intellectual class. Perhaps Ingrid Mattson and Bob Crane are two representatives in this dubious category.
Posted by: Wellington at July 15, 2008 7:23 PM
"The thing to understand is that Islam treats women as spiritual equals to men," Mattson said. "Muslim women have the same obligation to pay charity, to perform community service, all of those things. What looks different is that women wear more modest dress, not to oppress or demean them but to allow them to be in the public space without being harassed or distracted."
funny i have bean in a nudist camp with my wife and NOT ONE WOMAN WAS HARASSED OR DISTRACTED so i think i would have to think imo that ms mattson has been well brain washed
at July 15, 2008 7:37 PM
"What looks different is that women wear more modest dress, not to oppress or demean them but to allow them to be in the public space without being harassed or distracted"
Could somebody or preferably a muslim here please explain why then do geriatric muslim women still have to wear the total body covering still?
Is the muslim male so savage and sexually out of control that an 80 year old toothless bearded hag is not safe from harassment/attack?
Is this dress "traditional/cultural" or a symbol of subjugation of the female?
Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at July 15, 2008 8:38 PM
At least we're not losing any intelligent women to Islam.
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 15, 2008 8:53 PM
I have just heard from rather famous lawyer friend of mine that the daughter of a very high-ranking police officer was (or is) married to a Muhammedan who beat her nearly to death over something as trivial as letting a tradesman into the house without him being present.
Due to the explosive nature of this 'incident' I am not at liberty to divulge any more, but I don't think it can be swept under the carpet much longer.
Stay tuned for more!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 15, 2008 9:12 PM
Sheik, is this policeman an Australian?
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 15, 2008 9:24 PM
not to oppress or demean them but to allow them to be in the public space without being harassed or distracted."
You notice the harassment is caused by the "Women wearing revealing clothing" and not the Muslim Men who CANNOT CONTROL themselves! Muslim men have to be the weakest humans on earth. Their women must be clothed from head to toe so as to not attack her. These Muslim mean rather attack by ambush and unarmed civilians, women and children are best targets for these Muslim men. l think Muslim women do not realize how powerful they can be to their men if they just use their power by walking unattended by their men, wear short sleeves, no head covering, l mean you would see these Muslim so weakend, they would hanging around like dogs in rut! LOL
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 15, 2008 10:10 PM
Sheik -
I assume you have already referred your lawyer friend to Qur'an 4:34, as blogged and discussed by Mr Spencer, and to 'Reliance of the Traveller', and Joseph Schacht, and other useful pieces of information about sharia, relevant to the case in hand?
Do keep us posted - with whatever may be discreetly and safely made public.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 15, 2008 10:17 PM
Here she is on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCwfFepY4Xc
at July 15, 2008 10:20 PM
2 Timothy 3
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at July 15, 2008 10:25 PM
As for Ms Mattson.
Maybe she is deluded. But maybe not.
One might argue that there are some who are not deceived: they choose, they take pleasure in, Islam precisely for what it is - the spiritual/political/social equivalent of S & M.
There are morally deficient human beings who delight in wielding the whip, who delight in hurting and dominating and humiliating other humans; and there are those who take a perverse pleasure in being dominated, or support the dominators in order to get a thrill from watching the sufferings of the designated victims (one sees the phenomenon in street gangs - the 'weaker' member of the gang who doesn't do the actual beating and kicking themselves, but merely cheers the bullyboys from the sidelines).
Perhaps Ms Mattson is, to use a Rowlings-ism, a Death Eater; she's deliberately chosen to worship the Will-to-Power, the Despot-Slave Domination-Submission paradigm that lies at the core of Islam.
It is quite, quite possible that she *knows* she is lying through her teeth, and is laughing on the other side of her face - like any accomplished con artist - at the suckers who are lapping up her spiel.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 15, 2008 10:30 PM
This 'watered down', western version of Islam that she is speaking of has focused upon many of the less dangerous parts of the Koran.
Undoubtably, if they went to the Middle East and attempted to live there, they would be seen as Apostates. The penalty for leaving Islam is death, and that 'offical' law has been enforced strictly for 1400 years.
Posted by: joe-six-pack at July 15, 2008 10:59 PM
interestinconundrum ;
I watched the Tube and I feel very sorry for her .She is now a very pitiable person. She is neither here nor there.It is a ruined life.She is a terribly overhauled brainwashed submitted woman. Not a Free Soul. She probably didn't understand and grasped the faith into which she was born. She was sort of a clean slate in her mind . And there must be a lot of them like her among men and women who are vulnerable. And some bloody clever Imam or Cleric wrote the story of Islam / Koran on her unsuspecting clean slate mind and has condemned her to a life of subterfuge forever. She can't come out of it now unharmed.That is the prevailing phenomenon tragedy in the blind Muslim world.There are only two kinds of men in that world. Masters and slaves. The masters will and continue to tell lies and whatever that benefits them alone. Can 'spirituality' exist in that world ?. The first requirement for that is freedom of soul and not a caged soul.
Posted by: Kash225 at July 15, 2008 11:52 PM
I am guessing that Ingrid Mattson's parents and siblings are not Islamic. If they were, her treatment by her family and her perception of Islam might be more in keeping with that of the Koran. At this point in her life, she must still think that all families love and treat their children the way she was brought up. She doesn't really know what an Islamic life truly is for a woman. Poor thing, just another "useful idiot."
Posted by: thelittlegreekwoman at July 16, 2008 1:33 AM
ummah & dumbles:
Really I can't tell you more unless I get the green light to do so. Wish I could, but not at this time...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 16, 2008 2:03 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)