oh just great. And a "convert" no less. I notice she doesn't reside in a Muslim country, but is from Canada. Maybe she would like to live in Saudi Arabia for a while, or any Islamic country, and then tell us what she thinks.

Glad I'm not attending...

Posted by: gymgal at August 22, 2008 12:39 PM

These clueless women who convert to islam should go live in wonderful iran or the land of the sauds, and let them live a real truley muslim life for a decade and then ask for an interview back in the land of kafirs. these women make me ill and how the media plays into their stupid comments.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 22, 2008 12:45 PM

Why is a Canadian chosen to represent Islam at an American political convention? Was she the most plausible representative who could be found? Is there not an American Muslimah who tried, a few years ago, to lead other Muslimahs in a Muslim service in defiance of the males wishing to put them in their place? Wouldn't that be much more of a stirring example, particularly since the Candidate Of Choice has made many women unhappy with his treatment of Hillary Clinton? Why choose someone who, as one of those curious converts who become so much more enthusiastic, with a convert's dangerous gleam in the mind's eye -- plus islamiste que les musulmanes -- has stood up for the Muslim oppression of women?

Not a good choice. Or put otherwise, a choice so bad that once the views about women that the female convert to Islam Ingrid Mattson so stoutly defends -- right down to the "portable seclusion" of the burqa -- it will be an occasion for discussion, up and down the land, for what the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and leading Muslims, and such defectors from the Army of Iswlam as Wafa Sultan, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, tell us.

Imagine a world where Ingrid Mattson parades her loyalty to female submission, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes out, in her quiet but indomitable way, swinging.

Who is going to be listened to? Who is more believable? Who is more winning?

What a choice.

Posted by: Hugh at August 22, 2008 12:58 PM

Here's just a little news item just in, expressing the perfectly mainstream Muslim view of women, that is of Women Being Made To Know Their Place. What is Nancy Pelosi, what is Governor Sebelius, what are others going to make of what follows below, once everyone and his brother brings it to their attention? Anything? Nothing?

"What Islam Wants: Islam's Diabolical Plan According to Pakistan's Jamat-e-Islami Party

18 Aug, 2008

Jamhooria Islamia, a monthly Baluchi magazine published from Panj-gar, published an interview in its 1999 February issue with Maulana Nawabzadaa Nabiullah Khan, a confidant of and adviser to Maulana Qazi Ahmed—the Amir of the leading Pakistani Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami. The interview was conducted by Jalil Amir. The following constitutes are excerpts from that conversation which reveals the fundamentalist ideology and designs of the organization and its leader.

EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN IS STUPIDITY

Q: The women issue is very controversial nowadays. Taliban and some fundamentalist organizations restrict the freedom of women while some progressive Muslim intellectuals are insisting that the women are equal to men in all spheres. What are Qazi's views on women?

A: As I said earlier, the Prophet Mohammad's (PBUH) views on women are the exact views of Qazi Ahmed and the Jamat. Equality of men and women is stupidity. What men can do, women cannot do. Women are weak physically and mentally compared to men. Men have to take care of women all the time.

WOMEN MUST STAY HOME

Women should not have a life outside the family. Education can be provided to them, but not to compete with men in public.

NO VOTING RIGHTS FOR WOMEN UNDER SHARIA

Qazi had said once that when JI comes to power in Pakistan, he will abolish the voting rights of women and minorities. Only the Muslim men can participate in voting or standing for elections. When I asked the proof from Hadiths, he had quoted many Hadiths in support of that. I asked him why is it that it is never talked about openly in the public by the Jamaat? Qazi had said that the hints are all over the place. But JI did not make it a big issue since the women who currently have the voting rights may vote against JI in the elections if such a thing is said openly."

Go ahead, Democratic Convention, they must be saying at McCain Headquarters. Make My Day.

Posted by: Hugh at August 22, 2008 1:02 PM

I wonder if any JW folk in Denver have anything planned to counter this nonsense.

Posted by: undaunted at August 22, 2008 1:07 PM

This political party conspicuously avoids Denver's Catholic Archbishop, Charles Chaput (just as they ignored Boston's Catholic prelate four years ago), yet pointedly invites oddballs like Ingrid Mattson. I despise Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi and their plaintive party.

Posted by: John C at August 22, 2008 1:11 PM

there is another comment l think is worthy of discussion, you have a Western born and raised women who is a convert to islam which is so anti West and anti women's rights and you shake your head as to why would any sane women do this to herself? Well you have a person if she remained a Catholic would be perhaps a non entity, but take this very non Arab looking women born and educated and she is a star via Saudi$$$! Look at the attention this rather non person now a muslim women is entitled to be heard even at an Amer.Democrat convention! l mean how low can the Democrats go! So like many converts, they are attention getters and love the lime light given to them. These Western people are not the brave insightful thoughtful persons that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali who have death threats hanging on their heads. These converts are not the least brave but rather empthy headed vessels being filled with the evil brainwashing islamis cult.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 22, 2008 1:15 PM

Hugh, you're on to something. In the interest of multicultural pluralism and tolerant accomodation, Nancy Pelosi should don an abayah or chadour, and be secluded in purdah.

Posted by: John C at August 22, 2008 1:27 PM

How nice!!! B. Hussein Obama campaigns all over Europe and now he brings a Canadian Muslim to speak. He had to fire his Islamic buddy recently because the media discovered that he was tied to terrorism. He said his Muslim buddy was to promote Muslim "outreach". Muslim outreach according to the Islamic writings means, "become Muslim or we kill you". I'm sure she will put on a good face in order to get as many fools as possible to join with her and B. Hussein Obama. The Muslim Brotherhood is responsible for killings all over the world.

Posted by: Spot on at August 22, 2008 1:32 PM

Here's an alternative to Ingrid Mattson: Amina Wadud

From Wikipedia:

"Wadud was the subject of much debate and Muslim juristic discourse after leading a Friday prayer (salat) of over 100 male and female Muslims in the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York on March 18, 2005, breaking with the tradition of having only male imams (prayer leaders). Three mosques had refused to host the service and the museum that had agreed to host it pulled out after a bomb threat. (The event was not the first time in the history of Islam that a woman had led the Friday prayer. See Women as imams for a discussion of the issue.)

In August 1994, Wadud delivered a Friday khutbah (sermon) on "Islam as Engaged Surrender" at the Claremont Main Road Mosque in Cape Town, South Africa. At the time, this was largely unheard of in the Muslim world. As a result, there were attempts in Virginia by some Muslims to have her removed from her position at Virginia Commonwealth University.

There has been objection and some support from Muslims around the world to Wadud's imamate. In spite of the criticism, Wadud has continued her speaking engagements, and has continued to lead mixed-gender Friday prayer services. On October 28, 2005, following her talk at the International Congress on Islamic Feminism in Barcelona, Spain, she was invited to lead a congregation of about thirty people.

The majority of the Islamic community, whether laymen and Islamic scholars, are opposed to the idea of women leading mixed gender congregations, but allow women to lead women only.[1] However, some jurists, such as the Iranian Shi'i jurist Mohsen Kadivar have espoused her view on the permissibility of female imams. It must be clarified, however, that most Shi'is do not agree with Kadivar's views."

Posted by: Hugh at August 22, 2008 1:40 PM

Or Irshad Manji.

She's Canadian, and a self-described Muslim. Just like Ingrid Mattson, except not quite.

Posted by: Hugh at August 22, 2008 1:42 PM

Or Asra Nomani, who has her points, even though she doesn't come clean, in Wall Street Journal articles or on NPR, about Muhammad and the age at which he had his way with little Aisha, whom she demurely describes as a "young woman." Still, she'd be better than Ingrid Mattson. And she was raised in West Virginia, a state Obama would love to win.

Posted by: Hugh at August 22, 2008 1:43 PM

If the "close adviser" (Karen Hughes) to the POTUS can speak to this group and urge "people of all faiths to speak out against the "backlash and widespread demonization of Islam and Muslims" that followed the 9/11 attacks and the London bombings, blamed on Muslim extremists", Republicans would seem to have little to complain about. Do they want inclusivity or not? If ISNA welcomes officeholders to its conventions can we fail to reciprocate?
(sarc on) That's just bad manners! (sarc off)
The Justice Department CO-SPONSORED ISNA's convention last year, just two years after Hughes was sent to offer best wishes to terrorists. If the Executive Branch of our government can offer aid and support to terrorists then surely that same group can be allowed to speak at the Democratic convention.
It's "outreach" when the government does it?
In the political world, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

A pox on both houses!
While this doesn't make Obama look good it also shouldn't redound to McCain's benefit.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-09/03/article01.shtml

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/27/us-sponsors-islamic-convention/

Posted by: PMK at August 22, 2008 1:48 PM

Zena: You absolutely nailed the sophomoric motivation.

Posted by: Moonzoo at August 22, 2008 1:55 PM

A pox on both houses!
While this doesn't make Obama look good it also shouldn't redound to McCain's benefit.

PMK

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Spot on at August 22, 2008 2:04 PM

All this symbolic touchy-feelie posturing has reached the point of mental illness.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at August 22, 2008 2:41 PM

Hugh

You forgot Farah Pandit, except that she may be a Republican.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 22, 2008 2:54 PM

This issue has gotten coverage on two Fox News segments today.

Any bets as to whether she'll make her appearance anyway?

Posted by: PRCS at August 22, 2008 6:33 PM

What the hell ever happened to the separation of church and state???

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 22, 2008 6:42 PM

I object to the Democratic convention's unconscionable discrimination against the many patriotic American (and mostly Democratic-voting) devotees of Voodooism, pro-polygamy Mormonism, Hinduism, Taoism, Sikhism, Bahaism, and Wicca.

In the name of multicultural egalitarian relativistic nonjudgmentalism I demand to know why the leaders of those faiths will not be represented at the convention!!

Let the Dems not excuse their choices on the ground that Wicca, e.g., isn't a religion: I've read that the armed forces have Wiccan clergypersons. And all the other faith-communities named above are indisputably religions by anybody's definition. Ah, but they lack one doctrine that is central to Islam; can anyone guess what that is? (Janet Reno would know the answer; she killed all the members of one sect that she disapproved of, and she didn't even ask them first to convert.)

Posted by: Aileen at August 23, 2008 6:53 AM

Now, what will the Republicans do about this ? Will ANYONE have the b*lls to announce a news conference and denounce this so America will know what's going on ? I doubt it !

Posted by: Sonic109 at August 23, 2008 12:02 PM

Sonic109 is right; no Republican will have the guts to denounce it. Basically the reason Mattson will be at the convention is FEAR (the various other belief-systems I mentioned in my previous post don't elicit fear, so they can be ignored). But the pretext is self-congratulatory ecumenicism. See how broad-minded we Democrats are!

And it must be said that many Republicans and conservatives feed that delusion by buying Daniel Pipes's formula that "radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution." Whole thinktanks work 'round the clock to find that elusive criterion that will allow us to distinguish the former from the latter. This web site has proven why they will continue to fail.

So the Democrats who have planned the convention have reason to fear Muslim retributive savagery; the record of thousands of atrocities warrants that fear. It's the motive behind their succumbing to it -- the self-deluding pretext of tolerance and liberal multiculturalism -- that should be a prime target of our verbal attacks.

Posted by: Aileen at August 23, 2008 12:30 PM