Read his excellent piece by Joe Kaufman here:


According to Mattson, in the summer of 1987, around the time of her Muslim conversion, she came across a book entitled Islam, by Fazlur Rahman. In it, Rahman wrote of an attack on a Jewish tribe that, in his estimation, was “occupying” Medina” and that, as punishment for their “Jewish treachery,” they were “ruthlessly massacred.” He wrote that the “most sinister and heartless role was played by the ‘Hypocrites’ [Muslim traitors] who were no doubt in league with the Jews.” Of the book, Mattson stated, “His book sparked in me a keen desire to study the classical heritage of Islamic theology and law.”

Evidently, Rahman’s book had “sparked” much more in her, as she soon after would leave for Peshawar  

Today, Mattson continues to surround herself with radicals. Aside from her current role as President of a group tied to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, in December of 2006 and January of 2007, Mattson participated in ‘Live Dialogues’ on Islam Online, a website that supports suicide bombings, mandates attacks against American troops, prescribes murder for homosexuals, and discusses how to behead human beings.

Besides speaking at each others’ functions, ISNA and URJ seem to have forged a close bond with one another. URJ is listed on ISNA’s website as a “Partner” organization. As well, both groups have created a forum together, titled ‘Children of Abraham: Muslims and Jews in Conversation.’ Information about the function, including introductory letters from Mattson and Yoffie, is found on ISNA’s site. According to Yoffie, the two groups “must share equally the costs of the program.”

Director of Projects for Afghan Refugee Women. She operated out of Akora Khattak, a small town where dozens of Taliban leaders, including Taliban Commander Mullah Mohammed Omar, were educated at Darul Uloom Haqqania a.k.a. “University of Jihad.”

Center for Security Policy Research Brief: August 23, 2008

Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America: In Her Own Words

Mattson places loyalty to Islam before loyalty to the United States of America

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.

Mattson on Americans 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.”

  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.

Mattson defends the extremist Wahhabi interpretation of Islam:

“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.”

Mattson on 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.”

Mattson teaches the Islamist extremists Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abu’l-`Ala Mawdudi in her course at  Seminary – see the syllabus here:

Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur’an, translation of Fi Zilal al-Quran by M.A. Salahi and A.A. Shamis (Leicester, UK: Islamic Foundation, 1999), 355-372.

Syed Abu’l-`Ala Mawdudi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, translation of Tafhim al-Qur’an by Zafar Ishaq Ansari (Leicester, UK: The Islamic Foundation, 1993), v. 4, 75-107

Mattson is quoted as praising Islamist extremist 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.

[Background on Abdul ala Maududi here: ]

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:

“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:


Once again the Dhimmicrats give a platform,  legitimacy and credence to the jihad. America will have to stop the Democrats if they hope to win the war on the West by Islamic jihad. Obama’s convention. Carter and Matteson. Perfect.

The Democratic National Convention Committee today announced the program for its first-ever interfaith gathering, which kicks off at 2 p.m. Aug. 24 at Wells Fargo Theater in the Colorado Convention Center. A keynote speaker is unbelievably Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. (More here)



Comments are closed.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!