Fox News is confused about why the DNC would invite Ingrid Mattson to an interfaith gathering on the eve of the DNC convention.
What's so confusing?
Well, for starters, Ingrid Mattson, a scholar at Hartford Seminary, is a Muslim.
Furthermore, Ingrid Mattson is the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a national, mainstream Muslim organization based in Plainfield, IN.
So what, you ask? I'm wondering the same thing - so what?
Interfaith Gathering BEFORE the Convention
Dr. Mattson participated in an interfaith event in Denver, CO on Sunday on the invitation of the Democratic party. Having a few Muslims at an interfaith event hosted by a major political party in a nation that has a small but strong (and growing) Muslim community seems to make sense.
How "interfaith" would it be if only Christians were invited?
Furthermore, Sunday's event was not an official part of the convention. I think this is an important point.
Robert King of Indystar.com pointed out that Sunday's event was very low key. It afforded the Democrats the opportunity to include Muslims (and thereby gain some flimsy PR cover from charges of exclusion by Muslims) while keeping them out of the public's eye during the convention itself.
The DNC has opening and closing prayers planned throughout the official convention. The prayers will be offered by various clergy. None of these primetime prayers will be offered by a Muslim. Muslims in the U.S. looking for welcome signs should not put too much importance on Sunday's pre-convention interfaith event.
Still, it is better than being completed excluded. The take-away for Muslims should be that there is a long road ahead and that we'll need to keep working at becoming a fully integrated part of American society.
Muslims cannot afford to become disenchanted because Obama's "tightly wrapped message" doesn't make much, if any, room for Muslims. Muslims have been in this country long before Obama was born, and we'll be in this country long after he's retired from politics.
This nation is fully of good people. Muslims need to find common ground with them. For example, Lewis Diuguild, a member of the Kansas City, MO's Star publication editorial board wrote an excellent piece entitled "Muslims in United States are as patriotic as anyone".
Islamophobes Working Hard to Marginalize Moderate Muslims
The blogosphere (for example: see here, here and here) and necon pundits are tripping over one another Dr. Mattson's involvement at the democratic convention.
Dr. Mattson is being labeled a radical and a terrorist sympathizer and her organization (ISNA) is being labeled a front from the Muslim Brotherhood. None of this is true, but when did truth ever get in the way of Islamophobes?
For example, Frank J. Gaffney, wrting for Family Secuirty Matters, suggests that ISNA is a Saudi Arabian funded organization and that ISNA is one of many Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups in America.
Mr. Gaffney, nor any of the many bloggers writing about Dr. Mattson and ISNA, can point to anything that substantiates their claims.
The fact is that Dr. Mattson is a Muslim who speaks out against extremism and is in no way a supporter of terrorism. It is also a fact that ISNA is a mainstream organization.
In fact Gaffney himself points out that:
"Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and former Under Secretaries of State Nick Burns and Karen Hughes are among the senior U.S. government officials who have lavished praise on the group and legitimated ISNA by meeting with Dr. Mattson and others."
Tom Trento, speaking for a group called Obsession Watch, makes similar, unsubstantiated allegations about ISNA and Dr. Mattson (by association to ISNA). In a press release carried by the Christian News Wire (which bills itself as "the nation's leading distributor of religious press releases") makes all sorts of sensational allegations (all in quotes and without any attribution to sources) about ISNA.
(For Tom it is a good strategy for getting some attention at the convention. He's going to be there and will be available for interviews. Tom knows that anti-Muslim bigotry couched in terms of patriotism and/or national security are bound to get him some ink.)
The Lowdown on ISNA
It is true that not everyone likes ISNA. But its hardly for the sensational and unseemly reasons given by Gaffney and the folks at Obsession Watch and bloggers.
ISNA is a somewhat frumpy, not so accessible, hardly grassroots and somewhat out of touch with younger Muslims organization. Or, at least that is one view of it within the Muslim community in the U.S. To others its a far too liberal organization and is frowned upon my more conservative Muslims in the U.S. Oh yes, and to some up and coming Muslims looking to make a name for themselves, ISNA can be a spotlight hogging, contacts and connections coveting group that limits access to the who's who of American politics.
Let's talk about these political connections.
ISNA gets around in the political arena. As Gaffney noted in his piece on the Family Security Matters website (see above), ISNA has had audiences with the Bush Administration, and also with the Clinton administration as well. The leaders of ISNA have been to the White House and important elected officials have reached out to ISNA.
Why in the world would President Bush allow his administration to have contact with a group like ISNA if it were indeed the bad actor it is alleged to be by Gaffney? Afterall, President Bush has unleashed his DOJ and FBI on anything that is even seemingly connected to terrorism. Just look at all of the failed terrorism criminal prosecutions in the U.S. since 9/11/01. Why not go after a big fish like ISNA if it is so bad?
Well, perhaps, and I'm just speculating here, it's because ISNA isn't the boogeyman Gaffney and others portray it to be.
There's been a lot of talk of "unindicted co-conspirators". What's this all about? Apparently ISNA was listed by DOJ as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in some terrorism trial.
I cannot imagine that there is any real substance behind this "unindicted co-conspirator" designation. If ISNA did something bad - if it was involved in a conspiracy - then when not indict it?
Most criminal lawyers seem to believe that conspiracy charges can be really difficult to defend against, because someone involved in a conspiracy doesn't need to do much at all to be guilty.
In other words, the nature of conspiracy charges are such that someone can be part of a plan to commit a crime and may do virtually nothing to further the plan, but so long as they do not take overt steps to dissengage from the criminal activity (or plan), then they are as guilty as the person who pulls the trigger.
If this is true and ISNA is a co-conspirator with terrorists, then why not indict them? Could it be that some attorneys in the DOJ are biased against Muslims and are using these terrorism trials to harrass Muslims? Could it be that there are some political reasons (perhaps diverting a major Muslim organization's energies away from critical issues such as human and civil liberties abuses vis-a-vis GITMO, extraordinary renditions, torture, religious profiling, etc) for naming ISNA a co-conspirator but then doing nothing more against them? I wonder....
While ISNA has its shortcomings, overall it is a valuable organization that helps strengthen our nation by providing a voice to an important and growing segment of America.
Look at ISNA's mission:
"ISNA is an association of Muslim organizations and individuals that provides a common platform for presenting Islam, supporting Muslim communities, developing educational, social and outreach programs and fostering good relations with other religious communities, and civic and service organizations."
Among the many good things for which it deserves credit, ISNA has come out clearly against terror. For example, it supported a religious ruling by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) against terrorism and extremism. One will find no support for terrorism in its publications, on its websites or in the speeches of its leaders.
Bottom Line
Dr. Mattson's participation in the pre-convention interfaith event is much ado about nothing. This new Muslim Brotherhood affiliation angle seems to be one of the latest strategies being employed by Islamophobes.
To those who might innocently ask why anyone would try to concoct nefarious connections where none really exist, I suggest it is because there are some people who are really ignorant or malicious or both (think about why bigots hate Blacks, Jews, etc and you'll get a peek into the minds of Islamophobes).
Comments