ISNA’s new president
by zoss in s-l-m, canadiana
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) has elected Dr Ingrid Mattson (a woman) as its (first woman) president. This is news, of course, because she’s a woman. She is also Canadian born, and a revert. But let’s go back to the woman part. After all, the message I see emphasized here is that there is no glass ceiling in Islam, or at least in ISNA. Now, obviously, I have no way of knowing the electoral’s electorate’s intentions. So let me assume the best, and hope that this is not just for show. After all (from what I could tell watching her interviews on faith and values after 9-11, and The News Hour after the Denmark cartoons) she’s obviously an intelligent woman, with a great attitude and reasonable ideas. (She’s also a UWaterloo alumni, with a BA in philosophy.)
Comment by Twosret — 31/8/2006 @ 4:02
This is good news. I think we should spread the word in the blogsphere.
Comment by forsoothsayer — 31/8/2006 @ 11:42
do u mean electorate? and do i mean to be annoying?
i believe the answer is yes.
also, i cna’t believe you went with the revert.
Comment by zoss — 31/8/2006 @ 14:34
I do mean electorate; thank you for catching it; screw you for meaning to be annoying.
I did go with revert; I consciously meant to. I used to feel very strongly about the term. Now, I am more flexible; I could let go if it’s going to keep the conversation flowing. Now, why this comes as a surprise to you, I don’t know.
Comment by forsoothsayer — 2/9/2006 @ 19:15
well, it surprises me that u actually believe in the revert business. bas we can pursue that convo later in brivate…
Comment by M — 4/9/2006 @ 17:51
So let me assume the best, and hope that this is not just for show.
Even if just for show, it does not degrade the elecotrate’s intentions.
Comment by zoss — 4/9/2006 @ 18:06
Really, M? How so?
Comment by M — 5/9/2006 @ 12:33
Really Zoss.
She has become the president after all, right. So in fact, it can’t be just for show, and if the initial intentions were so, it can’t have ended to be just that –since she actually became the president.
However, even if it was just for show, part of ISNA’s role is to “show” Islam.
Comment by zoss — 5/9/2006 @ 18:56
M, you’re confusing me. Or, maybe I confused you.
My point is this: The point of choosing a president is not to show anything. You choose a president because they’re competent and qualified for the job. If you walk in, and elect a person who is not the above just to induce some desired response, or project some image (true or false), then that’s bullshit. Literally. This has nothing to do with the outcome — whether it happens to project a particular image or not. This has everything to do with intentions.
Comment by M — 6/9/2006 @ 9:37
You’re always confusing me Zoss. Too hard for me to understand. I disagree with the bullshit part. When you bullshit and you know its bullshit, it doesn’t become so anymore.
The electorate’s intentions aside. Judge the new female president on her own merits. What do you think of her? She’s from Waterloo, must be good, eh. So if they want her for a show, they’ve made a good choice I would say.
Comment by N — 6/9/2006 @ 21:18
There’s nothing i found on your blog that states your sex, are you female?
Comment by zoss — 7/9/2006 @ 11:53
No, N, I’m not. Thanks for all the comments btw.
Comment by zoss — 8/9/2006 @ 3:45
M;
I am sorry you feel that way. You can always ask me to clarify.
That’s just flat out false.
I thought this is what we were debating.
Did I do otherwise? In fact, that is exactly my point. Merit is what should count, not anything else.
Comment by M — 9/9/2006 @ 7:28
That’s just flat out false.
Why?
I thought this is what we were debating.
I’m not really debating here. Just thought you’re extra cynical regarding the electorates.
Comment by zoss — 13/9/2006 @ 14:19
Well, M; bullshit, as I know it, involves saying or acting to induce a desired response in the audience with no regards for the truth of the statement or the act. In this regards, whether one knows they’re bullshitting or not doesn’t change the fact that they are.
You call this cynical? :)
Comment by M — 17/9/2006 @ 20:28
Well, true, but I would call it more than just bullshit in this case, maybe cheating or hypocrisy –depends on the intentions really.