About . . . . . . Classes . . . . . . Books . . . . . . Vita . . . . . . . Links. . . . . . Blog

by Peter Moskos

November 1, 2009

‘Flying imams’ settlement

Seems to me a request for a not-needed seat-belt extension alone is grounds for suspicion. Here's an account in USA Today.


One Time said...

I wonder if it occurred to anyone that this was an orchestrated act by the Muslims in question: create a situation guaranteed to elicit law enforcement response, then turn around and sue for racial/religious profiling, knowing that American courts will kowtow to them in the name of religious tolerance.

It appears to me that we are being softened up for another attack.

PCM said...

It's occurred to me. But I doubt that's the case here. Most of the initial information about their behavior wasn't true. That's one problem I have.

I'd love to see what they were really doing. I mean, were they suspicious beyond being visibly Muslim and praying? I don't know. Generally all it takes is to "look like a terrorist" for too many Americans to be suspicious.

Sgt. T said...

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to relate yelling "Allah Akbar!" aboard an airplane these days to yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. Its going to get a response. Those are carefully chosen words issued a specific place in order to gain a reaction. They were just a few of numerous passengers until they opened their pie holes.

To the best of my knowledge they have yet to issue an explanation of their behavior on that day. I'm am forever suspicious simply due to the fact that they were fronted by CAIR after the incident. You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep; and CAIR is about the worst company a Muslim can keep in this country.

PCM said...

But did they yell "Allah Akbar" in the plane? I'm not even convinced of that. Maybe they were. Maybe they were trying to get a response. I don't know. But I'm skeptical. If I were a betting man, I'd bet they were just praying.

Call me a conservative religious kook (cause I don't get that label very often), but I think people--Christians, Jews, and Muslims, hell, let's say people of all faiths--should be able to pray to God in airports and in airplanes without being led off in handcuffs.

Again, we don't really know what these guys did. So it's hard to have a real debate about these guys.

But let me just add this: I can't imagine, in this day and age, how Muslims could pray in middle America without "looking suspicious."

So if people want to seriously advocate that Muslims can't pray to God in airports (the same God that Christians pray to, let's not forget), then let's not beat around the bush and pretend these guys were switching seats and doing all the other things that they first said and then it turned out were not true.

(but still... that seatbelt extension... that does make me wonder...)

Rivkah said...

Just to clear up a few things, "allah akbar" (or, more likely, allahu akbar) is the Islam equivalent of the Christian "our god who art in heaven..essentially, the introduction to most every prayer. Secondly, the need for the seatbelt extension - well, religious Muslims pray 5 times a day, and this involves quite a bit of bending over at the waist. For those who have never visited a mosque, they do not have pews - rather, everyone kneels on the floor. I can only guess that the seatbelt extension was requested for comfort during prayer. Case of the "suspicious Muslims" solved.