THE FLYING IMAM CONTROVERSY
THE FLYING IMAM CONTROVERSY:
ISLAMAPHOBIA OR ISLAMIC INTIMIDATION?
By
Ken Eliasberg
Recent developments in the ongoing nonwar (“non,” at least according to former Senator John Edwards) indicate both the tack that Islam is taking as well as how far the doctrine of “political correctness” has taken us down the road of America’s potential undoing. By now, most of you are familiar with “the flying Imam” controversy, but for those of you who may not be, let me fill you in and bring you up to date. Six Muslim “imams” were booked on U.S. Airways Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix. According to witnesses, before the flight the imams were praying on the concourse in very loud voices shouting “Allah!” “Allah!” This, while the flight was in the process of boarding. Once on the plane, they refused to take their assigned seating, choosing to sit instead in couples, apparently in the same pattern as that chosen by the 9/11 terrorists. One air marshal found the pattern alarming because it gave the imams control of the exit routes. They demanded, and got, first class seats (apparently in an effort to placate them). They then requested seat-belt extensions, an apparatus used for overweight people, event though none of the imams were overweight. On getting them, they just put them on the floor, indicating that the request was really not made in good faith. Thereafter, witnesses say they began to criticize the war in Iraq, denouncing President Bush, and uttering phrases like “al Qaeda” and “Osama bin Laden.” Not surprisingly, they were then asked to leave, refused to do so and were then led off in handcuffs.
What do you think happened next? Surprise, they filed a lawsuit.
Now put yourself in U.S. Airways position. Given the fact that we are war with a bunch of fractious madmen who are related by faith to these “peaceful” imams, do you think the airline acted reasonably? Of course they did? Can you imagine what would have happened if these guys turned out to be terrorists and the plane went down. The Airline would be looking at hundreds of lawsuits and countless prospective passengers who would be unwilling to fly on their airline. In other words, the Airline would be looking at bankruptcy. Instead, they are looking at some trumped up lawsuits designed to stifle free speech. Where’s the free speech? Oh, I forgot to mention, the imams want to sue the passengers and/or witnesses who reported their unusual conduct.
Now, under ordinary circumstances one would suppose that, consistent with the tolerance that America shows its religious constituents, the conduct of these imams could be overlooked and explained in terms of idosyncrisies common to a religion that is somewhat off the Judeo-Christian path of mainstream America. However, these are not ordinary circumstances. We are at war with a fractious element of this very same religion, and, to this point, we have had some difficulty separating the “peaceful” component of that religion from the not so peaceful component.
And, given the fact that our survival hangs in the balance, is it so unreasonable to act on the side of caution and resolve every doubt in favor of our survival. I don’t think so! And if these imams were inconvenienced, that’s regrettable, but, in my opinion, hardly actionable. Morever, knowing that these are difficult times and, accordingly, that their behavior might give rise to some anxiety on the part of their fellow passengers, might they not have exercised better judgment and alerted airport security as to what they were doing? They chose instead to behave in a manner that could only create problems – for themselves and other passengers – and, consequently, I do not believe that legal redress is either desirable or appropriate.
More to the point, there are many – myself included – that believe that their conduct was intentionally designed to precipitate a lawsuit. Why? Because that is the path along which Radical Islam is moving to silence any voice of opposition. In short, they are using our very Democratic processes in an effort to silence us. And they must not be allowed to do so. As noted, they were not just suing the airline, they were endeavoring to sue the people who were witness to, frightened by, and complained of their conduct, i.e. an effort to punish “whistle blowers.” This would not just have an incredibly destructive effect on whistle-blower legislation – and thus the reporting of crimes and corrupt conduct – but, worse yet, it would have a very subversive effect on our efforts in conducting the war on terror. I’m sorry that these ‘holy’ gentlemen were inconvenienced, but, sensing the troubled times in which we live – troubles occasioned by some of their less well behaved co-religionists – they might have exercised considerably better judgment.
One other point, it should come as no surprise that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately seized on the occasion to express their indignation against this form of discrimination. Perhaps if CAIR really CAIRED, they would spend almost as much time routing real terrorists as they do outing imaginary islamophobes (more on this next week).