Monday, November 27, 2006

Muslim Imams and U.S. Air

The Muslim Imams turned away from a U.S. Airways flight continue to stir up trouble (Jerusalem Post). I’m beginning to wonder if the whole thing was staged precisely for that purpose. Wesley Prudens has an insightful article about the incident. Excerpts appear below but you can read the entire article in the Washington Post:

"Our holy men of good will, ranging from earnest Pentecostal preachers to beribboned high-church Episcopal prelates, seek out their Muslim counterparts for "interfaith dialogue." Some even travel to the Middle East to "dialogue" on the dark and bloody ground whence comes most of the terror in the world."

"Our own holy men could respect their Muslim brothers, as well as their own countries, by showing tough love instead of platitudes…"

"The incident aboard a jetliner of US Airways the other day in Minneapolis is instructive. The details are in some dispute, but what is not is that six imams -- Muslim holy men -- were denied boarding after they created an incident and were briefly detained."

"When an airline clerk denied him boarding one imam shouted: "This prejudice. This is obvious discrimination. No one can argue with this."


"But arguing with 'this' is exactly what we must do if we bring the Muslims under the fraternal umbrella -- of what, in better times than these, was called 'the melting pot.' The imams should be told, forcefully, that making an intimidating row of rituals is not the American way and won't be permitted. If a half-dozen Catholic priests insist on conducting a Mass aboard an airliner, they will be told to stop it. Six Baptist preachers won't be allowed to conduct a revival meeting amidst either the cheap or expensive seats. Jewish mohels can't perform circumcisions aboard (even for volunteers). We don't do things like that in America, and no apology is forthcoming. We're an immigrant nation, a source of national strength and pride. But some among us want to turn e pluribus unum -- 'out of many, one' -- inside out. We can't tolerate that, and it's time to say so, loud and clear."
(hat tip: Dhimmi Watch)

6 comments:

Comrade Anonymous said...

You're right, Dennis. Public displays of religiosity are unseemly. Or is it just Muslim displays of religiosity you're against?

john said...

How exactly did this apparently peaceful demonstration "stir up trouble"? Aren't protests one of this country's founding rights? Even if this guy was Osama himself, I see no evidence from the article that you linked that this protest caused any problems.

Dennis said...

Well John, let’s say you were one of the flight crew that day and you have to deal with several Muslim men who were praying loudly, repeatedly shouting “Allah”, making anti-American statements, praising Saddam Hussein, asking for seat belt extenders when they didn’t appear to need them, and relocating to strategic seats that were not assigned to them. If that doesn’t justify asking security to take another look what does, John? Do you want to wait until they bring down your plane?

So you decide to ask the authorities to investigate just to be safe, and now these Imams are out telling the world what a racist bigot you and your employers are, threatening legal action and even getting a congresswoman to impugn your character. I would almost bet my next paycheck that you would think this was stirring up trouble if you were being called an Islamophobic, racist, profiling, bigot!

Anyone with half a brain can see that this incident was not about racial profiling. In fact, it’s beginning to look like the whole thing was staged. Now that they have the national spotlight the Imams are calling on Congress to outlaw “racial profiling”—-or in other words, they want to make it illegal for airline security to do anything to check out Muslims until after they’ve brought down another plane.

It wouldn’t surprise me if this was their plan all along and quite frankly I am shocked that you and Comrade would side with them.

john said...

Dennis: I mean this with all due respect, and not as a personal attack, but you really seem to be losing it sometimes. My comments have been less frequent here recently because it's almost impossible to have a discussion with you at times. I was just posing some questions to you, and stating that I don't think this "pray-in" was the big deal you seem to think it is. No need to get all riled up.

As I have stated before, if you'll recall, I have no problem with the fact that the complaints by another passenger were looked into. The only way I would "side" with these guys at all (if you must put it that way) is that I believe once it was discovered they had done nothing wrong, and were cleared by the authorities, the airline should have booked them another flight. In my comments above, I was merely responding to your post that this "pray-in" was to "stir up trouble", which I cannot find evidence of from the brief article you linked. If you know something I don't about this specific incident, please share. I'm not suggesting these are great guys, but enough conjecture about conspiracies to draw attention to themselves, etc., already.

Kevin said...

This isn't racial profiling. The airline is free to refund their money and tell them to book a flight on another plane after the incident. End of story, case closed. This whinning and ranting and the politicians and media people who are supporting it are feeding the problem and stirring up the issue for their own benefit (votes and ad revenue, respectively).

Had the airline told all passengers from Middle Eastern countries to leave the plane, that would have been racial profiling. Had the airline then searched all passengers of Middle Eastern descent, that would have been racial profiling. Had the airline institued a policy that required all passengers of Middle Eastern descent to fly in a particular section of the plane under armed gaurd, that would have been racial profiling. What we have here are a group of guys who created a scene, excercising their right to religious freedom or now, they caught the eye of passengers and security, they and only they were detained. The airline chose to not let them fly with them (and I assume refunded their money). This is a standard and best practice in my opinion. If you have a drunk or disorderly passenger you keep them off the plane and are under no obligation to let them fly with you... even if they do have a right to drink or speak freely. People have been booted off planes for wearing t-shirts with "offensive" words on them.

Airlines and their staff have the right to make assessments of situations and make decisions. They did, this type of super scrutiny and review is going to be a problem. The message we've sent now is don't make decisions, because if you do and someone doesn't like them or wants to spin your decision in a different light for their own ends, you're going to get tossed under the bus.

John, the protest itself was peaceful but the cause their protesting is stirring up trouble. White supremists have peaceful protests with the intention of stirring up trouble. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Dennis said...

John, don't take it personally. I'm just answering your questions.

Keven, excellent post!