I, for one, bumble around all day finding the humor or irony in things. I also spend some time thinking about more serious considerations, such as reasons for being, politics, philosophy (good food?), and I somehow manage to not afflict my devotions upon any non-consenting neighbors.
So what then happened here?
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20061128-122902-7522r
“Thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.”
That’s very true, and this above observation demonstrates a plausibility for unselfishness within us all: one can experience religious freedom without insisting on commandeering the public square and forcing the rest of us to moderate what is and what is not appropriate social displays of religiosity. I wouldn’t think it a reasonable request if I went to my administration and demanded the license to pray loudly in the school halls at any time of my choosing during my days at work.
I wish zealots of any stripe would, as a natural impulse, consider some other forum more selective for expression, but if they had this impulse to begin with, I guess they wouldn't be zealots.
The imams have protested that the treatment they received was unfair because they were “merely praying” and the group “did everything it could to avoid suspicion”. But for them to characterize their behavior in such a narrowly benign way is I suspect intentionally misleading. There seems to have been a pattern of dubious behavior –loudly proclaiming “Allah” while boarding commercial jet in a post-9-11 world just being one of them.
We also know –and surely the imams know this too-- that their group switched from their assigned seats to a seating pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks; asked for seat-belt extenders and placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor (???); made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk during boarding; and lied about their tickets being upgraded. These are suspicious behaviors --not a cultural misunderstanding-- that would get any individual or group kicked off a flight, whether they’re the loud praying type or not.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks “cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."
"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.
Stalin would have called her a useful idiot. I guarantee that if I boarded a flight tomorrow and presented the exact same behaviors as the Imams I would get booted from the flight, and so would you.
Humiliation, profiling, and discrimination are not liberal virtues that most Americans believe in. You don’t think these imams are appealing to these values to in order to manipulate or deceive, do you?
6 comments:
I don't know about nation building but I think we both agree that Islam needs reform if it is to survive. Many people talk about Islam reforming itself.I don't see how that's possible. Like an insane man, Islam must be reformed by folks outside the fold. They don't see the dysfunction. They don't see the crazy.
I would only add to that, anonymous, that Islam needs reform if WE are to survive.
Myself and others often look to find the voices of what is called "moderate Islam". We can find these voices at the blog "Healing Iraq" or in the rare, odd media story that gets buried about an American Muslim who is critical of the Jihad mentality, but there's another faction to consider.
What of those Muslims, both domestic and foreign, who haven't used violence against non believers... haven't spoken out against it and in their hearts, believe it is the right course of action?
Or, how about Muslims who do not believe that Muslims perpetrated the 9-11 attacks?
There are always Americans to be found who ( like the old man at the rodeo in the film, Borat ) think it's right and just to kill ALL Iraqis.... to level the country and salt the earth, etc. etc.
I believe those Americans are the extreme minority, ...though when I consider the tendency of some Americans to argue to "Save Tibet" for example, or to intervene in Darfur... there seems to be a strong desire (for good or for ill) to want to help those who are being victimized in some way.
On the other hand we've got a worldwide religion...Islam, whose adherents don't seem to add much to the wealth of the world and worldwide the number of assaults, attacks, bombings, beheadings, threats and such come from members of this particular religion and they do their acts in the name of this religion and when quoted in the media they say they are doing these violent acts in the name of this religion... Islam.
If those in charge of our safety... whether in airports, malls, sports arenas or other centers of activity are not up to doing their jobs, then what can ordinary Americans do to protect themselves when they recognize a potential threat that is allowed to proceed, unhindered?
I'm flying this weekend and you can bet your ass I'll be keeping my eye open for anyone who is a male, aged 17-39 and Arab.
"Looking Muslim while driving" is how Andy Sullivan saw this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A1l6eaHpAY&eurl=
Disembowelled, then torn apart: The price of daring to teach girls
By Kim Sengupta in Ghazni, Afghanistan
Published: 29 November 2006
The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.
The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.
Mr Halim was one of four teachers killed in rapid succession by the Islamists at Ghazni, a strategic point on the routes from Kabul to the south and east which has become the scene of fierce clashes between the Taliban and US and Afghan forces.
Actually, what the CAIR rep says here, perhaps unwittingly on their part, makes sense in the abstract:
Rabiah Ahmed, spokeswoman for the Council on American-Islamic relations: "Muslims have to walk
around on eggshells in public just because we don't want to be misconstrued as suspicious. You have to strike a balance between legitimate fears which people
may have, but not allow passengers to have so much discretion that they can trigger a process that would violate a traveler's basic civil rights."
Correct, except we know these Imams --by loudly yelling "Allah" during boarding call, and from other suspicious behaviors-- were far from walking around on eggshells. There is no balance to be struck between legitimate and irrational fears; clearly this group was up to something other than “praying quietly in the
concourse” or avoiding suspicious behavior, and so CAIRS’ response is without specific warrant in this
case. What’s more likely the case is that the Imams “tested the forbearance of the passengers and flight crew in what the air marshal called a "[political
correctness] probe."
Let this air-marshal speak again, I like the clarity of his thought.
"Instilling politically correct fears into the minds of airline passengers is nothing less than
psychological terrorism."
I agree.
But that shouldn’t have been hard for most of you to guess since it’s quite apparent from these concerned scribbling of mine that I’m a racist, paranoid Islamaphobe.
Post a Comment