The Flying Imams, Part Three: Reviewing the Police Report

America loves "grievance theater," especially when it affords an opportunity to take a stand against The Man. The Duke lacrosse rape case comes to mind. In the much-promoted "flying imams" case, CAIR and its opponents have sensationalized the issue. Mark and I both discussed the case (Mark in this post, and I a few days earlier in this one), but we did not refer to the police report, citing primarily journalistic accounts. I maintain that in light of the police report my characterization of the imams as political and legal provocateurs is appropriate. (I will use "CAIR" and "the imams" interchangeably, since most of the imams are members of CAIR or its sister organizations, since they had just attended a CAIR-sponsored conference, a conference that coincidentally dealt with media manipulation (topics included "Imams and Politics" and "Imams and the Media"), and since CAIR is orchestrating the lawsuit against the passengers who dared to speak up about behavior I will outline below.)

1) The question of prayer.

The police report cites several witnesses who said the imams were "praying very loud." After they had finished their prayers, when it was time for boarding, they began "chanting 'Allah, Allah, Allah'" together. Once on the plane, they again prayed loudly.

My reaction:

1.1) Islamic prayer should not be ostentatious. It is almost never done loudly. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it is unheard of for a large group of people to collectively pray in an airport departure lounge in loud voices. In public places from mosque to market, in the private homes of the princes and paupers, in countries ranging from Morocco to Oman, I have never witnessed loud, ostentatious Islamic prayer. Therefore, if I saw a group of men praying loudly and ostentatiously at the airport, I would think they were trying to make some sort of point. It is highly abnormal for Muslims to act in such a way. Indeed, it is worth noting that other Muslims on the flight were among those who tipped off the flight attendants, helping by translating the imams' increasingly inflammatory comments.

1.2) Salat (prayer) does not consist of chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah," as witnesses reported the imams chanting together. One recites the Sura al-Fatihah (think of it as the Lord's Prayer in Islam) along with another sura of one's own choosing while performing one's prostrations in the appropriate way (there are many discussions of the topic; see this site, for instance.) This is repeated a variable number of times, 3 in the case of the maghrib prayer. I have yet to read or hear a sura that repeats "Allah, Allah, Allah" - this, while permissible, is unorthodox, and frankly provocative in the context.

1.3) The flight was scheduled for takeoff at 5:15PM. Given that this took place at the end of the year, the sun would have been setting around boarding time. Therefore the imams would be praying the maghreb (sunset) prayer. This consists of 3 raka`a (prayer cycles.) Well and good. BUT the third raka`a is to be said silently. The imams spoke throughout, by several accounts.

1.4) The imams prayed both at the gate and on the plane. The 'isha (night) prayer generally takes place before going to bed, not a few minutes following the maghreb. I do grant that it would be permissible to do so (the sun had set, after all) but again it is highly unusual and unorthodox.

To summarize, the imams' prayer activities alone suggest a provocateur's agenda. They were loud and ostentatious, as no Muslim should be in prayer. They chanted the name of God, without any Islamic reason for doing so. They spoke throughout, when 1/3 of the maghrib prayer is meant to be performed silently. Finally, they either prayed the maghrib twice or they prayed the 'isha abnormally early. These actions have little basis in Islam. But they have a huge basis in Islam as a politicized ideology and what the Becket Fund rightly refers to as "legal terrorism." The imams' behavior is extraordinary from an Islamic perspective, but becomes less so if CAIR and the imams were intending to create an "incident" as with Mr. Scopes and the ACLU.

2) The question of political commentary.

2.1) The police report establishes that the men were angry, agitated, and in heated discussion. They were cursing. As with the un-Islamic "prayer", the problem with the imams' behavior is its form rather than its content. The form is suspicious. Having been to many airports, I do not generally see people rant and rave about political issues. The one time I saw someone behave in such a way (in Casablanca, incidentally) the offender was taken into police custody, and we all laughed and joked (in Arabic) about the person's lack of sense and provocative actions. The problem is not that they were discussing politics but that they were behaving in ways that were highly unusual for normal airline passengers, whether Muslim or not. Bear in mind that "erratic" behavior is normally the security officer's only chance of catching a potential terrorist (recall the way that the Millenium bombings at LAX were averted, thanks to a Canadian border guard who was aware of this fact.)

3) The question of the manner of boarding and seating assignments.

3.1) One of the imams had a first-class seat (he was upgraded, I believe.) The rest did not. Nonetheless, they all boarded together during the call for first-class boarding. Once on board, they ignored their assigned seats, and fanned out throughout the craft in a precise imitation of the 9/11 hijackers.

3.2) Several of the imams, not just Shahin (their somewhat rotund spokesman) asked for seatbelt extensions. None of the imams used them. Witness testimony confirms that "they were not overweight" (several of them, anyway) and that, worse, they left the extensions on the floor. These extensions can be used as weapons, and the flight attendants noticed. (I should note that the normal seat belts are capable of wrapping around very fat people. I have personally witnessed people whose rolls of fat were spilling over the seat rests (substantially heavier than any of the imams) make do with the normal belts. That said, it can still be unpleasant to sit next to them.)

3.3) The imams were asked by flight attendants to return the seatbelt extensions and return to their assigned seats but refused to cooperate.

What does this prove?

None of these actions, individually, would be cause for suspicion. Together, however, the imams' actions form a pattern of unusually suspicious behavior. They prayed in non-Islamic fashion; they angrily argued politics; they ignored their assigned seats, sitting instead in suspicious ways; they made requests for potentially dangerous equipment that they did not use for its intended purpose; and they refused to cooperate with flight attendants. This is what the police report tells us. The truth lies here, in the witness testimony, not "somewhere in between" the Rush Limbaugh show and CAIR's public relations rhetoric. Everything that the imams did screams "grievance theater." But more at issue is:

4) The question of the aftermath.

Mark says that it "boggles the mind" to think that CAIR would want to soften aviation security. I may be proven wrong, but the evidence currently brought to light supports that thesis. Softening aviation security is probably not CAIR's primary goal - that may be to promote their own importance (and their self-proclaimed right to speak for all Muslims) through a high-profile case. But to sue an airline for responding to the highly unusual and suspicious behavior outlined above - and, more importantly, to sue the *individuals* who noticed the behavior and informed flight attendants - has the direct consequence of weakening aviation security. John Doe is far less likely to tell a flight attendant about suspicious behavior if he knows that CAIR and its Saudi backers are going to sue him for it. If it is shown that CAIR planned the event, then my (admittedly inflammatory) "fifth-column" accusation will be borne out.

Other Subjects

Mark mentioned my favorable quote of Karl Rove in my critique of Fisk's recent column on maps. To clarify, I hold Rove and Robert Fisk in equally low regard. I also think Rove's quote aptly describes Fisk's attitude. The problem is not that Fisk lacks affection for or attachment to the West, or that he has compassion for people he sees as victims. The problem is that his writing, like that of Edward Said, is all too happy to ignore or misrepresent facts if they do not serve his political agendas. Fisk's writing is generally self-righteous, indignant, and hostile, positing a world of innocent non-Westerners forever menaced by Western bogeymen. Life is not so black and white.

In the future, I think, I shall perhaps stay clear of American politics (Mark seems to have a very good grasp of that) and instead offer more anthropological observations. Stay tuned.