overhead bin space

Funky fare for Muslim fashionistas at Jakarta show - Yahoo! News

This is OUTRAGEOUS. Hidden in this little “fashion” piece is the statement (which was NOT challenged by the reporter) that a woman who does not wear Muslim hijab is possibly inviting RAPE! Here’s the statement:

Bloggers at California Conservative commenting on the flying imans case question whether it was “a stunt designed to give political cover to Democrats who want to weaken airport security.” He observes that:

Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

Giving Muslims special civil-rights protections– especially in regards to airport security– is akin to making the school bully a hall monitor in the hope that will make him stop beating up the other kids.

California Conservative notes that Democratic attempts to give Muslims special protection could backfire in 2008:

I hope that Conyers’ legislation gets extensive coverage on CNN, FNC and conservative talk radio. I pray that the NY Times makes this legislation its next major cause. I’d be positively giddy if there’s a recorded vote on this so we can use it in commercial after commercial in 2008. Giving “Muslims special civil-rights protections” would tell Americans that (a) Democrats are in the back pockets of radical Muslim ‘civil rights organizations’; (b)Democrats care more about appeasing a fringe group than about maintaining tight airline safety and (c)Democrats will neither be tough nor smart in the GWOT. In fact, this debate will show them to be the appeasers that they’ve always been.

Giving “Muslims special civil-rights protections” is code for Democrats’ caving on this important issue, which will cement in peoples’ minds that they’re more worried about not hurting someone’s feelings than they are about protecting Americans.

It does seem that Democrats oppose practically every measure designed to thwart the terrorists– wiretapping, the Patriot Act, harsh interrogation of known terrorists, and even airport security checks of Muslims. Whose side are they on?

Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001,  had an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal.  She made an excellent point about the questionable motives of the imans:

Ultimately, the most despicable aspect about the imams’ behavior is that when they pierced the normally quiet hum of a passenger waiting area with shouts of “Allahu Akbar”and deliberately engaged in terrorist-associated behavior that was sure to trigger suspicion, they exploited the fear that began with the Sept. 11 attacks. The imams, experienced travelers all, counted on the security system established after 9/11 to kick in, and now they plan not only to benefit financially from the proper operation of that system but to substantially weaken it–with help from the Saudi-endowed attorneys at CAIR.

US Airways is right to stand by its flight crew. It will be both dangerous and disgraceful if the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation and, ultimately, our federal courts allow aviation security measures put in place after 9/11 to be cynically manipulated in the name of civil rights.

As Americans, it is important that we counter the false claims of the flying Imans and their extremist allies at CAIR by letting US Airways, the DOT and Department of Homeland Security know that we do not want our aviation security weakened in the name of civil rights. The Islamofascists are attempting to manipulate us into making it easier for them to kill us. We must stand firm and let them know we recognize this.

WorldNetDaily reports that one of the ejected Imans was linked to Hamas and Bin Laden:

One of six Muslim imams pulled from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis last night by federal authorities is affiliated with a Hamas-linked organization and acknowledged a connection to Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.

Isn’t it curious that CAIR and the mainstream media forgot to mention this?

Read this excellent editorial in Investor’s Business Daily:

A Profiling In Courage

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 11/22/2006

Homeland Security: Kudos to US Airways. Risking fines and a boycott, it did the right thing this week by removing a group of Muslim men from a flight to protect its crew and passengers.

By most accounts, the six bearded men were behaving suspiciously at a time when airports were on high alert for sky terror during the holidays. “There were a number of things that gave the flight crew pause,” an airline spokesman said. According to witnesses and police reports, the men:

• Made anti-American statements.

• Made a scene of praying and chanting “Allah.”

• Asked for seat-belt extensions even though a flight attendant thought they didn’t need them.

• Refused requests by the pilot to disembark for more screening.

Also, three of the men had only one-way tickets and no checked baggage.

Police had to forcibly remove the men from the flight, whereupon they were taken into custody. A search found no weapons or explosives, and they were released to continue on their journey.

Within hours, the men enlisted a Muslim-rights group to make a stink in the press, insisting they were merely imams returning home from an Islamic conference in Minneapolis. They say they were “harassed” because of their faith.

But were they victims or provocateurs?

All six claim to be Americans, so clearly they were aware of heightened security. Surely they knew that groups of Muslim men flying together while praying to Allah fit the modus operandi of the 9/11 hijackers and would make a pilot nervous. Throw in anti-U.S. remarks and odd demands about seat belts, and they might as well have yelled, “Bomb!”

Yet they chose to make a spectacle. Why? Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for “prejudice and ignorance.”

CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of “flying while Muslim.” Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Con-yers, D-Mich., has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

While it’s not immediately clear whether the incident was a stunt to help give the new Democratic majority cover to criminalize airport profiling, it wouldn’t be the first time Muslim passengers have tried to prove “Islamophobia” — or test nerves and security.

Two years ago a dozen Syrian men caused panic aboard a Northwest Airlines flight by passing bags to each other as they used the lavatory. As the plane prepared to land, they rushed to the back and front of the plane speaking in Arabic.

Then there’s the case of Muhammed al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan al-Shalawi, two Arizona college students removed from an America West flight after twice trying to open the cockpit. The FBI suspected it was a dry run for the 9/11 hijackings, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. One of the students had traveled to Afghanistan. Another became a material witness in the 9/11 investigation.

Even so, the pair filed racial-profiling suits against America West, now part of US Airways. Defending them was none other than the leader of the six imams kicked off the US Airways flight this week.

Turns out the students attended the Tucson, Ariz., mosque of Sheikh Omar Shahin, a Jordan native. Shahin has been the protesters’ public face, even returning to the US Airways ticket counter at the Minneapolis airport to scold agents before the cameras.

In an Arizona Republic interview after 9/11, he acknowledged once supporting Osama bin Laden through his mosque in Tucson. FBI investigators believe bin Laden set up a base in Tucson.

Hani Hanjour, who piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon, attended the Tucson mosque along with bin Laden’s onetime personal secretary, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Bin Laden’s ex-logistics chief was president of the mosque before Shahin took over.

“These people don’t continue to come back to Arizona because they like the sunshine or they like the state,” said FBI agent Kenneth Williams. “Something was established there, and it’s been there for a long time.” And Shahin appears to be in the middle of it.

CAIR asserts the imams are peace-loving patriots. “It’s inappropriate to treat religious leaders that way,” a spokesman said.

Yeah, they all wear halos. Omar Abdul-Rahman, a blind sheikh, is serving a life term for plotting to blow up several New York landmarks. Imam Ali al-Timimi, a native Washingtonian, is also behind bars for soliciting local Muslims to kill fellow Americans. Imams in New York were recently busted for buying shoulder-fired missiles. Another in Lodi, Calif., planned an al-Qaida terror camp there.

We could go on and on. Imams or not, US Airways did right by its customers. Shahin is calling on Muslims to boycott the airline; that might actually work in its favor. US Airways has been flooded with calls from Americans saying it just became the safest airline.

It’s important that you read this article by Pajamas Media in full:

By Richard Miniter, PJM Washington Editor

The case of U.S. Airways flight 300 gets stranger by the minute. When six traveling Muslim clerics were asked to deplane last week, it looked like another civil rights controversy against post-9-11 airport security.

Now new information is emerging that suggests it was all a stunt designed to weaken security….

Yesterday I spoke with a passenger on that flight, who asked that she be only identified as “Pauline.” A copy of airport police report, which I also obtained, supports Pauline’s account - and includes shocking revelations of its own. In addition, U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader also confirmed much of what Pauline revealed…..

The passenger, who asked that she only be identified as “Pauline,” said she is afraid to give her full name or hometown. She is spending the night at “another location” because she does not feel safe at home. She credits reports that one imam is apparently linked to Hamas. “It is scary because these men could be dangerous.”

Pauline said she never wanted media attention. She wrote an email to U.S. Airways and cc:ed her daughter, who unexpectedly emailed it to her friends. As the letter took on an internet life of its own, it made its way to the inbox of a retired CNN executive producer. Then, to her dismay, the feeding frenzy began.

Pauline revealed to Pajamas Media that the six imams were doing things far more suspicious than praying - an Arabic-speaking passenger heard them repeatedly invoke “bin Laden,” and “terrorism,” a gate attendant told the captain that she did not want to fly with them, and that bomb-sniffing dogs were brought aboard. Other Muslim passengers were left undisturbed and later joined in a round of applause for the U.S. Airways crew. “It wasn’t that they were Muslim. It was all of the suspicious things they did,” Pauline said.

Here is her story, along with corroborating quotes from the U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader and the official report, another Pajamas Media exclusive.

Sitting in Minneapolis-St. Paul’s Airport Gate C9, she noticed one of the imams immediately. “He was pacing nervously, talking in Arabic,” she said.

She quickly noticed the others. “They didn’t look like holy men to me. They looked like guys heading out of town for a Vikings game.”

Pauline said she did not see or hear the imams pray at the gate (she was at dinner in a nearby airport eatery), but heard about the pre-flight prayers from other passengers hours later.

As the plane boarded, she said, no one refused to fly. The public prayers and Arabic phone call did not trigger any alarms - so much for the p.c. allegations that people were disturbed by Muslim prayers.

But a note from a passenger about suspicious movements of the imams got the crew’s attention. A copy of the passenger’s note appears in the police report.

To Pauline everything seemed normal. Then the captain - in classic laconic pilot-style - announced there had been a “mix up in our paperwork” and that the flight would be delayed.

In reality, the air crew was waiting for the FBI and local police to arrive.

Ninety minutes after the flight’s scheduled 5:15 p.m. departure, the captain announced yet another delay. Still, Pauline said, there was no sense of alarm.

Still, it seemed like just another annoying development, typical when flying the friendly skies.

The situation in cockpit was far more intense, according to a U.S. Airways spokeswoman and police reports.

Contrary to press accounts that a single note from a passenger triggered the imams’ removal, Captain John Howard Wood was weighing multiple factors - factors that have largely been ignored by the press.

Another passenger, not the note writer, was an Arabic speaker sitting near two of the imams in the plane’s tail. That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside, and in a whisper, translated what the men were saying. They were invoking “bin Laden” and condemning America for “killing Saddam,” according to police reports.

Meanwhile an imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extension, even though according to both an on-duty flight attendant and another deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one. Hours later, when the passengers were being evacuated, the seat-belt extension was found on the floor near the imam’s seat, police reports confirm. The U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader said she did not dispute the report, but said the airline’s internal investigation cannot yet account for the seat-belt extension request or its subsequent use.

A seat-belt extension can easily be used as a weapon, by wrapping the open-end of the belt around your fist and swinging the heavy metal buckle.

Still, it seemed like just another annoying development, typical when flying the friendly skies. Days after the incident, the imam would claim that the steward helped him attach the device. Pauline said he is lying. Hours later, when the police was being evacuated, the steward asked Pauline to hand him the seat-belt extension, which the imam did not attach, but placed on the floor. “I know he is lying,” Pauline said, “I had it [seat belt extension] in my hand.”

A passenger in the third row of first class, Pauline said, told a member of the crew: “I don’t have a good feeling about this guy,” about the imam who wanted the seat-belt extension.

A married couple one row behind first-class, tried to strike up a conversation with the imam seated near them. He refused to talk or even look at the woman in the eye, according to Pauline. Instead, he stood up and moved to join the other imams in the back of the plane. Why would he leave the luxury end of the aircraft? Pauline wondered. The account of the married couple does not appear in the police report.

Finally, a gate attendant told the captain she thought the imams were acting suspiciously, according to police reports.

So the captain apparently made his decision to delay the flight based on many complaints, not one. And he consulted a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground security coordinator and the airline’s security office in Phoenix. All thought the imams were acting suspiciously, Rader told me.

Other factors were also considered: All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers - even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.

And, Pauline said, they spread out just like the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in first, two in the middle, and two back in the economy section. Pauline’s account is confirmed by the police report. The airline spokeswoman added that some seemed to be sitting in seats not assigned to them.

One thing that no one seemed to consider at the time, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with Islamic practice, is that the men prayed both at the gate and on the plane. Observant Muslims pray only once at sundown, not twice.

“It was almost as if they were intentionally trying to get kicked off the flight,” Pauline said.

A lone plain clothes FBI agent boarded the plane and briefly spoke to the imams. Later, uniformed police escorted them off.

Some press reports said the men were led off in handcuffs, which Pauline disputes. “I saw them. They were not handcuffed.”

Later, each imam was individually brought back on the aircraft to reclaim his belongings. They were still not handcuffed. They may have been handcuffed later.

At this point, the passengers became alarmed. “How do we know they got all their stuff off?” Pauline heard one man ask.

While the imams were soon released, Pauline is fuming: “We are the victims of these people. They need to be more sensitive to us. They were totally insensitive to us and then accused us of being insensitive to them. I mean, we were a lot more inconvenienced than them.”

The plane was delayed for some three and one-half hours.

Bomb-sniffing dogs were used to sweep the plane and every passenger was re-screened, the airline spokeswoman confirmed. Another detail omitted from press reports.

The reaction of the remaining passengers has also gone unreported. “We applauded and cheered for the crew,” she said.

“I think it was either a foiled attempt to take over the plane or it was a publicity stunt to accuse us of being insensitive,” Pauline said. “It had to be to intimidate U.S. Airways to ease up on security.”

So far, U.S. Airways refuses to be intimidated, even though the feds have launched an investigation. “We are absolutely backing this crew,” Rader said.

Tucked away in the police report is this little gem: one of the imams had complained to a passenger that some nations did not follow shariah law and his job in Bakersfield, Calif. was a cover for “representing Muslims here in the U.S.”

So what are the imams really up to? Something more than praying it seems.

The Washington Times offers an additional perspective on the Muslim Imans/US Airways story:

Air marshals, pilots and security officials yesterday expressed concern that airline passengers and crews will be reluctant to report suspicious behavior aboard for fear of being called “racists,” after several Muslim imams made that charge in a press conference Monday at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport……

 ”The crew and passengers act as our additional eyes and ears on every flight,” said a federal air marshal in Las Vegas, who asked that his name not be used. “If [crew and passengers] are afraid of reporting suspicious individuals out of fear of being labeled a racist or bigot, then terrorists will certainly use those fears to their advantage in future aviation attacks.”

I’d noted a similar concern in my first post on this issue, and I’m glad that Air Marshals are speaking out.  However, CAIR and the Imans don’t actually care about airport security. They are only concerned with themselves. Hence, their response:

But Rabiah Ahmed, spokeswoman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said 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.” 

“Because one person misunderstood the actions of other law-abiding citizens, they were able to trigger a very long and daunting process for other travelers that were pulled off the plane in handcuffs and detained for many hours before they were cleared.”

Read this statement again in case you missed the outrageousness. CAIR is actually saying that passengers should NOT be allowed to have so much discretion that they could inconvenience another (Muslim) passenger. (Meanwhile, Muslims apparently have the right to force other passengers to listen to their prayers and to take seats that weren’t assigned to them on the plane.) What is astonishing is that CAIR is arguing that enabling passengers to voice their concerns shouldn’t be permitted because it supposedly violates the “civil rights” of the Muslims. What about the “civil rights” of the passengers to express their concerns about suspicious behavior? What about the “civil rights” of Americans not to be killed by terrorist activity? CAIR doesn’t care about that. CAIR only cares about advocating their special-interest agenda at the expense of the flying public.

Americans should strongly reject any “reform” or “law” that would make our airplanes less safe. Passengers should continue to have the right to bring suspicious behavior to the attention of the flight crew, and the flight crew should have the ability to act at their discretion without being labeled racist and being the target of militant protests by CAIR.

The Washington Times reports:

….suspicious behavior of the imams led to their eviction from the flight. The imams, they said, tested the forbearance of the passengers and flight crew in what the air marshal called a “[political correctness] probe.” 

“The political correctness needs to be left at the boarding gate,” the marshal said. “Instilling politically correct fears into the minds of airline passengers is nothing less than psychological terrorism.” 

The passengers and flight crew said the imams prayed loudly before boarding; switched seating assignments to a configuration used by terrorists in previous incidents; asked for seat-belt extensions, which could be used as weapons; and shouted hostile slogans about al Qaeda and the war in Iraq. 

Flight attendants said three of the six men, who did not appear to be overweight, asked for the seat-belt extensions, which include heavy metal buckles, and then threw them to the floor under their seats. 

Robert MacLean, a former federal air marshal, expressed the fear yesterday that the situation “will make crews and passengers in the future second-guess reporting these events, thus compromising the aircraft’s security out of fear of being labeled a dogmatist or a bigot, or being sued.” 

Flight attendants said they were concerned that the way the imams took seats that were not assigned to them — two seats in the front row of first class, exit seats in the middle of the plane and two seats in the rear — resembled the pattern used by September 11 hijackers, giving them control of the exits. 

A Minneapolis police officer and a federal air marshal who were called to the plane after the imams refused to leave the plane for questioning said “the seating configuration, the request for seat-belt extensions, the prior praying and utterances about Allah and the United States in the gate area … was suspicious.” 

One pilot for a competing airline said the incident would have a chilling effect on the flight crews. 

“The flight crew may be a little more gun-shy about approaching people, they may have a higher standard for the next few weeks for screening unusual behavior. I hope that’s not the case, because I do think US Airways did the proper thing.”

I agree that US Airways did the proper thing.

The Washington Post reports that CAIR, an Islamic Civil Rights group, has demanded that Dennis Prager be removed from the U.S. Holocaust Museum Council. The reason?

CAIR is offended that Prager wrote an article criticizing newly elected Congressmen Keith Ellison for insisting on using the Koran instead of the Bible at his swearing-in ceremony. Prager pointed out that Mormons don’t insist on swearing in using a Book of Mormon and that atheists don’t insist on swearing in using a non-religious book. Yet Ellison wants special treatment that no other congressman has demanded in our nation’s history.

Here are CAIR’s comments:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Monday that comments by Dennis Prager, a columnist and conservative talk radio host, displayed an intolerance toward Islam that makes him inappropriate to serve on the council, which oversees the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

You can read the full article and the supposedly offensive statements by Prager at Townhall.com.

Prager also responds in a new column to CAIR’s attack on him:

Accusation: My column and/or I are racist, bigoted and Islamophobic.

Response: “Racist”: It is impossible to fully respond to absurdity. How is race possibly involved in my wanting the Bible to be present at swearings-in of American politicians? I wrote in my column that I apply the same standard to Jews, Scientologists and everyone else. Those who make this charge merely cheapen the word racism and therefore weaken the fight against it.

“Islamophobic”: I wrote not a word against Islam or the Koran and made it clear at the beginning of my column that nothing I write is specific to Islam or the Koran. All those who write that I “compared” the Koran to “Mein Kampf” are lying — deliberately lying to defame me rather than respond to my arguments. I simply offered a slippery slope argument that if we let everyone choose their own text at swearings-in, what will happen one day should a racist decide to use “Mein Kampf”? A slippery slope argument is not an equivalence argument. The Left regularly argues that vouchers to support Catholic schools can one day be used to support religious extremists’ schools. Are they comparing Catholicism to religious extremism? Of course not. And no one on the Right has ever stooped so low as to make such a charge. Moreover, I not only mentioned “Mein Kampf,” I mentioned “Dianetics,” Scientology’s most revered work, the works of Voltaire (for secularists) and other works.

“Bigoted”: Bigoted against whom? Against non-Christians? I am a non-Christian. Am I bigoted against myself as a Jew? I happen to be one of the most active individuals in American Jewish life and co-author of probably the most widely used English-language introduction to Judaism of the last 30 years.

In fact, it is as a Jew that I am so aware of the fragility of all civilizations, including ours. I am therefore aware of how uniquely good America has been for all its citizens, including and especially its Jews. This uniqueness does not stem from secularism alone, but from an extraordinary Judeo-Christian value system that has been our civic religion. Europe is secular and is a failing civilization; one that is also increasingly judenrein [empty of Jews] because of its anti-Semitism.

I am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial. But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in. It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country.

My two cents: Prager’s article was not racist/bigoted/etc. He made legitimate points about Ellison’s divisive decision to insist on swearing-in on a Koran instead of the Bible.  Why does CAIR want to censor his comments? And how on earth does CAIR think it is qualified to preach about who should or should not be on the council of the US Holocaust Museum.

Prager, who is Jewish, has written about the dangers of anti-Semitism before and about the Holocaust. CAIR, on the other hand, maintains a militantly anti-Israel (some might even say anti-Semitic) policy and has never publicly criticized the violence of the Palestinians against the Israelis nor rebuked Islamic fundamentalists for their intense hatred of the Jewish people. This makes CAIR’s comments on this issue hypocritical as well as unfair to Prager.

The NY Times reports on CAIR’s case against US Airways:

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Islamic advocacy group, said this was hardly the first time Muslims had encountered problems with stereotyping by the airline. “We seem to have received more complaints against US Airways” than other carriers, Mr. Awad said in an interview. Those complaints have come from Muslim employees and passengers alike, he said. 

Everything I’ve read on the story of the Muslim imans who were removed from a recent US Airways flight leads me to believe that the airline took the appropriate precautions given passenger complaints and flight crew concerns. Yet CAIR is singling out US Airways for criticism. Would CAIR prefer that US Airways ignore suspicious activity just because the suspicious people are Muslim? Apparently so.  Wouldn’t you classify this behavior as suspicious: 

Detailed accounts of the incident varied. Witnesses, including a number of passengers and US Airways employees, said they heard some of the men making anti-American remarks and chanting “Allah,” first as they boarded the plane and then when led off, Mr. Hogan said.

As a frequent flier who logs more than 100,000 miles a year, I am more likely to pick US Airways for future flights after this incident. It shows that they are not willing to compromise the security of their passengers even if it means risking some negative press.

Fox News reported today that the imans kicked off the US Airways flight staged an airport “pray-in” to protest what they call racial profiling by US Airways.  Here’s the airline’s side of the story:

US Airways Group Inc. spokeswoman Andrea Rader said prayer was never the issue.

“Apparently, as they were boarding, one passenger overheard them saying what they thought were anti-U.S. statements,” Rader said.

She also said the men got up and moved around the airplane, forcing the flight crew to consult with the airline about whether they might pose a security risk. Local law enforcement and the FBI thought they did, she said.

Sounds suspicious enough to me. While everyone has the right to free speech, the courts have recognized limits to this right. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is often the example provided.  Making anti-US comments on a crowded plane would certainly cause passenger concern as well.  These imans certainly have the right to hate the US all they want, but it would be wise if they kept these thoughts to themselves while boarding/flying an airplane.

The article also notes that the imans were moving about the plane. Another article I read mentioned that they asked to switch seats.  This can be incredibly disruptive during boarding– especially with the recent airline load factors. It also reduces the chance of an on-time departure.  The proper way to switch seats is to ask at the check-in desk prior to boarding. If nothing is available, board the plane AND then ask the flight crew if a move would be possible AFTER everyone has been seated and the plane has taken off. I’ve seen passengers try to switch seats without asking, and it always causes a disruption when the passenger who is ticketed for that seat has to ask the other passenger to move. 

These imans seem rather entitled to me. I would be surprised if they were the type of passenger to protest if someone reclined his seat in front of them. After all, they have demonstrated that they care only about themselves and not the feelings of their fellow passengers.