Flying carpet fallacy

{{significantly problematic}}[[File:Flying Carpet Boeing 737-200, OD-LMB@HAJ,28.07.2007-482fa - Flickr - Aero Icarus.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Flying… but not a carpet]]
{{logicnav}}{{islamophobia}}{{Needs sources}}

The '''"flying carpet" fallacy''' denotes the debating technique of inappropriately bringing up a [[Stereotype| stereotypical]], [[racist]], or [[Orientalism |exotic fantasy]] about the "[[Muslim]] world", in order to shift a conversation away from a topic with more local relevance. It often boils down to a matter of [[false equivalence]], and can be an inappropriate accusation of ''[[tu quoque]]'' or attempt to claim [[two wrongs make a right]]. The blogger Jehanzeb Dar originally coined the term in an essay in 2010.<ref name=dar>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100419195557/http://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/the-flying-carpet-fallacy/ The Flying Carpet Fallacy] by Jehanzeb Dar (April 9, 2010) ''Muslim Reverie (archived from April 19, 2010).</ref><ref>
[https://web.archive.org/web/20100502020239/http://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/about/ About] by Jehanzeb Dar, ''Muslim Reverie (archived from May 2, 2010).</ref> The flying carpet fallacy is an [[informal fallacy]].

==How it goes==
This often comes up in discussions about [[Islamophobia|anti-Muslim discrimination]] or the struggles of Muslims in Western countries, and eventually someone invokes irrelevant comments to dismiss the concerns with a wave of their hand. They pull out a magic flying carpet, an [[Orientalism|orientalist]] device, and transport the conversation off into a stereotypical racist fantasy about the "Muslim world". As the original author described it, the scenario goes something like this:<ref name=dar/>
{{cquote|Person A, a Muslim, is speaking with a colleague at her university and says to Person B, "Hey, I'm presenting my project next week, you should come! It's on [[Islamophobia]] and how it affects the social relationships and identities of Muslim-American emerging adults in post [[9/11]] America." Person A shares a bit of information from her research, but then Person B shifts the focus of the conversation and says something like, "Hey, it's not as bad as the way [[Christian]]s are persecuted in Arab countries!"

Before she knows it, Person A finds herself on a flying carpet and sent to some random Muslim-majority country. Suddenly the participants get dragged into an unrelated discussion about life and politics overseas. They are not really transported to a Muslim-majority country, instead they're sent to an orientalist fantasy of the “Middle-East,” which only exists in Person B’s imagination — a flawed imagining of “Arab countries” that is consistent with the stereotypical and often racist discourse perpetuated about [[Islam]] and [[Muslims]] in mainstream American media. Person B is poorly equipped with the knowledge and experience to hold an intelligent discussion about [[Islamophobia]] and Muslim-majority countries, and his magic carpet takes you to a place that blurs the distinction between Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, South Asians, Turks, Afghans, and the various nations and regions they belong to.
}}
That is, what he terms as “the Muslim world,” is simply [[Other|a single entity]] in his mind, as if 25% of the world's population is all identical in thought and action and viewed as uniquely foreign.

Often a third type of person may also be present to join the conversation. Unlike Person B, Person C is quite informed about the social and political dynamics of certain Muslim-majority countries and has actually traveled to one or two; however, Person C resorts to the same fallacy. Regardless of how intelligent and articulate he may sound, Person C still makes the error of using comparative arguments to negate the experiences of the initial group (e.g. Muslim-Americans in post-9/11 America). This is why Persons B and C love using the Flying Carpet: they send you far away from the original discussion and make it very difficult for the original topic to come back. The longer they keep you away, the more they ignore what you addressed.

===Uses===
There are many uses of this fallacy in discussions about [[Islamophobia]] in Western media and society (all actual comments):<ref name=dar/>
*"Dude, While I want America and the West to live up to their proclaimed ideals, it would be nice to see even a hint of reciprocity in Muslim countries. Defamation of Islam? Please! There is defamation of [[Hinduism]], [[Christianity]], [[Zoroastrianism]], [[Bahá'í]], and [[Judaism]] going on every day in Muslim countries, even sponsored by the [[government]]s!!!"
*"However, while you are complaining of 'stereotyping' and 'harassment' and 'ignorant White people' I would like to consider what you and Muslims do. In case you don’t know, or more likely don't care, Muslims persecute and discriminate everywhere they dominate. Where they don't dominate, they whine and try to end the freedoms of non-Muslims."
*"You cannot be a real Muslim and a [[feminist]]. The true representation of Islam is to kill the [[infidel]] and oppress women. Just look at the Middle East."
*"Try traveling to a majority Muslim country and see what they have to say about other religions. Rreally, dude, Christian-majority countries are hardly the only ones on earth!"
*"By the way, in my knee-jerk American way, I have to say, I am so sorry you are discriminated against here, but have you any, any idea how even [[Pakistan]]i Christians are discriminated against in Pakistan?"
*"Get the [expletive] over it, whiny [expletive] baby. It's a damn movie. I'm sure Arabic movies or whatever criticize Americans too"

===Countering the fallacy===
According to Dar, the key to countering the flying carpet fallacy, regardless of who invokes it, is to (1) not get dragged into orientalist stereotypes and (2) bring the conversation back home. One can also refute the fashion in which the said persons use their comparative arguments and then bring the discussion back to your original point. Countering this fallacy does not mean that you reject, deny, or ignore the real problems that exist in Muslim-majority countries, whether they concern minority groups or the rights of women for example. The point is that comparative arguments are used to dodge an honest discussion about Islamophobia or Muslim civil rights or anti-Muslim discrimination in the post 9/11 world.

When we talk about Islamophobia and someone responds with a point about minority groups being mistreated, stigmatized, or persecuted in a Muslim-majority country, the implication is that:<ref name=dar/>
{{aquote|
#it's worse "over there" for "people like me" and
#Muslims should be "more grateful" to be here.
}}
If the original discussion is about Islamophobia or bigotry in the US or Europe, then the conversation should be centered on that and avoid diversions that may negate the experiences of stigmatized Western minority group. The same should hold true if we want to discuss the way minority groups are treated in a Muslim-majority country. As Dar said, "Neither topic is 'more important' than the other; they deserve separate individual discussions instead of comparing."<ref name=dar/> "Bring the discussion home. Don’t get on the magic carpet. Take it home with you and use it for fun stuff."

==Notable examples==
In 2010, when controversy erupted over whether a [[Park51|"mosque" should be allowed to be built in downtown New York City]], [[Newt Gingrich]] insisted that the city should bar it until [[Saudi Arabia]] allowed the construction of churches.

In 2010-2014, debate in Murfreesboro, [[Tennessee]] on whether to allow an Islamic center to renovate and expand received national attention when local [[Tea Party]] leaders invoked this fallacy, claiming that Muslims in [[Sudan]] and Saudi Arabia were hostile to Christians and thus the American Muslims in Tennessee should be punished.

In 2006, Congressman [[Keith Ellison]] won election as the first Muslim-American in the [[Congress|US House of Representatives]], after his opponents made claims that Muslims overseas were trying to kill Americans. When he took his oath of office on [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s [[Quran]], [[Dennis Prager]] said it would be as disruptive to America's democracy as 9/11 (gasp!). [[Pundit]]s on the [[Right wing|Right]] opined that "Muslim countries" would not allow a Christian to do the same.

In the UK, Julie Burchill has referred to "Pig Islam" and then claimed that "Muslim Textbooks" did similar things, saying,"[[Google it]]".<ref>https://brokenbottleboy.substack.com/p/the-hate-of-the-hip-gunslinger-julie</ref>

This fallacy is frequently invoked against the pro-[[Palestine]] movement, particularly when [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] compared "Queers for [[Palestine]]" to "chickens for KFC".<ref>Kirkpatrick, K. (2025). Deconstructing "Chickens for KFC&quot;: Israeli Pinkwashing, Homonationalism, and Contemporary Backlash Toward Queers for Palestine. On Politics, 18(1), 31-42. Retrieved from https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/onpolitics/article/view/22376</ref>

==See also==
===Abusers of this technique===
{{collist|2|
*[[Ann Coulter]]
*[[Dinesh D'Souza]]
*[[Pamela Geller]]
*[[Newt Gingrich]]
*[[Sam Harris]]
*[[Dennis Prager]]
*[[Pat Robertson]]
}}

===Cousins of this technique===
{{collist|2|
*[[False equivalence]]
*[[Fatwa envy]]
*[[FUD]]
*[[Gish Gallop]]
*[[Just asking questions]]
*[[Not as bad as]]
*[[One-way hash argument]]
*[[PRATT]]
*[[Straw man]]
*[[Tu quoque]]
*[[Two wrongs make a right]]
*[[Whataboutism]]
}}

==External links==
*[http://muslimreverie.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/the-flying-carpet-fallacy/ The Flying Carpet Fallacy], by Jehanzeb Dar (used with permission from author via email under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.)

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Informal fallacies]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Categories: Informal fallacies, Islam