Anila Daulatzai, who was previously an Assistant Professor of Women’s Studies and Islamic Studies at Harvard Divinity School, has reached national headlines by requesting that two dogs (one of which was an emotional support animal) be removed from the flight. Her reason? She claimed to be deathly allergic to man’s best friend. 

Because Southwest Airlines has a policy that passengers who claim to have a life-threatening allergy must provide some form of medical documentation proving that they can healthily board the flight, and seeing that Daulatzai did not possess any such documentation, the professor was promptly escorted off the plane against her will.

Watch the video:

After the incident, Southwest released a statement, claiming that, “Our policy states that a Customer (without a medical certificate) may be denied boarding if they report a life-threatening allergic reaction and cannot travel safely with an animal onboard. Our Flight Crew made repeated attempts to explain the situation to the Customer, however, she refused to deplane and law enforcement became involved.”

Her refusal to leave the plane can perhaps be attributed to the fact that she is not deathly allergic to dogs at all. After all, if she was deathly allergic, then should certainly would have left the premises knowing that there were dogs near her. However, being fully aware that there were dogs on the plane – two, in fact – and electing not to remove herself from the flight, it was the responsibility of the company in question to take the initiative and remove her from the dangerous situation in service to her well-being. 

In 2001, in response to U.S-led airstrikes on Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack, Daulatzai stated that, “America has given me tremendous opportunities, like an education. But there is something very wrong that money my family is paying as taxpayers is being used to bomb my people. It doesn’t make sense to me.” Moreover, seeing that her surname, “Daulatzai” is of Afghan descent and that the “Dawlatzai” are a sub-tribe of the Tanoli mainly found in eastern Afghanistan, it possible – or even likely – that Daulatzai’s concern about the canine presence on the plan was linked to her religio-cultural tendencies rather than a legitimate medical ailment. 

Multiple Islamic legal traditions have developed injunctions that warn citizens from coming into contact with dogs, as most Muslim traditions believe dogs to be ritually impure animals. Dr. Ayoub M. Banderker, an Islamic veterinary surgeon, writes in his article Animal Abuse and Welfare in Islam, that Muslims should not keep dogs in the house. Moreover, Prof. Khaled Abou el Fadl notes that “religious traditions hold that if a dog – or woman – passes in front of you as you prepare to pray, it pollutes your purity and negates your prayer.”

Despite Vogue‘s twisting of the entire incident into a distorted narrative of “Trump’s America” oppressing “people of color,” the facts are clear. Daulatzai, an Islamic researcher, decried the presence of dogs on her flight, claiming that she was “deathly allergic” and demanding that they be removed from the plane to suit her medical needs. When no documentation could be procured to prove that Daulatzai could safely fly in proximity to dogs, she was escorted off the plane. 

The taqiyya is strong with this one, as the real reason behind her request for the dogs to be removed stems from her degenerate religious convictions. Because she is a Muslim, however, the media will likely downplay this story, and her name and face will be forgotten within the week, because the social elite do not wish to acknowledge the fact the Islamic migrants do not with to assimilate to the surrounding culture, on the contrary, they seek to conquer the surrounding culture.