Airport body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslims say

[Bozita]

Source: Detroit Free Press

POSTED: 2:44 P.M. FEB. 11, 2010
Airport body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslims say
BY NIRAJ WARIKOO
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER


Saying that body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslim-American groups are supporting a “fatwa” – a religious ruling – that forbids Muslims from going through the scanners at airports.

The Fiqh Council of North America – a body of Islamic scholars that includes some from Michigan – issued a fatwa this week that says going through the airport scanners would violate Islamic rules on modesty.

“It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” reads the fatwa issued Tuesday. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.”

The decision could complicate efforts to intensify screening of potential terrorists who are Muslim. After the Christmas Day bombing attempt in Detroit by a Muslim suspect from Nigeria, some have called for the use of body scanners at airports to find explosives and other dangerous materials carried by terrorists. Some airports are now in the process of buying and using the body scanners, which show in graphic detail the outlines of a person’s body.

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20100211/NEWS05/100211044/1001/NEWS/Airport-body-scanners-violate-Islamic-law-Muslims-say

[d_r]

1. oh boy

the freeper response to this is going to be predictable.

[Robb]

38. Don't worry

...I'm sure TSA et al will make a religious exemption for Muslims.








:sarcasm: <--- if it's needed.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DesertFlower]

3. if that's the case, wouldn't it

apply to all religions.

how are muslim women examined by doctors?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mithreal]

7. Seems like the workaround is obvious.

[cilla4progress]

18. They can only go to women doctors.

[saigon68]

50. Lots of Love on this thread

[Mithreal]

53. Should have seen responses to this story before the mods did their thing.

[saigon68]

143. Its too bad really

If one disagrees with something----

a little well thought out criticism, using logic won't be deleted -----

sometimes gets a laugh from me-------

and never fails to impress, with well reasoned intelligence and wisdom.

Even though I vehemently may disagree with the author.

[jmowreader]

155. They have women doctors

Which caused DU's biggest problem with the Taliban. According to the Muslim faith, females may only be treated by female medical staff, and males may only be treated by male medical staff. (Same deal with teachers--female students may only be educated by female teachers, males only by male teachers.) When the Taliban issued the fatwa stating women were not allowed to work, with NO exceptions for medical or educational personnel, female Afghanis lost the ability to go to school or seek medical attention.

And the thing is, it didn't have to be that way--Allah could have told the Taliban clerics it was okay for women to work in education and medicine, but Allah's not on speaking terms with Mullah Omar.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. So, to prevent airport security from looking at images of them

they will necessitate them being taken into private rooms and physically examined and visually inspected.

Seems to me that the scanner is the LESS intrusive, MORE modest approach than having people checking you out in person.

[Mithreal]

8. "that men or women be seen naked by other men and women"

What is so hard to understand?

I am an agnostic raised Lutheran, but if I need to respect the assclown fundamentalist Christians, you can sure as hell expect I am going to stand up for others who do not practice our particular state sponsored religion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. The choice is not to scan or not scan - the choice is to scan or to

examine in person.

One way or the other, they WILL be seen by the TSA inspectors.

[Mithreal]

13. And we don't have male and female TSA inspectors?

What am I misunderstanding?

[MetaTrope]

126. What we need to do is return to ancient Asian custom, and create a eunuch servant class

Castrate all TSA and Homeland Security employees, and this won't be an issue.

[jmowreader]

156. You're misunderstanding paranoia here

Except they know it won't be paranoia.

The Muslim-Americans know the Internet will be full of "naked chick" videos about a day after the first scanner is installed. (Even if it's just Jimmy the Pimp-style concealed cell phone video, this shit WILL get out. There's no way it couldn't.) They ALSO know the "see a naked rag-head chick" videos will be especially popular. (Throw in that no one will know the gender of the machine operator--female operators will see male Muslims, and male operators will see female Muslims.) So...since you can't post frisking videos online because there aren't any, they would much rather be frisked.

[Gormy Cuss]

27. Actually in most cases the choice is the full body scan or a pat down by someone of the same gender.

That's probably not considered immodest.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. don't know about you, but I'd think that some guy grabbing my balls

would be a bit more immodest than looking at a scan.

[Gormy Cuss]

48. They don't grab them, they run their hands over the area while you're wearing at least one layer

of clothing, two layers if you're not going commando. As I wrote earlier, this may pass muster as modest enough since the fatwa doesn't address it.

[Courtesy Flush]

158. Nobody grabs your balls

I'm an amputee, and because of my prosthetics, I have to be hand-searched every time I fly. It just takes a few minutes, and is no big deal. I am in full view of other passengers, and my clothes stay on the whole time.

[JDPriestly]

35. I don't think a pat down would work.

Remember where the underpants bomber hid his weapon? Please ignore the double entendre.

[Gormy Cuss]

45. I don't think the full body scan will work either from what I've read.

If the package of explosives was stuffed between his cheeks it may not have aroused any suspicion.
Stuffing them in a cavity would get the passenger through security too, whether pat down or full scan.

Currently in the U.S. installations where full body scanners are being tested as primary screening devices passengers have the right to ask for a pat down instead. This use as a primary screening device may become commonplace once more airports have sufficient devices.

My understanding is that when the full body scanner is used as a secondary screener (for those who are chosen either randomly or based on watch list status) for a more intensive screening is there an issue of being asking to disrobe for further inspection.

[JDPriestly]

80. Do you think that dogs that sniff explosives would be better?

[pitohui]

83. dogs that sniff explosives would be 1000 percent better

how to defeat the scanner is well known, it's an expensive piece of crap

[JDPriestly]

93. It would be interesting to know who sells it, who profits from it

and who the person is in the government who wants to buy it. Is there a tie between seller and buyer other than this purchase?

[riderinthestorm]

104. Except devout Muslims won't let the dogs get that close to them, they are "unclean" in the Quran. nt

[No Elephants]

115. A devout Egyptian Muslim who shares his home with a dog tells me that it is

okay, as long as the dog stays out of the place where you pray. :shrug:

[fleabert]

135. one only needs to wash properly before praying to become clean, if an animal

touches their skin. It has more to do with prayer than anything else. Same as those who might practice all the cleansing rituals in Leviticus.

[riderinthestorm]

141. Hmm, perhaps it is up to interpretation as I was told it was a general ban on dogs as "unclean"

by a devout Muslim friend. She told me that the dogs are okay as long as they are outside and utilized as "protection", and not directly interacting with the Muslim household as that was considered "haram". The guards at Guantanamo used dogs quite effectively, both as aggressors as well as playing on Muslim antipathy towards them.

I'm thinking this is a gray area which leads me to believe it would/could be another trouble spot for TSA.

[fleabert]

146. like many things in Islam, it's all about interpretation of the Koran...

i have a friend whom I would call a genius, and is practically a religious scholar by hobby, and he is Muslim, he grew up with dogs in his home. His family always had dogs in and out of the home, for protection and companionship. I imported my dog from the US into Dubai and was worried about the reaction she might get here. He explained to me that the misinterpretation of the teachings is more cultural than religious- one only need wash before praying if you have been in close contact with an animal that is unclean. (many are) That means washing seven times- what a pain! so most Islamic cultures have merely become used to not having dogs in the home out of convenience.

he told me a story from the Koran just in case anyone gave me a hard time about my dog-

a man was walking in the desert, and came to a water well, he was very thirsty. There was a dog there at the well, it could smell the water, but it could not reach it as the well was very deep, the dog was dying of thirst. The man decided to provide water for the dog using his shoe, and allowed the dog to drink until he was full before he took a drink himself- for this act alone, Allah allowed him into heaven.

a woman kept cats at her home and chose to not provide for them, food and water- (the details are fuzzy for me on this part of the story) and for this lack of compassion for the animals alone, Allah did not allow her into heaven.

Now, I have issues with the stories on other details, but it does illustrate that the Koran teaches that kindness and love are preferred over abuse and neglect towards animals.

No one has been unkind about my dog, although some do not want to be in the elevator with her, i respect that. If she licks them (she wouldn't, but...) they have to wash 7 times before they can pray.

That said- my other Muslim friend here lets my dog and another friends dog lick her face, and takes care of them when we go out of town. :shrug:

[riderinthestorm]

148. If there are Muslims in Dubai who won't even get on an elevator with a dog

I am sure the TSA will run into problems with bomb sniffing dogs touching Muslim passengers.

It is all about interpretation and nuance. I really appreciate your input though. What an interesting place you are living in (Dubai!)

I don't know if you've followed my posts about my 13 year old daughter at Heathrow... I just have to say since under-18s being scanned is MY personal problem with the machines, I'd have been a whole lot more sympathetic to the fatwa if it had included children or legitimate US legal concerns over privacy issues related to unreasonable searches etc. Instead the fatwa is singularly about adult squishiness about sexuality couched in religious "law".

[fleabert]

151. i would say we are on the same page- i would never let a kid in a scanner.

personally, i wouldn't do it either. I'd take the pat down.

My dh gets pulled for special screening every single time he enters the usa. they tell him it's because his name matches one on a 'list'. it's been a few years now...sucks. esp. since we live overseas and he travels to the US for business and to visit family. pain in the ass!

I don't get pulled though.

fyi- my husband is american born, and brown, and he says that the only white people in the room are the officials, all the rest are always some shade of brown. Name on a list...right. His name is Spanish.

about the elevator thing: i really think it comes down to being accustomed to being around dogs, and a fear of the unknown, they don't know what to expect from her, and she's very small. so even stranger than a regular sized dog. (chihuahua) I have never had anyone be disgusted by her.

[riderinthestorm]

152. At Heathrow right now, there's no pat-down alternative. My daughter got scanned, or she didn't fly.

That was my real point: DUers get all defensive when it comes to religious "laws" (especially Islamic ones) but are fairly quiet when it comes to REAL issues (imho) like scanners crossing into child pornography and violations of US law like those against unreasonable searches. There are now some later posts by DUers pointing this out, but it's not nearly as vociferous as those defending Islamic "laws".

The attorney we spoke to was absolute: flying is a privilege. Noone has to fly. And until the UK (and elsewhere) figures out how what to do about these new scanners and how they violate existing real laws, not pseudo-religious ones, it's put up or don't fly. In my defense, these tickets and this trip were booked in early December - long before the "Christmas bomber" forced these draconian scanners onto the populace. It was either bag the trip and the expense, or live with them.

She'll inevitably be scanned tomorrow when she comes home. I don't like it. But unless I want her staying in the UK for an indefinite amount of time (and living in a tiny studio apartment with her grad school sister and her sister's boyfriend!) she'll go through again to get home. She doesn't know anything about the controversy surrounding them. She has no idea of the level of detail that's provided the scanner. I will say my husband did quietly ask the security person to delete her image as soon as she was through. He was assured it would be deleted. Who knows though. I harbor no illusions.

[fleabert]

159. wow. you won't have to remind me not to go thru Heathrow. jesus.

that is bullshit, if only for your reason, and for pregnant women.

this little story might help make heathrow change their tune for a pat down option...
http://www.infowars.com/heathrow-denial-of-naked-scanner-controversy-doesnt-add-up/

...Clearly the images produced by the scanners can be saved, distributed and printed. The public has been completely mislead about the fact that this represents a total violation of privacy and a system open to frightening levels of abuse, especially considering the fact that children are being forced to pass through the scanners...

[Mithreal]

56. What's one more layer of security when all the others can be sidestepped?

Am I right?

Our intelligence forces failed big time, good thing they won't be working the scanners. We'll get em next time, right.

"The Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day airliner plot should serve as reminders that we are only one intelligence failure away from a calamity taking place."

The Terrorists’ Best Weapon: Intelligence Failures
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/04/the-terrorists%E2%80%99-best-weapon-intelligence-failures-by-ryan-mauro/

A January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security established that US intelligence agencies stopped the State Department from revoking the US visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

CIA shielded Flight 253 "underwear" bomber
http://www.open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2010/02/03/cia_shielded_flight_253_underwear_bomber

We don't deserve security or liberty if this is how we are going to face every threat.

[JDPriestly]

79. Very interesting.

A January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security established that US intelligence agencies stopped the State Department from revoking the US visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He was then, not under the radar. Very interesting.

[Mithreal]

131. yes indeedy

[No Elephants]

97. That was months ago. Why must you always look backward?

[Mithreal]

132. +1

:patriot:

[JDPriestly]

33. I doubt that religious freedom would be interpreted to include avoiding

a procedure needed for security purposes. It would be argued that lives might be lost if some people were exempted from the scans.

That's my guess with regard to how the Supreme Court would view this.

You can't use controlled substances just because their use is a part of your religious observance.

The Supreme Court case I am thinking of is Employment Division v. Smith.

There is probably a link to it in this Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

[jberryhill]

43. Smith Was Largely Eviscerated By RFRA...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

[JDPriestly]

78. National Security has been the excuse for violating other human rights.

I don't think that religious objections to nudity would be accepted as a reason for avoiding the scanners.

After all, no one has to fly. That is what we will be told. We enjoy the freedom to travel and the freedom of religion but any freedom can be subject to reasonable regulation. This scan is embarrassing and certainly violates religious feelings about modesty (and not just for Muslims, you might be surprised to learn), but those interests do not trump the interest in security. It would be different if the underwear bomber had not managed to get a bomb on the plane in the manner he did. The idea that someone might bring a bomb hidden on the body in some way that could only be viewed by a scanner is not speculation.

Unreasonable search and seizure would be a better argument maybe -- but then that too has been trumped by national security interests. Mind you, I think the scanners are a disgusting intrusion on our privacy.

[No Elephants]

107. A fetwah is not about religious feelings about modesty. It is a cleric

pronouncing to those in his jurisdiction on Islamic law, saying "Allowing yourself to be scanned in the kind of scanner being used in airports is a sin against God that may {will?} deprive you of eternal life in Paradise."

Some Muslims, especially Shia, feel as bound by it as if Muhumad himself said it, while others say they study it and follow their own conscience ultimately. However, no observant Muslim within the cleric's jurisdiction simply dismisses it.

[jberryhill]

108. Oh I agree completely that there is no 4th claim re: the scanners

But Smith is not a reliable guide to free exercise claims.

Flying is voluntary, and the court would have no problem finding a compelling interest anyway.

My comment was only directed toward citation od Smith.

[No Elephants]

95. Smith involved an Oregon law about drugs, including peyote.

The Smith Court held that there was no First Amendment right to ingest peyote during a religious ceremony. Therefore, Oregon could lawfully deny unemployment benefits to drug rehab counselors who had been fired for ingesting peyote, even though they had, they claimed, ingested it during a religious ceremony only as part of their right to free exercise of religion. (In refusing employment benefits, Oregon cited work-related misconduct as drug counselors were not allowed to use.)

In the course of reaching its decision, the Court said that Oregon did not have to show a compelling interest in enforcing the ban across the board, if the ban was not religious motivated. (This case was very much like the very first Free Exercise case ever, which held that a state could enforce bigamy laws against Mormons, despite their religious beliefs about multiple marriage.)

Congress then passed the RFRA, requiring the "compelling interest" standard. However, the SCOTUS declared the RFRA unconstitutional as applied to state laws. For that reason, while the RFRA had attempted to force courts to act differently than the Smith Court had, the RFRA did not eviscerate Smith, which involved Oregon law, not federal law. However, the State of Oregon changed its own laws as to religious use of peyote. So, Oregon law mooted Smith, but only as to Oregon and only for so long as Oregon continues to choose to permit religious use of peyote.

My own view is that the RFRA, by attempting to dictate how a court reviews a case, is unconstitutional re: separation of powers. IMO, dictating what standards judges must apply when they review a Constitutional claim is too much interference by the legislative branch with the functions an prerogatives of the judicial branch. However, so far, the SCOTUS does NOT appear to share my view. (pffft, they think the Framers wanted corporations to have speech rights, so their view does not cow me.)

[jberryhill]

106. A larger and more important point...

The Constitution defines a discussion of sorts among the three branches and the states (in the amendment power). RFRA is precisely the type of legislation that can be an appropriate response to a misguided decision or line of decisions. Legislative findings are given a large measure of deference in Constitutional analysis. As peyote is not banned as a Constitutional matter, and free exercise is guaranteed, it is perfectly appropriate to have federal legislation that reInforces free exercise, provides a statutory claim for a violation, and requires interpretation according to its own terms.

It's not at all "unconstitutional" to provide a legislative scheme around protection of a specific enumerated right, even if the court did not agree in the absence of such legislation.

For (a simplified) example, let's say the court found that police could search a car trunk without consent at a traffic stop. That kind of decision can be undone by legislation making it illegal for police to do that. It sets the bar in the direction of expanding the scope of a Constitutional right. That's a perfectly fine legislative function. What the legislature CANNOT do, is to try to restrict a Constutional right. In other words, the Court, in the absence of relevant legislation, will only determine where the floor is.

[No Elephants]

110. Yes, I know. But I was responding only to a specific statement of yours that was not quite right,

namely that an Act of Congress had "eviscerated" the Smith case.

I know a legislature can grant more rights than the Constitutional minimum, but my post does not mention that because granting more rights per se had nothing to do with my post.

My post had to do with Congress's usurping (IMO) the prerogatives of the judiciary by dictating a particular standard of review that a court must use. That is qualitatively very different from Congress saying, "Hey, maybe the SCOTUS says there is no Constitutional right to chew peyote as you worship, but we say chewing peyote in line with your religious beliefs is not a crime." The latter is fine for Congress to do.

That the SCOTUS did not see the Act as a perfectly appropriate Congressional response to the Smith case is evidenced by the invalidation of the Act as it applies to state law. I would argue that the SCOTUS did not go far enough.

The whole concept of standard of review in Constitutional cases is purely a court made doctrine. It is not the province of Congress. Courts should be as free to modify and overrule that as they are any other judge made doctrine. More significantly, Congress ought not be about telling the judicial branch how to handle its own province. That is what separation of powers among co-equal branches is about.

The analogy to Congress's dictating to courts a specific standard of review would be the SCOTUS's holding something like "Congress cannot enact any law without holding at least two Congressional hearings first."

I am not great at coming up with analogies on the spur of the moment, so please don't get all caught up in the example. However, IMO, Congress crosses an impermissible line when it tells a court how it MUST analyze a case. You may have a different opinion, but dictating a particular standard of review is different from simply legislating more rights than the Constitution allows.

[jberryhill]

114. But that's done indirectly all of the time

"eviscerated" was a rapid word choice.

But standard of review can be dictated indirectly by a number of mechanisms.

The expansion principle remains the same. You can legislatively move a rational basis standard to a compelling interest standard for the same reasons as stated. I don't see anything offensive about getting into the legal mechanics that way because, really, it's up to the court whether the legislature has gone too far, even in that respect. You just add another layer of jurisprudence on top of "when is it appropriate or not" for the legislature to do that.

I mean, really, if the court is going to follow a legislatively mandated standard, then you can't argue they shouldn't. It's kind of pointless, eh?

And, of course, you can only do this relative to other federal statutes. The federal legislature can put an interpretive gloss on the rest of the code without having to specifically weed through the whole thing and add remedial exceptions all over the place in order to negate a holding the legislature finds too narrow.

And, really, in a contest between a purely judicial doctrine and the express
product of the two political branches, a good deal of deference is warranted, unless there is a Constitutional conflict - other than separation of powers. Because if the court is the sole SOP arbiter, then ...

[No Elephants]

116. If rapid word choice was really the only issue, which word would you substitute, now tthat you've

had more time? ?

As for the rest, going over the same ground is not going to change either of our minds, nor is there any reason why we need to agree.

But...."a constitutional conflict - other than separation of powers?" No reason whatever to exclude separation of powers from consideration.

[jberryhill]

117. Heh....

You try to be nuanced when you are typing with your thumbs on an iPhone, smarty pants.

Go ahead....

[No Elephants]

119. Now that you've put down the iPhone and had more time, what's the correct word?

And Ill thank you to leave my pants out of a thread about scanners.

[jberryhill]

140. Transmogrified? /nt

[Mithreal]

52. Problem is that it is unnecessary, JD.

The SCOTUS is corrupted, arguing how they might see this is unpersuasive.

I am not seeing the similarity between the use of a controlled substance and modesty.

[No Elephants]

105. I'm not sure I understand it.

"that men or women be seen naked by other men and women"

Does that mean that a Muslim man cannot allow himself to be seen naked by women or other men? Or does it mean that a Muslim man may not allow himself to be seen by women, but a man being seen by another man would be ok?

The wording is ambiguous.

[Mithreal]

130. agreed, more than one interpretation

[alstephenson]

22. Uh, have you seen the images???

Not much left to the imagination... In fact, nothing left to the imagination.

[pitohui]

82. i guess that's because you don't fly raleighNCDUer

everyone gets patdowns at certain airports -- EVERYONE -- such as FRA (frankfurt, germany, the largest airport in europe would be one example)

they don't take you into a private room unless you request which you don't because they're frisking everyone, you're not so special

the scanner is NOT less intrusive, it strips you of your clothes, which the fraulein patting you down in front a million other people can't do, she's just feeling around for stuff that don't feel right, she isn't creating a digital image of you that can be potentially stored, swapped, or even traded online

if you can't see the difference because you don't actually travel thru DTW or any other major airport, then PLEASE don't trade away my security and privacy because you're believing a line of bullshit intended to sell an expensive worthless piece of crap

all you have to do to defeat th e scanner is have the weapon wedged up your vagina/asshole -- same way you'd defeat the frisk -- the scan only sees an inch into your body

in other words, it's a rip off and a hoax

[jberryhill]

118. Mandatory butt plugs with mm wave transponders

Problem solved. If you don't have a TSA transponder tipped butt plug in place, you don't fly.

[BR_Parkway]

5. Ok, so no more fundamental Muslim's flying with bombs - seems ok

from that perspective. Any way this would keep the Baptists and Mormons from flying from state to state to deny rights to GLBT?

[Mithreal]

9. Our intelligence services keep failing to protect us, might as well outlaw them.

They go damn far out of their way to enable terrorism and don't get me started on our other "defensive" forces.

[roesch]

41. No fly law?

There is also nothing in the Koran that says people should fly, so problem solved? Flying is not a right, if you want to fly then you have to follow the rules-- period.

[Mithreal]

49. Interesting, following your idea, maybe people should not fly, sort of a boycott.

Wouldn't really work. I can't imagine people of as diverse a group as this to consider such a thing reasonable. Maybe I am wrong though, I wonder how many Muslims and their friends boycotting airlines might be pressure enough?

[boppers]

96. Night Journey airlines....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq

Air travel for Islam!

[timeforpeace]

23. No shit. I don't see the problem here. Surprised it took this long for them to come up with this.

[unabelladonna]

31. in that case,

i'll begin to travel again.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[winyanstaz]

12. K & R....

I believe they also violate the Constitution as we are supposed to be safe from "unreasonable search and seizures"....and I consider some stranger photographing my private parts for no dang good reason with a machine that is PROVEN to unravel DNA,,,to be very unreasonable.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

14. I expect there will be more groups who choose the private exam vs. the scanner for religious reasons

Such is their rights. They'll just have to schedule extra time to get through security.

[24601]

15. What law, the one about killing infidels? n/t

[Sultana]

20. +1

[Mithreal]

54. -1

:wtf:

[Zorra]

16. I went swimming nude in the ocean today. So very glad I'm not a Muslim. nt

[Mithreal]

57. Yep, airport security is recreation.

[24601]

139. If I went swimming in the nude, the Muslims would be glad I'm not! n/t

[seattle_blue]

17. while overseas

When I was deployed I scanned every person that was trying to gain entry to our FOB. The locals were all Muslim and had no problem with the scanning. When a female came through all of the males left the room and she was scanned by a female. We never had a any problems at all.

[Mithreal]

58. Stop making sense. You know prejudice doesn't appreciate that.

[Sultana]

19. ....

[Chulanowa]

21. And like most Fatwas, it's pointless

For those of you who are not aware, anyone can issue a fatwa about anything. I am not a Muslim, but I can issue a Fatwah. I can issue one right now, here!

For a man to eat a pink marshmallow peep is unmanly; therefore it should not be done. Only yellow or blue marshmallow peeps may be eaten by men. Children should not eat peeps of any color, and should instead eat cadbury creme eggs.

There! See? Fatwah.

Also hilarious? Nobody is under any obligation to heed a fatwah. So if you wanna cram your face full of peeps, I can't do anything about it. All a fatwah is is an "official opinion"

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Actually no,

it's a legal opinion. It's binding to muslims that recognize/adhere to that sect.

Sort of like when our Supreme Court issues a ruling that is binding upon all Americans.

[Chulanowa]

42. Actually yes

A fatwah is unanimously agreed in the Muslim world to only be binding on the person who issues it. others are generally encouraged to follow it as well (thus the whole point of issuing one) but they are not obligated to do so. A fatwah also falls below "actual" law - if a fatwah runs against the law of the land, then a Muslim who wishes to follow the fatwah is free to try to have the law reconsidered; failing that, he is expected to follow the law, rather than the fatwah. An example is given by Muhammad Sayid Tantawy, the Sheikh of al-Azhar in Cairo regarding the French headscarf ban.

I see the ignorance is pretty deep on this thread. Please don't join it :)

[AtheistCrusader]

51. This is not how I had it explained to me by a couple muslims that I was discussing it with...

But they were not clerics or any official capacity. Can you cite a reference material I can learn more about this from?

[Chulanowa]

134. Sure!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fatwah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81

http://islam.about.com/od/law/g/fatwa.htm

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/fatwa.htm

[Mithreal]

60. .

No offense but you seem to be propagating some ignorance as well.

[Mithreal]

59. Are you trained in Islamic law? I am going to call that a corruption if you are not.

"This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwa) on its teachings."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81

And your attitude seems especially disrespectful as well, but maybe I am misunderstanding your tone.

[No Elephants]

113. Not exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lucky Luciano]

25. Tough shit. Religion is nor a valid consideration for security. nt

[Mithreal]

61. Make sure you chew well before you swallow then.

Freedom, liberty are not "valid consideration for security."

[17breezes]

147. Fly by the rules or don't fucking fly

It has nothing to do with freedom and liberty any more than stopping at a red light or obeying stop signs.

[Hosnon]

157. Exactamundo. nt.

[Duppers]

26. Great!

I love it.

I wonder how their visits to physicians go. :rofl:

[chasmj]

28. Will the TSA get a bigger fatwa to fight this fatwa?

[Betsy Ross]

30. The same should hold true for Orthodox Jews.

Similar, strong modesty laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. That's because religions evolve.

Recycling bits of the former incarnations.

[stray cat]

34. Great! If they don't want to fly no one will make them. Driving is good

[Mithreal]

62. Somewhat of a false choice. Roads are not always safely passable

especially where they do not exist.

[kiva]

36. I've read several articles

that say British airports - when they all get the equipment - will not allow anyone to fly if they refuse to be scanned, haven't seen any discussion of alternatives like a pat-down. Interesting to see if there will be an exemption for this situation.

[kimmylavin]

39. I'm an atheist.

And I'm still not going through one of those suckers.

Religious beliefs are as good an excuse as any others...

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mithreal]

64. The choice of airline is irrelevant though.

[totodeinhere]

44. But Islamic law is not the law of the land. We have a little thing called separation of church...

and state. Our laws should not be based upon any religion, Muslim or otherwise. And I would have the same message for fundamentalists of other religions.

[Mithreal]

65. We have a little thing called the Constitution that is supposed to protect us as well.

[tabasco]

66. How does a body scan to fly involve the Constitution?

This should be good.

[Mithreal]

67. I will quote you, tabasco.

Of course, the end result of no privacy would be a police state with government agents being able to enter your home at will and do with your body what they wish.

The people that argue no privacy are the same shitheads that argue there's no separation of church and state in the Constitution.

When the Constitution is finally destroyed, it will be people like this that are responsible. They want to twist it and pervert it to suit THEIR beliefs. They have no respect for other Americans and their intolerance is destructive to the Nation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4471886#4471975

[AtheistCrusader]

69. I think the 'no secrets' thing only works if the people who institued the policy

are the first through the scanner, and we all get to see it. If they still go through with it, okie-doke.

No secrets requires they (the lawmakers) be exposed just as we are. Otherwise it's silly and doesn't work.


(Not that I think it's a good solution)

[Mithreal]

75. Sounds more fair.

[tabasco]

70. We're talking about getting on a plane.

You're not making any sense at all.

[Mithreal]

74. You're talking about getting on a plane.

[totodeinhere]

89. Yes, and it protects us from having any one religion, Islam or any other, dictate public policy.

And this is what they are trying to do. They are trying to have their religion tell our government how it should run airport security, and that's violating the First Amendment.

[No Elephants]

121. I don't think the Council said anything about how our laws should read. It said

it would be a sin for a Muslim to pass through the scanner.

Saying it is a {again} a sin for Catholics to eat meat on Friday or during Lent wouild not require secular law to mirror that religious dictate.

That is how I wish all religious beliefs were treated. IMO, a church can say whatever it wants, as long as it does not insist that secular law reflect its pronouncments.

However, because airlines are not going to want to risk losing any fares, they will no doubt put pressure on government.

[totodeinhere]

122. Well, as you know, in a lot of places Muslims are indeed insisting that sharia law be applied to...

them. If that's not interfering with the state's business, then I don't know what is.

[dipsydoodle]

46. Straight choice really

Fly or don't fly - same as the rest of us.

I'd be interested to know what happens when they need an operation. :shrug:

[activa8tr]

63. religion goes out the door when science is needed to save your life, but

let's have freedom to practice any silly beliefs you want if your life isn't in danger.

Sure, makes sense.

[DesertFlower]

72. good point. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

142. I'm an atheist and I'm not going through one of those things...

Who's 'the rest of us'? Anyone who's not a Muslims? Guess what? I choose not to fly and you know what's going to happen if I need an operation? There's these things called cars and trains. They'll get me where I need to go...

[nolabear]

47. I've been wondering where this was!

Soon as they started doing it I thought "Oh swell, Muslim women won't be allowed to fly now either."

[No Elephants]

111. Apparently, neitther will Muslim men. So this is equal no fly opportunity.

[activa8tr]

55. so, this is cool, only Muslim terrorists will fly from now on?

Geeze!

[hayu_lol]

68. As I recall some Koranic reading I did years ago...

the Koran is quite explicit about refusing to use any sort of technology/machines. Seems as if most Islamic countries pay no attention to that part of their religion.

So, they are left with just camels and horses. Good luck crossing either ocean on one of these animals.

Used to be a popular saying about 'When In Rome...', clearly this applies to all immigrants who have come here for whatever reason.

[No Elephants]

112. Are you sure you're not thinking of the Amish Koran?

I tried googling Muslim Koran machine technology. This was the first hit (honest).

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/machine-washes-muslims-recites-koran/story-e6frf7jx-1225825494761

[riderinthestorm]

71. When this came up before, I put up a post about my 13 year old daughter going thru them at Heathrow

and that post was met with "Don't get scanned, then you don't fly".

And frankly, that's the way it is. I've spoken with an attorney about this because I was worried about kids and pedos with the detail on the scan but there is absolutely no "out" on this. If you are picked to go through and you refuse (in the UK), you don't get on the plane. Period. Nobody has to fly. If you can't abide by the rules, then you don't have to get on a plane.

If DUers are/were pretty blase about kids and the scans, it's enormously telling that DUers are NOW getting pissed that believers in religious mythology somehow get some kind of pass.

Kids scanned - okay!
Believers in religious mumbo-jumbo (especially Islamic mumbo-jumbo) getting scanned - instant DU defense!

And yes, my daughter was scanned. And from what I've heard, she'll get scanned when she comes back too.

[dipsydoodle]

73. Unfortunately

that's the way it is not helped by the fact that some of the staff at Heathrow may have a uniform fetish. Even I know better than to give them any lip or funny looks and I'm English. You cannot win them if you really do want to catch your flight.

Do you mean she was scanned on landing if she would be scanned again when she returns to you ?

[riderinthestorm]

100. She was scanned when they went to take another flight up to Edinburgh from Heathrow

And I assume she'll be scanned when she comes back to the US from Heathrow next week.

There are no exemptions for under 18s.

[kiva]

76. I posted above wondering if the UK will offer alternatives like

a pat-down, but from your daughter's experience it doesn't sound as though they will.

[riderinthestorm]

102. My husband said that neither of them were given any alternatives. None.

He didn't even dare ask since we'd already been advised by an attorney that even doing that could jeopardize the chance of getting on the plane that day.

There is absolutely no "out" on this. If you won't step through that scanner on request, you do not fly.

[pitohui]

85. some authorities in uk are saying it's against british law to scan minors

since it creates an image of the child's naked body it's child porn under british law

i realize your child is not in a position to refuse but it is not a given that she will be forced to be scanned every time and i hope she isn't

exposure to ionizing radiation is cumulative and it's a cancer risk, the younger you start the exposure, the more risk -- i really think this shouldn't be done to younger people at all --

of course there are also legal issues/problems w. frisking/patting down minors -- unwanted touching of a minor is also a sexual offense

right now my understanding is the uk law is in flux and airports are being kinda random (such as MAN claiming that if you don't get scanned, you can't fly, even if you are willing to undergo other tests -- that's just stupid -- i'd much rather have someone on a plane who was explosives tested by a bomb sniffing dog or "swab" than have someone on a plane who walked thru a scanner

[boppers]

98. Concerns about "ionizing radiation"? Before getting ON A PLANE?

Uhm, you do know that plane flights have massive doses of ionizing radiation? That flight crews have higher cancer risks than people working in a freaking nuclear power plant or uranium mine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation#Ionizing_radiation_level_examples

[riderinthestorm]

103. Dogs are "unclean" as specified by the Quran. If a devout Muslims.

won't be scanned, they certainly aren't going to allow a dog to sniff their crotch.

What happens with a swab? Now THAT sounds interesting....

[farmout rightarm]

91. Bingo. +100

:-)

[rd_kent]

77. Does it violate muslime law to fly on airplanes?

Because in order to fly, one must be screened.

Simple solution.....don't fly.

[pitohui]

86. there are better and more conclusive screening devices than scanners

selling these scanners is just an opportunistic business leaping on the taxpayer dollar

if you want to know if someone is carrying bombs, SWAB that person and/or have a bomb-sniffing dog check out that person

the scanner goes one inch into the body, um, without getting explicit, let's just say that evil doers shove things in way further than that all the time to get contraband into jails, where the screening is far more intense than at the airport

it is ridiculous to ask all the muslims in detroit to quit flying, it is more reasonable to suggest that if we're worried about bombs, spend the money on swabs/good bomb dogs to check out passengers

[rd_kent]

92. Oh, I'm not saying the scanners are not crap.

Just the idiotic "its against my religion" defense.

[Paladin]

133. Not Very Civil Of You. (n/t)

[pitohui]

81. well i actually agree with them, this is just a scam to sell expensive machines

what's wrong w. the simple patdown? a decent patdown would have stopped the underwear bomber without creating an image of my body that will be collected and eventually escape into the wild

oh, but the patdown is a cheap, inexpensive procedure, it doesn't result in raping the taxpayer for millions upon millions of dollars

the scanners won't work to find "tampon" bombs so to say that they are better than a patdown is bullshit -- we should follow the money -- the sale of these machines is to line pockets not save lives -- in fact, it will ruin lives when the inevitable nekkid photo of your teen-age daughter gets released online

[farmout rightarm]

84. These must not be the same Muslims who require visitors to their countries

abide by all their religious customs there.

[pitohui]

88. these appear to be muslims living in michigan, so their country is the usa

what's yr point?

the scanners are stupid, they violate people's privacy, and for some women, to find out later that their image has been released or sold or traded or shared around, this is just a devastating blow to them -- even if they're a baptist!!!!

this ain't just a muslim issue

to expose my body to unnecessary ionizing radiation to make a political point, that does not make anyone safer, is ridiculous

if we have all this extra free $ to throw around, spend it on training more bomb sniffing dogs

[farmout rightarm]

90. That's what I said, they are not the same Muslims.

Are you against x-ray type technology in every venue, or only when it is used to enhance security? And how would an image of that sort be identifiable as to what particular person it came from? I don't think they print them out with subtitles.

Also has there been a significant protest from Baptists? I missed that so a cite would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! :-)

[No Elephants]

120. Pitohui asked what your point was. I'm wondering the same thing.

And, no, that's not what you said.

[farmout rightarm]

129. The point was to bring attention to an apparent double standard.

Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[proteus_lives]

87. Oh, yeah this will be taken well.

[lynne]

94. Then they should establish their own airline that adheres to Islamic laws -

- who knows, it could end up being a real money maker!

[Bill McBlueState]

99. I'm opposed to invasive scannings

The more reasons to oppose them, the better. :thumbsup:

[PurityOfEssence]

144. Fine, then don't fly

Not a problem.

[Xenotime]

154. Agreed. We shouldn't be racist by forcing them through the scanners.

[No Elephants]

101. That was a fast fetwah. I'm as respectful of Islam as I am of any other faith, which is pretty dang

respectful.

Nonetheless, I cannot help but wonder: has the Fiqh Council of North America also issued a fetwah against targeting of civilians for mass murder; and, if so, did it take the Council mnore than a month to do that?

Sorry, but the paucity of fetwahs from around the world on that subject and the years it took for some cleric to issue the first one has bothered me for years.

If I were among those who got to say in some religiously binding fashion what was a sin under Islam, I would have said something about targeting civilians for mass murder a lot faster than I would have about the sin of complying with scanning imposed on air travelers in an attempt to save lives.

(And, yes, I would say something about targeting abortion doctors just as fast if I had the ability to say something religiously binding on "Christian" murderer wannabes.)

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[western mass]

124. You're right - they ain't

[noamnety]

149. What I normally find about people who say things like this

Is that when I point out that most violent criminals are men, they aren't so quick to support banning gun sales to men.

Profiling is always more appealing when it's the other person getting profiled.

[dipsydoodle]

123. Does a fatwa tune the same as banjo ?

:shrug:

[sufrommich]

125. Too bad. nt

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobwithout]

128. There is an easy fix

If you don't want to go through the body scanners then you should have the option to pay an extra fee to be manually searched by a living breathing person. Flying isn't a right...its a privilege.

[fleabert]

136. in my understanding (from Muslim friends) this can all be settled by making

the scanner images unable to be seen by the opposite gender. women may see women, men may see men. simple.

[MisterP]

138. another way this could be settled is to stop the runaway freight train to a total-surveillance

security state

but that would be Commie, and the Americans screaming "rules must be obeyed! Sie willen niedersitzen! Sie willen ruhig sein!" won't have any of that...

[fleabert]

145. personally, i would refuse the scan too.

for privacy reasons.

[Ter]

137. That's the least of my concerns with body scanners

They are just wrong in general.

[IndianaGreen]

150. New scanners break child porn laws (The Guardian)

More food for thought:

New scanners break child porn laws

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 22.14 GMT

The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children, the Guardian has learned.

Privacy campaigners claim the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to "virtual strip-searching" and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.

Ministers now face having to exempt under 18s from the scans or face the delays of introducing new legislation to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws.

They also face demands from civil liberties groups for safeguards to ensure that images from the £80,000 scanners, including those of celebrities, do not end up on the internet. The Department for Transport confirmed that the "child porn" problem was among the "legal and operational issues" now under discussion in Whitehall after Gordon Brown's announcement on Sunday that he wanted to see their "gradual" introduction at British airports.

A 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements, only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.

The decision followed a warning from Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a "pseudo-image" of a child.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

[panzerfaust]

153. but blowing up airliners does not?

Praise Allah.

[kestrel91316]

160. Fine, then. DON'T FLY. Otherwise, you guys submit to the same crap we have to.