Airport body scanners violate Islamic law, Muslims say (So, why we need to use these things?)

[icymist]

Feb. 11--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.

But Muslim groups say the scanners go against their religion. One option offered to passengers who don't want to use the scanners would be a pat down by a security guard. The Muslim groups are urging members to undergo those instead.
More

[aikoaiko]

1. I thought they were still optional?

:shrug:

Can't anyone with a problem with them can opt out?

[paulsby]

5. they ARE optional

as the article notes. they can get a pat down instead

[rd_kent]

2. Quick, someone call a WAAAMBULANCE!!! They can choose not to fly or to get a different search.

Fuck me, I am so tired of "religious" beliefs getting in the way of progress. (not just muslim, ALL religions)

[seabeyond]

6. strippin you down and taking away rights is.... progress. bah haha. nt

[rd_kent]

12. ZZzzzzzzz.......

[seabeyond]

19. i think of better words, pro or con. but progress? nah. nt

[Statistical]

23. Then choose to get patted down instead.

Your choice.

I will take the 3 second scan anyday.

[seabeyond]

25. i would take the pat. i am concerned it will become not a choice. i long stopped airports

we use to travel a lot. now i chose to drive. the simple protest of having to put head down, make no eye contact, tail between the leg mentality, prison environment, no rights.

[Statistical]

27. I think it will always be a choice.

Someday 99.9% of people will just pass through the scanner but they will still have manual inspections.

The scanners will just get faster and smarter as technology improves.

Someday (20-30 years) the scanner may simply be a hallway you walk down where everyone in the crowd is being scanned in realtime.

[seabeyond]

29. a decade ago, people would have said there would be no way this would be allowed.

i am truly surprised at the speed we have accepted things over the last decade in the name of fear, docility, hopelessness

[Statistical]

33. A decade ago I was surprised how little precautions we took to prevent terrorist attack.

Simple things like reinforcing the cockpit door, gun in lockbox in the cockpit, training pilots on maintaining control of the cockpit, etc.

Even random searches would have greatly reduced likelihood of a bomb attack. Maybe not inspect every bag but inspect one out of 4 bags randomly for explosive residue.

Simple things. I do agree that the pendulum has swung too far but a decade ago we essentially had no security. We were just waiting for 9/11 to happen. Only reason why 9/11 didn't happen in 1981 or 1991 is nobody tried. With are completely wide open lack of basic security precautions it was simply a matter of time.

[seabeyond]

35. those simple things are reasonable. effective. doable without creating the present

prison environment. common sense.

that is not what we have today

i agree

[Statistical]

36. It will take time but the pendulum which reach a max and then swing back.

It will probably never get back to "normal" level of precautions however it will slowly swing back closer to "normal".

Then again I may be wrong. I have to fly for business so I really have no choice. My boss isn't going to let me drive 3 days vs flying there in half a day (even if I wanted a 3 day commute and then 3 days back).

Personally I would opt to go through security naked if they had a "fast access naked only" line that ensured I wouldn't miss my flight/get bumped because of security delays.

[riderinthestorm]

38. There are more than a few democratic countries where it's not a choice anymore

This is a fairly large thread in LBN so I won't rehash everything I've said there but my 13 year old daughter had to go through one in the UK at Heathrow just last week and again today. There is no alternative, if you won't step through the scan as directed, you don't fly. We even contacted an attorney about this as it seemed like it's violating child pornography laws (and there is a dispute going on about this but so far, the UK and other democracies that do this like Israel, are unwavering. Even under-18 year olds will go through or they don't fly).

What irks me about this fatwa is that the Muslims are all up in arms over religious mumbo-jumbo and human sexuality but don't even say one word about the other issues of children going through these, or even US law against unreasonable searches etc. I just think it's a mistake to cater to religious groups' ridiculousness over the body scanners. There are legitimate and more compelling non-religious reasons to oppose these and to give this group any kind of pass for their religious "law" is crazy.

As the attorney told me, flying is a privilege. Nobody has to fly.

[laconicsax]

7. On the other hand...

Whiny religious types may be the ticket to doing away with mandatory strip-searches.

[Bill McBlueState]

16. progress?

heh.

[mmonk]

21. Progress?

[Matariki]

40. Respect is a wonderful thing. You should get some. n/t

[rd_kent]

42. R E S P E C T, find out what it means to me!

[WarKillsChildren]

3. Cancer

They might cause cancer also. Pervert scanners are demeaning and dangerous.

[Trekologer]

13. You get a higher dose of radiation from being in the plane during flight

n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

37. That argument doesn't deflate the fear

All it does is fuel the notion that we shouldn't be exposed to even more radiation on the ground, because full body scans are added exposure.

Frankly, I don't fear the radiation as much as I loathe the use of this technology as a primary screening device with no evidence that it's either necessary or improving on overall security.

[Statistical]

28. The radiation dose from fly is about 100x higher.

If you are that petrified of radiation you simply should not fly, live at a high elevation, live/work inside brick buildings, get xrays, or any of the hundreds of daily activities will result in more mrems than the scan does.

[Confusious]

4. Well, in a backhanded way the scanners worked

The only muslims getting on a plane anymore will be terrorists.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[timeforpeace]

15. They are the whiniest bastards on the face of the earth.

[Obamanaut]

9. Greyhound still has service to most cities. n/t

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

10. Flying is an optional means of transportation.

If God does not want you to get scanned, you can drive, take a bus, sail on a ship, walk,etc.
--- or rent a private jet ----

[Monk06]

11. The scanners don't show any details. They just tell you whether you're HAWT or NAWT!!!

:hide:

[timeforpeace]

14. Oh, well, why didn't they say so? Body scanners are out. Next complaint?

[Bill McBlueState]

17. "Do whatever you want to us; we don't care," most Americans say

The Muslim religion is as implausible as any, but as a privacy advocate, I like to see the TSA challenged from as many angles as possible.

[TexasObserver]

18. There's walking, the train, a ship or boat, even a car ....

It does not matter what quaint anachronisms religious people have when they're in their own venue, but when they fly, they have to do the same things everyone else must do.

I don't know if these scanners should be used, but I know that religious problems with them should not matter. Religion is the reason we all have to deal with these inconveniences. Their holy warriors and ours are at fault.

Anyone who doesn't want to submit to security is free to not to fly.

[Bobbieo]

20. Like "When in Rome"!

[saltpoint]

22. Thank god we have these machines. And why limit them to just airports?

Let's put one in every grocery store, every 7-11, every gas station, two or three at Jiffy Lube, and so forth.

You just can't be too secure.

[NNN0LHI]

24. So sorry, but my safety is more important than your woo

I don't want an airliner with some idiot with a bomb on it falling on my house.

Scan these mofos just like everyone else.

Screw them and their fatwa too.

Don

[seabeyond]

26. the illusion of safety? i dont get how people can seriously say this gives them safety

when we know it would not have caught underwear dude or anyone putting anything up their cavaties. not to mention other methods on body would not be caught by scanner.

[Bunny]

31. I think that's a big argument against these scanners.

Aside from the invasion of privacy issues, they simply don't work when looking for things like the undie bomber, body cavaties, etc.

[seabeyond]

32. i really really do not understand (and didnt with repug) this ability to tell self

something that is not true.

truth is not nearly as scary to me as living in an illusion

[NNN0LHI]

34. I have an open mind

When they come up with something better I will be all for it.

Don

[Snazzy]

39. underware dude was caught and the so called bomb didn't work

giving us all a clearer definition of the term numb nutz in the process.

Meantime, Chertof's clients are very happy to have their expensive machines that basically don't do much mandated to be purchased worldwide. Throw a half hour of Google at it and I expect you'll find some more former Shrub admin or Shurb Pioneers or some sort of BFEE making a nice profit while that unseen TSA man behind the curtain teaches us to bend over in this special new way, now with pictures.


A volunteer member of the UK security apparatus gets scanned


Same dude with skin. He's now sort of famous himself


Here a member of the UK security apparatus showing a female member
of the UK security apparatus how to zoom in on the "naughty bits"

They'll say no one could have possibly predicted that celebrity full body scans were the first new perversion of 2010.

Trust in the TSA.

Why, it's nearly unimaginable and almost requires the massive computer skills of a 4 year old to make a digital copy of a digital image made on a computer by a guy in a private booth (networked to up to 50 other booths I think--specs pdf at http://epic.org/).

I think I know what they have planned: first, pry off the "Prt Scrn" button from all keyboards. Second, stick chewing gum in all USB and flash memory slots. Third, ban TSA from owning cell phones and camera devices. Fourth, make sure that only the Shrub admin hold overs have the secret master password (default: "peepingtom123") that locks/unlocks the native image storage and network transfer. Lastly, post lots of notices to clear that Explorer cache. Like daily or something.

Oh, hey, who scans the scanners?

[LeftinOH]

30. Fine, they can call Greyhound: 1-800-231-2222.

[Skidmore]

41. My sense of modesty is affronted as well by these machines

and I generally have issues with these types of searches and don't like people being singled out. However, I am finding myself hardpressed to find sympathy with these leaders' argument. I'm waiting for the fatwa against the corrupting of Islam by the taking of innocent life by these terrorists claiming to represent Muslims everywhere. A little honest condemnation of this affront to humanity would go a long way. AND the first in line to do something constructive needs to be the Saudis.

[NNN0LHI]

43. There has been plenty of anti-terrorism fatwas and other edicts

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4HPIA_enUS306US306&q=%22anti-terrorism+fatwa%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

We just don't hear a lot about them.

Don