|
|
|
|
February 14, 2010
the inside skinny on the fatwa of the fiqh
In a recent news item I wish I didn't have to take seriously, the Shariah-promoting Fiqh Council of North America is claiming that airport body scanners violate Islamic law. The Detroit Free Press says this could complicate airline screening: In a move that could complicate airport screening, a group of Muslim-American scholars issued a religious ruling this week that called upon the faithful to not go through body scanners because the scholars said the machines violate Islamic rules on nudity.The Fiqh Council's goal is to make American Muslims follow Shariah Law. (To ensure "that the dealings of North American Muslims fall within the parameters of what is permitted by the Shari'ah.") While I don't especially like the idea of body scanning, if they are limited to airport passenger screening the argument can be made that no one is forced to go through them, because no one is forced to fly. If they started scanning people on the street without warrants, that would violate the constitutional prohibition on illegal search and seizure. That's because this is the United States, and we are governed by the Constitution. The damned Shariah has nothing to do with it. As far as I'm concerned, people who have objections grounded in Shariah Law can just stay the hell off the planes. Please, just go ahead and obey the fatwa! "It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," reads the fatwa. "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."OK, right there I see a problem, and it isn't a necessarily fatwa-related one. Not only does offering same-sex pat-downs discriminate on the basis of sex, but it offers no guarantee that everyone will be comfortable with the pat-down. I mean, what's the idea here? To make sure the patter-downer is not turned on? Or to make sure that the pattee-downee is not creeped out by some lech? Merely having the patter-downers be the same sex hardly eliminates this problem, especially if we consider the sexual orientation issue. Why, for example, is it fair for gay male passengers to get patted down by men (or lesbians by women) whether they like it or not, while heterosexuals are not patted down by members of the opposite sex? And none of this addresses the further issue of the patter-downers themselves possibly being turned on by the subject of the search. All in violation of someone or another's religious principles, no doubt! What would the Shariah say? Shouldn't there at least be a fatwa against making heterosexual Muslims submit to pat-down searches by gay American TSA employees when the latter get turned on by the search? The two members of the Fiqh Council from Michigan are Imam Hassan Qazwini of the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn and Imam Ali Suleiman Ali of the Canton Mosque. "Fiqh" means Islamic jurisprudence.Well bully for the bullies at CAIR! Hmmm... Maybe these scanners are a better idea than I realized. And I still think that hiring sexy hookers to conduct the searches is an idea whose time has come! posted by Eric on 02.14.10 at 06:37 PM
Comments
It's as if some members of the Fiqh Council woke up one morning and said to themselves "what can I do today that will best and most efficiently say to all of America that we American Muslims stand shoulder to shoulder with all of them in brotherhood, in a partnership against the tyranny of terror - against the bombers and the haters and the professional denigrators of anything non-muslim - that, recognizing that every bomber has come from the world of Islam, we understand that we of Islam will likely bear some extra scrutiny - that we fully support the latest non-intrusive and well-meant measures designed to keep Implements off of airplanes . . . . ." And then they turned to their amazed and still-awakening wives and laughed and yelled "April Fools!" bobby b · February 14, 2010 10:50 PM If flying is a choice, so is walking down a street. You could, as some people do, work over the internet and have everything delivered. There's no end to the logic. A person could be scanned, in the name of safety and security, before driving on a highway, before hopping on a bus, before riding Amtrak, before entering a grocery store, before using a public restroom, etc., etc. There's a point at which participation in basic societal functions is not "voluntary" in any meaningful sense of the word. People who love liberty should not be caving to this "it's a choice" argument. PKL · February 14, 2010 10:52 PM How about Sultaana Freeman? A court in Orlando, Florida denied her a driver's license unless she unveiled her face. Here's a photo of Sultana in court as she wished to be photographed for her Florida Driver's License. http://www.tarses.com/sultaana.jpg chocolatier · February 15, 2010 11:47 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
February 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Please be a gracious reader
Fiddling with distractions Liberal disgust over conservative disgust -- cheerfully discussed by disgusted libertarian! Heartwarming news for coldhearted skeptics Natural Gas Fuel Cell the inside skinny on the fatwa of the fiqh Alinskyism before Alinsky: an ancient but uncredited legacy Why We Can't Work It Out The Wheels Are Coming Off the war against plain
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Don't want to be scanned? Don't fly. There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to fly.