JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Zelhar on March 07, 2010, 12:20:06 PM
-
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100222muslims_airport_scans_violate_faith_full-body_scans_decried_by_scholars_as_contrary_to_islam/
(http://Muslims: Airport scans violate faith
Full-body scans decried by scholars as contrary to Islam
By Herald wire services
Sunday, March 7, 2010 - Updated 3m ago
E-mail Print (95) Comments Text size Share Buzz up!
DETROIT - A group of Muslim-American scholars has issued a religious ruling that calls upon the faithful to not go through body scanners because the scholars say the machines violate Islamic rules on nudity.
A growing number of body scanners, 450 more of them this year, are to be introduced in airports in Michigan and across the United States, say Transportation Security Administration officials.
Their increased use - several go online at Logan International Airport tomorrow - comes after the Dec. 25 bombing attempt on an airliner over Detroit, heightening fears of terrorism. The suspect in the failed bombing is a Nigerian Muslim.
The Fiqh Council of North America, based in Indiana, said the scanners contravene Islamic law, which is grounded in the Koran. The council consists of an executive council and 10 scholars.
“It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women,” reads the order, called a fatwa. “Islam highly emphasizes haya (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The (Koran) has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.”
In a statement late Thursday, the TSA said it is committed to keeping passengers safe and protecting privacy. “Screening images are automatically deleted, and the officer viewing the image will never see the passenger,” the agency said.
The suspect in the Dec. 25 attempt, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, is accused of hiding explosive chemicals in his underwear. Since then, some have called for body scanners at airports to find dangerous materials on passengers. Critics say the scanners show details of the outlines of a person’s body.
The TSA said the scanners “do not produce photos.” Rather, it said, the images “look like chalk outlines.”
One option offered to passengers who don’t want to go through a scanner is a pat-down by a security guard of the same gender, the TSA said.
Security:)
Surely every security measure against Islamic terrorism is a violation of faith for these poor muslims.
-
Muslims have no right to complain! They're the entire reason such massive security is needed to begin with! Also I don't like the idea of there being an exception to the rule. A pat-down could easily miss something that a full-body scan would pick up!
-
I think the rule should be that muslims should be registered (and some other groups too like sex offenders), and they should pass through an extra cautious screening process.
-
These scans cause cancer. They should all just be strip searched.
-
These scans cause cancer. They should all just be strip searched.
18chail, there is no proof to what you said. This is only going to cause further panic among a public that is already in panic.
-
from what i read its still a new technology, id rather opt for a strip search then be exposed to x-ray operated by some affirmative action worker. Im wondering if that is an option. (no im not a voyeur)
LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effects
Health effects
Some people are concerned with exposure to radiation emitted by backscatter X-rays. At airports, lead vests are not used and people fear being exposed to "dangerous level of radiation if they get backscattered too often."[9] Safety regulations and standards like ANSI N43.17 (see below) that govern the use of these systems and that are recognized by the HPS, FDA and Various US Government Agencies may indicate that these concerns are not warranted.
The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (or 0.05 μSv) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.009 mrems (0.09 μSv).[9] According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure".[9]
According to a draft standard on the FDA website [15], the allowable dose from a scan would be 0.1 μSv, and that report uses a model whereby a 0.01 μSv dose results in a 5×10−10 additional risk of death by cancer. Since the dose limit is ten times higher than 0.01 μSv, their model would predict one additional cancer death per 200 million scans. Since the airports in the UK handled 218 million passengers in 2009 [16] , if all passengers were scanned in the UK, this would produce on average one additional death every year. (Presumably there would also be some people who are given cancer but survive due to treatments such as chemotherapy, which is also very unpleasant.) Whilst the anti-terrorism related killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was widely unpopular, people killed by being irradiated with low doses of x-rays may produce less public outcry because it is not possible to identify which cancer deaths are a result of x-ray scanners and which are due to other causes. It is also frequently argued that airline passengers are going to receive a larger dose of ionizing radiation due to the altitude at which aircraft fly, so that in comparison the dose due to the x-ray scanner may be small. On the other hand, imposing a small risk of cancer on someone by for example smoking near them in a public place is deemed to be illegal in many countries even though the risk due to smoking one cigarette near someone may be small and of a similar order to the airport x-ray scan. An important factor in people's perception of whether a risk is acceptable may be whether it is a risk that they choose and which brings them a personal benefit, or whether it is a risk imposed by someone else and which brings benefit only to other people as in the case of an x-ray airport scan, which might be alleged to benefit other passengers but which clearly doesn't benefit a passenger who knows that they themselves are not carrying any weapon.
-
Muslims have no right to complain! They're the entire reason such massive security is needed to begin with! Also I don't like the idea of there being an exception to the rule. A pat-down could easily miss something that a full-body scan would pick up!
Ruby, you hit the nail on the head.
These extra precautions are because of the muslims and I agree with you, the muslims have no right to complain!
Shalom - Dox
-
from what i read its still a new technology, id rather opt for a strip search then be exposed to x-ray operated by some affirmative action worker. Im wondering if that is an option. (no im not a voyeur)
LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray#Health_effects
Health effects
Some people are concerned with exposure to radiation emitted by backscatter X-rays. At airports, lead vests are not used and people fear being exposed to "dangerous level of radiation if they get backscattered too often."[9] Safety regulations and standards like ANSI N43.17 (see below) that govern the use of these systems and that are recognized by the HPS, FDA and Various US Government Agencies may indicate that these concerns are not warranted.
The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (or 0.05 μSv) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.009 mrems (0.09 μSv).[9] According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure".[9]
That may be, but usually even xrays for injuries are given with lead sheets to cover up the genitalia to prevent complications down there where matters are much more sensitive. They are not taking that into account that we are completely exposed in these xrays. Fertility may be at risk more than cancer development... And the bottom line is that the Muslim terrorists are the reason we are being given these xrays.
-
The next time a Muslim tries to board a plane they should be scanned immediately.
-
The next time a Muslim tries to board a plane they should be scanned immediately.
The next time a Muslim tries to board a plane it should be a one way trip back to Saudi Arabia
-
The next time a Muslim tries to board a plane they should be scanned immediately.
The next time a Muslim tries to board a plane it should be a one way trip back to Saudi Arabia
Well we should send all Muslims living in this country back to Saudi Arabia. They don't like this country why are they even here to begin with?
-
The next time a Muslim tries to board a plane they should be scanned immediately.
The next time a Muslim tries to board a plane it should be a one way trip back to Saudi Arabia
Well we should send all Muslims living in this country back to Saudi Arabia. They don't like this country why are they even here to begin with?
They love the freedom they get over here as opposed to their oppressive hellholes.
-
All I can say is, if they want to wear burkas, pray in mosques, and have their sharia law, they need to go back to where the hell they came from, because we will NOT tolerate it any longer! Why is this country so messed up? And if the liberals don't like it, send them over there too! >:(
-
Take the bus.
Whatever cost is generated by this extra security is a tax on all the good non-Muslims who would never need this type of scrutiny. Maybe some day people will object to paying to have Muslims in society.
-
:::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D
AND MASS MURDER IN THE NAME OF ALLAH IS OKAY????
-
Muslims have no right to complain! They're the entire reason such massive security is needed to begin with! Also I don't like the idea of there being an exception to the rule. A pat-down could easily miss something that a full-body scan would pick up!
Ruby, you hit the nail on the head.
These extra precautions are because of the muslims and I agree with you, the muslims have no right to complain!
Shalom - Dox
Keep in mind that the torah is also against these full-body scans for the same reason. This scanner is just completely indecent. Two wrongs don't make a right. It is wrong that they allow Muslim Nazis to board planes so they can murder people. It is also wrong that they make the innocent people go through these scans as a result. In the faith of Islam, the victim is the one who gets punished for the crime instead of the criminal and this case is no exception.
-
Since the scans potentially save lives, could that balance it out?
-
Ban muslims from the airlines, problem solved. It is so simple, no muslims means no hijacking terrorists and no need for scanners or taking shoes off. Why should everyone else in the world suffer because of the muslims, I say the muslims should suffer because of the muslims.
-
I agree that banning Muslims is the most sensible thing to do, but at the current time it would be considered unconstitutional to discriminate against them because Islam is (wrongly) considered to be a religion.
-
Since the scans potentially save lives, could that balance it out?
Not sure this will save lives. The recent attempts with syringes, chemicals etc would not be stopped by this. Nonetheless, theoretically you can say something saves lives and that's great, but (please excuse my language) who says I have to sacrifice MY cahone's to save lives. There are other ways to save lives. Having better security is one of them. El Al doesn't need these machines.
I realize now you were probably referring to the other person's complaint, which is about modesty issues, rather than my complaint about fertility complications. So for sure you are correct that saving lives takes precedent over a modesty concern, but like what I said above, there is not just one correct way to save lives. So they don't necessarily need to do it this way. But what can ya do.
-
You're right I was saying that saving lives by catching terrorists seemed more important than the modesty issue.
-
All I can say is, if they want to wear burkas, pray in mosques, and have their sharia law, they need to go back to where the hell they came from, because we will NOT tolerate it any longer! Why is this country so messed up? And if the liberals don't like it, send them over there too! >:(
Dawn ^^^^^^^^5 !
-
You filthy infidel dogs haf no reich to scan my bombs!
You racist pigs!
-
You filthy infidel dogs haf no reich to scan my bombs!
You racist pigs!
:laugh: