Terrorists hiding in hijabs

November 19, 2010
Mugshot

Note to terrorists: Next time, wear a hijab. The Department of Homeland Security reportedly is giving special exemptions to their “enhanced pat-down” policy to Muslim women wearing the hijab or other form-concealing garments.
Last week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a “travel advisory” noting that women who are patted down “should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.” It’s unclear why CAIR believes TSA frisking must be Shariah-compliant. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to deny that such exemptions existed when CNS News asked her about them on Monday, saying instead that “adjustments will be made where they need to be made” and that “there will be more to come” on this issue.
A fatwa issued in February by Islamic scholars at the Fiqh Council of North America forbad observant Muslims from going through full-body scanners. The council stated, “It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women. Islam highly emphasizes modesty and considers it part of faith. The Quran has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts.” The alternative to the highly revealing and intrusive body scanners is the similarly invasive pat-down, which is objectionable to everyone regardless of religion. Reports of TSA officers placing their hands inside peoples’ pants and conducting full skin-to-skin frisks have only heightened the general sense of disgust at this unprecedented government intrusion.
Exemptions for Muslim women wearing traditional garb may be the brainchild of Mohamed Elibiary, who recently was made a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Mr. Elibiary is president and chief executive officer of the Texas-based Freedom and Justice Foundation and a self-styled “de-radicalization expert” whose star has risen during the Obama presidency. He previously was appointed to Homeland Security’s Countering Violent Extremism Working Group and has testified before Congress as an expert on Muslim radicalism – a topic he seems to know well.
In December 2004, Mr. Elibiary spoke at a conference honoring the life and works of the “great Islamic visionary,” Iran‘s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 2008, Mr. Elibiary denounced the conviction of Hamas-connected members of the Holy Land Foundation for material support of terrorism. Most alarmingly, Mr. Elibiary is an admirer of the work of Sayyid Qutb, the intellectual and spiritual godfather of modern jihadism. Mr. Elibiary argues that Qutb is greatly misunderstood. “Many Westerners who’ve read Qutb‘s and many others’ work,” Mr. Elibiary wrote, “see the potential for a strong spiritual rebirth that’s truly ecumenical allowing all faiths practiced in America to enrich us and motivate us to serve God better by serving our fellow man more.”
No one who has read Qutb‘s work can mistake it for anything but an all-out assault on the American way of life and a call for a global Islamic takeover. The 9/11 Commission noted Qutb‘s role as an inspiration to al Qaeda and concluded that, “No middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims – as he defined them – therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.” Qutb – who lived in the United States as a student in the late 1940s – developed a comprehensive anti-American ideology that’s widely cited as the basis for the contemporary violent Islamic extremism with which America is at war.
Qutb promoted violent, predatory Islamic internationalism with a clear voice. If Mr. Elibiary is one of his disciples, he has no business being anywhere in government, let alone as an adviser at the uppermost reaches of an agency that purports to protect the homeland.

pat ’em bitches down and scan their flesh.


Israel Matzav: European rabbis up in arms over body scanners

January 7, 2010

I’m not orthodox, but I agree. It isn’t too much to ask for gender specific observers. this shouldn’t be just for the religious. are we going to deny that sexuality exists?

Several European rabbis are up in arms over the prospect of full body scanners being used on passengers at airports. The rabbis, from Milan, London, Paris and Antwerp, have issued a press release in which they suggest a solution that would satisfy the sensitivities of Orthodox Jews while meeting the need for increased security in airline travel.

“We would recommend that men are scanned by men, and women by women, like body frisks,” they wrote.

One of the European rabbis agreed to weigh in on the halachic aspects of using the scanner.

“I do not intend to give a halachic opinion and I do not know what actually is shown on the screen, but if it shows the female body then it could be against the laws of modesty,” said Rabbi Ya’akov Schmahl, a member of Antwerp’s rabbinical court.

The rabbi explained that according to Jewish law it is permitted for a male doctor to treat female patients even if he touches them and sees parts of their body that are normally covered because presumably a doctor is focused on his work and is not inclined to prurience.

“But if women are not happy – and there are religious women who prefer not to go to male doctors – they should be allowed to be monitored by women. And men might also might not want to show themselves before women.”

I don’t know about the rest of you, and I don’t know what these scanners show, but I’m not real comfortable with the idea either. If I meet up with one (which is possible because they’re using them in London and I tend to fly through there a lot when I go to Boston), I’m going to ask for a manual search instead.

UPDATE 5:35 PM

Reader Danny F sent me images taken from the full body scanner in the Salt Lake City, Utah airport. This is exactly what the technician sees. Note that the faces are blurred.
Hmmm. I doubt this would qualify for Rule 5.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous


European rabbis up in arms over body scanners

January 7, 2010

I’m not orthodox, but I agree. It isn’t too much to ask for gender specific observers. this shouldn’t be just for the religious. are we going to deny that sexuality exists?

Several European rabbis are up in arms over the prospect of full body scanners being used on passengers at airports. The rabbis, from Milan, London, Paris and Antwerp, have issued a press release in which they suggest a solution that would satisfy the sensitivities of Orthodox Jews while meeting the need for increased security in airline travel.

“We would recommend that men are scanned by men, and women by women, like body frisks,” they wrote.

One of the European rabbis agreed to weigh in on the halachic aspects of using the scanner.

“I do not intend to give a halachic opinion and I do not know what actually is shown on the screen, but if it shows the female body then it could be against the laws of modesty,” said Rabbi Ya’akov Schmahl, a member of Antwerp’s rabbinical court.

The rabbi explained that according to Jewish law it is permitted for a male doctor to treat female patients even if he touches them and sees parts of their body that are normally covered because presumably a doctor is focused on his work and is not inclined to prurience.

“But if women are not happy – and there are religious women who prefer not to go to male doctors – they should be allowed to be monitored by women. And men might also might not want to show themselves before women.”

I don’t know about the rest of you, and I don’t know what these scanners show, but I’m not real comfortable with the idea either. If I meet up with one (which is possible because they’re using them in London and I tend to fly through there a lot when I go to Boston), I’m going to ask for a manual search instead.

UPDATE 5:35 PM

Reader Danny F sent me images taken from the full body scanner in the Salt Lake City, Utah airport. This is exactly what the technician sees. Note that the faces are blurred.
Hmmm. I doubt this would qualify for Rule 5.