America is understood as a secular law nation. Those who have and still do oppose the use of airport scanners on reasons that it violates individual rights, including image and space, argue on the basis of the First Amendment; that one's privacy shall be invaded for no certain reason, and thus the cause for such exploration is unnecessary and wrong. Those in favor, usually arguing on the stance that it is necessary for the prevention of terrorist attacks aboard planes and/or the transport of criminal and terrorist materials, including persons, also argue on the basis of the First Amendment; that it does not violate individual right, and where it does, one shall factor the need to forfeit [to a certain degree and manner] such application of rights for the time being.
*I present examples of the positive and negative arguments, which in this case happen to be of utilitarian nature; arguing what is best for the largest population. Please alter and/or add to them as you please.
Islamic law understands secular law as separate from shari'ah law, but also recognizes that a relationship does exist. What kind of relationship, you ask. I urge you to consult the various schools of thought, as they expound on varying grounds and for differing reasons. For one, the Fiqh Council of North America is now arguing that the use of airport scanners "is against the teachings of Islam..." Indeed, they go further, stating that it is also against "...natural law and all religions and cultures that stand for decency and modesty."
*Fiqh is the Arabic term for jurisprudence, which has two purposes; one, to decide on rules in relation to action, and two, to decide on circumstances in relation to action. [Secular] Jurisprudence asks two main questions; "What is law(?)" and "What ought the law be(?)."
Both Islamic law and secular law hit a crossroads at natural law, albeit their arguments are, once more, differing. The arguments steam, mainly, from the juxtaposed points of view: (a) Islamic law holds that truth which is natural and can be objective in the law is accessible through and manifested from the Divine Source, Allah; whereas, (b) secular law holds that objective truth in the law is accessible through human reason and derivative of, for example, human experience in relation to human reason. In sum, both are concerned with primary and secondary sources when issuing decisions.
*Al-Ghazali (Muslim), Moses Maimonides (Jewish), and St. Thomas Aquinas (Catholic) are well-known religious scholars who have argued based on natural law.
FCNA's statement, entitled, The Use of Full Body Scanners for Security at Airports and Other Places, states, "It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women." The argument is based on the following teachings:
(a) Qur'an 7:26-27: [7:26] O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of GOD's signs, that they may take heed. [7:27] O children of Adam, do not let the devil dupe you as he did when he caused the eviction of your parents from Paradise, and the removal of their garments to expose their bodies. He and his tribe see you, while you do not see them. We appoint the devils as companions of those who do not believe.
(b) Qur'an 24:30-31: [24:30] Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. GOD is fully Cognizant of everything they do. [24:31] And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed.
(c) Qur'an 33:59: O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized (as righteous women) and avoid being insulted. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
The most pressing issue this matter presents, I think, is not the need for the de-legitimatization of Islamic law in relation to airport scanners or other issues and/or events, but the trickling effect of Shari'ah into American society and its forthcoming brace on secular law. For example, the FCNA advises that Muslims opt for pat downs over airport scanners. The scenario raises how the effect seems to be two-fold;
(1) it defines persons by their ethnic religion, i.e. Muslims, which does not define naturally established geographical boundaries because of its transcendent nature;
(2) it rests on the general and specific distinction(s) between believers and non-believers, which are defined on the basis of religious identity and its accompanying virtues/non-virtues as Muslim and non-Muslim.
On the contrary, while in the bounds of secular law established by the nation, the question in advisement ought to be, "How must Americans act when faced with such circumstances?" I am held to the same rules [and consequences if I choose otherwise] as a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian, or a Buddhist, etc. because we are all American.
The Shari'ah effect juxtaposes the Law of the Land of the United States of America, put forth by the hands of the Founding Fathers before us in the Constitution which rests on Divine Providence, because;
(1) it does not define persons under the rule of law as who they are in their country of citizenship, Americans, bound by geographical longitudes and latitudes;
(2) it does not recognize the distinction between the separation of Church and State, i.e. Mosque and State, and its limits.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a press release supporting the FCNA statement, in which it re-iterated the need to alter airport scanner software to "produce only an outline of the body." Their follow-up statement raises, again, questions that has been visited before: What is FCNA's agenda, led in part by a member of the Executive Council, Jamal Badawi, and who are they connected to? The same will continually be asked about CAIR, especially in light of this intelligence:
- Backgrounder on the Fiqh Council of North America and the Council of American-Islamic Relations by the Investigative Project on Terrorism;
- Cut-off of ties by FBI with CAIR over Hamas questions and "front organization";
- Backgrounder on the Muslim American Society, which has ties to IslamOnline.net vis-a-vis Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
I propose beginning with the following questions:
(a) How else can Shari'ah be applied in America, and subordinately;
(b) What is the next situation that will arise that will generate positive and/or negative Islamic arguments in alignment with Shari'ah?
Concerning these points, we can analyze cases which have occured in Europe, specifically England, France, and Germany. If we understand Shari'ah's application to religious and legal action and circumstance, then we can understand its implications culturally and socially.
This can provide us with insight into how to prevent jihadi infiltration in and throughout the US and to protect the foundation of fundamental legal values and traditions.