Transportation police in the UK might be losing a safety tool: Muslim passengers are objecting to the use of danger-sniffing dogs, saying that the practice is against Islam. According to the religion, dogs are considered to be spiritually “unclean."
Though the animals may be able to touch passengers’ luggage as a more acceptable alternative, the ban may hinder the effectiveness of dogs who've been trained to identify terrorists. Though a police spokesman said sniffer dogs would still be used regardless of faith, but handlers will be vigilant of “cultural sensitivities.” The chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission disagrees that the measure is enough, saying that even dogs touching baggage would be an issue for a Muslim preparing to pray. He stressed the importance of finding a method to allow dogs to check passengers without physical contact.
Are machines an alternative? Perhaps not. In a trial following the 2005 London bombings, some Muslim women said the use of a body scanner was also unacceptable because it was the equivalent of being forced to strip. Should religious beliefs trump safety practices? Where should the line be?
Birkenstock
7 For All Mankind
Stila
What a crock. If anyone gets to avoid the sniffer for religious reasons, then all religions should get to avoid the sniffer. Sorry atheists and agnostics. You guys are SOL.
1Honestly? I think its ridiculous. Safety is more important than religion.
2Using religion to avoid the law is BS. When are we going to stop with all this PC crap. What has happened to separation of church and state.
3Religion should not be an excuse to forgo sniffers or scanners. The possibily of having to go through these security measures is something you sign up for when you agree to fly.
4I thought it was a separate issue. Is this what the world is coming to, this is unbelievable. So scanning is equivalent to a strip search, what if it is a woman doing the body scan --is it then against your religion. I am just confused that this is now an issue – was the metal detectors back in the day and currently against the religious beliefs as well. Will the government forgo this measure of safety to pacify a religion? I am just puzzled what if I don’t want to be searched can I tell the screeners it’s against my religion as well-where does this stop.
5If you don't want to be sniffed or scan DON'T FLY!
No one is forcing you to.
All I'm hearing is this
from a bunch of these 
6by the way, what a beautiful pup in the picture!
7Well Muslims don't have to fly, then.
8Bullsh*t
9This is ridiculous.
10If any of you took the time and effort to try understand the beliefs behind this request, you might not be so eager to come out with such ignorant answers. Ignorant in that you can not comprehend beyond what you THINK you know. Of course, everyone will want to jump on the anti-Islam/Muslim train, because it's simpler than to defend it intelligently and unbiasedly. All muslims are not potential terrorists, but those that raise suspicions to the so-called trained professionals would really not be considered the "friendly" ones and consequently, not be of those that would claim an infringement on their religious practices.
11um, first, ouch.
Second, no one said they were terrorists. We simply said that if you really are against these policies, you should not fly, because all who fly are subjected to these policies at one time or another. no one is forcing anyone to fly, so if it's against your beliefs, don't do it.
Last, it's an issue of separation of church and state. If we all bended every rule for every religion there'd be little we could actually say or do. It's ridiculous to assume that security should allow some through because it's against a religion. I think this response would be the exact same if a Christian group made these or similar demands. You're the one making it out to be a terrorist/muslim thing.
12It was not my intention to turn it terrorist/muslim, but we are both intelligent enough and I'm sure have had many of these conversations, take that turn. So let's just call it was it is, for the sake of argument. I have always been for separation of church and state ever since I heard of this in high school. Naturally, that would be the ideal to many people. But do you know what the reasoning is behind the uproar?
13Someone's religious rights cannot trump my right to a safe flight.
14The reasoning behind the uproar is that people are trying to bypass security for fear of being "offended" due to a belief in their religion. The main problem with this, for me at least, is that it is their choice to fly or not - if they really are offended or it really is against the religion to the point of them feeling so violated, then they can just not fly. No one is forcing them to do so, therefore they shouldn't assume we will just change security due to the technicalities.
15And as I said before, if this were a Hindi, a Catholic, a Jewish person, a Christian, etc. etc. my response would still be the same.
16Oh I agree with Samantha, etc. who said that religion should have no role in the government. But, Samantha, I'm sure you would also agree, along those lines that "in god we trust" should not appear on our money. Or is it "too pc" if it doesn't serve your interests?
17Let me begin by explaining that having a dog, according to Islam, is acceptable as long as it is for guarding or protecting the owner and owners' property and in accordance, must be well taken care of. Granted. The religion, is rich in all fine precepts about animal rights, but is the same religion that warns its followers about getting into contact with dogs, mainly for unsanitary reasons. I don't think that is a concern left mainly to the religious, but the hygienic as a whole. Dogs are allowed to lick children' hands, utensils, etc. and then, honestly, what do kids do then? If any of your dogs were found to be responsible for passing some incurable disease on to them, what would you do? Never have another dog in your house again, most likely. Animal saliva is the real outrage in Islam, not the sniffing itself. This would pose a health risk from any animal, but we are talking about a dog, a domesticated animal. Just so you all know, this is not agreed upon by all scholars. Depends on who you ask.
18Ok. What is PC?
19Ok. What is PC?
20Uh...as long as the dog is well-taken care of, a squirt of Purell should satisfy. Except for in Old Yeller, there hasn't been an epidemic of dogs passing on "incurable diseases." I know that in the Jewish religion "unclean" doesn't necessarily have a literal interpretation, but if you were to use a literal interpretation, I think you have a pretty weak argument!
21there's a lot people have to go through to fly these days because unfortunately a few nutcases ruined it for the rest of us. But the airlines and airports are businesses and they gotta do what they have to to keep their customers safe. If you don't like it, then don't fly and take away their business. Just like anything else.
22While Purell may satisfy some, those that have to satisfy a higher state of purity and cleanliness in order to stand before their God and offer prayer and ask forgiveness (because no one is perfect)Purell just don't cut it, snowbunny. "Unclean" in the 3 monotheistic religions means the same. Those that are not "that religious" tend to bring their own interpretations to everything to alleviate their own issues. So, I am not convinced my argument is weak, only that you are trying to cover your own weak argument.
23Yes, "a few nutcases ruined it for the rest of us" and most law-abiding citizens, Muslim or otherwise, do not as a rule, have a problem with the increased security. Again, law-abiding. It is seen by Muslims just as non-Muslims: a pain in the ass inconvenience that means you have to get to the airport, in some cases, 4 hours or more, just because you have to go through security. Big whoop!
24PC means politically correct.
I understand what you're saying Robin and it's always tricky when dealing with religious practices. If it were the year 2000 I would have agreed with you. In this day and age, however, security trumps this. It's unfortunate but we are in a really scary time. This is NOT to say that I think they should target Muslims with the dogs or use any sort of racial profiling....but we need to do everything in our power to protect ourselves and if this makes some people more uncomfortable than others than so be it. The number ONE priority is safety, then comes everything else..
25I'm not on the "anti-Islam/Muslim train." I'm on the anti-religion train. Why should the law have to accede to any kind of religion or superstition?
If it does, then I'm founding a new religion. It's called IDon'tPayTaxesIsm.
26I'd like to join that one torgelson!
27I think people worldwide agree that safety is of the utmost importance and I think it is again, noteworthy, to point out that Muslims would be among the first to second that notion. Ladies, it should be stated that this article isn't very clear to the initiated. The problem in the muslim community is not, as even some muslims mistakenly believe with the dogs sniffing. The problem would be ONLY if the dog had to lick or impose saliva. That's it!
28Don't these dogs only sniff checked bags?
If that's the case, just bring carry on
luggage if you have to fly. 
I feel like there has to be a way to make people happy
without sacrificing security.
Also, a lot of people don't equate religion with superstition, fyi. And I'm not trying to sound insensitive Robin. I hope I'm not coming off that way.
29Well if that's the case Robin than I think this is a non-issue. Those dogs are EXTREMELY well trained. They have a job that they have been trained to do. They are not going to lick anybody...they are sniffing for drugs. Thank you for pointing out the specifics of the belief.
30I second the decision to join your religion - torgleson.
Okay what about the body scans and let's say a woman does it ---do you all think that would be okay.
31I wondered that too Sy
32"explaining that having a dog, according to Islam, is acceptable as long as it is for guarding or protecting the owner and owners' property and in accordance, must be well taken care of."
Couldn't the airline's argument be then that the dog is protecting the owner of the plane (the airline) and the owner's property (the plane)?
33I just want people to understand and make informed opinions instead of adding to all the anit-muslim hysteria. No one here specifically, please. It is indeed almost a non-issue until these kinds of reports are published and people say things that they might not have otherwise, had they had background. Thank you.
34Robin I am confused, you seem not to have read my post fully? I said that their interpretation may NOT be literal, but a more spiritual idea of purity, more akin to the one in Judaism (the only one I know about, I'm Christian, but we don't have any similar dietary restrictions, etc).
But when you start talking about "uncurable diseases" and germs, that IS literal. So saying that their interpretaion is NOT literal, and that "I don't get it" doesn't make sense, because you were the one that said dogs were literally unclean. You can't have it both ways, did you mean a literal or spiritual interpretation?
If it's a literal concern, Purell should cut it. If it's a spiritual concern, it should not be a factor because our government is not in the business of putting religion above public safety.
35*sniffing for drugs AND explosives.....*
36great point cab, I was thinking the same thing.
Robin, I could be wrong but I feel like the responses on this thread were not anti-muslim but more just anti-getting around the rules.
37Bellaressa, women doing body scans, frisking and the like is all fine. As long as it is a female. No problem! But if a women wears a hijab, headscarf, and is asked to remove it right there in front of the other passengers in line, then she should be allowed to move to a private area to be further checked.
38Robin, what if a woman is modest, but her modesty is not based on religious beliefs? Why should a woman get exemption based on religion? My inability to believe in myths does not mean that I do not hold my values dear...
39Well if its a body scan ---they don't need to remove their head scarves or anything. But , in London the Muslim women said the use of a body scanner was also unacceptable because it was the equivalent of being forced to strip.
40Cab, if the airline wants to argue that, good luck, but I thought we were talking about a religious group.
Snowbunny, that modesty should extend to whomever has a problem with the demands of security in front of the other passengers. That's just my view. But, I was trying to stick to the topic of Muslims.
41Bellaressa, I think that might have been that woman's interpretation and maybe naive understanding. Isn't a scan like an x-ray? You are not seeing bare skin, after all, which you all know, would be the objection.
42Why is this an issue? I'm tired of treading on ice around Muslim issues. It was Muslim extremists that attacked us, and had done so since '93. The "middle of the road/average" Muslims have yet to denounce what the extremist have done, so how do we know they don't really agree with what has happened? If they want to live and travel in America, they must accept that that travel comes with a cost. A cost, I might add, that their extremists have caused us all to pay.
43Robinesque--you're are correct, it's just like an X-ray but many people can claim that that is invasive and agaist their beliefs.
44I think this has less to do with Muslims, and more to do with religion in general. No one in this post has targeted the Muslim religion specifically. But, I do agree that if the TFA wanted Christians to violate any of their beliefs, there would be a HUGE uproar from the religious right!
And I'm not saying Muslim women should have to remove their headscarves unless there is cause for them to do so, or they are randomly picked out of the line to do so, that was just an example!
Religious beliefs IMO should be respected as long as they don't interfere
with the basic goals of our government. (Protecting health, providing an education and security).
45Oh, too bad, I spoke too soon. UnDave was the first to make the typical, uninformed comments against the Muslim religion. FYI UnDave, most Muslims HAVE denounced the attacks. "Google" it, or like, ask one if you can be bothered to step aside from spewing your vitriol for a second. Oh, and Tim McVeigh? Extremist Christian...
46Ok, undave, can we agree that there are extremists in all religions and be done with that one?
47A big kiss from snowbunny!
48oops, "to" snowbunny!
49One more point: Rabies is a preventable but INCURABLE DISEASE.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.