Tuesday, February 23, 2010

MUI Rejected Body Scanners

The Indonesian Ulama Council (MUI) has rejected the plan to use of Body Scanners on passengers at the airports because it is against the Islamic laws and human rights.

Please find below a related article in The Jakarta Globe for reference.

 An airport staff member demonstrating a full body scan in progress at Britain’s Manchester Airport. (AFP Photo)

MUI Says Airport Body Scanners Would Violate Human Rights

The Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) had rejected a plan to use full body scanners in Indonesian airports, claiming it would be a violation of Sharia law and human rights.

“Don’t use it in Indonesia. We are not a paranoid or frightened country, What we are afraid of is the scanner violating human rights and being used as a toy to abuse women,” Amidhan, the council’s chairman, told detik.com.

The council agreed with Pope Benedict’s objections to full body scanners.

“It violates human rights. If only the bones are visible then it’s all right but if it’s the body then it could become a toy,” Amidhan said.

The MUI said that there would be one exception, however.

“It could only be used in emergency situations regarding national security and women should scan women and men scan men,” he said.

Amidhan said that he believed Indonesia was not in an emergency situation at the moment and airport security staff could still make use of other tools.

“As long as other equipment is available, it’s not an emergency,” he said.

The government planned to use ProVision scanner made in USA. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had said the scanner would not show individual’s “sensitive parts.” At present, ProVision scanners are on trial in Canadian and French airports, while in Indonesia, the device would be used for passengers heading to the United States.


umihoney said...

The same concern was raised in the US as well.The concern was who watch the screen which is located remotely and whether the images are saved..if so what is the guarantee that these images are not misused (read commercialized/extortion etc)Though their concern was non religious in nature it is more on privacy and human rights.
Interesting to see if this procedure will be challenged in court based on those reasons.

H. Nizam said...


There is certainly no guarantee that the images would not be misuse by anyone, like you mentioned.
Yes it would be interesting.

Rob Baiton said...


They have already been misused. A google search will reveal that :D

H. Nizam said...


Thanks, I'll google it.