BKK Airport Apologizes for Searching Muslim Cleric's Turban

[Bluespunk]

Tell to the next time when a terrorist will be seated in a wheel chair and wearing a turban

laden with explosives.... I wonder who's going to do the apologizing than...

this world has gone mad, this social media crap has made people think that they can

comments on anything and stick their long noses into any thing they perceived as wrong

or that they don't like... how would they feel if they were blown up with a bomb hidden

in some holier that thou clergy?....

I agree in that everyone should be scanned/searched and "netizens" (how I hate that word) do come up with primo BS to whine about on a regular basis.

However lets not lose sight of the fact that the man at the centre of this story did not complain, understands why he was scanned and has nothing to do with the whole social media faux outrage story.

[Thaddeus]

Tell to the next time when a terrorist will be seated in a wheel chair and wearing a turban

laden with explosives.... I wonder who's going to do the apologizing than...

this world has gone mad, this social media crap has made people think that they can

comments on anything and stick their long noses into any thing they perceived as wrong

or that they don't like... how would they feel if they were blown up with a bomb hidden

in some holier that thou clergy?....

“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”

― Brian Cox

[off road pat]

Apologise? Why? They have no problem whatsoever taking my stuff to bits. Why should the religious have any kind of immunity from this kind of treatment?

Religious people be they Christian / Muslim / Jew / Buddhist / Hindu always think they are special and all believe their god is right and they all love to clamp down on others rights.

Religion truly one of the most destructive forces there is. Put too many of any religion in a place and they will for the others who are not of their religion to follow their rules. Stupid Christians in Holland against the former drug policies, Buddhists in Thailand forcing everyone not to drink on their religious days. Muslims chopping off heads if you don't believe as they do.

When will those religious people learn that there should not be any force in religion.. guess never.

As I agree with most parts of your statement,....I have to disagree with this one "Buddhists in Thailand forcing everyone not to drink on their religious days"

You are not forced not to drink on Buddhist religious days,...They just ask everybody no to drink alcohol in public on there religious days !!!

If you feel you can not respect that ? you are free to drink as much as you want in private....!!! like many people do....

personally I have no problem with respecting Buddhist religious days...

on the other hand ? if you don't like it you still have the choice of staying in your country, were everything is perfect I have no doubt........!

Regards, Off Road Pat

[faraday]

Taking off your turban in a place where the opposite sex can see you is against the Quran.

She should of been searched in a private room by a female officer.

Err, "she" is in fact 'he'...

You referring to my gf?

Just knew she wasn't right.

[Jingthing]

To security, it's a place where something can be hidden.

Religion should have nothing to do with this.

Any religion.

If Buddhists wore turbans, same issue.

If fundamentalists of any flavor can't conform with airplane security, they shouldn't travel.

The public's right not to be blown up trumps any of their religious expression rights.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Jingthing

[user786895]

Instead of cowing down like a bunch of spineless <deleted>, they should have informed this guy and his assistant everyone has to follow the same security procedures barring none.

Don't you read posts before you reply to them? It says "....Speaking to Nitinai and reporters, Aziz said he was not angry and understood that the staff had to perform their duty. He explained that the photo was taken by an anonymous bystander, and that the Sheikh-ul Islam Office was not involved with the buzz on social media in any way..."

[aboctok]

Taking off your turban in a place where the opposite sex can see you is against the Quran.

She should of been searched in a private room by a female officer.

This is good style, because we can get through more topics faster. Comment first, read later.

[Danbit]

I have seen drawings of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, what is the problem. They search all in the airport, it is their job.

[ratcatcher]

Taking off your turban in a place where the opposite sex can see you is against the Quran.

She should of been searched in a private room by a female officer.

What? Slightly confused I suppose.

Don't you mean a hijab or niqab? This was a male and there is no religious edict that requires a muslim male to keep his chapeau.

I do however note the double standard. I have seen the security personnel check Sikhs' turbans. I know that El Al security requires holy rollers to take off their hats and they don't have a problem wanding over their heads.

I thought it was a female, because males don't have to wear at turban. Just realized its a male after looking at the name.

Having a bad day lukecan?

First you said the Sheikh is a 'she' and then you say male Muslims don't have to wear a turban.

Well, here are "some" Muslims that do / did. Perhaps you can pick the odd man out?

Edited June 6, 2015 by ratcatcher

[Pimay1]

Instead of cowing down like a bunch of spineless <deleted>, they should have informed this guy and his assistant everyone has to follow the same security procedures barring none.

Don't you read posts before you reply to them? It says "....Speaking to Nitinai and reporters, Aziz said he was not angry and understood that the staff had to perform their duty. He explained that the photo was taken by an anonymous bystander, and that the Sheikh-ul Islam Office was not involved with the buzz on social media in any way..."

The pot and the kettle my friend. Don't you read subsequent posts before you reply? Refer to my post #45.

[NoshowJones]

Apologise? Why? They have no problem whatsoever taking my stuff to bits. Why should the religious have any kind of immunity from this kind of treatment?

Like a Sikh in the UK being allowed to not wear a crash helmet because it won't fit over his turban.

[NoshowJones]

I've never heard of anyone hiding an explosive under a turban. Plus if I wanted to hijack a plane I'd get dressed up as a jew or something, being muslim attracts too much unwarranted attention.

It's been done. Usually they prefer suicide vests. They have also used developmentally challenged kids, people wearing casts, allegedly pregnant women, men posing as women wearing a burka. The examples I have given are all based upon bombers who have attacked mosques and markets in Iraq and Pakistan. When it comes to attacks on western targets we have seen, underwear bombs, shoe bombs, bombs concealed in portable electronics, bombs in children's toys, bombs sewn into people's guts, and poisonous substances placed in clothing.

What exactly does getting dressed up as a jew entail? None of the jews I know has a jew uniform, Do you mean a holy roller? If so, they get searched just like everyone else and they don't complain. In fact, despite the very intrusive searches of some religious people such as Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, members of the Christian clergy and, ultra orthodox jews, they never complain. Only muslims seem to complain.

Yes, but they complain about everything.

[rondii]

Instead of cowing down like a bunch of spineless <deleted>, they should have informed this guy and his assistant everyone has to follow the same security procedures barring none.

Obviously a redneck who has trouble reading.. the guy had no problem with it and said he understood staff were only doing their job..he said it was a bystander and others who have "complained". Seems to be an okay guy.

Why management felt need to apologize, well that's another question, Looks like PC may be unfortunately creeping in here, or perhsps they were frightened that those complaining may retaliate in some way.

[F4UCorsair]

Sounds like what would happen in Australia, the apology I mean.

The religion of permanent offence, possibly a bystander from the religion of peace in this case, would be bristling over an infidel having the temerity to do his job without favor............as he should!!

Edited June 6, 2015 by F4UCorsair

[Alwyn]

Taking off your turban in a place where the opposite sex can see you is against the Quran.

She should of been searched in a private room by a female officer.

Maybe so, but the cleric is a HE not a SHE. I think you will find there is no such thing as a female cleric with the exception of Morocco where they have semi-ordained women called Mourchidat for helping women. They don't wear turbans though, just the hijab. There is no reason why the security forces should not ask anybody and everybody to cooperate in the name of security.

[simple1]

To security, it's a place where something can be hidden.

Religion should have nothing to do with this.

Any religion.

If Buddhists wore turbans, same issue.

If fundamentalists of any flavor can't conform with airplane security, they shouldn't travel.

The public's right not to be blown up trumps any of their religious expression rights.

Perhaps you missed this info...

The office holder of Shaykh al-Islām in Thailand is appointed by HM on the advise of the PM.

http://en.wikipedia....IslÄm#Thailand

[Jingthing]

My point was general and not about any one person in any one turban (or any other covering ... religious or otherwise).

Edited June 6, 2015 by Jingthing

[metisdead]

Some nonsense posts have been removed.

[White Christmas13]

Taking off your turban in a place where the opposite sex can see you is against the Quran.

She should of been searched in a private room by a female officer.

Err, "she" is in fact 'he'...

Yes and I was believing only Indians wear turbans

[Pimay1]

Instead of cowing down like a bunch of spineless <deleted>, they should have informed this guy and his assistant everyone has to follow the same security procedures barring none.

Obviously a redneck who has trouble reading.. the guy had no problem with it and said he understood staff were only doing their job..he said it was a bystander and others who have "complained". Seems to be an okay guy.

Why management felt need to apologize, well that's another question, Looks like PC may be unfortunately creeping in here, or perhsps they were frightened that those complaining may retaliate in some way.

Yet another knee jerk poster who doesn't read subsequent posts before replying and issuing personal insults.

[robblok]

Apologise? Why? They have no problem whatsoever taking my stuff to bits. Why should the religious have any kind of immunity from this kind of treatment?

Religious people be they Christian / Muslim / Jew / Buddhist / Hindu always think they are special and all believe their god is right and they all love to clamp down on others rights.

Religion truly one of the most destructive forces there is. Put too many of any religion in a place and they will for the others who are not of their religion to follow their rules. Stupid Christians in Holland against the former drug policies, Buddhists in Thailand forcing everyone not to drink on their religious days. Muslims chopping off heads if you don't believe as they do.

When will those religious people learn that there should not be any force in religion.. guess never.

As I agree with most parts of your statement,....I have to disagree with this one "Buddhists in Thailand forcing everyone not to drink on their religious days"

You are not forced not to drink on Buddhist religious days,...They just ask everybody no to drink alcohol in public on there religious days !!!

If you feel you can not respect that ? you are free to drink as much as you want in private....!!! like many people do....

personally I have no problem with respecting Buddhist religious days...

on the other hand ? if you don't like it you still have the choice of staying in your country, were everything is perfect I have no doubt........!

Regards, Off Road Pat

I posted many times aready i almost never drink.. also not on those days. Just don't like the restriction based on religion. Do i care enough about stuff like this not to enjoy living here.. no way i love it.

Fact is back home i complained too about things.. here its no different. Does not mean I dont like it here. I just don't agree with everything.

[EnglishJohn]

The typically sad thing here is that the airport issued an official apology.

Not because they are sorry, but to clam down the Muslim backlash which is 100% religion based.

The more the world does this, the louder they shout next time.

I have NEVER seen any muslim apologise for their behaviour to non-muslims.

[Bellacissa]

The typically sad thing here is that the airport issued an official apology.

Not because they are sorry, but to clam down the Muslim backlash which is 100% religion based.

The more the world does this, the louder they shout next time.

I have NEVER seen any muslim apologise for their behaviour to non-muslims.

I did, once. I was in a hotel bar in a Muslim country when a Muslim man got way too drunk and started singing to our table. He was not in our party and none of us knew him - we were all westerners. He was perfectly friendly, but because Muslims being intoxicated in Muslim countries is frowned upon, the man was escorted out by two (for lack of a better word) bouncers. The bouncers came back to our table afterwards and profusely apologized for the behavior of the drunken man. And all that without a word by us saying that we had any problem.

So yes, it does happen. Perhaps you just haven't met the right Muslims.

[simple1]

To security, it's a place where something can be hidden.

Religion should have nothing to do with this.

Any religion.

If Buddhists wore turbans, same issue.

If fundamentalists of any flavor can't conform with airplane security, they shouldn't travel.

The public's right not to be blown up trumps any of their religious expression rights.

Perhaps you missed this info...

The office holder of Shaykh al-Islām in Thailand is appointed by HM on the advise of the PM.

http://en.wikipedia....IslÄm#Thailand

So.....?.........Get him a private plane.............We will all be happy.........

Yeah right, then there would be even more pages of Muslim bashing.

Edited June 6, 2015 by simple1

[ChiangraiTony]

Talk about confusion! That really sends a mixed signal.

[Geordie59]

Taking off your turban in a place where the opposite sex can see you is against the Quran.

She should of been searched in a private room by a female officer.

if air travelling procedures are against the qran - let them take the bus

I've never heard of anyone hiding an explosive under a turban. Plus if I wanted to hijack a plane I'd get dressed up as a jew or something, being muslim attracts too much unwarranted attention.

So you probably don't know that one of the London 7/7 bombers was caught trying to escape dressed as a ninja then.

[siam2007]

In Malaysia, where Islam is state religion, it is the most normal thing that Muslims, cleric or not, have their Turban or whatever head wear scanned by metal detectors, or they even have to remove it. I have seen that more than once at KL Airport.

what's all the fuzz about that !

[OttoPollmann]

Taking off your turban in a place where the opposite sex can see you is against the Quran.

She should of been searched in a private room by a female officer.

Please read again.

The she is a he and nothing is written in the Quran that he has to cover his face.

Even for women is it not explicit mentioned that they have to wear a burkha.

You could find this in the Quran Sure 33:59

O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments.

That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

Anyway! She is still a He.

And to ascertain that He didn't hide anything under his turban they have the right to check this.

Otherwise this will set a precendent and we'll get something like this.

Boom!!! Hundreds of death innocents!!

[geriatrickid]

Might be a good idea for the posters in this topic to look up the title of Shaykh al-Islām.

The office holder of Shaykh al-Islām in Thailand is appointed by HM on the advise of the PM.

Although the office holder has not raised a complaint, posters can now understand why an executive visited him to apologise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaykh_al-Isl%C4%81m#Thailand

Would be wise not to insult the office or the person in the OP.

.

Your post is not accurate. The description misrepresents how appointments work in Constitutional monarchies. Many senior appointments are awarded under the name of the sovereign. That's how the system is set up. By the same token, it is why the prosecutor brings charges on behalf of the "crown", or protected forests and national parks are classified as "crown lands". It is not the sovereign acting, it is the state acting.

Are you aware that commissions in many constitutional democracies' armed forces are awarded by the sovereign? Doesn't matter if it is Canada or the UK or Thailand. By your logic, one should not say anything about Thai General Manas who is now charged and detained in respect to human trafficking activity. Nor should Canadians disparage sex offender & murderer Col. Russ Williams because his commission was granted by the commander in chief of Canada's armed forces, Queen Elizabeth II. By your logic, the sovereign must also take responsibility for the behaviour of someone who was technically appointed by the sovereign. This is not the case, nor would it be fair to do so. The granting of the position or commission is a usually tradition, or a formality and does not necessarily indicate support or approval of an appointee's personal behaviour.

Edited June 6, 2015 by geriatrickid

[jacky54]

To security, it's a place where something can be hidden.

Religion should have nothing to do with this.

Any religion.

If Buddhists wore turbans, same issue.

If fundamentalists of any flavor can't conform with airplane security, they shouldn't travel.

The public's right not to be blown up trumps any of their religious expression rights.

Perhaps you missed this info...

The office holder of Shaykh al-Islām in Thailand is appointed by HM on the advise of the PM.

http://en.wikipedia....IslÄm#Thailand

So what? that does not place him above the law, above the rest of the passengers or entitled to bypass security- that has only been in place since Islamic terrorists got onto three planes in 2001