Who Wears Turbans?

Factual Questions
1

Here’s a link to an article in the N.Y. Post about a “subway panic” in lower Manhattan. It was kicked off by someone seeing “a man in a turban” emerging from a manhole. He turned out to be a Transit Authority worker on legitmate business.

NY Post: Subway Panic Makes TA Worker a Turband Legend

Which brings up the question, why do people think “Middle Eastern terrorist” when they see turbans? I’ve never associated turbans with any Middle Eastern nation. I’ve always associated them with the Sihks of India (and perhaps Packistan?). So, who has the right stereotype here, anyway?

2

A few months back, Playboy had a little sidebar on “how to make a turban”. A few months later, they received a letter from some folks who had gone bounding around the Australian outback thanking them for the how-to, saying that their turbans kept their heads well protected and cool. So, they ain’t just for NYTA workers.

3

the Sikhs of India (and Pakistan) do wear turbans.

you may also like to know that different peoples wear their turbans in different ways… so just by the way the turban is worn (tied, wound, whatever) you could figure out what culture/tradition the wearer is following.

the turban seen worn by bin laden is very different from the Sikh turban.

4

Entirely wrong stereotype. Confusing who brought down the Air India flight with who brought down the 7/11 flights.

5

It is very ironic that the Sikhs originated to fight the Muslim Barbarians/Invaders and are today confused to be the Muslim Barbarians :smack:

Sikhs can be identified from Muslims wearing Turbans in the following way :

1> Their turbans are usually Colored not white.

2> They never shave or cut their hair. So if you see their hair you’ll see a knot. Another big difference is that Muslims will sometimes shave their mustaches while keeping their beards intact. Sikhs also use a kinda mesh to hold their beard sometimes.

3> Sikhs will always wear a Steel Bracelet (a thick steel bangle kinda thing).

Having worked with a Sikh before, I know this.

6

Is keeping the head cool the point of wearing a turban? I don’t get it. That’s a lot of fabric trapping the heat on your head.

7

Setting aside the “barbarian” remark ( which is pretty subjective after all ), this is not quite correct. Sikhism was one of several of Islam/Hindu syncretisms that arose in India, it originated centuries after Islam had been established in India and it was not originally militant. That came later after continued persecution.

The problem with this comment is that it is true some places and not others. Turbans are not primarily religion-dependent in most Muslim cultures, but rather culture-dependent. In Iran the color of turbans can have some religious significance, in other areas it has none. In some areas, only a single type/color is worn, in other areas every color under the sun can be seen. What can be quasi- diagnostic in some regions (black turbans for southern Pushtuns in Afghanistan vs. felt caps for northern Pushtuns vs. elaborate white turbans for Baluchis, I think, or maybe it was Hazaras? ), won’t work elsewhere.

So you should be wary about such generalizations, at least when it comes to headgear.

  • Tamerlane
8

Understanding turbans.

9

If you do not call the people who raped, plundered and killed thousands as ‘barbarians’ ., I would like to know, what would you call them? Actually even going by the merriam webster dictionary definitions, the barbarian tag fits better than ever it had.

10

Yes, but by those standards, all peoples are barbarians. Hindus raped, plundered, and killed thousands too. So did Christians. Even Buddhists.

You see my point?

The word ‘barbarian’ is just as often or more often used to denote unsophisticated savages ( words with their own subjectivity, obviously ) - i.e. non-urban, non-literate peoples. This is not the case with the Muslim cultures that intruded into India and such was my ( unstated, but implied ) point.

  • Tamerlane
11

Sorry. I am getting confused here. By that token, would you ever use that term at all? We are talking about a particular invasion (of a series of invasions ofcourse) the kinds of which the world has never seen. and Hindus raped and plundered? Buddhists ?
Can you please elaborate on this?

12

Bea Arthur.

With caftans and chunky jewellery.

Redboss

13

My apologies for the confusion. My main argument is a semantic one. The Webster Third New International Dictionary touches on this point in their entry, but barbarous or savage are more commonly used to refer to uncivilized cruelty, as opposed to barbaric and barbarian, which more often denote unsophisticated people, one step removed from simple tribalism. All of those terms are technically interchangeable and correct in all of the above usages - But some are preferred in certain usages. So some examples:

The pagan Vikings invading northern Europe could be described as both being barbarous in their actions and relative to the settled Christian kingdoms, as being barbarians culturally. Similarly with the Hepthalites ( White Huns ) that invaded Persia and north India ( where they brought low the Gupta empire ).

However the Japanese that invaded Korea ( whether in the early periods or during Hideoyoshi’s adventure ) or the Muslims invading north India could be perhaps described as being barbarous in action, but they were not, relatively speaking, barbarians culturally.

My secondary argument ( and where the subjectivity comes in ) is that while the Muslim invaders were violent and downright vicious at times ( as invaders tend to be ), they were not appreciably more violent than the people they were attacking or any other major state then in existence. More religiously bigoted perhaps, but slaughter, rapine, and plunder was they way of conquest and warfare everywhere, including among the Hindu kingdoms of the sub-continent.

But one shouldn’t read that as an apologia for Muslim atrocities on my part, which isn’t my intention. My main objection to the use of the word “barbarian” was really the first point.

You mean the initial Muslim invasions of north India were unparalleled in their ferocity? I’d disagree, I think. There are many other contenders. For example in India the previously mentioned White Huns ( possible progeniters of the Rajputs? ) were no lightweights ( the Aryans probably weren’t either ). Nor were the Mongols or many others who wrecked havoc elsewhere.

Again, this isn’t to be dismissive. The Muslim invasions of north India were clearly traumatic and a major event in world history.

Of course. It was a facet of pre-modern ( and sometimes, sadly, modern ) warfare and India had plenty of imperial and would-be-imperial Hindu kingdoms in compeitition throughout history. Just to pluck one out of a hat, the Tamil dynasty of the Cholas, India’s one example of a major naval power, conquered Ceylon in an amphibious campaign, launched punitive expeditions against ( probably ) some islands in the Indonesian archipeligo, and drove northwards as it contended for the seat of imperial power with the ( then still symbolically centered roughly on the northern plain around Kanauj ) Palas of Bengal and others.

Or for a more well-known example, look at the slaughter during Ashoka’s ( the Mauryan ) Orissa campaign, that so horrified him.

Buddhist example? Most of the states of southeast Asia. The founder of the conquest state of Konbaung Burma took the name as Alaungpaya or ‘Embryo Buddha’. A warrior to the end, he died from wounds while besieging Ayyuthia. His son, following in his father’s martial ways, later burnt it to the ground in the course of his short-lived conquest of Siam.

Or there are such odd examples as the militant Buddhist Ikko sect in medieval Japan, etc.

All of which, I hasten to add for the third time ( I hate it when I’m misunderstood :wink: ), doesn’t mean I believe in some moral equivalence where everybody is just as bad as everyone else and that any action is justified if done by another.

Just that the Muslim invaders of India were not some extraordinary exemplars of violence by the standards of the medieval world.

It is correct to say, however, that they were at times far more intolerant in India than in some other regions, depending on just how orthodox and fanatical any given ruler happened to be. For every tolerant Akbar, there were probably two or three intolerant Alamgir’s who regarded the fact that Hindus weren’t ‘Peoples of the Book’ as being a perfectly logical reason to harshly oppress them.

  • Tamerlane
14

I maintain their description as barbarian as it has been used in many texts. The dictionary explain barbarian as :

*a>A member of a people considered by those of another nation or group to have a primitive civilization. *
The invading Muslims had no city, no cultural achievements as compared to the Indians. No society structure, no schools, no university, no system of medicine, no system for clothing, etc. etc. are other things Indians had and Muslim invaders did’nt. Hence they wanted to invade.

*b> A fierce, brutal, or cruel person. *
All invaders are rather notorious for this. Even today the favorite Afghan sport is play with a carcass.
*c>An insensitive, uncultured person; a boor. See Synonyms at boor. *

You can tell a person Wearing a Turban is a MUSLIM if any of the following is true:
1> He has no mushtache but a beard.
2> He has no Steel Bangle on his wrist.

  • Tamerlane
15

This is all factually incorrect.

Here it would technically fit, you are correct, though note my earlier comments on this.

You’re sure, now? I don’t think it is just Sikhs and Muslims wear turbans. Some Hindus do as well, I believe. Probably some Christian groups in the region also, though I won’t swear to that.

If we’re talking the particular Sikh symbol, you might have something :).

  • Tamerlane

  • Tamerlane **
    [/QUOTE]

16

First, the “barbarian” usage is absurdly abusive and inaccurate. However, the relative barbarity of warring groups etc. is a matter of Great Debate and not a General Question.

In regards to the information on Sikhs, Turbans and “metal bangles” there is further gross disinformation. Let me address that.

(a) In regards to the earlier posting in re color of turban:

  • 1: Various Muslim groups wear various kinds of turbans. E.g., in North Africa, colored turbans are most certainly traditionally worn. An example may be found on the cover of a recent Economist magazine (15 March 02) entitled, as memory serves, America and the Arabs which featured, ironically enough two chleuh berbers wearing brightly colored white and yellow turbans traditional to the inner Atlas region as memory serves. I have one myself. It is pure ignorance to claim particularities in color.
  • 2: Various non-Muslim groups also wear turbans. The Sikh turban does seem unique for its particular elaboration, but I can’t think of a clear way to describe it.

(b) in regards to the “MUSLIM” issue in re mustache and beard, this is once again utterly wrong.

  • 1: many Muslim men of course don’t bother to wear either mustache or beard.
    -2: devout Muslim men do consider having a beard AND/OR mustache to be more sunnah than being clean shaven. A general rule of thumb is the more Salafi (fundie, not necessarily implying al-Qaedesque belief however) the fellow is, the less he is inclined to shave, or trim. In general. Some subgroups think one should shave one thing, and not another etc. There is no way to determine on sight if the beard in question is Muslim or not.

© In regards to the metal bangle issue, this again is an absurd piece of disinformation. Again, I have on my wrist at this very moment two traditioanl North African metal bangles/bracelets which have been mistaken by sub-Continental people for Sikh origin. There is, again, no rule on this matter. Some people, to use the North African example, wear one of the bracelets I wear to ward of djinn. I wear it as a keepsake of course.

Finally: The Keffiyah is not a turban.

All in all the intervention on this matter reflects bigotry and ignorance. Having worked and specialized in the region in question for a good decade, I am certain of this.

17

**Collounsbury and Tamerlane are totally ignorant on the matter of Sikhs !!! **

Sikhs were required to be outwardly distinguisable from other people. Read - Macauliffe, M.A., The Sikh Religion, 1909, Vol. V, pp. 91-7. Sikhs also always have their middle name as Singh (meaning Lion).

“In order to mark them as a select body who should be known by outward signs, it was declared that every true Sikh must always have five things with him, their names all commencing with the letter ‘K’ —namely, Kes (long hair or the head, The Sikh must never cut his hair or beard) Kangha (comb) to securethe hair tied up in a knot on the top of the head” Quote from the reference

Whatever your opinions on Turban etc., Sikhs are easily distinguishable due to following :

1> Kesh - Sikhs never ever cut their hair from the moment they are born and they will always neatly brush and tie their hair in knot on their head !! ** Muslims do’nt do this**. They also never shave their beard or mustaches. Modern Sikhs use a retainer (a mesh kinda thing) to hold their beard in place.

The Sikh Turban looks like this - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/news/lifestyles/links/turban_sikh.jpg
2> Kangha - They will always have a small comb in their turban to comb their hair. This looks like this http://allaboutsikhs.com/basics/images/kanga.gif

3> Kirpan - This is a knife within a sheath worn on a strap across your folder. Many Sikhs have given this up due to reasons you can guess. But even a few months back there was a controversy in Canada where a kid turned up in school with it.

Read more at - http://www.sikhs.ca/kirpan/peelboardcase.html.

4> Kach - They Kachh or the soldiers shorts must be worn at all times.

5> Kada - The solid steel bracelet.

So there is surely a way to make out a Sikh from Non-Sikh.

18

Putting three exclamation marks after your title doesn’t abvolve your title from being a straw man.

My comments were in re your gross misinformation in re muslims, not on the specifics of Sikhs, who I would readily agree would not be mistaken by any moderately informed person for a sub-continental Muslim.

You may wish to consider some reflection on your reading comprehension. Again my comments were on your characterization of Muslims, not on what Sikhs, in gross, wear or whether they are distinguishable by an informed person from Muslims. (All on the assumption both are wearing traditional wear and are observant.)

19

Maybe you should have read the O/P before you type. The O/P was about NY and Muslims/Sikhs in this Country. Not what they wear in thier country.

20

First of all, there is no reason to shout.

Second of all - As opposed to you perhaps? I’ll quote you again…

A.) The Sikh faith was founded by Guru Nanak around 1500, centuries after Islam began its penetration of the Indian subcontinent and it was not founded in militant opposition to Islam, but as a pacifistic syncretism of Islam and Hinduism.

B.) The faith didn’t militarize until after 1605 and then more for anti-Mughul, rather than explicitly anti-Muslim, reasons ( though of course the two were intertwined to some extent ).

*…These included disciples of Kabir, the late-fifteenth-century poet and reformer, and probably those of Guru Nanak, the early-sixteenth-century founder of the Sikh faith. Kabir had spent most of his life in the vicinity of Varanasi, where he redirected the popular fervor of bhakti and Sufi devotionalism towards a supreme transcendental godhead which subsumed both Allah of Islam and brahman of Hinduism. Similar ideas of Hindu-Muslim accomodation and syncretism were explored by Guru Nanak as he travelled widely in in India, before returning to his native punjab…

…Many from the trading and cultivating classes of the Punjab were drawn to this creed and formed a brotherhood ( panth ) under the nine Gurus who succeeded Nanak. To the third of these, Guru Amar Das, Akbar was said to have given the land at Amritsar on which the Sikhs Golden Temple would eventually be built. But as yet the panth remained a purely religious and social movement with no political or military dimension.*

From India, A History by John Keay ( 2000, Harper Collins ), pg. 316-317.

*In the Punjab, Nanak ( 1469-1538 ), born a Hindu but reared on the democratic doctrines of Islam, rejected caste and became the first guru ( “teacher” ) of the syncretic Sikh ( “disciple” ) faith, which he founded. Conceived by Nanak as a doctrine of loving devotion to the “one God, the Creator,” whose name was Truth - Sat - this religion only later became a martial one, with subsequent gurus taken up the sword by Mughal persecution.

…The third Guru, Amar Das, was patronized by Akbar, further inducing converts to the faith…Ram Das, the fourth Guru, had served at Akbar’s court and was granted some land by the emperor between the rivers Sutlej and Ravi in the Punjab, which was to become the site of the Sikh’s sacred capital. Ram Das’s son and successor, Arjun ( 1563-1606 ), completed the great Sikh temple at this spot…Jahangir charged Arjun with treason, however, and had him tortured to death for supposedly aiding the emperor’s rebel son Khusrau, then refusing to admit his guilt or abandon his faith. Arjun’s martyrdom inspired his son Hargobind, to arm his comrades, who stood ready to defend their religion with their lives, converting the pacifist faith of Guru Nanak into a militant new order pitted against Mughul tyranny.*

From A New History of India by Stanley Wolpert ( 1977, Oxford University Press ), pgs. 121 and 161.

Both of above references are very accessible general histories by the way, and are easily found in any better bookstore.

Look, it doesn’t look good to get all huffy and accusatory, when you don’t even have all of your own facts straight.

Well, as Coll pointed out, this is a bit of a strawman. I never said that there weren’t. If you look back carefully, all I said was to be careful about generalizing from turban color, as it is an inaccurate gauge. And I said it less as a correction for you, than as advice for others reading this thread. Notice I didn’t say a word about kirpans, hair-length, etc. And I said you may or may not have something with the bangles, depending on how distinctively Sikh they are ( something I don’t know ). Coll corrected you on bangles and mustaches/beards, based on his own considerable real world experience but he didn’t say anything about other identifiers either.

There was no need to get quite so defensive.

  • Tamerlane