Via BoingBoing comes news of a guy who was detained and missed his flight for “acting suspiciously” by speaking a mixture Tamil and English on his cell at Seattle’s cosmopolitan SeaTac airport:He told officials that he would not speak in a foreign language on his cell phone at an airport in the future
A 32-year-old man speaking Tamil and some English about a sporting rivalry was questioned at Sea-Tac Airport and missed his flight Saturday because at least one person thought he was suspicious.
The Port of Seattle dispatched its police officers to investigate the case, which occurred Saturday around noon, said Bob Parker, airport spokesman. The Chicago man was preparing to board an American Airlines flight to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.
The man was speaking Tamil, a language largely used in India, Sri Lanka and Singapore, on his cell phone at the departure gate and on the aircraft. An off-duty airline employee heard the conversation and informed the flight crew. [Link]
<
p>The whole thing was cleared up once he promised to become monolingual at airports!
Parker said the man was cooperative and boarded a later flight to Texas. He told officials that he would not speak in a foreign language on his cell phone at an airport in the future. [Link]
<
p>This is hardly the first time this something of this sort has happened. A man was detained for several hours for speaking Arabic on the phone at a bus station. Two britasians were kept off a flight for speaking Urdu (although there is some evidence that they may have been trying to provoke an incident). A flight was even diverted because passengers felt threatened by two orthodox jews praying in Hebrew! There are many more cases like this involving Sikhs immediately after 9/11, I’m just showcasing some non-Sikh examples so that the rest of you can relate.
<
p>You don’t even have to open your mouth to have an incident. This Lt. Colonel in the US Army (formerly active service, now reserves) was detained for hours because US Air Marshals didn’t like the “way he looked” [He won a court case based on this incident]
So yeah, even 5 years after 9/11, I still only speak on my cell phone in English at airports, I always call or text somebody to tell them where I am in my journey, and I make extra sure to grin broadly and shuffle my feet while boarding. Nossah massah, I only speaks the english! You gots watermellon on this heah flight? I just love me some watahmellons!
I agree Amitabh, language planning really sucks, though I donÂ’t agree with what you say is the origin of Hindi. Urdu has more Persian/Arabic as well as some Southern (Telugu, Tamil) influence whereas Hindi has more Sanskrit influence. The language spoken by any person claiming to speak Hindi or Urdu can be placed on a continuum between the two extremes and is largely based on geographical and socioeconomic factors. Linguists refer to the language as Hindi/Urdu because the two share the same grammar and are mutually intelligible. Sadly, some people, on both sides, have successfully popularized the historically false view that Urdu was used solely by Muslims and Hindi was used solely by Hindus.
Doordarshan and PTV, and their respective language polices, are spreading unnatural and engineered versions of their languages to obliterate past commonalities and to foster new ‘pure’ identities. The language used in Bombay films (I hate the term Bollywood) and on private channels is closer to what majority of Hindi/Urdu speakers in both India and Pakistan speak. For this reason, I don’t have a problem with English infiltration in Indian languages. I’d rather be like the French French who let language change be rather the Quebec French who do odd language gymnastics to keep their French in the sixteenth century.
I have an idea for a true Sepia Mutiny. We buy tickets on the same flight. After a small conference at the airport, we decide on two-three very normal looking people (preferably suits) and separately report something about them that can be construed as suspicious. We then sit and let hilarity ensue. How about it brownies?
Meanwhile 200 million guns are afloat in the land.
Are you sure about this, PGW? I’d take your (or anyone’s on SM) word straight usually but in this case I’m finding it hard to believe because I’ve heard the same description (stones in bottle/jar) from various people in India. I’ve met Bengalis who said exactly the same thing about Malayalam, UP people who said it about Tamil, Mallus about Telugu etc. Someone very close to me is a Telugu and rural members of her family say aravam without any negativity. They simply don’t know any other word for Tamil. Their city cousins make fun of them for being “ignorant” and using the word aravam.
… and not enough dildos.
Buchoo, Hawa nikal gayi
Jai, Jai TSA wallah, Jai, Jai.
Amitabh,
I agree that the concept of “pure” language is ridiculous, but it seems to me that apart from a few Hindi-mein-Bindi-Kyun types the Hindi establishment has largely celebrated the non-pure Hindustani language that most Hindi writers have written in (post-independence). I’m thinking of folks from Manto to Bachchan to Nirmal Verma (whose Hindi novels, set in Europe, have tons of English, too) to Bhisham Sahani to Qurratulain Hyder. I don’t know about the Pakistani literary scene (except Manto, ofcourse) and the extent of Sanskrit influence they have attempted to purge/retain, but my sense is that the Hindi literary scene in India has definitely celebrated the Persian/Arabic influence on Hindi (to the extent of unfairly putting down Sanskrit, or over-politicizing the issue sometimes).
Ofcourse, you’re right that politics of Hindi/Urdu is deeply related to caste-class-religious politics of the Indian subcontinent at the turn of the 19th century (the monograph “Hindi Nationalism” by my old teacher Alok Rai talks about this in some detail). That said, I find nothing wrong in DD news Hindi being more formal (Sanskritized) than the language spoken on the street – I suspect this is the case with most news reporting worldwide. Sanskritized Hindi also makes it more accessible to non-North Indian language-speaking people. Also, with regard to Anglicization of Indian languages (i.e. the kind of Hindi on private news channels in des) while hybridity is to be celebrated there is something to be said about trying to preserve the aesthetic traditions of a language. Perhaps from this creative tension between the instinct to preserve (e.g. come up with new words/expressions for new concepts) and the instinct to incorporate words from English directly, our languages will be enriched. I guess I’m trying to say that there are good reasons for supporting DD-Hindi in the current context (which have nothing to do with the 19th century UP Brahmin agenda).
Ok, enough Hindi/urdu talk. Now back to Tamil and airports.
Amitabh,
I think you may be confusing Hindi with Hindustani.
Hindi is the original version of the language, derived from Sanskrit. For example, Amitabh Bachchan used it when anchoring KBC, and it’s also used by anchors on the Star News channel.
Hindustani is the modified version of Hindi which developed as a result of the Muslim cultural influx in north Indian society, and is what is “normally” spoken by everyday folk; it’s full of Arabic, Persian and Turkic words, although not to the extent of Urdu.
Urdu as you probably know literally means “military camp” and developed initially as a result of contact between Muslim soldiers and the rest of the non-Muslim Indian population. Obviously it has considerably more Arabic and Persian-derived words than Hindustani does.
This guy can’t really complain if Arabs have been treated similarly. The LTTE speak Tamil and it is a banned terrorist organization in the USA, Canada and the EU.
I refuse to give into this kind of pressure, though some would argue that you and I are just inviting trouble. Still, I do find that a warm smile can often go a long way in making others feel foolish when they’re staring at you suspiciously.
Lets say you have a marriage reception to attend or an important interview the next day. The hijab will attract unnecessary attention and is more lkely to have you detained for a couple of hours or even more than if you were not wearing one. I would then question your wisdom in wearing a hijab to the airport even though you are aware of the fact that it is more likely to make you miss that important date. Of course I will only question for wisdom and not your right to do so.
I know you should not be discriminated against for wearing hijab and I would defend your right to wear hijab, but I cant stand on the sidelines and cheer on the hijabis for wearing the hijab. I work in the Civil rights area part time (though getting very very tired of it) and more often than not, the hijabis want my affirmation of their exercise of an article of their faith. I see hijab as an exercise of an irrational belief, akin to how I see people who put tattoos on their foreheads. People with tattoos on their foreheads have certain constitutional rights and I will defend their constitutional rights to the best of my abilities. However I will question their wisdom in putting tattoos on their foreheads the same way I question the wisdom of the hijabi.
Hairy-d, Jai, SA, HindiMeinBindi:
Thanks for you comments. I’ll try to summarise my views briefly, and restrict my comments to Hindi for now. Hindi has a fairly complex history, and has been tossed around by more political-religious wrangling than any other language I can think of right now…but its issues are being faced to varying degrees by most Indian languages. I don’t have references for my assertions, these are conclusions based on various things I’ve read over the years, they may not all be correct. Hindi can be traced back originally to early spoken dialects of Sanskrit, of which Vedic Sanskrit is probably the closest written approximation. Whereas written Sanskrit went through its own phases (Vedic becoming Classical Sanskrit and then being fossilised), the various ‘spoken Sanskrits’ of northern India gradually morphed into the prakrits of which Buddhist Pali is a famous example. That marks the evolution of Old Indo-Aryan into Middle Indo-Aryan. As these dialects continued to evolve and undergo morphologic/grammatical changes, gradually the modern Indo-Aryan tongues emerged, including prototypes of Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujarati, Bengali, and Hindi. Hindi at that stage was splintered into various regional forms, including precursors of Khadi Boli (Delhi area), Braj (Mathura), Awadhi (Lucknow), and others (some would include Marwari and Bhojpuri too). These were largely spoken and not written, except for some poetry. When the Muslims formed their various regimes, most of them based in Delhi, their various languages, most notably Persian (which itself was very mixed with Arabic) blended with the local variety of Hindi (which is called Khadi Boli), and Urdu/Hindustani was born. The Army camp, as Jai alluded to, was crucial in this development. So I don’t claim that Hindi comes from Urdu…actually Urdu is merely one variant of Hindi…it’s Hindi from the Delhi region, with large-scale Perso-Arabic borrowings, that eventually developed a large literature, and was given official state sanction and patronage. Meanwhile, other dialects of Hindi continued to flourish, and had their own (mostly Hindu, mostly poetic) literature. But during the Raj, after Islamic rule had been ended, a ‘purification’ movement set in, to get rid of foreign elements in Hindu/Urdu, Sanskritize the language as heavily as possible, and promote that as the original Hindi, which it never was. The larger backdrop to that was political warfare between Hindus-Muslims on many fronts. Muslims also reacted stupidly by deliberately adding even more and more Perso-Arabic words and phrases, again creating an artificial construct which had no basis in everyday spoken speech. I don’t defend that type of artificial, harmful, ridiculous Urdu either. What I like is simple Hindustani, the everyday, colloquial spoken language, lingua franca on the streets of northern India. As someone mentioned, this is the language of tv serials, Hindi films, normal conversation, and is also used in Pakistan. I have so much more to add but this is all I have the time for right now. I welcome your comments.
So by the same token you would ask that a Jew not wear a Yamaka or a Surd not wear a Pagdi or a Goth not wear black or a desi grandma not wear a Sari? Even thought all these people have done so their whole life? Because essentially you are asking Ismat to stop being something she is every single day of her life because she might stand out. What you think about her outward expression of faith is moot for all intents and purposes.
SA, Count me in. It would be hilarious.
JOAT – FYI, it’s “Sardar”
SA – Great meetup idea =)
Amitabh — good summary. One question — where does Bhojpuri fit intio the history of Hindustani?
As you pointed out, state-sanctioned linguistic-cleansing isn’t limited to India. PTV news uses a very difficult to undertand, super-persian form of Urdu. And the current PK national anthem has only one non-persian, non-arabic word (the original anthem, by Jagganath Azad, was a little more normal).
(That’s not to say languages don’t change naturally — Like Indian Hindi/Hindustani, PK Urdu has many English words. And it is much more Punjabized than Indian Urdu.)
It may be fools errand, but preserving the purity of a language is a goal of the upper class of almost any culture. Here in the states, Ebonics is frowned upon as a lower form of English. Likewise, those who speak the Queen’s English frown upon American English. Castillian Spanish is considered more pure than South American Spanish. And then of course, there’s the French. They have a whole body (L’Academie Francaise) devoted to the preservation of French. God knows what those people think of the language that is spoken in Senegal. My point is, I think all of these cultures have drawn a balance between snobbery and acceptance of the fact that languages evolve. Desi languages and cultures are no different. Apologies for writing something that has absolutely nothing to do with the original post.
Dude my own Sardarji friends refer to themselves as surds. Is it a Delhi thing? Because I’ve heard it my whole life.
I guess it’s an India thing – a lot of people here find it derogatory – probably since it’s most often used in jokes. Makes me cringe =)
I had no idea. Thanx for correcting me. I always heard sardarji jokes with the full word “sardarji” so I’ve been ignorant that it’s a derogatory term 🙂 Won’t use it again.
… and not enough dildos.
PK Urdu has many English words. And it is much more Punjabized than Indian Urdu
Interesting. What would be the examples of Punjabized Urdu?
Kurma:
Re: Post 104
This is what a Telugu acquaintance who lives in Madras said to me. He was not a recognized Telugu scholar, so the information is not authoritative.
However, a Google search with the keywords “aravam andal” yielded the following. Andal wrote a devotional poem called Tiruppavai in Tamil. Tiruppavai contains the word aravam. aravam means sound.
I agree with Amitabh’s comments above that the whole “pure” language thing is very political. Similar to what Sriram mentioned about Shivaji Ganesan, whenever historical figures and characters from mythology appear onscreen, they talk in “chaste” forms of the Hindi or whatever language as we know it today. Which is odd because it seems to me logical to either have them speak in whatever language the story is being told in, or if for some reason, the original is needed, they can speak in the original of the text. e.g. Mahabharata – the characters could easily speak regular Hindi or Sanskrit. But they go into this language which is close enough to normal-speak for everyone to understand, yet “good” enough to let you know they are great heroes, not your average Raju.
Something similar in WWII movies from Hollywood – For some reason, the Japanese soldiers would speak among themselves in Japanese accented English! rather than normal English (language of the narrative) or Japanese (the truth). Same with the Germans.
Something really odd is that I’ve heard Kerala Christians switch to highly Sanskritized Malayalam during prayer as if God can’t understand ordinary Malayalam. This is especially odd because the Bible is certainly not a Sanskrit text. It does serve the purpose of snapping everyone into attention, though.
Kush, kiski nikli, bhai? Aap kisi inflatable dildo ki baat to nahin kar rahe hain?
OK, PG Wodehouse. I guess we’ll have to wait for recognized Telugu scholars to show up on SM :-). Maybe an ashtavadhani too :-). Or maybe not since all we want to know is whether aravam is commonly used negatively today regardless of what it really means. Just the fact that it means’sound’ is rather inconclusive since that could be interpreted as ‘speech’.
Al-M: I’m no expert here, but try this:
It was noted that if Urdu has made inroads in Punjab, Punjabi too has had its influence on Urdu. Whereas fifty years ago “Main nay wahan jaana hai” would have been rejected as an unacceptable form of the correct Urdu sentence “Mujhay wahan jana hai”, the former is quiet prevalent in today’s Urdu.
Punjabi has definitely influenced the accent of Urdu spoken in parts of Pakistan…maybe some of the grammatical features and vocabulary too…but if you consider that this phenomenon is largely restricted to those whose mothertongue was Punjabi in the first place, that’s not so surprising. Anecdotally, I don’t think Muhajirs (people whose mothertongue has always been Urdu, and who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 from places like Delhi, U.P, Bihar, Hyderabad, etc., and largely live in Karachi today) display such a Punjabi influence in their speech. It is people in Punjab who do. When viewed in that light, it is not so much a case of Urdu being influenced by Punjabi, but Punjabi-speakers abandoning their own tongue and adopting Urdu (with some Punjabisation of Urdu in the process).
Anecdotally, I don’t think Muhajirs (people whose mothertongue has always been Urdu, and who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 from places like Delhi, U.P, Bihar, Hyderabad, etc., and largely live in Karachi today) display such a Punjabi influence in their speech. It is people in Punjab who do. When viewed in that light, it is not so much a case of Urdu being influenced by Punjabi, but Punjabi-speakers abandoning their own tongue and adopting Urdu (with some Punjabisation of Urdu in the process).
I think you are absolutely right. In Delhi-UP or even in Karachi there is no real Punjabization of Urdu. Though some aspects of Pakistani Punjabi culture have been adopted in Karachi and have also entered the Delhi-UP culture through Karachi. For example, the marriage ceremonies in both Delhi, UP and Karachi have become more Punjabized where people hold seperate functions called Mehndi etc. before the actual shaadi.
Urdu has influenced Punjabi in Pakistan far more than Punjabi has influenced Urdu there.
Oh yes they do. Come to think of it, I am a Delhi Hindi/Urdu snob. I have Bihari cousins in Karachi, and I mock their pronounciation, sentence construction, and odd conjugations all the time. Also, there has been a lot of Punjabi influence in Delhi, and I don’t think Delhi Hindi/Urdu exists anymore in colloquial usage.
SA:
Lucknow Urdu has also taken a big hit…it’s a pale shadow of the language it was 50 years ago, and apparently literacy in Urdu script is at an all-time low these days. Hyderabadi Dakkhini Urdu (very distinct, very charming) is in similarly bad shape…due to several factors, including significant migration from other parts of India due to the computer boom, migration of Telugu speakers from the surrounding countryside, and major penetration of English among the upper and middle classes. In fact I can’t think of a single Indian language which is really doing well these days. Except perhaps, ironically, Urdu in Pakistan.
true brownz speak bengali!
This makes me want all the more to, as a gora, walk into an airport and call up one of my desi friends and start speaking Hindi to them. I wonder what the effect would be.
Al Mujahid:
I’m not asking you to “cheer” me on, and the fact that you need to point it out is pretty irrelevant here. My belief in purdah (which encompasses more than just wearing a hijab) is steeped in rationality and reason, and I will not go in public without it. If you want to debate that rationality with me, we can do so in another venue. But the point is that I cannot just say, “I’m flying today, so I choose to not do purdah.” That’s like asking me to fly topless. It’s not an option for me.
But make no mistake, I do not need YOUR affirmation for my choice of purdah. You may question my wisdom, and that’s your right, but I serioulsy doubt your claim that “hijabis want [your] affirmation,” as you put it. I do respect your belief, but it seems pretty irrelevant that you bring it up in general. You are, as you say, working to support civil rights–and that’s your job. Support my right to wear a hijab. The fact that you’re basically saying that it’s stupid that I do so is your personal belief, but it does not belong in this particular debate and in fact undermines the idea of rights in general. It’s like you’re saying, “Well, you can do purdah, even though I think it’s stupid and your life would be so much easier if you didn’t”–the principle there is that life shouldn’t be so much easier if I didn’t. If you start becoming selective in your decision of what civil rights are acceptable, you’re not serving your cause at all.
Not to mention that JOAT’s point is spot on—in that case, you should also endors Sardars discarding their pugs and cutting their hair, etc. My point is, question my wisdom all you want, but it has no place in this debate because it is my right to do purdah.
but I serioulsy doubt your claim that “hijabis want [your] affirmation,” as you put it.
i’ve seen what AMJ describes a fair amount.
It’s like you’re saying, “Well, you can do purdah, even though I think it’s stupid and your life would be so much easier if you didn’t”–the principle there is that life shouldn’t be so much easier if I didn’t.
&
in that case, you should also endors Sardars discarding their pugs and cutting their hair, etc.
yes. i do. richard dawkins has a point in the god delusion when he notes that if you couch a practice as “religious” it is off limits to flippant criticism. frankly, i think it’s silly that people would get themselves in a huff about the way they dress, or what gibberish they profess, it seems rather adolescent. but then again, our species is in our adolescence, and that’s part of reality.
but ismat, the point of course isn’t your primitive religious beliefs, they’re no more mumbo-jumbo than the spookery which claims that catholics eat the body and drink the blood of a god-man. your rights are your rights. but it is also AMJ’s right to air his irritation if it’s sincerely felt, even if it does naturally cause offense to acceptable superstition.
Razib:
You’re missing my point. In fact, I gladly welcome/invite criticism in the religious sphere, nor do I shy away from it. What Dawkins posits is wrong–that’s his interpretation–I don’t believe couching a practice as religious makes it off limits to criticism–in fact, quite the opposite! We must be able to criticize and dissect our beliefs in order to justify our defense of them. I defend my beliefs based not on accepted superstition, as you put it, but on reason. (Of course, I concede that not everyone thinks this way–many people accept religious practice on faith alone.) I won’t justify a sardar’s wearing of the pug, because I don’t believe in the validity behind his reasoning. However, I will always support his right to wear it.
I have absolutely no qualms with Al Mujahid “airing his irritation” at the concept of purdah (and it did not offend me in the least.) That’s his right, and that’s what I actually affirmed in my original comment. My point here was that to do so is irrelevant in this particular debate; we’re not discussing the validity of various beliefs or people’s rights to question them. Finally, what’s to say that you and Al Mujahid aren’t perceiving “hijabis want[ing your] affirmation of their exercise”? You both claim to have seen it, but you offer no concrete or scientific evidence of what is going on in these hijabi women’s minds. It’s your assumption and just that. I can’t know that your own biases didn’t create such a perception in your mind.
Ismat,
I support your right to ‘do purdah’ but I am wondering what possible rationale you could have for doing so. I support your right to wear anything you want – lampshades, plastic flowers, lightbulbs, styrofoam, cheap silk, polyester and even spandex. But the minute you start talking about rationale, a red flag is raised for me – for possibly, in your mind, that rationale applies to me also. Is it this sort of rationale: ‘Lampshades fit my head perfectly.’ or this kind of rationale: ‘Polyester, being cheap, is worn by those who are less materialistic than others’? There’s a world of difference…
I’m pretty sure people will just assume you’re a well travelled businessman and not give it a second thought.
Sriram, LOL, probably.
Razib:
Good point…Bengali (in Bangladesh) is also doing OK.
um. vy the gloom and doom old boy?
i’ll use a veird analogy because i’m feeling very veird. (i had a full night sleep). culture is the foundation on which we build a civilization – balusters, gulleys, outhouses and all. you’re making it out to be a stone dolmen that needs to press down and keep the body from giving up its ghost.
booms happen when people get to interact freestyle. indeed your next point is instructive.
Dude my own Sardarji friends refer to themselves as surds. Is it a Delhi thing? Because I’ve heard it my whole life.
Yes its a metro thing. one of my Sikh friends told me this joke in high school- a surd by definition is irrational.
Amitabh:
Re: Post 97
You are stereotyping the UP brahmins.
The guy may have been mistaken for a Tamil terrorist.
you are, as you say, working to support civil rights–and that’s your job. Support my right to wear a hijab. The fact that you’re basically saying that it’s stupid that I do so is your personal belief, but it does not belong in this particular debate and in fact undermines the idea of rights in general. It’s like you’re saying, “Well, you can do purdah, even though I think it’s stupid and your life would be so much easier if you didn’t”–the principle there is that life shouldn’t be so much easier if I didn’t. If you start becoming selective in your decision of what civil rights are acceptable, you’re not serving your cause at all.
Your above argument is (I am sorry to say) just plain silly. I think you have a profound misunderstanding of how civil libertarians and people who work in the civil rights area think and operate. I support NAMBLAÂ’s right to continue to lech over little boys even though I find their lechery morally repugnant. I donÂ’t believe I am undermining their right by questioning their lechery. I will still defend them to the best of my abilities. I will also support the right of Neo-Nazis to not have their memorabilia banned like it is in some European nations. I will lose sleep if the Federal Government bans Nazi memorabilia and the Supreme Court does not find it unconstitutional. Am I undermining their right by not agreeing to put their memorabilia on my fridge?
But make no mistake; I do not need YOUR affirmation for my choice of purdah. You may question my wisdom, and that’s your right, but I serioulsy doubt your claim that “hijabis want [your] affirmation,” as you put it.
Herein lays the problem. The Neo- Nazi has no problem taking my help to defend his right but he doesnÂ’t take any umbrage when I donÂ’t agree with his views on Blacks and Jews. You on the other hand took great umbrage when I questioned your wisdom behind wearing a hijab. The Neo-Nazi does not need or want me to affirm his beliefs while you do. Your right to wear the hijab is a constitutional right immune to popular opinion to a large extent. The religious believe that even a questioning of their wisdom leads to undermining of the right. How so? Is it because the questioning of such a socially acceptable right is an undermining of the right by itself? If not, why did you question my questioning of your wisdom in wearing a hijab? Are religious dogmas beyond reproach? If not, why question my questioning? The Neo-Nazi doesnÂ’t want affirmation, while you do, because your dogma just happens to carry more social acceptability.
Al Mujahid – woooaaaah. You don’t even know yet why Ismat wears her hijab etc. and you’re already comparing it to lechery and neo-nazism? This is the kind of talk that hurts and polarizes people. MAYBE she ‘does purdah’ cause it reminds her of her mom and grandma. Maybe she doesn’t like males staring at her. Maybe she’s not in great shape and it’s a convenient way to hide it. Maybe it ‘makes her feel feminine’ (I once heard someone say this). YOU DON’T KNOW WHY she chooses to do purdah and yet you’re already comparing donning purdah to neo-nazism and pedophilia? You do not sound like a civil libertarian; you sound like a fascist.
Waiting for Godwin
Muslim guys like Al Mujahid for debauchery can’t win. Stay silent on Muslim patriarchy and you’re complicit. Criticise the religion and you’re an apostate and Uncle Tom. Criticise the practice of veiling/purdah and hijab from a personal perspective, viewing it as something with patriachal roots, and
Yikes. It’s tough to say the right thing sometimes.
Al Mujahid – woooaaaah. You don’t even know yet why Ismat wears her hijab etc. and you’re already comparing it to lechery and neo-nazism?
he was contrasting. the use of neo-nazis though is probably better suited as an exemplar in an adversarial legal setting than a discussion board. the point isn’t that ismat has x rationalization for her purdah. all AMJ was doing was expressing the old “i disapprove of what you say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it.” but i think reiterating that one can disapprove, or be in disagreemant with, what one defends is an insight that needs to be reinforced over and over, because a lot of people don’t get it, and it doesn’t come naturally.
Al Mujahid – woooaaaah. You don’t even know yet why Ismat wears her hijab etc. and you’re already comparing it to lechery and neo-nazism?
Where did I say that? Are you being facetious?