Why I hate the Hijab

The Hijab is a part of the Middle Eastern-Levantine cultural matrix so I don’t  have a problem when I see Arab women wear it . But it’s risible when Desi Muslims try to flaunt what is essentially an alien garment. If one wants to be modest why not just wear a salwar kameez and elegantly drape the dupatta?

After I ranted to V about yet another uppity Hijabi (the offending lady in question had secured herself a booth for 4 people in a crowded cafe); V made a profound remark.

V didn’t mind the Hijab per se; women should be allowed to wear what they want. However what she found to be so strange about the Muslim hijabi activists in the West is that they had no sympathy for their Iranian sisters who are dying for the right to dress as they please.

Coloured People in the West need to start owning up

This point really resonated with me and it’s why I get so outraged with Muslims in the West. While they are ever so happy to condemn the white man for increasingly minor outrages, their obliviousness towards what happens back home is shocking.

To be fair this sort of activism happens with many colored people. I was told over the weekend that white actors should not be cast as victims since it reinforces a certain narrative. I found that to be particularly outrageous and divisive. One must be just at all times or at least try to be.

As an aside if I see trite or unnecessary comments (note: Kabir) I’ll simply remove it. I find INDthings to be on the whole a much more sensible commentator even if his whole shtick about defending Pakistan online is a bit tired.

Pakistan more like North than South Korea?

Pakistan is not a failed state because Hindutvas go online and bitch about it. Pakistan has failed because of its own flaws and weaknesses. I would have loved to belong to a civilised nation with low infant mortality, universal healthcare and primary enrollment with a reasonable framework for science, research and art. Luckily I do belong to that nation but it’s called Britain not Pakistan.

Pakistan is an incredibly well-positioned state with ample resources. There is no reason as to why it couldn’t have been another South Korea; it’s tragic that it’s closer to North than South.

Pakistanis need to start asking ourselves:

  • “Why did we fail?”
  • “What can we do better?”
  • “What’s holding us back?”

Brown Pundits is very different to Sepia Mutiny, which in the end just drowned from the Indo-Pak thread wars. We have no complexes about smashing Islam because we are from Islam-lite backgrounds.

The Azaan is Ugly

Granted if I wasn’t Pakistani then I might have treaded much more carefully when criticizing Muslim culture. However having grown up in the culture I can’t be accused of ignorance. To this day I find the Azaan disgusting since it used to drone on incessantly all throughout Islamabad.

There is an elegance to Church Bells that the Azaan entirely lacks. Why can’t a woman or a transgendered person (the castrati were the best opera singers) do a weekly Azaan on Fridays, to which men & women attend, pray, flirt and socialise with one another.

This is exactly how the Ismailis do it and they are a very cultured (and rich) people. Hindu temples, Churches (in the more liberal parts of the West) and even our own Baha’i Feasts operate on these lines where the genders mix and dress to impress each other.

Islam must stop being declasse

If Islam poshed up that’s fine, but apart from being extremely declasse, what’s criminal about it is that it’s suppressing people who do want to dress elegantly.

Persian Culture is the redoubt of aesthetes. Tehran is a heart-rendingly beautiful city; where every empty space has some artwork on it.

Unfortunately Islam is a festering cancer of Iranian society (not to mention Pakistan); the quicker it’s excised (or at least tamed) the better for all.

Also it’s best to speak clearly and plainly and not to obfuscate. This is why I’ll be removing unnecessary comments since I don’t want be lectured to respect something that must not be respected. It violates every core of my being to condone heinous actions as legislating what women must wear.

56 thoughts on “Why I hate the Hijab”

  1. I’ve never defended women being forced to wear the hijab only their right to wear it if they choose.

    1. And do you no think it’s incredibly poor taste to rock the hijab, when Iranian women are protesting to be free of it.

      It sort of undermines the whole point of female solidarity..

      1. Many liberals and liberal Muslims believe women should have the right to wear what they want. So if a woman doesn’t want to wear hijab but is forced to (Iran), they support her struggle. If a woman does want to wear it but is discriminated for doing so (the West, China), they support her struggle. They don’t see a contradiction between the two because there isn’t one.

        1. Exactly. I would defend the principle of individual freedom. The decision to wear a hijab should be left to the individual Muslim woman and Allah. Societies should neither force women to wear it (Iran) nor force them to take it off (France). In the US, freedom of religion is a first amendment right and wearing hijab or not comes under that.

        2. The idea that it is a woman’s choice alone is a foolish liberal delusion. No individual is entirely autonomous from society, particularly Muslim ones. People forget that it isn’t the state alone that is capable of coercion, just because the government doesn’t choose to take a stand, doesn’t mean others won’t. Families can pressure women to veil with far greater effect. Even simply getting dirty looks from strangers is enough for some women to cover themselves.

          Not feasible for states to regulate that type of social pressure, at least not liberal Western ones, so the inevitable result is forced veiling for everyone.

          1. “Forced veiling for everyone”– There are plenty of Muslim women in the US who don’t wear hijab. Let’s not deny Muslim women agency.

            Governments should not get involved in people’s religious practices.

      2. The whole idea that wearing a hijab in the West is some courageously transgressive act is so boring.

  2. “I find the Hijab to be an essentially Middle Eastern-Levantine garb so I don’t usually have a problem when I see Arab women wear it because it’s a part of their cultural matrix.”

    We see depending on the climate a certain clothing style originates , I am curious as to how Hijab started in Arabia. Like wouldn’t wearing black all covered thing in desert climate be really tough in medieval times and all.

    1. Byzantine meets Sassanid culture; hence why I feel its particularly acute in the Levantine. Something like a plurality or even majority of Lebanese Muslim women wear the Hijab.

      The Niqab (for both sexes) makes sense in the harsh desert winds of Arabia itself.

      1. Hmm, does that mean that both Byzantine , Sassanids women also wore a variant of Hijab?

        1. yes. elite greek women veiled themselves, going back to the pre-christian period. when constantinople was a greco-latin city in the 5th century the way you could tell eastern vs. western elite women, is that the eastern (greek) women went veiled while women from latin backgrounds did not (inheritance of classical rome, where men and women ate together, originally from the etruscans).

          1. How did Spartan, Athenian and Hellenistic woman dress?

            During the life time of Solon for example?:


            As a complete aside, I have long wondered if Solon might have been born before historians currently believe. The Church brought ancient dates forward circa 300 AD because they believed that the universe was about four thousand years old.

            Is there any evidence compatible with this hypothesis?


          2. Small correction/addition. Constantinople and East Roman Empire was run by Serbs in the 5th cAC (Justinian – Upravda – Justice) and up to 8th cAC when Greeks took over. Etruscans (Raseni=Serbs) were highly civilized and they built all aqueducts, architecture, arts, etc before they were subjected to the genocide. In addition, Serbs in whole their history never had slaves, their pow were free to move around and mix with general public and women were free and almost equal with men.

          3. Anan, wiki is lying about Solon. For example, they say that he was one of 7 sages. All 7 sages were Serbs (e.g. Tales) and Solon’s application for membership was rejected.

  3. Well I am itching to write some comment on the site so here I go:

    I have seen several posts on twitter from Muslims living in the West and identifying as part of the Left making it crystal clear that they support humanistic European-Enlightenment-borne stuff like rights for homosexuals, etc. only in the West and not in the Middle East, where they apparently have no issues whatsoever with the usage of Islamic religious law of various types. I don’t know what they think if a family member of their own living along with themselves in the West goes out to have homosexual activity, etc. though. If their responses are somewhat positive, then they maybe better than Muslim conservatives living in the West, overall, speaking from the perspective of the West. (Edit: I realise that there need not be much difference between supportive liberals and conservatives if a conservative person just silently disowns the said family member without causing much mental torture and harassment and physical violence to damage the integrity of the individual.)

    This specific type of Muslim liberals of the West are probably a certain type of super-hypocritical/appropriately-compartmentalised liberals as opposed to more universal liberals. Not caring about the difficulties faced by women in Iran with respect to their head scarves and such garments may also be associated with this category of people. I don’t know if all the Muslim liberals living in the West are like this though; there probably are other types as well.

    1. agree with what you are saying but also I think Hindus could do the same and introspect about Pakistan a bit deeper.

      There are some serious issues in the Subcontinent that transcend religion; one is our god-awful poverty and utter lack of concern for human life.

      We have internalised a culture throughout South Asia where a large segment of people are simply trash.

      We can’t expect to be treated with respect or equality in the West when we don’t own up to the central failings of being Brown; that we despise those with the darkest shade of Brown and relegate them to the bottom of the hierarchy (colour and caste go hand in hand).

      This is no better in *Muslim Pakistan* than it is in Hindu India; you wouldn’t be untouchable anywhere in South Asia.

      1. Haha, okay! I think I did not understand your comment fully, at least in the context of my comment above but what you say is absolutely right, except I am generally not much bothered about what the West thinks very much though, personally.

    2. Liberalism in the West, at least its modern post-colonial avatar seems to have picked up the disease of moral relativism i.e. trying to qualify morals based on societies (or times) in which those morals are expressed.

      So, usage of hijab by women in a Muslim society will not be treated at par with usage of that piece of clothing in the Anglophone West. The lower moral standards of Muslim societies are argued away as somehow being a different set of rules / playbook to judge that culture with. Hence, truly liberal voices from within such cultures are not given the platform because they muddy the formulaic West vs Rest thumb rule these liberals have imbibed.

      Hindu society, unlike other major non-Western societies, is a little more tightly coupled with Western tropes. The situation may be different because Hinduism is generally seen as a little too old world (and innately regressive) even by medieval Islamic/Christian standards. So offends even the most dyed in the wool moral relativist 😉 I am not saying it isn’t more regressive – goodness knows – but that’s what the general perception is. And Westernized Indic liberals bring the uniquely Western tropes and culture wars home, unlike the liberals of other cultures who’d be hanged, drawn and quartered if they visited home society and took Western liberties with it. I shudder to think what would become of someone like Arundhati Roy in Iran or Egypt.

      But of course I could be totally wrong and talking out of my arse as usual 🙂

      1. Please absolutely don’t respond to me if you are not inclined to (btw, you definitely don’t talk out of your arse lol; I never felt that you did at least; also, if *you* talk out of your arse, what about many of us other people lol), but I have some weird questions and some unformed thoughts about the topic of moral universalism and relativism. If someone adheres to moral universalism, how does one know which set of morals is the best one for the world (for people like me with individualistic natural orientations, ensuring the protection of individual not harming any others seems like a good moral fundamental but it may feel different for others based on their natural orientations and experiences)? And how does one go about implementing it? These may all be quite textbook-ish questions which have answers on even Wikipedia or something but I just want to note my thoughts here lol.

        I also understand that you are only addressing moral universalism and relativism and characterising moral relativism as a disease only in the context of liberalism in your comment and not making any comments with respect to conservatism.

        Also, one thing that is unrelated to this that bothers me a lot is the following: is it possible to achieve the highest states of economic, health, technological and other kinds of achievements for the collective of people with modern liberal humanistic values concerned about the individual (who seems to be, under the umbrella of humanism, allowed to be anything from barely functioning to high-functioning (on some measures, let’s say; these measures may not be objective) if they choose to be so; except be violent and harmful to other individuals) and without the strong conservative pressures from religions of post-2000/1000 BC? That is to say, is-there/are-there-many situation(s) where the value of a non-violent and non-harmful individual is zero or negative and he/she becomes sacrificable (in any way) for the good of the collective?

        Again, please do not feel any pressure to comment. I would really cherish a reply (one because it’s you and one because it will be a free and easy lunch for me (to research the internet my faculties are kinda deteriorating at a rapid pace and I am beginning to become one with my innate IQ lol (the childhood-environment effect is fast beginning to lose ground)) from you but it is perfectly alright if you don’t comment in response too.

      2. Yes, indeed, the topic is super-complicated for the present me (I used to be slightly better during my adolescence and young-adulthood phase). I suspect the tremendous and unbearable periodic personal stress I experience is beginning to show in addition to the movement towards the born-with IQ too. I sincerely apologise for the mistakes made by me in the above comment. It is just a thing too close to my heart and I guess I will not accept reality even if it all philosophically makes sense to me in some manner in a humanistic framework. My humanity and my strong psychological yearning for conservatism will never leave me regarding this question and I will continue to hold lesser and lesser intrinsic value to my life as opposed to the value of my family.

        Edit: Lol why does it end up becoming something about me? And lol, now this thought is even more meta than the above paragraph, speaking in connection with people ending up talking about themselves.

      3. Slapstik,

        Do you think this is really nonmuslims finding an excuse to back Islamists against muslims?

        Nonmuslims have been doing this all over the world for centuries.

        Nonmuslims are more entitled to universal civil rights, human rights. freedom of art and thought. [Marxists and woke post modernists oppose freedom of art and thought in principle.] However muslims have no right to these things.


        The study of India is where marxism, structuralism and post modernism were born. Marx formulated his ideas while studying India as a youth. Fifty of his early articles are about India.

        The English promoted marxism, structuralism and post modernism as part of an imperial effort to:
        —colonize the minds of Indians with inferiority complex to reduce self confidence
        —deconstruct and delegitimize India’s ancient civilization and culture to encourage Indians to have contempt for their own philosophy and culture.

        Cultural marxism, structuralism, post modernism, wokeness spread from India to the rest of the world.

        The basis of post modernism is a corruption of eastern philosophy. Eastern philosophy values transcending all patterns, habits, subconscious flows, meta-narratives and universalist notions. All ten darshanas value “pratyaksha” or direct observation of the truth.

  4. Not an attempt to troll, but a very serious question. What does this statement mean exactly: “Pakistan is an incredibly well-positioned state with ample resources”?

    Put another way, how would Pakistanis convince outsiders to come and work and settle in their country? After all that’s what a country that works ultimately is — an attractive place for other humans to join and settle in. Even when some of those humans viscerally hate some of the attributes that make the host society attractive in the first place.

    The more culturally diverse the crowd a country attracts, the better it seems to have mastered the art of tapping into universal human impulses about what a good society to live in should be like. Most people may not be able to articulate it, but they know it when they see it.

    Britain or Canada count far higher than India or Iran in this regard. Hence my question, what does Pakistan really have to recommend itself to outsiders? I am not Pakistani so I would be curious how a Pakistani answers this question.

    PS: Feel free to ignore / delete the comment.

    1. Why would I delete the comment; it’s an intelligent question?

      Geographically Pakistan has much to avail itself.

      It has mountains, lakes and rivers.
      It has an interesting culture (albeit ethnically cleansed post 1947).
      Vibrant workforce.

      Even if it couldn’t be a Korea, why couldn’t it be a Thailand, which attracts both expats and migrants.

      However at the moment Pakistan is simply no go territory.
      It’s the fanaticism (thank you Islam) and that Desi lackadaisical approach to hygiene, fastidiousness, beauty and elegance.

      One doesn’t have to be a rich nation to be concerned with such things; it takes civic culture.

      There is a famous story in the Baha’i community of Pakistan. A Zoroastrian Baha’i once went *back home* to Yazd from Pakistan for a visit.

      They spat in the street as one tends to do in South Asia. Moments later one of the residents in the street appeared with a mop and told her (it gets lost in translation); “Khanum you have made the mess, now you must clean it up.”

      It shocked everyone who heard it since such things go unremarked upon in Pakistan.

      But it takes a very keen awareness to build a pleasing society that outsiders want to move to.

      Dubai has done it so it’s not only a *Muslim* thing. In fact Dubai is a pretty good face for Islam (I am much more sympathetic to Arab Islam than I am to Pakistani Islam).

      1. Dubai is a bad example. It only attracts shallow rich people, and people poor and desperate enough to sell themselves into slavery. And what it has accomplished, it did entirely with oil money.

        “Even if it couldn’t be a Korea, why couldn’t it be a Thailand, which attracts both expats and migrants.”
        Thailand is an ethnically homogeneous country, that was never colonized, and is dominated by a less-harmful religious complex. There are a lot of reasons Pakistan can’t be Thailand or Korea.

      2. The points about geography are well and good, but people visit countries primarily for other people rather than topographical features. Even in case of the latter, people (and systems designed by people – transportation, housing, architecture, food, commerce etc) are pretty centre-stage.

        France wouldn’t be France if it weren’t for the French railways and architecture and French food and French people – Mediterranean coast notwithstanding. I’m sure some Brits would rather prefer France without the French, but they’d be a weird minority. So if Pakistan is a “no go” zone given the current attributes of its people, then inanimate mountains are of little inducement value beyond a few pretty pictures.

        BTW Dubai works because much of it is populated by non-Arab expats, i.e. on come-hither-you-won’t-find-too-many-Arabs principle.

    2. Slapstik India rates very high by diversity. I personally know hundreds of non Deshis who are in love with India, visit India or would like to live in India.

      India has hundreds of spiritual areas that foreigners love to visit.

  5. I also find the Azan annoying. Some people love it (or pretend to), but its not for me.

    Also, many Hindu temples do not allow women into certain sections (and some don’t allow them at all). They are also much more regressive in terms of allowing Hindus from lower castes/classes to mix.

    1. The azaan can be very beautiful when done by someone with some aesthetic training and musical sense. When there are too many of them in close proximity and they are off pitch, it can be an unpleasant experience.

    2. “Also, many Hindu temples do not allow women into certain sections (and some don’t allow them at all).”

      99.99% temples do not have any such restrictions. Most restrictions are due to myths associated with a particular shrine. They work both ways.
      There are temples where men are not allowed as well. There are few temples where non-Hindus (including westerners claiming to be Hindus) are not allowed – Puri Jagannath is an example.

      “They are also much more regressive in terms of allowing Hindus from lower castes/classes to mix.”

      Again, this is anachronistic and doesn’t happen in 99% of the places. You hear about such incidents in news mainly because they are not very common.
      There are often community specific temples in villages (even for lower castes). You could very well claim that they have ‘restrictions’ but those are community properties where they can choose to give entry to people they want to.

      In a number of different states (specially in South), the temple treasury is controlled by the state government and entry discrimination is outlawed.

      This is much different from mosques where gender segregation is the norm.
      (Is it also scripturally sanctioned?)

      1. I don’t know how common the gender discrimination is in Hindu temples but know your claim of it virtually never happening is certainly false. One of the most famous temples in India recently became open to women via the courts, but hundreds of thousands of Hindus protested and have threatened women with violence should they visit.

        As for Dalit temple discrimination, its very common. More common than not in fact. I’m not going to discuss it further, as I’ll get the usual nonsense from Brahmans about how they are actually the true victims in India and everyone else is just exaggerating their struggles.

        Mosque gender segregation is the norm in Islam (more common than the above), thought the scriptural underpinnings aren’t very strong from what I remember. The mosque Muhammad himself established had men and women praying in the same room during his time.

        1. Sabarimala is a cause celebre precisely because it’s exceptional on this issue. It’s also controversial even among Hindu conservatives (eg: RSS doesn’t really care about it, others do.)

          Caste discrimination certainly happens in temples, but what we need to assess this are numbers and evidence. What percent of temples forbid entry to certain castes, and where? Does this change from city to countryside? Is something else going on (eg: the temple is specifically a place for an extended clan rather than Brahmins at large.) I’ve been to many temples in my travels and never once been asked about caste (even in the crappy parts of Uttar Pradesh.) I have heard of it happening on occasion in random hinterlands, but you can find everything happening on occasion.

        2. “As for Dalit temple discrimination, its very common. More common than not in fact. I’m not going to discuss it further, as I’ll get the usual nonsense from Brahmans about how they are actually the true victims in India and everyone else is just exaggerating their struggles.”

          This is a hot load of fact-free bullshit.
          I think you under-estimate the scale and size of India and the amount of press minor exceptions get. Or maybe you do that deliberately.
          “Tocqueville Effect”

          This is similar to the Hindutva claim that most people in Pakistan have sex with goats. I find it stupid and funny but there are people who genuinely believe it ??‍♂️

          FWIW, I am not a Brahmin.

          1. Very low effort from you.

            The most respected human rights organizations and governmental bodies (like the US) document systemic and flagrant abuses against Dalits at all levels of society in India. The major Dalit civil organizations have temple discrimination as one of their chief issues they are fighting to redress.

            Nobody says anything about Pakistanis having sex with goats except trolls on Hinduvata chat forums. I wasn’t aware this was even a thing, thought I suspect there’s some projection going on visa-vis the latter’s cow fetish.

          2. “The most respected human rights organizations and governmental bodies (like the US) document systemic and flagrant abuses against Dalits at all levels of society in India. The major Dalit civil organizations have temple discrimination as one of their chief issues they are fighting to redress.”

            Specific citations, please.

            Hypothetically assuming it’s true that ‘Dalit civil organizations have temple discrimination as one of their chief issues’.
            This in no way qualifies your leap to ‘its very common. More common than not in fact.’

            Even if you Google for news reports of such incidents, they will mostly be from small distant villages. And they become big issues because most people are against them, including RSS and Hindutva types.

            This is not to say there is no caste discrimination and we have a long way to go but temple entry and other ritual purity related practices are specifically something the Indian society and state have worked to weed out for the last 75 years.

          3. Between 2/3 and 3/4 of India’s population is rural, so while I agree that these cases due skew that way, its not a great defense for India that they do.

            “Dalits in India may not cross the line dividing their part of the village from that occupied by higher castes. They may not use the same wells, visit the same temples and churches, drink from the same cups in tea stalls, or lay claim to land that is legally theirs. Dalit children are frequently made to sit in the back of classrooms, and communities as a whole are made to perform degrading rituals in the name of caste. Dalit women are frequent victims of sexual abuse.”

            “The sexual slavery of Dalit girls and women continues to receive religious sanction. Under the devadasi system, thousands of Dalit girls in India’s southern states are ceremoniously dedicated or married to a deity or to a temple. Once dedicated, they are unable to marry, forced to become prostitutes for upper-caste community members, and eventually auctioned into an urban brothel”

            “They are denied access to temples/places of public worship, teashops, hotels, restaurants, drinking water resources, upper case house, denial of barber services, denial of laundry services, denial of services by the dhobi, denial of participation in social ceremonies, denial of access to village meetings, denial of food sharing, denial of cremation and burial
            grounds, separate seating…”

            “Although India has an impressive range of constitutional provisions and laws that ban caste discrimination and untouchability, the lack of implementation remains a chronic problem. Consequently,
            the caste system leads to social exclusion and systematic denial of basic rights of Dalits at all levels in society.”

            “Although the law protects Dalits, they faced violence and significant discrimination in access to services, such as health care, education, temple attendance, and marriage.”


      2. From what I understand Puri is mixed. Many westerners claiming to be Hindus are allowed.

        Do you mean allowed into the inner sanctorum? It appears to me that only a small fraction of worshipers get to go to the inner sanctorum. Why does accessing the inner sanctorum matter?

  6. I don’t have much of a problem with Azaan except when it becomes a dick measuring contest between rival mosques over who can shout louder. Especially annoying early in the morning. Happens quite often in bigger cities.

    When I visit smaller towns with a single main mosque, Azaan does sound nice.

  7. Zach, there is no Koranic requirement for Niqab or very conservative hijab. Both men and woman are asked to dress modestly–but with few details beyond that.

    I want to give a shout out for fashionable hijab. Lots of woman around the world love fashionable hijab.

    Can the headline be edited from:

    “Why I hate Hijab”


    “Why I hate the non fashionable Hijab”

    Thank you!

    1. You are right Anan. Even so-called KKK hijab is better than rigid S.Arabian hijab because it has slit for eyes. In the rigid hijab where women watch through a meshed curtain, they lose their sight. In Bosnia before the war women were secular and same as in any western country. Now you can see many young girls with rigid hijabs. And paid monthly by S.Arabia. I would not mind against a hijab which I already posted here and named it as a ‘Serbian hijab’ ?

  8. mzp1

    Pre Islamic Arya civilization and its partial derivative European enlightenment classical liberalism are the third alternative.

    To take Iran’s case, Iran is under attack from Islamism (of various shades) and post modernism. Iran can take the third alternative–becoming a developed first world country similar to Turkey, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea and Chile.

    You are right that Iran should fight post modernist woke SJW degeneracy. Can’t Iran do this while striving for freedom of art and thought?

    America had both between the late 1800s and 1950s.

    America, including American blacks, had very low rates of divorce and out of wedlock births in the 1930s. American blacks were led by classical liberal giants such as Fredrick Douglass, Booker T Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, George Washngton Carver.

    Don’t they represent almost all the good values that Iranians correctly value and aspire too?

    1. I dont know, maybe. But Xerxes doesnt seem to address the major problems of Liberalism.

      Destroying Islamism requires non-Islamic Traditionalism. But it requires building it up, not just critisizing Islam (and traditionalism, patriarchy too), when there is no alternative.

      Yes, I agree pre-Islamic Iranian and Pakistani Culture is the way to go. The Taliban is much less Islamic than ISIS, yet they have more support of the people in a deeply religious and conservative country than ISIS.

      I came out as an Ex-Muslim to my family. But at that point I was Red-Pilled, pro-Traditionalism, Patriarchy, and South Asian traditions, so my family took it better, or they were confused. I was able to wrong-foot the Muslims somewhat by being both Ex-Muslim but also Traditionalist.

      Xerxes problem is that he is has not progressed beyond seeing Western Liberalism as the end-goal of any successful society.

  9. I think the backlash against Arabization of Muslims gaining steam here in Sri Lanka.

    The govt has
    a) done nothing to arrest high level Muslim MP’s who have been closely associated the Easter suicide Bomber
    b) In the search operations the army/police has been asked (among many other rules(
    a) Inform Moulavi prior to search (really)
    b) Remove bootsbefore search

    Guess what, the army just stood when the mobs went on rampage. I guess they couldnt be bothered removing shoes.

    All face cover is banned including full face helmets. That includes the niqab. Some have tried to work around wearing a surgical mask. Have been asked to provide a govt issued medical certificate.

    Now some places, including govt hospitals are insisting on no hijab too.

    Meanwhile the US is fishing in troubled water. They want to sign a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with clauses like to exclude the American soldiers from the local jurisdiction.

    Already 18 hours of curfew in North Western Province and no signs of it being lifted.

    1. The Muslim council of Sri Lanka issued guidelines to promote common Sri Lankan identity and reduce Arabization of SL muslims; these include restriction on Azan, urging Muslims to avoid veils, removal of Arabic sign boards and restrictions on building new mosques.


      Can India learn from this?

        1. Have you voiced this opinion in Pakistan regarding the treatment of Ahmadis ?

          1. I don’t believe the National Assembly of Pakistan should have decided who is Muslim or not. That should be left to Allah.

  10. “Pakistan has failed because of its own flaws and weaknesses.”

    I wouldn’t say Pakistan is a “failed state.” It manages to function, it’s just in a situation where its future is held hostage by cabals of militarist rent-seekers.

    Failed state is something like South Sudan, where the writ of state authority is dubious at best.

  11. These days lots of Indian females are covering their faces in a tight knit scarf or using the dupatta. This is a common scene. The motive is to avoid Sun and dust, lest they become “Dark”.

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits