Yeah it's always the guys you least expect!
"This man is a Sikh, a religious group originating in India."
"But aren't Sikhs prohibited from cutting their hair? He has short hair and is clean-shaven."
"You're right to push back. The subject doesn't have any visible traits consistent with Sikhism."
who knows, maybe by that time practices changed and Sikhs weren't as rigid about hair etc...much like someday Hijabs might become optional in all countries even those where they are presently required.
In fact, the Five Ks are only a religious requirement for Khalsa, a specific initiated order within the Sikh community. They've never been universally mandated for all Sikh men; they're just identifying symbols for those who've been initiated into the Khalsa. Again, the question here has never been whether it made sense for Khan not to have a beard and turban, just whether it made sense for Marla to have perceived him as a Sikh on sight when he had no outward indicators of such.
If Wikipedia's map is up to date (which it was as of February 2025), that means only Iran and Afghanistan. I think it used to be mandatory in Saudi Arabia, but apparently not anymore. In most of the Muslim world, hijab is a prevalent or common practice, but not mandatory. In fact, there are far more countries around the world that restrict or forbid women from wearing hijab than there are countries that mandate it.
In most of the modern Islamic world, and for much of Islamic history, women have tended to veil by choice rather than legal mandate, for much the same reason that Western women choose not to go topless or wear short skirts all the time -- because they want to be able to go out in public unencumbered by unwelcome male gaze and attention. (In fact, it's technically legal for women to go topless in public in most of the United States, but most women still prefer not to.) Indeed, the custom of veiling probably originated in the Christian Byzantine Empire, among noble and royal women who veiled to differentiate themselves from lower-class sex workers and entertainers. While fundamentalist regimes pervert it into a tool for controlling women, historically it's often been women's own choice.
We might note that legal mandates are not the only form of coercion available. Family mandates come into it, too. In those cases, the wife, daughter, or sister who makes the wrong "choice" can be treated to an honor killing.
In an unrelated matter, I lean toward Khan not being a Sikh, because he speaks with an upscale, cultivated Mexican accent. And of course I mean real Khan, not Cumber-Khan.
Too bad the characters first name wasn't "Chaka"
His first name is Khan, so that joke doesn't work. (Chaka Noonien Singh?)
No it doesn't, but it also makes it strange that he was always referred to as "Khan" and not "Singh"...
Well, in "Space Seed," he introduced himself as Khan because he was concealing his identity. Although it is a bit odd that they continued the usage even afterward.
Bono, Cher, Beyonce, Madonna, Oprah, Prince...and Khan.
Strangely, your post made me think of a former leader of the Canadian New Democratic Party. But, that is a different Singh.
For some reason, my mind mistakenly seeked out a different Sikh.
Anyway,
When Khan uncovered the painting, he instantly recognized the turban wearing man in the painting was a portrait of him. He praised McGivers, "I am honored. Thank you".
It is noteworthy that Khan didn't ask McGivers why she depicted him wearing a turban. Khan's reaction suggests that Khan was indeed a turban wearing man when he lived on Earth.
Besides Sikhs, what other community on Earth has its male members wear turbans of that kind?
It's definitely possible that Khan wasn't Sikh but wore a turban anyway, for whatever reason. It could be that Khan appropriated the costumes of the people that he conquered.
But again, why didn't Khan make a point of asking McGivers why she depicted him specifically wearing a turban instead of any of the other costumes that is worn in the lands that Khan ruled over?
That's how I rationalized it in my Eugenics Wars novels. As the epitome of a new breed of humanity, Khan did not consider himself bound by the traditions and customs of mere ordinary humans.
It is this that makes me say she recognized him on the Botany Bay. She identified him as a Sikh, but not as Khan Noonien Singh, to get the opportunity to meet him without having Kirk immediately throw him in the brig.
Probably because he recognized his face. He could've taken the attire, including the turban, as artistic license. It doesn't prove anything.
The turban in the painting doesn't actually look that much like a Sikh dastaar, but more of a generic Indian or Middle Eastern sort of turban. Per Wikipedia, "Communities with prominent turban-wearing traditions can be found in the Punjabis, the Indian subcontinent,[2] Southeast Asia, the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, North Africa, West Africa, East Africa, and amongst some Turkic peoples in Russia. "
I heard that in Montalban's voice.
Before I posted my previous post, I checked out the same Wikipedia page about turbans that you linked. I guess I came to a different conclusion.
Khan comes across as a very vain egotistical man and as someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly (btw, I hope I'm using this phrase correctly).
If Khan was never a turban wearing man, I don't doubt that he would have called out McGivers for incorrectly painting him wearing a turban. Seeing himself depicted in a way that he never was, would not have sit well with Khan imo.
Similar threads
