When is a scarf so much more than a scarf? Apparently when it’s worn by America’s culinary cutie, Rachel Ray, and said scarf slightly resembles the Palestinian keffiyeh.

After an uproar led by notable conservatives such as Michelle Malkin and LGF’s Charles Johnson — both of whom must have been terribly bored — Dunkin’ Donuts has pulled the ad at no small expense.

So what’s the story? Malkin et al. seem to believe that wearing such a scarf constitutes hate couture and somehow signals support of terrorism.

The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not so ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.

What hole do Malkin and Johnson live in that they’re convinced the keffiyeh is, in and of itself, a symbol of terrorism? Or that a woman’s wearing of it means, well, anything?

The keffiyeh (also known as the shmagh, shemagh, ghutra, hatta or mashada), is a traditional Arabic men’s headdress. It’s a functional piece of clothing designed to protect the head and neck from the arid, blistering heat of the Middle East. As such, it’s been around for thousands of years — long before Yasser Arafat, the Taliban or any other Islamic extremists.

To argue that, because terrorists have been seen wearing such clothing, anyone who wears similar items must also be a terrorist is laughable.

Why, some of those terrorists in the beheading and hostage-taking videos wore black clothing from head-to-toe. Wouldn’t that make, oh, 75% of NYC’s residents “terrorists” under the same logic? Come to think of it, I seem to recall both President Bush and John McCain dressing in head-to-toe black recently. What say you to that, Malkin: does the similarity in clothing make them terrorists, too?

Shall we call every woman who’s ever worn a caftan, a style originating in the Middle East, a terrorist? Pity the grandmas in Florida who shrug one on at poolside, then. I imagine they’ll be surprised to learn they’re considered terrorist sympathizers for having opted for comfort.

And what about the fez, that funny little hat which symbolizes Islamic identity and signals support for the Caliphate? Would that make The Shriners terrorists for wearing it, too?

Fact is, we live in an increasingly small world. Our fashions reflect this, just as they have throughout history. Those earrings Malkin so attractively wears (while dressed head-to-toe in black)? They were first worn by men… in Persia. Oh, and guess what: blush and other forms of makeup trace their origins back to Iran.

Is Malkin signaling her support for terrorism by wearing them? Of course not. And neither was Rachel Ray when her stylist wrapped her neck in a scarf that’s been in fashion for a couple of years now.

That’s what’s most disgusting about Malkin’s stance on the Dunkin’ Donuts ad: it reveals her ignorance as much as her rabid prejudice that lumps all things Middle Eastern in with terrorists. As an American and a Republican and someone with Iranian ancestry, I call foul both on Malkin and on Dunkin’ Donuts for having given in to her hate-mongering.

Shame on you.

UPDATE: I like Timmer’s idea!

UPDATE TWO: Malkin to world: do what I say, not what I do!

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Just one month after I pointed out moves which seem to signal the U.S. is gearing up against Iran, we’ve now sent a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf.

“This deployment has been planned for a long time,” (U.S. Defense Secretary Robert) Gates said. “I don’t think we’ll have two carriers there for a protracted period of time. So I don’t see it as an escalation. I think it could be seen, though, as a reminder.”

Funny, I doubt Tehran will view it that way.

You know him. You laugh at him. Now you can own a signed photo of him bare of his Bisht.

That’s right, Islamic Rage Boy is posing in the altogether, but it’s all for a good cause.

Saddam Hussein’s eldest daughter is the subject of a worldwide Interpol warrant. Although she’d been living in Jordan under asylum last year, she’s since disappeared.

The Iraqi Interior Ministry told the BBC that Interpol had notified member countries to arrest Raghad Saddam Hussein, accused of terrorism and other offences. Last year, the pro-U.S. Iraqi government put Raghad and her mother Sajida on a list of its most wanted fugitives, alleging they supported the insurgency in Iraq.

Serious stuff, those accusations.

But what I really want to know is: what kind of a name is Raghad? Surely her father realized how very much it sounds like “Raghead”. Or is it the Iraqi equivalent of naming your kid Myron or Bertha?

Then again, Saddam always was known for his cruelty.

Burka, the head-to-toe coverings that Islamic men insist their women must wear because the men are such weaklings when it comes to temptation, aren’t just bad fashion. They’re bad for women’s health*, too.

Scientists had previously found high rates of vitamin D deficiency in Arab and East Indian women living in the United Arab Emirates. A follow-up study investigated the effect of vitamin D supplements on 178 UAE women, many of whom covered themselves entirely, faces and hands included, when outside their homes. Only two of the women did not have vitamin D deficiency prior to receiving supplements.

Not that staunch Islamic fundamentalists would actually care, of course. They’d prefer anything over allowing “uncovered meat” distract them from planning their latest jihad.

(Slink via Rammer.

According to the Iranian government, women who do not cover their head and face are members of the animal world. As Gateway Pundit notes, I think we know who the true animals are. (Via OTB.)

However, far be it from me to offend anyone. Therefore, my head and face are now modestly covered. See?

Well, perhaps that should be in the past tense:

Pre-Islamic Middle Eastern regions were home to mysterious snake cults, according to two papers published in this month’s Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy journal.

From at least 1250 B.C. until around 550 A.D., residents of what is now the Persian Gulf worshipped snakes in elaborate temple complexes that appear to have been built for this purpose, the studies reveal. [...]

Most of the snakes were depicted with triangular heads and scales, which Benoist said suggests “a viper species, which is striking, as they are venomous and therefore dangerous.”

Indeed.

A Turkish court imposed a life sentence on a father convicted in the “honor-killing” of his daughter.

A court in Bursa handed down a life sentence for 60-year-old Arif Ç. who stabbed his 22-year-old daughter Sevil Ö. 27 times when she returned home after running away from her husband and two children.

On Wednesday Arif Ç. was sentenced by the Bursa 2nd Criminal Court to life imprisonment in solitary confinement with no possibility of parole for the crime of premeditated murder. Arif Ç claimed before the ruling that his daughter had committed suicide, saying she had suffered from psychological problems. Declaring that his daughter returned home 13 days after she had fled, Arif Ç. said: “Just when we went to make a missing person report at the gendarmerie my daughter stabbed herself. I am innocent.”

The court didn’t find the father’s testimony credible in light of the forensic evidence and the impossibility of the girl having actually stabbed herself in the back.

Back in April, President Bush appeared on the Charlie Rose show to discuss a variety of matters relating to Iraq. While discussing Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s willingness to deal with extremest elements in Iraqi society, President Bush acknowledged that Maliki was a legitimately elected official governing a sovereign nation, and that America’s presence is “by invitation only.”

Then President Bush went further to clarify the grounds under which the U.S. would withdraw troops from Iraq:

President George W. Bush: This is a guy who has been elected by the people, and it’s a sovereign nation, and we’re there at their request, through the matters if they said get out now, we’re tired of coalition presence, US’s presence is counterproductive, we would leave.

Charlie Rose: If he said get out now, we don’t want you any more –

President George W. Bush: I don’t see how we could stay. It is a — it’s his country.

Charlie Rose: But if he said that, it would lead to the catastrophe that you have suggested –

President George W. Bush: That’s why he’s not going to say it.

Charlie Rose: You don’t think he’ll say that?

President George W. Bush: I don’t. No, I don’t….

Today, a majority of Iraqi’s parliament endorsed a bill demanding withdrawal of U.S. troops and a cap on the number of troops in their country. The bill, drafted by a bloc loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, received approval from 144 out of 275 members. There’s been no word from Maliki concerning his view on the matter.

Sounds like we’ve successfully introduced Iraq to a hallmark of a democratic government: meaningless legislation.

So, according to Islam, male suicide bombers can look forward to 72 virgins when they make it to heaven. So, what do female suicide bombers get when they make it upstairs?

Answer: more of the same ol’ same ol’.

The Quran itself describes little about the specifics of the afterlife, but it does note that believers will find huris, or maidens “of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them.” (Every believer can end up in heaven; martyrs just get there faster.) Respected commentator Al-Tirmidhi said in a hadith that every man will have six dozen huris in heaven, but very few commentators enumerated the rewards for women. Ninth-century scholar Al-Tabarani did argue that women will be reunited with their husbands in the next world, and those who had multiple husbands can pick the best one to be their eternal spouse. (Other commentators added that a woman who never married can marry any man she wants in paradise.)

Which begs the question: what’s waiting for a female suicide bomber who was the only widow of a male suicide bomber.

From Matoko-chan comes the excellent news that the Iranian government has spared the seven Iranian sentenced to death by stoning — of whom I wrote about in October. The impetus? Well, in large part it’s due to the powerful reach of the internet.

Lily Mazahery, president of the Legal Rights Institute, had this to say about the stay of execution:

Recently, we have witnessed a few rays of hope amongst the darkness that has befallen the citizens of Iran. By using the internet to communicate with human rights lawyers, activists, and journalists inside Iran, we have been able to organize an international network of lawyers and journalists who have selflessly and bravely dedicated their lives, personal resources, and boundless energy to saving the lives of innocent Iranians. Through protests, demonstrations, publication of reports of atrocities committed by the Iranian regime and internet-based petitions in various languages, we have generated substantial international attention towards the unjust imprisonment of women and girls who have been sentenced to death, particularly those who have been condemned to death by stoning.

The result of this international collaboration has been nothing less than astonishing! In the past few months, we have been successful in securing stays of executions for Malak Ghorbany, Ashraf Kalhori, Kobra Rahmanpour and other innocent women. After spending 7 years in prison for a crime that she had never committed, Hajieh Esmailvand was finally released from jail last week after all charges of “adultery” were dismissed in her case. Parisa Akbari, a woman who was forced into prostitution by her husband, was also released from prison after the charges of “adultery,” for which she had been sentenced to death by stoning were also dismissed. We are hopeful that our efforts will be successful in obtaining similar results for other prisoners, whose only “crime” is to have been born female in a society that not only devalues their existence, but takes extreme measures to take away their most basic rights as humans. (Source: Eteraz).

But the laws in Iran remain blatantly discriminatory toward women and girls, many of whom are treated as little more than chattle and all of whose lives are valued far less than that of a male.

According to Iranian penal codes, a girl at nine years of age is considered to be an adult. If she commits a crime which is punishable by execution, the courts can indeed sentence her to death. If a man and a woman become paralyzed as a result of an accident, the punitive damages provided to the woman according to law is half that of those provided to the man. If a man and a woman are both witness to a crime, the law does not recognize the woman as a witness, but the man can serve as a witness. The law allows fathers, who obtain the permission of the courts, to wed their daughters even before the age of 13 (legal age of marriage) to a 70 year old man. The law does not allow mothers to serve as the financial guardians of their children, or to make decisions regarding their child’s place of residence, foreign travel, or medical care. The law allows men to take practice polygamy and gives them uncontested rights to divorce their wives at whim.

Having already demonstrated the power of the internet, organizers are now seeking to put an end to the practice of stoning. Show your objection this horrific practice by adding your name to the petition. But don’t stop there: join the One Million Signature Campaign to help change Iran’s discriminatory laws forever.

ThirdWaveDave points to a blog-based effort to demonstrate support for US Airways’ actions in response to the Flying Imams.

Currently, five out of six of those imams want US Airway to pay them off a monetary settlement. The imams are being legally represented by the Council on American Islamic Relations.

I’m not sure whether it’ll make any difference sending supportive email to US Airways, but Radio Patriot seems to think it will.

UPDATE: Dean’s World has more on the Imam Imbroglio ™.

A recent BBC article claims that 1 in 3 people in the UK support a ban on the face-covering veils worn by traditional Muslim women, while 6 out of 10 support a ban on veils in airports and customs.

Muslims point out that the figures reflect the media’s portrayal of the veil itself. In essence, the article implies that most Westerners are incapable of distinguishing between the hijab, kimor, al-amira, shalya and chador (veils which cover the hair but allow facial exposure) and the niqab or burqua (which conceal not only the hair but the feminine face as well).

Frankly, I live in a world in which a face is a more powerful identity than a name. Our identities are frequently stolen, easily changed, easily fabricated and easily sullied. Our faces? Their power lies not merely in the name that accompanies them, but also the facial gestures in which our personalities reveal themselves, the years that age us, the degree of emotion and openness we are willing — or not so willing — to reveal to unnoticed observers.

I would not wear a veil. My ability to connect to my fellow humans is dependent not on my sex but on the individual who resides within me, regardless of the genitalia God chose with which to adorn my body. I do not have this kind of strength, the power to stifle the voice that lies within me, the power to understand more than I am allowed to express. The part within me that initially reacts is American, and by that I mean it is my automatic, ingrained respone to claim that our identity resides in the face we present to everyone, strangers as well as our intimates.

This is what Americans pride ourselves on: that we hold nothing back of ourselves, not even our most heartfelt opinions, and we expect others to not merely recongize this but reciprocate in kind. Tell an American woman, like me, that we must cover that most unique part of ourselves — our faces — and our American instinct not only rebels but demands liberation for ourselves and all other women.

Even so, my soul does not have a national identity, and by that I mean that I am accountable to my God for every moment I am granted to breathe. My soul does not know whether to support the ban.

But there is so much behind it, so much more tradition than our 200+ year-old country took into account as we wrote the documents upon which our government rests. There is the concept of true intimacy, and boundaries that separate that kind of knowledge from what a passing stranger should know of us. There is the notion of modesty, yes, even of sin. Some things should be held back, some line should be drawn between the selves we present to those licensed to know us truly and deeply and those who have not earned that right.

Most of all, however, I balk at the ban. I cannot help but see this response — particulary from those in the U.S., a country founded upon tolerance for religious diversity — as hypocritical at best. How can we claim to not merely tolerate but welcome differences while retreating to the comfortable, faceless guise of “national security” as a justification for trouncing the religious beliefs of others? How can we insist that others meet our security-centered demands without realizing that we are pressuring them to choose between their own reasoned approach to God and our politics du jour?

Who wears the veil: those who have openly donned it in support of their religious convictions, or those who set aside their religious beliefs at the dictate of their temporal, personal safety?

I am not wise enough to understand this, but one day I hope to be.

Photo credit: Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror/Deron Murdock

Guilty, and yet it may be years before it ends.

Shedding light on why Islamic extremists sanction honor killings, an Australian Muslim cleric declared that women who are sexually assaulted are responsible for the attack. Why? Because women are like “uncovered meat“:

“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside … without cover, and the cats come to eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [the headdress worn by some Muslim women], no problem would have occurred.”

Interestingly, the best response comes from another pile of uncovered meat, Wafa Sultan.

UPDATE: Joe wonders why can’t we all just get along.

UPDATE TWO: The Imam responsible for comparing women to “uncovered meat” has been suspended but refuses to resign “until we clean the world of the White House.”

ANKARA — A 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child that she said resulted from a rape became the latest victim of so-called “honor killings” in Turkey, newspapers said Monday.

The young girl, from a mainly Kurdish town near Turkey’s eastern border with Iran, was murdered by an elder brother Saturday, press reports said. The victim, named only as Naile, had apparently not been aware that she was pregnant until she started feeling unwell and was admitted to a hospital, where she gave birth to a boy, the reports added.

She later told her mother that the pregnancy had resulted from a rape. When other members of the family heard the news, the elder brother shot her dead at point-blank range in a street of the town, and then fled.

The Vatan newspaper quoted the local public prosecutor as saying that the family were believed to have convened a meeting at which they designated the brother to kill the girl, in order to remove what they saw as a stain on their honor. (Source: The Middle East Times.

Not surprisingly, there’s no word as to the man who raped her and with the girl’s death, chances are we’ll never know.

Last week’s discussion about Iranian women scheduled for execution brought on a flurry of responses from those who continue to assert that “honor killings” are entirely attributable to Islamic extremists.

Interestingly, the BBC’s Asian network recently conducted a study on attitudes toward honor killings and found:

One in 10 young British Asians believes so-called honour killings can be justified, according to a poll for the BBC’s Asian Network.

Of 500 Hindus, Sikhs, Christians and Muslims questioned, a 10th said they would condone the murder of someone who disrespected their family’s honour.

Figures show 13 people die every year in honour killings, but police and support groups believe it is many more.

As many commenters here noted, Islam is not exclusive in calling for the death of women due to “misconduct.” This very point is explored by Smita Poudel in an article for a South Korean online news magazine:

Honor killings come about because the women live in cultures where they and their sexuality are treated as family property. In many past and present cultures in the Islamic and non-Islamic world enormous value has been placed on female virginity and chastity. The cultural concept is still so strong in many places that one can say that the situation is almost hopeless.

Matthew Goldstein records that the Codes of Hammurabi and Assura, written in 1780 BC and 1075 BC respectively, are some of the earliest set of laws prescribing that a woman’s virginity belongs to the family.

Further on in his report, Goldstein notes the worldwide prevalance of honor-killings:

Honor killings are surprisingly widespread. Reports submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights document continuing occurrence in Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, Great Britain, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda.

As to news of the seven Iranian women scheduled to death by stoning, Shamameh Malak Ghorbany’s lawyers were notified by Branch 27 of the Iranian Supreme Court that it had reached a ruling. At this time, however, they have still not been notified what the ruling is. Kobra Rahmanpour, who had been granted a one month stay of execution, is still trying to obtain an agreement from the deceased’s family to waive their right to demand payment in kind through Kobra’s death. Parisa Akbari and Iran Eskandari remain detained in prison. The court is currently reviewing the sentences of Fatemah and Soghra Mola’i. Permission has been sought to carry out the sentence against Khayrieh Valania.

Meanwhile, Delara Darabi remains under sentence of execution for a crime she allegedly committed when she was 17, even though Iran has agreed under international treaties not to execute people for offenses committed while under the age of 18.

So, too, continue the worldwide efforts to demand a change to laws such as those that condemned these women to death while allowing men, charged with similar crimes, to escape punishment altogether or face far lighter sentences. Join in and become part of “One Million Signatures Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws.”

By the time you read this, seven more women in Iran will most likely have been stoned to death after being convicted of committing adultery.

Under Shari’a law, a prisoner is buried up to her breast, her hands restrained. Rules also specify the size of the stones which can be thrown so that death is painful and not imminent. (Source.)

As brutal as that sounds, the horror cannot begin to compare to actually seeing such an execution. (video link)

These abominations against humanity — carried out in the name of Allah and under the twisted guise of avenging “honor” - are not limited to Iran, however. As I’ve written in the past they aren’t limited to those countries that we Americans, comfortably ensconced in our individual rights and personal liberties, consider barbaric or war-torn. Women are brutalized, maimed for life and killed even in those countries we consider progressive.

• Turkey
• Jordan
• Germany
• Rochester, NY

They happen everywhere. Everywhere. And too few people do anything about it.

Still, there are some who try. Some who take a stand and refuse to be apathetic monsters. If you’re ready to take your stand, Ali can show you how.

But if you’re still on the fence, if you don’t understand the urgency to do something now, then take a look at the graphic photo below and realize the victim of this deed, committed in the name of Allah and “honor”, was one of the “lucky” ones. She lived.

(more…)

Iranian President Ahmadinejad recently warned American and England to “If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future [...] you should bow and surrender…”.

So, okay, he’s a raving lunatic but it got me to thinking… I’m part Iranian, and all that bowing and scraping and surrendering sounds pretty good to me. As long as it’s to me that is.

Yeah, that’s what we need around here: a little more ass-kissing.

Leave it to Lilleks to provide us with the most accurate translation of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s eighteen-page letter to Bush.