The keffiyeh - a traditional headdress for Arab men - recently came under intense public scrutiny after chef Rachael Ray was seen wearing a similarly colored paisley print scarf in an online advertisement for the U.S. chain Dunkin’ Donuts.The advertisement was pulled last week after the company received complaints that seem to have originated with the comments of conservative blogger and author Michelle Malkin. Malkin referred to the keffiyeh as “a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos,” whose use as a fashion statement leads to “the mainstreaming of violence.” She further equated the de-stigmatizing of the keffiyeh by fashion designers with “modified Klan-style hoods in Burberry plaid as the next big thing.”

Dunkin’ Donuts retracted the ad, issuing a statement that acknowledged “the possibility of misperception” with regard to the scarf - which, incidentally, was silk and had a fringe unique to fashion, rather than political, statements, as it never was a keffiyeh in the first place.

Malkin’s irresponsibility in her handling of the “keffiyeh kerfuffle,” as she terms it, is grave. Not only is the white hood of the Ku Klux Klan the very symbol of Klan ideology, but its use at the peak of Klan activity was never utilitarian. Furthermore, the recent induction of the keffiyeh into the American fashion scene is neither new nor unusual, as its many variations have floated the thin line between “in” and “passé” for decades.

So what's behind this controversial fashion item? The keffiyeh is a square of cloth that’s folded around the head in various ways and usually provides protection from sun exposure and desert winds and sand. Originally, it was used as a form of Bedouin tribal identification and tradition, and it continues to be worn as such in rural areas. Agrarian workers, too, tend to wear keffiyehs for their functional nature.

It’s interesting to note that in the 1920s, when Arabs were part of the Allied Forces in World War I, the west began to “exoticize” the Middle East; the keffiyeh was arguably the most conspicuous indication of Orientalism during this time and its easy slip into the fashion world is probably still due at least in part to the air of danger and exoticism surrounding it. It was also adopted by British soldiers during World War II, after which its utility made it an essential part of the wardrobes of not only European forces, but Australian and, indeed, American troops in the Middle East. For the most part, soldiers wear the keffiyeh folded into a triangle to cover the mouth and nose and call it a “shemagh” when worn this way.

Because of the keffiyeh’s tribal and rural associations, it became a symbol of Palestinian nationalism in the 1930s and ’40s, and then resurfaced as a popular symbol in the 1960s. Yasser Arafat wore his black-and-white checkered keffiyeh in the shape of the Palestinian territory. Note that Arafat’s manner of wearing the keffiyeh has not been emulated by any other Palestinian leaders, and remains unique to his interpretation of the keffiyeh as a symbol of Palestinian solidarity. Similarly, Leila Khaled, a female member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, wears her keffiyeh like a hijab - odd, because the keffiyeh is traditionallya form of masculinity. Nevertheless, her political statement, like Arafat’s, is a personal and unique rendition of the traditional cloth.

In the last thirty or so years, Westerners who wear the keffiyeh have done so for at least one of two reasons: to show sympathy for the Palestinian cause (and more recently the anti-war cause); or simply because it looks kind of hip slung around the neck, Rachael Ray style. The scarf has been in and out of style in Europe for the last couple of decades, but in the past five years, American celebrities have sported it in a variety of styles — as often oblivious to its “political meaning” (if it has a specific one) as not. Urban Outfitters started selling “anti-war keffiyehs” in 2007, but then pulled the scarves when they were accused of being “anti-Israel” and being sympathetic to terrorism. Unfortunately, by pulling the scarves it seems that the company only reinforced the connection between the keffiyeh and terrorism, thereby fanning the flames that caused Dunkin’ Donuts to retract their ad last week.

So how has this Bedouin head cloth become, in the eyes of the pro-Israel lobby and conservative America at large, representative of terrorist apologists? Right now it seems clear that not only do the hipsters and celebrities currently wearing keffiyehs not understand its more nuanced history, but for those who do wear the cloth to make a political statement, that statement is usually“pull out of Iraq, President Bush.” It seems that as long as celebrities like Rachael Ray go around wearing a keffiyeh-like scarf (because, again, it wasn’t one), the keffiyeh is only as strong a political symbol as its wearer intends it to be.

Even if Americans do want to don keffiyehs as personal symbols of Palestinian solidarity, since when does that represent and promote, as Malkin says, “Islamic extremism,” and - most outlandish of all - “anti-Semitism?” Don’t Palestinians have legitimate grievances regardless of who among them resorts to terror?

Interestingly enough, there have been complaints by Arabs recently about irreverent American youth purchasing keffiyehs- with no regard for their cultural origin. Of course, they see the prevalence of the keffiyeh in fashion as insulting only because they’ve decided that it stands for a single, immutable position - which it clearly does not. Catwalks in Tokyo, Paris, Milan and New York City have all seen the keffiyeh emerge as part of an Islamicized fashion, wherein models have strutted down the runway covered from head to toe.

We would assume, then, that because the keffiyeh has been worn by peace activists, terrorists, Saudis, U.S. troops, and hipsters, it would begin to lose its political significance. That doesn’t seem to be the case. It has a projected political meaning which, oddly enough, has managed to stick enough to garner a retraction from Dunkin’ Donuts. The political conditions of the time are rough enough that even the new Israeli keffiyehs in blue and white checkers have really done nothing to dilute the keffiyeh’s political significance.

Unfortunately, the fact that Dunkin’ Donuts deemed Malkin’s criticism worth capitulating to is indicative of the power of the squinty-eyed terror militia. And, sadly enough - in a move similar to Obama’s rapid and vehement renunciation of all things Muslim - Dunkin’ Donuts may just have saved itself some business by retracting the ad and issuing an apology, of sorts.

In the meantime, the keffiyeh will continue to be co-opted and re-adopted every few months, ready for a new catwalk, a new political statement, and a new controversy.

Check out this video on the HotConflict.com website about image and Islam.
It deals with the concept of wearing a certain scarf for a specific image.
There is also a great Poem by brother Bilal "The Poet"

http://www.hotconflict.com/blog/2008/06/dunkin-donuts-pulls-rachael-ray-add-for-islamic-scarf-terrorism-fears.html

this is a good article. thanks for writing it!

You know, I own several keffiyeh, and I think I always get a reaction of some sort from them. Some are amused (I'm red-haired and blue-eyed), some are impressed, and some are hateful, though never to my face. I don't think with a lot of Americans it's a hatred for terrorism, but honestly just using terrorism as an excuse for racism.

I think after reading this article, I'm going to integrate my keffiyeh into my look a little more. And, considering my past, I think I'd be amused if someone accused me of being a terrorist supporter. But then, I don't support it from either side...

When I worked in construction in the deserts in Saudi Arabia the keffiyeh was critical both in the summer and winter. It is made of soft cotton and the insulation it provides is wonderful. It also provides an effective dust barrier in the storms.

Of course, any good quality cotton scarf would do the trick. But, just as the story above points out that the keffiyeh stands out in America, anyone wearing a 'normal scarf' would equally stand out of a construction crew in Saudi Arabia. After all, if one were to look for a scarf to wear in America I suspect you'd only find those bright, flowery, feminine jobs that were the hall mark of strident, right wing women on TV in 90s America! I don't think you want to wear that on a construction site (or more aptly for today's American Boys going to the Middle east, a battle field).

It is all a matter of adopting the local customs, especially those that have been around because they help with local problems;and also about trying to blend in.

yes weisskopf- you come here to blend.

Actually - MrsA, you confuse my intentions here. I am not trying to blend in here at all because this is not a place of work. You see this is a place of debate and dissent - oh sorry! I guess you have no idea what that means. Never mind. Go back to bowing down dutifully to your mullah and NEVER, EVER, question anything he says!

i was being......FACETIOUS!

btw- those neck scarves form the 90s are so passe- i can however, direct you to oodles of places to get all sorts of hijab in a variety of prints, colors, and fabrics too-

simply fabulous-

Oh - sorry Mrs. A - I was not aware you were capable anything but obedience and subservience.

As for scarves, Saudi Arabia (or for that matter the rest of the Muslim world) has no fascination for me. Maybe you should write to that girl on TV and tell her about your lovely scarves that you claim to wear underneath the all covering burnoose.

The idea of a 'decorative' Hijab is an oxymoron. The primary reason for the hijaab (which is no more than a toned-down version of the burqa) is to hide the attractiveness of a woman by covering her hair so severely that one cannot say whether she has hair or is bald underneath. Apparently your 'well read' quranic scholars are incapable of controlling their horniness unless they see women as unattractive and drab. Saying 'attractive and gorgeous hijaabs' is like saying 'tasty and sumptuous cyanide pills'. No matter how gorgeous the print on the scarf the idea behind the hijaab ought to make you pause...but then I am forgetting the conditioning that goes into the making of an Islamic mindset!

@Weisskopf,

"The idea of a 'decorative' Hijab is an oxymoron."

The intention of a decorative hijab is an oxymoron. Since the hijab literally means a curtain than I guess one that is used to seperate men and women can be decorative.

"The primary reason for the hijaab (which is no more than a toned-down version of the burqa) "

You must have confused a scarf or veil for a hijab. I cant see how it would be a toned down version since Arabs dont wear burqahs. A burqah is a perhaps culturally inspired hijab plus niqab but I believe they may predate the Islamic invasion of the subcontinent.

"Apparently your 'well read' quranic scholars are incapable of controlling their horniness unless they see women as unattractive and drab."

You cant control horniness can you? Not sure if you are supposed to. Women were made to be physcially attractive; not men with viginas.

"...but then I am forgetting the conditioning that goes into the making of an Islamic mindset!"

A mindset so pervasive that a women and her body, or body parts are used to sell cars ad burgers.

hi weisskopf- i had to laugh when i read your comment-
actually i said 'variety' and made no value judgment regarding either their attractiveness nor gorgeousness- nor even their decorative value-

i laughed because i always say that islamic fashions are an oxymoron-

as to the issue of men having control over their sexual impulses-
im a masculinist in this regard-

how arrogant and degrading to make the assumption that men are ravenous beasts enslaved to their various appetites-

likewise it is also pretty ridiculous to base one's entire perception and ones response to a woman based upon such a superficial criteria as her state fo dress or undress-

is that our only worth?

bikhair- yes, thats the point, we ARE spposed to control our sexual urges- it elevates us above the animals-

now, as to the primary reason a woman wears hijab-
"The primary reason for the hijaab is to hide the attractiveness of a woman by covering her hair so severely that one cannot say whether she has hair or is bald underneath."

that may be a resultant effect of the hijab- but the primary reason is to express ones submission to ALLAH.

i am a proponent of respect for humans- male and female- covered or undressed-

and more concerned about their core spirituality-
such opinions based upon designations such as clothes or what one wears-
i leave that to the shallow-

having expressed that-
it seems unnecessary and unkind to make personal observations such as this-
"Oh - sorry Mrs. A - I was not aware you were capable anything but obedience and subservience."

clearly my capabilities extend at least a tiny bit past being a robotic automaton-

if you dont agree- perhaps we shouldn't address each other in the future.

bikhair- since weisskopf used hijab as noun- i didnt want to confuse him further with deeper meanings-

Look at John McCain’s daughter wearing a keffiyeh
http://gawker.com/tag/keffiyeh/?i=5003288&t=mccain-daughter-dons-islamic-terror-scarf

I am sure someone who is determined to be enslaved sees all kinds of glorious symbols in subjecting themselves to all manner of humiliation. This is common behaviour in all religions where people voluntarily sacrifice hard earned freedom of thought, freedom of expression and even hard earned money to charlatans who convince them it is god's wish that they do so.

This nonsense of 'surrender to allah' was not in vogue anywhere before the Ayatollahs imposed the hijaab on the Iranian women, with the threat of public lashing if they failed to obey. Progressive Muslim women all over the world - especially in Asia - were perfectly fine without it before that. the Iranian revolution was the turning point where the Muslims all over the world, instead of questioning this stupidity in Iran, embraced it.

Except for that most primitive of societies where Islam originated, Saudi Arabia, and illiterate people in poor countries, muslims by and large had discarded these burkas and hijaabs; and whatever other names they have for draping what is essentially a shroud, on a woman who is still alive. The idea was just plain and simple to rob her of her vibrancy, beauty and ultimately dehumanize her. Now, they think they are fighting the influence of 'western culture' by adopting it voluntarily. This is akin to an emancipated slave offering to go back into bondage for the security it offers.

What should bother people in America is not some horrible plight of a woman in Nigeria or Morocco or Saudi Arabia, but that girls brought up in America are proudly adopting primitive customs to prove their 'devotion'! What they do not realize is that they are on a slippery slope of superstition and medieval practices that will take them out of circulation slowly but surely.

Sure, it's their life and no one needs to care, but as with any corrosive influence on society, this too will extract a price from all.

Well, well, well. Dumbkopf is at it again I see.

You gotta love the slave owner of yesteryear, giving a lecture on slavery to the rest of us after he has accumulated all the wealth using slavery. And is now tooo rich to be socially and 'morally' associated with it any longer.

Not that one can say America is truly free of slavery. Abolish slavery from China today and watch the Americans pay "non-slave" prices for all their everyday goods.

And I dare say, comments about being enlightened and progressive and non-superstitous are just silly when you do not practice them yourself but encourage others to do so, so that they stay "behind" in order that you may exploit them. Thats called racism.

And as far as the "surprise" at women going "backwards" right here in ones own backyard, well. What to say. This so called liberal unslaved social experiment called democracy et al is what just a 100 years old. What makes you so sure, it is even going to be around 100 years hence? Such social experiments come and go over the course of history, nothing new. Pretending to overcome slavery is like pretending to overcome death or disease or the need to eat or go to the toilet. Better to confront it and manage it humanely (Islam) then to pretend it does not exist (Dumbkofism).

hajibaba,

You forgot about how the West benefits form slavery in the Congo
See http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_keith_ha_080207_the_gertler_steinmet.htm