Put a Headscarf on your Queen, not on Turkey’s First Lady!

Turkish feeling over the headscarf runs deep ...

Dr. Muhammad Megalommatis, The American Chronicle, May 2007


In an unprecedented case of provocative misinformation, the Economist misdirects its readership, diffuses Islamic Terrorists’ propaganda by trying to present the Islamic Headscarf as a personal choice that can possibly be that of a moderate, tolerant and democratic person.

In a disreputable and subversive publication that surpasses the best hopes and boldest dreams of criminals like Ossama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahri, and their likes, the Economist tries to analyze for its readers “The Meaning of Freedom” ...

The author focuses his diatribe on the hypothesis that a headscarf is just a piece of fabric. By so erratically pretending so, the author attempts to convince his victims to possibly accept that it is normal for Muslim women to wear headscarf, and that there is nothing wrong with it!

This leads to straight and vicious alteration of the truth, as the Islamic headscarf consists in the premier symbol of inhuman barbarism and murderous behaviour.

Islamic headscarf means obligatory excision.

Islamic headscarf means extrajudicial killing in the streets of Riyadh, Jeddah, Madina and Mekka of any woman does not wear this otherwise innocent and democratic piece of fabric.

Islamic headscarf means stoning and dismemberment of women unjustly and falsely accused in the streets of Damascus and Amman for adultery.

Islamic headscraf signifies immediate transformation of women to almost subhuman beings that have no rights and no status.

I challenge the criminal author of the Economist in public conference and debate concerning the aforementioned ...

The article features a ridiculous picture of the Turkish Foreign Minister’s covered wife standing in front of Queen Beatrix of Holland, who laughs at her (the Hayrunisa Gul woman), without her understanding ...

The article starts with the hypothetical the Hayrunisa woman supposedly asks her compatriots:

“IS THIS all because of me? At once bemused and indignant, the potential first lady of Turkey demands that her compatriots stop judging her, and her spouse, on the basis of her appearance. “My scarf covers my head, not my brain,” insists Hayrunisa Gul, whose husband Abdullah is foreign minister and aspires to be president”.

The answer is very simple and very well known to Turks and Muslims; simply it is unknown to British, Americans and Europeans because of their ignorance about Islam and the Orient in general and because of the misinformation precisely based on this ignorance ...

The answer to the hypothetical question is as follows:

“Yes, it is all because of you and your ideas that are reflected in your headscarf. Drop the filthy piece of un-Islamic fabric, and your husband will have a chance of becoming President ... But of course, you do not dare drop the filthy headscarf because then the myth you build and the propaganda you diffuse among your followers would immediately collapse. You build on subversively and progressively; when you get one thing done, then you unveil the next! So, because we – progressive Turks – who have nothing to do with the barbarism of societies and cities like Riyadh, Amman, and Kuwait, reject in our majority to have a First Lady that helps promote a subversion plan to turn Turkey form the realm of the world’s leading nations, and make of it a copy of Egypt, Pakistan and Nigeria. Plus, the headscarf was never Islamic” ...

From a 2nd Chronicle article by Dr Megalommatis ...

In a previous article ... We rebuked the erroneous assumption that the Islamic headscarf is just an innocent piece of fabric that makes no problem in the proper function of a democratic society.

As we had long explained the incompatibility of that antihuman piece of fabric with Democracy, we re-published excerpts from an authoritative book describing daily life at the times of Harun al Rashid in Baghdad; this shows that authentic, historical, Islam was comfortable with tolerance towards free sexual life, appreciation of material pleasures, involving debauchery, cabarets, dance, concerts, excessive drinking of wine and other alcoholic drinks, etc – isolating then elements that prevailed throughout Islam over the past few centuries, and became the epicenter of a new, ahistorical Islam over the past decades.

Islamic Extremism and Terrorism is precisely the rejection of historical Islam in favour of a-historical falsified Islam that Western colonial powers have always tried to support and diffuse within Islam, ever since they interfered in the Islamic World (starting with Napoleon), as this consists in the best way of besotting people and preparing idiotic and therefore easily manipulative politicians and ‘statesmen’. That is why we suggested the demented columnist to consider placing a headscarf on Queen Elizabeth’s head.

In the present article, we intend to continue the refutation of the Economist’s overt misinformation.

Headscarf = Swastika

... Mr. Gul’s candidacy “sparks emotions” not because of the headscarf of that Hayrunisa woman, the Turkish foreign minister’s quasi-illiterate and vulgar wife, but because the headscarf is the symbol of those who, altering Islam, want to impose excision on all the women of the country.

The simple answer to the Economist’s columnist is this:

Turkish women reject excision as both, anti-Islamic and anti-human. And they reject the headscarf that symbolizes an excised woman, a shockingly wounded creature able enough to be submitted to a man as the lowest type of domestic slaves ...

Since the Economist columnist speaks of a “piece of fabric” that “sparks emotions”, and seems not to consider the ‘emotions’ and the fears as absolutely justified, we should ask his opinion why the emotions and the fears were justified when Prince Harry wore a “non innocent piece of fabric” the design of which was a swastika ...

It is quite revelatory that the Hayrunisa lewd woman does not criticize for a moment the Afghani and the Saudi societies. This shows the clear degradation of the situation, which is not acceptable to any democratic Turk and to any democratic person allover the world. In 1997, the wife of the Turkish foreign minister would describe these societies as sinister, appalling and inhuman. Today, the Hayrunisa woman finds them just not up to her taste! In ten years, if the situation is left like that, another Turkish Foreign Minister’s wife will find them normal and acceptable! And possible to imitate! ...

If the English do not react to this blasphemous, anti-Western, anti-English, anti-Christian forgery of the Economist, they will prove that Excision is all that a Queen of England deserves.

More: The American Chronicle(article 1, article 2), The Economist