"Pro-Muslim Subway Ads to Hang Near Anti-Jihad Ads" by ASHWAQ MASOODI at the NY Times

[applegrove]

Pro-Muslim Subway Ads to Hang Near Anti-Jihad Ads

by ASHWAQ MASOODI at the NY Times

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/pro-muslim-subway-ads-to-hang-near-anti-jihad-ads/?ref=nyregion

"SNIP.....................................................

Rabbis for Human Rights – North America and the group Sojourners, led by the Christian author and social-justice advocate Jim Wallis, are unveiling their campaigns on Monday. Their ads will be placed near the anti-jihad ads in the same Manhattan subway stations, leaders of both groups said and transit officials confirmed. The groups said their campaigns were coincidental.

The ad by Rabbis for Human Rights turns the language of the earlier ad, placed by a pro-Israel group, on its head. The original ad says, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” The ad by Rabbis for Human Rights says, “In the choice between love and hate, choose love. Help stop bigotry against our Muslim neighbors.”

“We wanted to make it clear that it is in response to the anti-Islam ad,” said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights, whose members include rabbis from all streams of Judaism.

The Sojourners ad simply says, “Love your Muslim neighbors.”

......................................................SNIP"

[Igel]

1. This counter-ad bothered me.

I've held my peace until now.

That an anti-jihad ad is considered to be bias against all Muslims is sad. Not unique to this particular ad, but sad.

It's also an equation that is stil seldom challenged. It's finally come to be more challenged in the ME where people are killed by jihadists than in the US mainstream and progressive media, but the point remains. One doesn't attack Muslims by insulting extremists unless we assume Muslims are extremists. So we don't defend Muslims against verbal attack by defending those who would kill.


We can draw a bright line and say that most Muslims aren't jihadists. Perhaps it's not facile enough an argument. Dunno.

We seem most eager to try to tar domestic political and ideological opponents, even at the expense of objectivity and veridicality.

Personally, I find the two signs to be complementary and both absolutely valid.

[applegrove]

2. I think Jihad is a general term that means struggle. Here is wikipedia on the subject.

Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[1][2][3] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[4] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad


I think the people who did the original ad were well aware that people would conflate "Jihad" with "muslim". The two words go together. If the original ad had used the word "terrorism" that would have been much clearer that they did not mean to include all muslims in the ad. It is one of those vague messages that people will project meaning onto. That being the case, people have every right to defend muslims from such a slur because they were a target, even if the authors claim it was only military terrorism against civilians that they meant. If they meant that, why didn't they say that more clearly?

[shaayecanaan]

3. The quote is from Ayn Rand

and there is no doubt that by saying "savages", she was referring to Arabs generally:-

The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.

If you mean whose side one should be on, Israel or the Arabs, I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Its also worth pointing out that Geller, the originator of the signs, is regarded as an anti-Arab racist by the Anti-Defamation League:-

http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/pamela-geller-stop-islamization-of-america.htm

[oberliner]

4. Thanks for sharing that

Glad to see you linking arms with the ADL on this issue.