![](”http://static.flickr.com/44/116364022_14e11279b9_o.jpg")
Monday, 25 Sep 2006
A cardealership in Ohio is under fire for declaring a Jihad on its competition and making fun of the Jihadis in their commercials:
A car dealership's tongue-in-cheek radio
advertisement declaring “a jihad on the automotive market,'' will
not be changed, the company said, despite drawing sharp criticism
that the ad's content is offensive.Several stations rejected the spot from Dennis Mitsubishi, which
boasts that sales representatives wearing “burqas'' head-to-toe
traditional dress for Islamic women will sell vehicles that can
“comfortably seat 12 jihadists in the back.''[...]
In the ad, Dennis talks about “launching a jihad on the
automotive market'' and giving away toy swords to children.“Our prices are lower than the evildoers' every day. Just ask
the pope!'' the ad says. “Friday is fatwa Friday, with free rubber
swords for the kiddies.''
LOL
September 25th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Finally a politically incorrect redneck says it…the emperor is wearing no clothes!
September 25th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Well…let’s suppose the car dealership had run an ad like this:
“Friday’s going to be one big Gettysburg on car prices!
This weekend we’re turning our dealership into one giant car ‘plantation’ where we’re slaves to your every whim. Staff will be dressing up in pre civil war costumes and every kid will receive a free bale of cotton”
Or how about a “narc” Friday for the Hispanic community where people dress up in drug dealer garb…or a Godfather Sunday with free fake horse’s head for every kid (well, actually that one would be pretty funny)
Basically the problem is that the stereotype of Muslims = scary guys in beards who cut off your head has become such common currency that it’s on the same level as Australians = crocodile hunters with cork hats and English = Lords that drink tea (or football hooligans, depending who you talk to!)
But, as a BBC report showed the other night that unlike in Europe, the Muslim community in the US is by and large free of jihadist tendencies
September 25th, 2006 at 11:21 am
ok this is a little disturbing. its disturbing just how main stream racism against muslims has become, and how accepted. i mean imagine if the ad read something like “Dennis Mitsubishi, the Final Solution for cars” or “this caris so big it can fit 12 N*$#@S in the back”. Just imagine the upraor, the lawsuits the debates. True there are criticisms, but the fact that someone thought they could do this and get away with it is very telling.
Its true other religions are made fun of, Judaisim and Christianity have not been spared the odd crack here and there. But there is a difference between making fun and rediculing.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Just from what I’ve heard about these commercials I think they are in extremely bad taste and rude! I am not Muslim or really anything else but why go out of your way to insult someone. They should not be run!
September 25th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
No, these commercials are likely not racist… they’re fun.
Rude? perhaps, but the best humor usually is.
Crude? Yep, so what?
Take a look at all the commercials that make fun of men, women, fat people, priests, hippies, nerds, you name it, and so what?!
It’s precisely this lack of ability to see humor for what it is and maybe look at yourself a bit critically that distances many muslims from the rest of the world and vice versa…
September 25th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Well the ads are racist but I am equally disturbed by them giving out toy swords to children. Yes lets advocate violence to childre. That is soo wonderful. Why is noone else up set by this?
September 25th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I don’t see the car ads as racist. Stupid perhaps. After all Islam is not a race, it is a religion. Attacking a Universal religion cannot be racism - not for Islam or for Catholicism. The other difference is the whole idea of a “n****r” is a Western invention. They do not exist. Jihadis are not a myth. They are real. They exist. Why not laugh at them? It is not a stereotype either. The world is full of big scary guys with beards who want to cut your head off. Luckily most of them have trouble getting visas.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Chellebelle, we are not upset because we are not wussies.
Boys play with toy swords and guns. Deal with it.
Americans are sick of the PC crap and the cowardice of our leaders and the media. We are sick of “friendly” gov’ts that are acting cowardly. This guy is just showing that he has balls AND a sense of humor. I hope he doesn’t back down, and personally, I think a lot of people bought his cars just to show thanks for him making fun of the Jihadis.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
“its disturbing just how main stream racism against Muslims has become, and how accepted.”
That is only true if we have given up the distinction between Muslims and jihadis. Is that the case? They did not say that you can fit 12 Muslims in the back he said jihadis. Is making fun of Nazis racist to Germans? These jihadis how are being the victims of racism in this commercial refer to all Westerners as crusaders, but I suppose the are allowed to cause they are special.
People who feel that mocking jihadis is offensive to Muslims is just outright saying that Muslims are jihadis.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
The day most muslims can laugh at an ad like this will be the day we’re all safe from zealots. If someone ran a spoof ad like this about the inquisition or the crusades or a recent christian atrocity, most people would laugh at it.
Take a look at “The life of Brian” some day. This film got some criticism from the religious groups but on the whole, not much more comment than the kind of outraged TV interviewees you would expect. When a religion can take a punch like that and not flinch, it’s got roots. If ths offends Muslims then you need to grow up some. This fake pack emotion is ridiculous, like the sight of thousands of people wailing at the home of a spoiled, wealthy, empty headed bimbo who died in a car crash in Paris, people who had never met her, had no reason to empathise with her were weeping and wailing outside her palace like it affected them. Get a grip people.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Personally I love it, I think it’s hysterical. I often declare a Jihad on my friends and family.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
A few hypothetical scenarios in response to some of the things that have been said:
The day most muslims can laugh at an ad like this will be the day we’re all safe from zealots. If someone ran a spoof ad like this about the inquisition or the crusades or a recent christian atrocity, most people would laugh at it.
Really? You don’t think evangelical groups would have something to say if the dealership ran a “Jesus for cheaper wheels” promotion where there’s a mass ‘prayer to the Lord’ for lower car prices, ‘laying on of hands’ for anyone who comes to buy cars, and you are sprinkled with holy water at the end of it?
This guy is just showing that he has balls AND a sense of humor. I hope he doesn’t back down, and personally, I think a lot of people bought his cars just to show thanks for him making fun of the Jihadis.
Do you think it would be showing balls and a sense of humour to have a mock “lower prices riot”, where the dealership was decked out in a Compton style theme, staff dressed as ‘bloods’ or ‘crips’ and free toy AKs were handed out for that authentic “drive by” experience?
Hey, no reason to get offended African Americans. Just a joke!
September 25th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Just another thought…maybe it isn’t actually very funny because there are families in the US (and elsewhere) who have lost family members at the hands of Jihadists.
Life of Brian was a funny film, but it’s mocking stuff that happened in the distant past.
I actually think a more apt parallel is when Prince Harry in the UK dressed up as an SS officer for a fancy dress party. Not surprisingly a lot of Jewish groups didn’t see a lot of humour in his choice of garb.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
I don’t think this ad campaign is a very helpful contribution - either to the gwot or, I suspect, to his auto sales. Maybe I’m humor-impaired, but I didn’t find it very funny either.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
This is my area of the world and really resnt when the first word out of someone’s mouth is “redneck”. What an @$$!
Whatever you want to call them this dealership has increased it’s sales by about 100% since the first leak of these ads came out. I think they are hysterical as do most people. There are always “those” who look for reasons to be offended, we could live very well without those sorts!
September 25th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
“Whatever you want to call them this dealership has increased it’s sales by about 100% since the first leak of these ads came out.”
“There’s no such thing as bad publicity”.
Very true.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Personally, I don’t agree or disagree, but I understand why they’re doing it: Sometimes laughing is the only way to stay sane and when you sit and think about how crazy this world is becoming you can probably use all the laughs you can get.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
There is nothing wrong with this. And the analogies some of you are making are, frankly, stupid.
The real equivalent would be if they used the word Crusade, which no Christians would find offensive.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
SM - do you have a link to the original story?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
elsiquosiquo,
ok this is a little disturbing. its disturbing just how main stream racism against muslims has become, and how accepted.
You could possibly make an argument that it is religious bigotry. But there were no racial terms in the part that I read.
i mean imagine if the ad read something like “Dennis Mitsubishi, the Final Solution for cars” or “this caris so big it can fit 12 N*$#@S in the back”.
That’s not an appropriate analogy. Imagine an add that declared a Crusade against the competition? Maybe with the Pope driving a van full of Nuns? All the Salesmen are Bishops and Cardinals?
Would anybody take offense to that, other than a few really uptight Christians? I don’t think so, because I see stuff like that every single day, Christians being made fun of, and nobody cares. I do it myself a lot of the time. Serious hardcore Christians are pretty absurd, and easliy ridiculed.
Just imagine the upraor, the lawsuits the debates. True there are criticisms, but the fact that someone thought they could do this and get away with it is very telling.
Perhaps so, in your example, because your example made fun of genocide. Your example was an incorrect one.
Its true other religions are made fun of, Judaisim and Christianity have not been spared the odd crack here and there. But there is a difference between making fun and rediculing.
There is?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
“Well…let’s suppose the car dealership had run an ad like this:
“Friday’s going to be one big Gettysburg on car prices!”
Your politically correct analogy just doesn’t work Dirk. The Muslim Jihadi pricks have brought this kind of derision on themselves. That means they’re fair game for this kind of mockery. Personally, I’d like to see a lot more of it. If people stop taking these Jihadi Jackasses seriously, maybe they will go away and leave the rest of us in peace.
September 25th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
This is my area of the world and really resnt when the first word out of someone’s mouth is “redneck”.
Yep, I agree that’s pretty ignorant.
Craig, maybe another analogy would be more apt
Everyone knows those Joos are good with their money, right?!
So how about a “Shylock Sunday” where the dealer gets his people to dress up as “Jewish moneychangers”, and you even get a free cream cheese bagel at the end of it
Would that be funny?
September 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
The Muslim Jihadi pricks have brought this kind of derision on themselves. That means they’re fair game for this kind of mockery.
How many suicide bombers have come from the US Islamic community? Remember, it’s American muslims (or more to the point Americans) who are taking offence, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over in Tehran
If other ethnic groups are fair game, then great news. I’m all in favour of equal opportunities when it comes to non PC humour!
But the fact remains: The dealer would have thought twice about having a humorous day about Jews, African Americans, Hispanics, Irish Americans etc
September 25th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Dirk, your example didn’t make fun of Judaism it made fun of Jews in the old anti-semetic form. It’s still not a correct analogy.
If other ethnic groups are fair game, then great news. I’m all in favour of equal opportunities when it comes to non PC humour!
Other RELIGIOUS groups *are* fair game, and always have been! How many times have you seen Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hari Krishnas, Hindus, Christiansm Jews, etc ridiculed severely in movies and on television? It seems to me that muslims have been treated with kid gloves. And yes, I’m perfectly willing to give examples, I could name dozens off the top of my head. Didn’t Saturday Night Live run a whole series of skits with “Father Guido Sarducci” always pitching some kind of sleazy scam, back in the 1970s and early 1980s? How about all the Monty Python skits about the Spanish Inquisition, or the ones about “Da’ Bishop” or the movie called “The Life of Brian” which was a parody of Jesus? And that’s not even the tip of the iceberg.
How well has the KKK been treated in the media? They are as much associated with Christianity as Jihadis are associated with Islam.
But the fact remains: The dealer would have thought twice about having a humorous day about Jews, African Americans, Hispanics, Irish Americans etc
Of course he would have. Because that’s racism. Religious bigotry is perfectly OK in the United States, and in every other western country, as long as it’s not about Islam. We see religious bigotry here on Sandmonkey’s blog every day. But how often do we see racism?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
By the way, Dirk, the reason religious bigotry is OK is because religion is a choice (as the human right called “Freedom of Religion” demonstrates) whereas other things are such as ethnicity or the country you were born in are not.
The line i crossed in regards to religion only when you are are interfering with somebody’s ability to practice their religion unhindered and in peace. That’s a civil rights violation and a violation of the US Constitution, here in America. And it’s a human rights violation, everywhere in the world. Why are we complaining about a silly commercial when so many people in the world have been deprived of their basic human right of Freedom of Religion?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I don’t regard a commercial ridiculing Jihady f**kheads as any kind of slur against decent, peaceable Muslims. Jihady f**kheads are not, after all, following the teachings of Islam, even if they pretend to do so. Isn’t that right? Isn’t it a slander against Islam to say that it is spread by the sword, and isn’t that exactly what the Jihady F**kheads say they want to do?
To show you what I mean, here’s something similar, a song about Christian television preachers. This was a HUGE hit.
WOULD JESUS WEAR A ROLEX
(Margaret Archer / Chet Atkins)
Ray Stevens - 1987
Woke up this mornin’ turned on my TV set
There in livin’ color was somethin’ I can’t forget
This man was preachin’ at me.. yeah.. layin’ on the charm
Asking me for 20 with 10,000 on his arm
He wore designer clothing and a big smile on his face
Selling me salvation while they sang Amazing Grace
Asking me for money when he had all the signs of weath
Almost wrote a check out.. yeah.. but then I asked myself…
Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star
If he came back tomorrow there’s something I’d like to know
Would Jesus wear a rolex on His television show
Would Jesus be political if he came back to earth
Have his second home in Palm Springs.. yeah.. but try to hide his worth
Take money from those poor folks when He comes back again
And admit He’s talked to all those preachers who said they’d been-a talking to Him
Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star
If he came back tomorrow there’s something I’d like to know
Could ya tell me - Would Jesus wear a rolex
Would Jesus wear a rolex
Would Jesus wear a rolex on His television show
Would Jesus wear a rolex on His television show
************
To me, the common element between the commercial and the song is the distaste for people who claim to act on behalf of God, when they are really acting in their own selfish interest.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Muslim sense of humour failure again, methinks. Combine that with a persecution mentality that expects the rest of the world to tiptoe around them like they were unhatched eggs. Get a grip guys.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Hey annimouse,
I think you missed my point. I AM a (proud) “redneck,” born in Ohio, and I’m not making fun of rednecks, I think we’re da bomb! While I think the commercial was stupid (watch it) I admire the guy’s lack of political correctness AND his business savvy–he’s gotten a lot more advertising out of his ad than he paid for. And he’s making fun of backward terrorists, not peace-loving muslims.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
The idea is hillarious, I absolutely love it. I want a free plastic sword!
And what Craig said, too
September 25th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
There was another advertising campaign using Jihad. It was banned, but the commercial is funny as hell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6rBrJhWAfk
September 25th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
sadly, the terrorists have given us a new word to add to the dictionary…jihad. recently, i’ve heard this word so many times its insane. i’m going to declare a jihad or people that overuse the word jihad.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Wasn’t there a “What would Jesus drive” campaign recently?
And what exactly was Seinfeld, if not a nine-year running mockery of Jewish culture (that was uproariously funny, by the way).
SNL’s Samurai Night Fever didn’t seem to arouse too much hostility among Japanese Americans.
Monty Python’s Holy Grail. (Christians)
The Producers. (Germans)
The Sopranos. (Italians)
South Park (everyone)
Blazing Saddles (Blacks and the racists who hate them)
The Jeffersons (Whites)
And so on, and so on.
The interesting thing (a point which I believe has already been made here) is that the people offended on behalf of Muslims, are implicitly lumping all Muslims together with the jihadis. A movie about Bugsy Siegel and Dutch Schultz wouldn’t bother me in the least because, though they shared my religion, I don’t identify with them at all.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
http://whatwouldjesusdrive.org/action/sticker.php
September 25th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Dirk, your example didn’t make fun of Judaism it made fun of Jews in the old anti-semetic form. It’s still not a correct analogy.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. The Fatwa Friday and Shylock Sunday comparisons are fair ones to me as both traditional negative stereotypes about both cultures (Muslims - violent, Jews - tight with money). I’d say that Islam is as much a cultural phenomenon, in the same way that many Jews I know adnere primarily for cultural reasons.
However - just so that there is no misunderstanding where I stand, I know full well that the Islamic world is incredibly thin skinned to any kind of perceived slight and criticism and the Pope controversy was at the same time ridiculous and counter productive.
Why are we complaining about a silly commercial when so many people in the world have been deprived of their basic human right of Freedom of Religion?
Now that we can agree on!
September 25th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
There is one further point though, and let’s for once leave what Muslims think out of this:
Holding people hostage and cutting their heads off with swords is obviously a nasty business.
There are families in the US and Europe (and indeed the Middle East) who have lost loved ones to this kind of barbarism. As a result, is it even a suitable topic for humour?
To take a parallel from here in the UK. Britain has a rich seam of WW2 humour from the funny (John Cleese / Basil Fawlty and his don’t mention the war scene) to the bone headed (Prince Harry dressing up in SS Uniform).
The groups that took the most offence at Prince Harry, and also at comedian Rik Mayall (who pretended to be Hitler on an anti European Union campaign ad), were Jewish groups and WW2 veterans.
Why? Obviously having lost loved ones to Nazism, they not only thought it was no laughing matter, but they also felt it trivialised a very important issue.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
“The Fatwa Friday and Shylock Sunday comparisons are fair ones to me as both traditional negative stereotypes about both cultures (Muslims - violent, Jews - tight with money).”
However, there is nothing particularly violent or negative about a ‘fatwa’. I mean there can be depending on the specific content of the particular “fatwa”, but usually there isn’t.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Raccoon
At least someone has a sense of humor, I LOVE that VW commercial by the way, it cracks me up everytime i see it and I have been watching it for the last year or so.
September 25th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
“the Muslim community in the US is by and large free of jihadist tendencies”
“By and large” is what is worrying. Would that be, say, 95% ?
September 25th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
“By and large” is what is worrying. Would that be, say, 95% ?
I’m not claiming to be an expert in US Muslims, Don, far from it!
I took this from a BBC TV news report the other night on American Muslims.
The feature basically interviewed a range of US Muslims who said on camera how proud they were to be Americans and how they would definitely turn in anyone with Jihadist tendencies.
The report then concluded that unlike in Europe, no US Muslims had become suicide bombers and made an unfavourable comparison between the integration of the Islamic community in the US and the community in the UK.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Oh, my, gawd…..the whining! The seething! Chill people. Every other group has been made fun of. Now it’s the Muslims’ turn, jihadi or not.
FYI, South Park made fun of everyone but chickened out when it came to Mohammad. The network wouldn’t air it.
And the dickheads at CAIR (council on american islamic relations) have threatened legal action against Dennis Mitsubishi (the auto dealer who made this ad). I wish to god they would pack up and go back to the hell hole they came from, as obviously free speech is only free speech if they agree with it. If they don’t agree with it, it’s islamophobe, it’s racism, it’s bigotry. Over sensitive terrorist sympathizers.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Hilarious. What can you say? Allahu Akhbar! Death to the competition!
September 25th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Dirk,
One problem of your Gettysburg comparison is that it is the “bad guys that are being mocked,” not the good guys. If there were a “Gettysburg” car sale, you would expect for their to be abolitionists and Union soldiers, not slaves, handling the sales.
chellebelle_mn
Well the ads are racist but I am equally disturbed by them giving out toy swords to children. Yes lets advocate violence to childre.
Oh no! We can’t have kids with play swords. No rubber swords, no squirt guns, no acting like a normal child. Can’t have that!
Frankly, it is offensive to me that car salesman, of all people, are dealing with jihadists in a more honest manner than our “Religon of Peace” politicians are.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I think Jihadi types need to be ridiculed, and in any possible way. Sure, the meaning of the world “Jihad” can be debated to be the “internal” struggle, but few people in the West see it that way thanks to the name & actions of groups like “Islamic Jihad”. For the non muslim world, a jihadi pretty much means a guy in a religious war, not a guy struggling with temptation or trying to be a better person.
I think the best english translation of the word Jihad is the word Crusade. Think about it, they’re the exact same word.
If Jihad is supposed to be a struggle, so is a Crusade. How many times have we seen “Crusade against” the cause of the day? I know I’ve seen it a lot. Of course, in the ME, the word Crusade has a different meaning than here in the West, but so does the word Jihad have a different meaning in the West than in the ME. It’s the same word.
Don’t be mad at this guy if he’s confused about what a Fatwa is, Jihadi types are the ones who introduced that word in the west such as one of the first ones I ever heard of when like Bin Laden got Fatwa that it’s ok to kill any American because they all pay taxes & that means they aren’t civilians.
Anyways, this ad campaign is an exercise in poor taste & good marketing.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
by good marketing, i mean publicity generation…
September 26th, 2006 at 2:28 am
Guess it gives whole new meaning to ‘ buying a cheap bomb ‘ to get to work.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:53 am
“It is not a stereotype either. The world is full of big scary guys with beards who want to cut your head off.”
But it IS a stereotype. Not every Muslim who sports a beard or wears a burqa is a jihadi and that seems to be a point that a lot of you have missed.
If you were to take a snapshot of what suicide bombers have looked like, you’d find there is no stereotype- not all of them are “big scary guys with beards” (eg. London bombers- young second gen Brits- one Jamaican background, three Pakistani background).
What’s wrong with this ad is that the image of jihadists is based on a stereotype that is damaging (and may have serious consequences) for men who don beards or women who wear burqa. If you believe in religious freedom (as many of you on this post have alluded to) then you MUST believe in religious freedom for everyone. I may not agree with the burqa or even the hijab- but I will defend any woman’s right to wear it if she so chooses becaue the principle of religious freedom should apply equally to all.
However, as a consequence of being marked as jihadi because of ads like this that exploit a stereotype, some people may lose their right to religious expression and choice. It’s a fact that after 9/11 a lot of women wearing hijab in Western countries, were forced to take it off because they were being targetted and many experienced violent episodes.
Whenever you build and/or perpetuate a stereotype, people will suffer. Stereotypes are not helpful to harmony and peaceful relations which is what is needed right now.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:58 am
The only analogy for jihadis I can think of are pirates or fascists. Both had been ridiculed profusely. PC activists, take a hike! You are tiresome.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Eva
The PC argument is a convenient one because each time you use it you can dismiss what anyone says as being PC and hence not worthy of consideration.
It’s a great way of invalidating arguements that sometimes have validity- just call them PC and you never have to deal with them right?
So when is being PC alright by you? When is it not “tiresome”? Is it OK to be PC about some things but not about others?
I’m really interested to know why you think that some of the arguments against this ad are PC and how you categorise that.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:33 am
It’s PC because the real reason why this ad will not be aired, is because the auto dealer fears violent retribution. But they can’t come out and say that, so they offer the standard pc response: that they are sensitive to muslim sensibilities and don’t want to offend anyone, when, in fact, the real reason was because they didn’t want to be the victim of islamic violence.
Every time CAIR gets their panties in a wad over something like this, the resentment from Americans continue to grow. It’s like a powder keg. Eventually, this will explode and Americans will say enough is enough.
Islam will get millions of people killed in the months and years to come. There. I said it.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:01 am
Usual Suspect,
Religious freedom doesn’t mean that people won’t make assumptions about you based on the way you choose to look. And it doesn’t mean that people won’t mock or ridicule your religion. If it did, then there’s a whole lot of Catholics in the USA who have no religious freedom.
Religious freedom just means that Congress (and the first amendment only places restrictions on Congress) can’t interfere with the free practice of your religion. Period.
It guarantees no one freedom from mockery, particularly if there is a good marketing strategy involved.
Furthermore, Jihadis suck. The more that Muslims take offense at barbs aimed at Jihadis, the more they will be assumed to be Jihadi sympathizers, and therefore be presumed to suck. My best advice - join the chorus. Particularly if you fancy a long beard.
May I suggest wearing a T-shirt that says “Someone went to a Pakistani Jihadi training camp, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.” Americans will universally appreciate the irony, and know deep down that you do not suck.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:24 am
Anon and BrooklynJon
I don’t think the ad is offensive or should be considered offensive to Muslims because I completely agree with BJ that the more Muslims take offense to these kinds of things the more they alienate themselves. Anon- yes CAIR should probably shut up on this issue because, and I can only guess, they are playing the whole “this if offensive to Islam” card. The ad is not offensive to Islam but it is damaging.
The argument against the ad is not so much based on it being offensive or wanting to be “sensitive to Muslim sensitivities” but rather that it is based on a damaging stereotype that does impact on people’s abilities to express their religion. Take for example the stereotype of the loose, promiscuous Western woman that abounds in much of the ME. That’s a very damaging stereotype and infact was blamed for the pack rape of Australian girls by a gang of young Lebanese men a couple of years ago. The men targetted the girls because they believed that Western girls were up for it. The same goes with stereotypes of girls who wear mini skirts and low cut tops “inviting rape”.
Craig’s post #25 says:
“The line i crossed in regards to religion only when you are are interfering with somebody’s ability to practice their religion unhindered and in peace. That’s a civil rights violation and a violation of the US Constitution, here in America. And it’s a human rights violation, everywhere in the world.”
If this ad were to cause people to start treating all Muslims who have beards or wear burqas as jihadis and if this then resulted in some women taking off the burqa or hijab for fear of being targetted is that not then “interfering with somebody’s ability to practice their religion unhindered”?
That would be my argument- the potential for the ad to create a situation where some people would be falsely identified as jihadis because they look like one.
Another dimension to this is that, trying to put a “face” on jihadis may actually hinder the effort to stop them. While everyone is busy accusing men in beards and women in burqas of being jihadis, the real threat may be coming from someone not so obvious. Again, I will allude to the London bombings where nobody, not the police, not the families or friends of the suicide bombers knew what they were up to because they simply did not fit the stereotype.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:26 am
PS- forgot to say that I love the T-shirt idea BJ- any idea where I can get one?
If you start making them, I’ll buy one.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:10 am
The Usual Suspect, you said,
The argument against the ad is not so much based on it being offensive or wanting to be “sensitive to Muslim sensitivities” but rather that it is based on a damaging stereotype that does impact on people’s abilities to express their religion.
Didn’t you read the statement from CAIR? They offered Dennis Mitsubishi training on Muslim sensibilities. Furthermore, when did the burqa or the hijab became a part of the religion of pieces?
The men targetted the girls because they believed that Western girls were up for it.
Or could it be that the girls were targetted by these low life scums because they were taught that unveiled girls were fair game? There’s a difference between being fair game and being up for it. Those criminals were just following their prophet’s examples, that’s all.
The ad didn’t target religion, Islam, or Muslims. It targetted jihadis, ie radical islamists, and here CAIR and many people were up in arms about it. This shows where CAIR stands. With their mouths, they say they oppose terrorism, but with their actions, they silence and intimidate anyone who criticizes those terrorists.
September 26th, 2006 at 6:22 am
Anon
Personally I don’t think that wearing burqa or hijab are part of Islam- I think they are cultural practices which is the very reason I don’t wear them. But it is obvious that some people (quite a few in fact) think that it is part of the religion. Who am I to tell them ‘no’- just as I would expect them to respect my decision not to wear it, I must also respect their decision to wear it.
I think we’re in agreement about CAIR so I fully support everything you’re saying in that regard.
With regard to the pack rapes- the guys who did it weren’t practising Muslims which means that they weren’t basing their actions on their knowledge of religious teachings (perhaps on their lack of knowledge) but I agree that they have ben taught that unveiled girls are fair game but I don’t consider that they would have done the same to unveiled Muslims or Arab girls- they did it to caucasian girls and referred to them as “Aussie pigs”. I’ve no doubt that the stereotype they had of Western women has a huge role to play here and I was using this as an example of how stereotypes can be damaging and can have serious consequences. Of course, you are right, it depends on who is carrying that stereotype and what other influences (be they religious or cultural) come into play. Perhaps another example then- a friend of mine had his bank accounts frozen when trying to open a new bank account because the teller thought that because he has a Muslim name he must be a terrorist. Again, working on false stereotypes. Meanwhile, the real terrorists are out there and nobody has a clue.
September 26th, 2006 at 7:25 am
Usual Suspect,
If this ad were to cause people to start treating all Muslims who have beards or wear burqas as jihadis and if this then resulted in some women taking off the burqa or hijab for fear of being targetted is that not then “interfering with somebody’s ability to practice their religion unhindered”?
Interesting claim. The violater of the civil rights would be the person who “targets” people with beards and burqas, though. Crimes have to be specific. You cna’t charge somebody with fear-mongering or hate-mongering, as annoying as that can be.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:13 am
Craig
True, very true.
Although in Australia, the Criminal Code has just been amended to introduce a two tier offence for racial vilification. The lesser offence which carries a prison sentence of up to 4 years includes intent to spread messages of racial hatred or actually spreading messages. The law was introduced after a hate campaign by the Australian Nationalist Movement targetting Asians and Africans and anyone caught with a poster or pamphletts can be prosecuted BUT there exists the burden of proof which means that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intent was to cause racial hatred- a very difficult thing to prove.
The Criminal Code does not include religious vilification so if someone were to target Muslims there would be no recourse because Islam is a religion, not a race (at least there has been no precedent to make a case for it). Interestingly though, Jews and Sikhs are both considered a race and hence covered by existing laws (precedent set in the UK and adopted in Au).
I don’t think the intent of the ad is to spread hatred in any way at all- it’s just a bit of fun. But I also think that there is no such thing as a free anything, including free speech because every action has a reaction. So my argument against the ad would have to be based on the potential cosequences it might have.
Now that I think about it that way- I guess it is PC in the way that Anon has described it- but not because of the reaction of Muslims to the ad, I think it is wise to ignore the CAIR- but rather the reaction against innocent people that may be fuelled by the ad.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:27 am
The Usual Suspect Says:”But it IS a stereotype. Not every Muslim who sports a beard or wears a burqa is a jihadi and that seems to be a point that a lot of you have missed.”
Then it is not a false stereotype then. And to be honest I have been tracking the Pew Center’s polls of the Islamic world and about half of all Muslims in the Middle East think that Osama Bin Laden is right. You think that more than half of them have beards? However it is likely to be a correct view of Jihadis who were the only people being mocked.
The Usual Suspect Says:”If you were to take a snapshot of what suicide bombers have looked like, you’d find there is no stereotype- not all of them are “big scary guys with beards” (eg. London bombers- young second gen Brits- one Jamaican background, three Pakistani background).”
Actually there is a valid stereotype in the West. They all tend to have one or two things in common: they are Muslims for one thing and young men for another. This is the absurdity of the Canadian police who arrest seventeen young men and say they have nothing in common - except of course names like Abdullah.
The Usual Suspect Says:”What’s wrong with this ad is that the image of jihadists is based on a stereotype that is damaging (and may have serious consequences) for men who don beards or women who wear burqa.”
My heart bleeds for them and their pain. That must be awful for them. To think, their fellow Americans might think they are supporters of terrorism. Why, that must be almost as painful as being slowly incinerated on the London Tube. I would give this arugment more, hell, any, credibility if there were any signs of Muslims giving a damn about the real damage that being done to real people by Jihadis.
The Usual Suspect Says:”If you believe in religious freedom (as many of you on this post have alluded to) then you MUST believe in religious freedom for everyone.”
And this is another spurious argument. Mocking Jihadis does not in any way shape or form prevent anyone exercising their rights to practice their religion.
The Usual Suspect Says:”I may not agree with the burqa or even the hijab- but I will defend any woman’s right to wear it if she so chooses becaue the principle of religious freedom should apply equally to all.”
And this remains utterly irrelevant. Car ads do not prevent anyone from doing anything. Just as I would defend the freedom of religion, I would also defend the freedom of speech - even for those assholes who yell obscenities at Muslims with big beards. I have just as much right to call them Osama as they do to wear a beard. That’s freedom for you.
The Usual Suspect Says:”However, as a consequence of being marked as jihadi because of ads like this that exploit a stereotype, some people may lose their right to religious expression and choice. It’s a fact that after 9/11 a lot of women wearing hijab in Western countries, were forced to take it off because they were being targetted and many experienced violent episodes.”
Big deal. And your argument remains spurious. There is no link whatsoever between that car ad and what some prat does on the street. Nor do I accept in any way shape or form the idea that there has been a rash of attacks on Muslimas. That is a myth spread yb CAIR as far as I can see. Even if it was so, the way to deal with that is through the criminal justice system for people who attack those women. Their right not to have their feelings hurts dwindles in comparison with the right to free speech and the right of kafirs not to be blown up.
The Usual Suspect Says:”Whenever you build and/or perpetuate a stereotype, people will suffer. Stereotypes are not helpful to harmony and peaceful relations which is what is needed right now.”
I do not accept that at all because the West does not have significant problems in that area. What has hurt “peaceful relations” is PC. The more PC a country is the more angry and violent its Muslims are. If we tell them the West is evil, big surprise, they believe it. What we need is a firm and forthright statement of Western values and an end to self-hatred. It would also be nice to see Muslims ending their harmful stereotypes of Jews and Christians - that is far more dangerous than a car ad. Peace cannot be a one-way street. The West has tried. The Muslims of the world, on the whole as a gross generalisation, have done nothing. Except murder more people.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Well, since I live in the land of Mayor Chocolate, I think this is funny as hell. They had a window display at a N’awlins Mall after Katrina and the national PC police talked about it. The man took it down, until he got hundreds of emails demanding he put it back up and only @ 10 complaining. His displays EVERY year are politically correct and funny as hell, so Katrina wasn’t off limits, nor should it have been. People would probably faint if they attented the Spanish Town Mardi Gras Parade in Baton Rouge. It’s always rude, crude and socially unacceptable. This year the theme was FEMAmature evacuation. People need to stop with the drama and laugh a little. Good Grief.
Hell, how many times have we heard about Jihad being an inner struggle? Isn’t buying/paying for a car a struggle?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:38 am
HeiGou
There is no point arguing with you because you obviously see Muslims as sub human and therefore not entitled to any of the freedoms you so dearly hold for yourself. You hate Muslims- fine- to each his own, but your hatred is affecting the rationality of your argument.
“Big deal… Nor do I accept in any way shape or form the idea that there has been a rash of attacks on Muslimas. That is a myth spread yb CAIR as far as I can see.”
Yes, it would be a big deal to you if it happend to people you know. It would be a big deal to you if your house got egged or your kids were spat at. It would be a bloody big deal to you if your own elderly mother was harrassed.
Oh, and by the way, bikies have long beards too- do you think they might be jihadis! Better not say that to them- they might kiss your arse!
September 26th, 2006 at 11:03 am
The Usual Suspect Says:”There is no point arguing with you because you obviously see Muslims as sub human and therefore not entitled to any of the freedoms you so dearly hold for yourself. You hate Muslims- fine- to each his own, but your hatred is affecting the rationality of your argument.”
If you think that there is no point arguing with you. I see Muslims as entitled to the same rights as I am and no more. If I sacrifice chickens on the Full Moon I fully expect other people to be a little grossed out. If I defend people who sacrifice chickens on the Full Moon, I fully expect a less than rational response from PETA. If I wore full Islamic dress I would expect people to be a little wary of me. I do not see what is wrong with that. That caution is not the problem - the people who blow up other people and behead them on the internet is the problem. If my hatred was the problem you would 1. be able to point out where this hatred is, and 2. refute it without any problems at all.
The Usual Suspect Says:”Yes, it would be a big deal to you if it happend to people you know. It would be a big deal to you if your house got egged or your kids were spat at. It would be a bloody big deal to you if your own elderly mother was harrassed.”
Racially motivated attacks on people I know are not uncommon. Egging someone’s house? You’re seriously claiming this is worse than blowing people up? Being spat on, and speaking as someone who has been spat on for racially-motivated reasons, feels awful, but having your skin burnt off is, in my opinion, a little worse. Perhaps you disagree? When Westerners start beheading Muslim school girls on their way to school, as some not-very-nice Muslims did in Indonesia the other day, you can start complaining about how badly Muslims are treated. In the meantime it is offensive to claim that the badm but minor, problems Muslims have in the West is worse than Islamic terrorism.
The Usual Suspect Says:”Oh, and by the way, bikies have long beards too- do you think they might be jihadis! Better not say that to them- they might kiss your arse!”
And the Aryan Brotherhood does too. Thus proving that people with beards, at the risk of an offensive generalisation, are people you want to keep away from. No doubt you would argue that it would be wrong to treat anyone with a beard, a lot of tatoos, leather jackets and shaven heads any different from anyone else? But would you pick someone called Bubba dressed like that to share a prison cell with or a computer nerd called Bobby?
September 26th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Aha HeiGou
Now I get where you’re coming from. I did not at all claim that the attacks against some Muslims are anything in comparison to terrorist attacks carried out by militant Islamists- this is your perception and your words- not mine. You use your words to invalidate what I say because you cannot accept that there may be legitimate reasons for some Muslims to be afraid of the backlash from some people. Just as there may be legitimate reasons for people to be wary of men in beards and women in burqas.
And this is exactly why I say that your hatred clouds your judgement because if I speak up and say “wait a minute some Muslims are having problems with religious vilification- let’s not put all Muslims in the same category because it does nothing” you turn around and say “so what? they deserve it.”
Problem is that the ones being targetted aren’t the ones who flew the planes into the Twin Towers and they’re not the ones beheading young girls. So what do you get out of hating them, huh? Nothing but personal satisfaction- something to vent your hatred and your frustration out on. Fair enough HeiGou- some people need something or someone to hate and you have yours- but you also need to realise that hate gets you nowhere. Be constructive, not destructive.
BTW meant the last post to read “kick your arse” don’t know where I got “kiss your arse” from. Must be all the love I’m feeling from your posts
I hate the jihadis just as much as you but I’m not going to let that cloud my judgement or my reason because God gave me a brain and the capacity to think!
September 26th, 2006 at 11:59 am
The Usual Suspect Says:”Now I get where you’re coming from. I did not at all claim that the attacks against some Muslims are anything in comparison to terrorist attacks carried out by militant Islamists- this is your perception and your words- not mine. You use your words to invalidate what I say because you cannot accept that there may be legitimate reasons for some Muslims to be afraid of the backlash from some people. Just as there may be legitimate reasons for people to be wary of men in beards and women in burqas.”
I can’t think where I might have got that idea from. There may well be many legitimate reasons for some Muslims to fear a backlash - in many cases, to my regret, those fears are groundless. When Muhammed Atta’s Father says he wishes he had more sons who would do the same I think it is time for a little backlash. In most cases, the trivial number of incidents in the West are clearly not justified or justifiable, but on the global scale of justice, it is such a minor problem it is irrelevant. What is not, of course, is the usual bleat from Muslim organisations claiming victimhood. Muslims are not the victims of 9 11. Kafirs are.
The Usual Suspect Says:”And this is exactly why I say that your hatred clouds your judgement because if I speak up and say “wait a minute some Muslims are having problems with religious vilification- let’s not put all Muslims in the same category because it does nothing” you turn around and say “so what? they deserve it.””
I do not say they deserve it. I say the only victims of 9-11 are not Muslims. Or not many. I have no hatred here. Muslims are not having a problem with religious villification because the West has fallen over itself to be “sensitive”. Kafirs have the only problem with religious villification as Memri shows everyday.
Besides, how do you know that putting all Muslims in the same category would do nothing? There is clearly a tribal mind-set in much of the Muslim world which says that if you’re offended anyone related to the offender will do. So the Mujis in Iraq are threatening to kill all the Christians in Iraq for the Pope’s comments. It may well be that to punish some Muslims, even at random, would be understood in the Muslim world as natural and might work. Not, I hasted to add, I am advocating such an approach but how do you know your values are the only ones that count?
The Usual Suspect Says:”Problem is that the ones being targetted aren’t the ones who flew the planes into the Twin Towers and they’re not the ones beheading young girls.”
How do you know? The people who did both were religious Muslims. People who wear beards and burka tend to fall into both categories. If God magically disappeared every single beard- or burka-wearing Muslim on the planet do you think there would be any terrorists left?
The Usual Suspect Says:”So what do you get out of hating them, huh? Nothing but personal satisfaction- something to vent your hatred and your frustration out on. Fair enough HeiGou- some people need something or someone to hate and you have yours- but you also need to realise that hate gets you nowhere. Be constructive, not destructive.”
Again you are blaming the victims and avoid responsibility. I deny the hate and even if I did, it would be, in the circumstances, understandable. People who murder other people cannot expect their victims to like them.
The Usual Suspect Says:”I hate the jihadis just as much as you but I’m not going to let that cloud my judgement or my reason because God gave me a brain and the capacity to think!”
I doubt the first as it happens. Besides what are you getting out of that hate but personal satisfaction? I do not see you being constructive at all.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Aww HeiGou
I’m trying to do some work and you keep drawing me into this- OK this is my last response. Promise. Coz I really have to get back into trying to understand what the hell is meant by ‘the problematic of experience and the dialectic relationship between experience and discursive understanding’- don’t ask! but if someone out there could explain it to me that would be great. Anyway that’s off the topic.
Now, let’s see. First of all Muslims are also the victims of jihadis- they don’t just hate non-Muslim kafirs they also hate Muslim kafirs who don’t agree with what they say- so they hate us all!
Secondly, terrorism is indiscriminate killing- Muslims were killed in the Bali bombings and 9/11- do you think the jihadis warned all the Muslims to get out of there before they bombed? No they didn’t.
Thirdly you say- “People who wear beards and burka tend to fall into both categories. If God magically disappeared every single beard- or burka-wearing Muslim on the planet do you think there would be any terrorists left?”
Seriously, HeiGou c’mon. As if it is only beards and burqas who are terrorists. I’ve seen pictures of the London bombers and they didn’t all have beards or wear burqas (that’s a joke- get it- because they were all men). But Michael Jackson wore a burqa when he went on a shopping trip in Dubai- aha- we have found a terrorist! Good work 99. Now that’s being constructive!
Seriously tho’ they want you to hate all Muslims mate- that’s what they want- they want a war between the West and Islam so that they can recruit more people to blow themselves up by saying “look the kafirs hate us, they want to destroy us, they want to oppress us, they want to eradicate us…” Why play their game?
First you say “What is not, of course, is the usual bleat from Muslim organisations claiming victimhood.”
Then you say “Again you are blaming the victims and avoid responsibility”
Two things- are you claiming victimhood? I think you are- not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Secondly why should I have any responsibility? I am not responsible for terrorist attacks why should I try to avoid responsibility? I’m just a person trying desperately to understand what the problematic of experience and discursive reality is- which reminds me…better get back to work!
September 26th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
The Usual Suspect -
Uhm. Jihadis seem to be succesful in their attempt to make the West dislike and fear Muslims. Why? Because the apparently non-Jihadi Muslims are openly supportive of Jihadis at almost-worst and keeping the omerta at almost-best.
Remember Ilan Halimi? From where I stand, the neighbors who knew about it - I am not even talking about the neighbors and friends who dropped in to torture the man a bit on their way to work - are mosters. They should be hung in public squares of banlieues, and their corpses used by the police for target practice.
And this is exactly the position of the silently or vocally Jihadi-supporting Muslims.
What do you EXPECT the West to think in such a situation?
September 26th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Racoon
I am trying to avoid reading Focault so I need distraction. Damn- have avoided him all this time.
Yes I remember Ilan Halimi. Yes they are monsters.
Remember Timothy McVeigh by any chance? What about the Port Arthur massacre? How about Idi Amin? or even the Kelly gang? Oh and what about all the Catholic Priests who prey on young boys or the Asian triads or the Italian Mafia or the IRA? What about the massacres at Shatilla and Sabra? Are these people not monsters too?
Now before you go accusing me of being a terrorist sympathiser or anything like that- I am not condoning the terrible things that happened to Ilan (may he rest in peace), but I am telling you that there are many miseries in this world and many people suffering loss and grieving every day.
I don’t EXPECT the West to think anything in such a situation but I do expect individuals with brains to realise that hating the how many billions of Muslims around the globe is not a solution to anything.
I don’t get why you guys always refer to the silence of Muslims. As far as I know, lots of Muslims and Muslim organisations have openly spoken against terrorism and many more are trying hard to combat the jihadi messages- I mean what do you think Sandmonkey is doing? Is he silent? What about the host of other anti- jihadi bloggers? Are they being silent? Perhaps I hear and see what I want to hear and you hear and see what you want to hear and see.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Focault sucks
The difference between all the cases you have mentioned and this one is the reasons and the reaction of the community.
The murder by torture of Ilan Halimi was done by a whole community. The reason was racial and religious hatred. And the reaction of the said community was, with a few exceptions… silence.
Just think about it - how many anti-Jihadi demonstrations were staged by Muslims? How many people attended? How many pro-Jihadi demonstrations were straged by Muslims? How many people attended?
How many vocal anti-Jihadi Muslims are out there? How many vocal pro-Jihadi Muslims?
SM, PB, Drima - these guys drown in a sea of pro-Jihadi insanity. Sorry, sista… I wish it was not so. But ignorin