How so? I can understand how people who see the ads might conflate terrorism with Islam (which they already do anyway) because of the general political and cultural millieu in which we live. I didn't see any such conflation in the ads themselves, however. Could you enlighten me?
In Islam, jihad has a number of meanings that don't just refer to terrorism. Using the term in a car ad would be like using Christian images of Christ's crucifixion to sell nail guns.
They refer to jihadists, or terrorists, who are a subset of Muslims. In the same vein, the people who have supported Israel's policies toward the Palestinians are a subset both of Jews and Israelis; Israel's policies do not enjoy universal support within Israel, of course. "Keeping down high car prices like the IDF keeps down the Palestinians" would be a better equivalent.
See above - in Islam, jihad has very different connotations than what is has to non-Muslims. I mean, even if we go by your example - don't you think Jews would be offended by your "Keeping down high car prices like the IDF keeps down the Palestinians" campaign? Especially if the IDF forces were depicted doing things that reinforced bad stereotypes about Jews?
Israel is not a religious based state
The Law of Return considers both religion and ethnicity. Granted, it's rare for people to convert to Judaism, so the ethnicity and the faith are essentially congruent, but that doesn't mean Israel is not a religious based state - particularly since Jews from different areas have different traditions.
It decontextualizes jihad, takes it from the realm of the fearful unknown and allows us to laugh at it.
Is that really the intent of this ad? Considering the context of where it was to be broadcast (the insular midwest), I view it as more of a case of "othering" Muslims and Islam - like racist World War II era advertisements that featured shifty eyed "Japs" or the Aunt Jemima tradition of using caricatured African-Americans. While I can see where you're coming from, I think you're giving the advertiser (and the intended audience) far too much credit.
In Islam, jihad has a number of meanings that don't just refer to terrorism. Using the term in a car ad would be like using Christian images of Christ's crucifixion to sell nail guns.
The analogy fails unless one of the meanings of jihad involves transportation (nail gun--car dealership) that Muslims consider sacred.
In addition, while I'm sure that jihad is important, I strongly suspect it doesn't hold a comparable position in Islam to Jesus in Christianity.
I mean, even if we go by your example - don't you think Jews would be offended by your "Keeping down high car prices like the IDF keeps down the Palestinians" campaign? Especially if the IDF forces were depicted doing things that reinforced bad stereotypes about Jews?
Some Jews would be offended, and some wouldn't. Just as the actions of the IDF don't reflect even on all Israelis, much less on all Jews, the actions of Muslim terrorists don't reflect on all Muslims for most people. When you get right down to it, if someone's opinion of an entire group of people (Muslims, Jews, or whomever) is going to be seriously influenced by an advertisement for a car dealership, then there's something else at work.
Either way, I really wouldn't care if some Jews got offended by such an ad. The IDF's brutality in the Occupied Territories is well-documented, and the suffering and death caused by jihad (as Muslim extremists interpret it) is even better known. Again, I wouldn't be stupid enough to run something like that if it were my car dealership, but this is America, and if you want to make stupid ads, you can make stupid ads. Media outlets can accept or refuse them at their discretion, and people can complain, write letters, demonstrate, boycott, or buy cars from a dealership at their discretion as well.
The IDF, after all, is the IDF. It would be another matter entirely if the ad went "This week and this week only, we're changing our name to Hebe-Mart! Come on over and see if you can jew us down on the price of a new car! Come see our roomy new SUV! It seats 2 Jews in the front seat, 4 in the back, and 20 in the ashtray!"
Now that's offensive. Not to mention insensitive, bigoted, stupid, in-poor-taste, and impolitic. But it's probably protected speech.
The Law of Return considers both religion and ethnicity.
True, but as you point out:
it's rare for people to convert to Judaism,
however,
so the ethnicity and the faith are essentially congruent
is not true. Almost half of Israeli Jews self-identify as either secular or anti-religious. I don't think a facet of Israeli immigration law that is responsible for the inclusion of a miniscule number of religiously (but not ethnically) Jewish Israeli citizens makes Israel a religious state.
Is that really the intent of this ad?
Of course not, but the intent of the ad wasn't to "other" Muslims, either. The intent of the ad was to sell cars. Both the "othering" of Muslims and the benefits I suggested in my last post would both have been possible side effects of Mr. Dennis's intent.
like racist World War II era advertisements that featured shifty eyed "Japs" or the Aunt Jemima tradition of using caricatured African-Americans.
Those WWII era ads differ from the dealership ad in three respects:
- The WWII ads were ethnic/racial caricatures. The dealership ad is a caricature of a subset of a voluntary-membership group.
- Because they were racial/ethnic stereotypes, they reinforced beliefs about an entire group of people regardless of their individual differences. In addition, the ads appeared against a backdrop of similarly racist government war propaganda, the internment of Japanese-Americans, and the severe and widespread curtailment of the civil liberties of perceived "enemy" groups. If you've read my posts in other threads, you'll know that I am not at all happy with the current civil rights situation in the U.S, but I don't think it's nearly as bad now (for both citizens and non-citizens) as it was during WWII. In addition, the government is publicly supportive of making the distinction between terrorists who happen to be Muslims and the (much vaster) Muslim population as a whole. Believe it or not, that makes a difference.
- The ads you refer to were visual. They encouraged the visual identification of people with certain features as "the enemy" or (in the case of African-American caricatures) as stupid or brutish. The dealership ads were only on the radio, I believe. As a consequence, the jihadist is identified by what he does (that which makes him a jihadist) rather than what he looks like or even what he believes more generally. If people listened to the radio ad and made the mental connection jihadist--->all Muslims or jihadist--->Arabs, then that's the fault of the news and other media; ironically, some of the same media that refused to carry the dealership's ads, but were happy to broadcast pro-war propaganda in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.
Jihad is important. Some of the branches of Shia hold jihad to be as central to their faith as prayer and making the hajj. So, when a car dealership tries to get some cheap chuckles out of using the imagery of terrorists loaded into their cars by referring to them as jihadists, it is insulting to Islam.
Jihad is not terrorism and it's not purely waging war against the infidel (although it can be used sometimes in the latter sense, it is never used for the former). Jihad, as a term of faith, means "struggle" and it can be some sort of religious and moral struggle for your faith and belief in Islam or it can be used to describe fighting against those who oppose Islam.
Thus, besides being an insulting term and an attack upon a religion, it's also World Class stupid to try to sell cars by evoking images of wild-eyed terrorists armed to the gills with RPG's and AK-47s rolling off the lot down at Dennis Mitsubishi.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
Jihad is important. Some of the branches of Shia hold jihad to be as central to their faith as prayer and making the hajj. So, when a car dealership tries to get some cheap chuckles out of using the imagery of terrorists loaded into their cars by referring to them as jihadists, it is insulting to Islam.
From the wikipedia article you quoted:
"Individuals involved in the political or military forms of jihad are often labeled with the neologism 'jihadist' or 'jihadi'."
The word is in much broader use than in Mitsubishi advertisements. I've often heard it on news shows. Is the objection that the term gives the idea that jihad is solely about war and fighting? If so, "Islam", the apparently monolithic entity that is insulted by the word, has some letter-writing and PR work to do. Or is the objection that the word is being used to sell cars?
Jihad is not terrorism and it's not purely waging war against the infidel (although it can be used sometimes in the latter sense, it is never used for the former). Jihad, as a term of faith, means "struggle" and it can be some sort of religious and moral struggle for your faith and belief in Islam or it can be used to describe fighting against those who oppose Islam.
Also from the wikipedia article:
"The term 'jihad' is often used to describe purely physical and military 'religious war', through physical struggle and use of weapons. Some Muslim scholars say that this only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad."
Some Muslim scholars. Only part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad. That's hardly a univocal condemnation from within Islam of the concept of violence against infidels qua infidels. And it's disingenuous to suggest that "terrorism" isn't a part of the "Islamic" concept of "jihad." It may not be a majority view, but obviously some Muslims do believe that terrorism is valid religious expression.
Thus, besides being an insulting term and an attack upon a religion, it's also World Class stupid to try to sell cars by evoking images of wild-eyed terrorists armed to the gills with RPG's and AK-47s rolling off the lot down at Dennis Mitsubishi.
Wait, the ads didn't mention RPGs and AK-47s did they? They just mentioned the term 'jihadist'. And if that's all they did...well, you filled in the rest, didn't you?
In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.
would be like using Christian images of Christ's crucifixion to sell nail guns.
Frankly, this sounds awesome.
-----
The earth may fail, but we will quiver
