Building Bridges with Mustard-Colored Leather?
The other night at our Jewschool meetup, Mobius snapped a photo of me with my purse, which I bought at Brooklyn Industries. He’s just the latest person to be shocked or intrigued by the bag since I bought it last September. Because I’m a Jewish girl walking around town carrying a purse with Arabic words on it, I thought it would be smart to get a bona fide Arabic speaker to tell me what the symbols meant. I consulted three separate people who didn’t know each other, and each translated it about the same way, boiling it down to “Allah helps Muhammad to triump over his enemies.” There was some disagreement about whether it meant “his” enemies as in Muhammad’s personal enemies, or those of Islam in general, but I was satisfied with the translation nonetheless.
My bag, in addition to being the perfect size for a couple of books and a granola bar, has led me to conversations I might never have had otherwise. Different Muslim people have come up to me on the street and in the grocery store to ask if I understood the Arabic script, and every single one of them was kind, cool, and excited that I had some idea what I was talking about. I’ve even begun an email correspondence with one woman who personally knew the bag’s designer. So far, no one said anything about the tricky ethics of printing Arabic on the skin of a dead cow.
I often worry about posting on this site because I’m a cultural critic, not a political writer. There’s so much intelligent discussion on this site that I’m afraid of looking frivolous. But the last few months of toting my bag around the city with me have made me realize that it’s more than “just a purse.” There are many ways to have intelligent interfaith conversation, and they don’t always have to take place in a boardroom or office. Sometimes they’re with people you run into on the sidwalk and interact with for five minutes. And if I can lug around all my stuff with me in the meantime, bonus.
Um, shouldn’t you be concerned about the fact that it is basically supporting jihad?
Wow! That’s so totally awesome! Maybe since you have some idea what you’re talking about and all, you can tell me about the history of interfaith dialogue between Muhammad and his enemies! Why don’t you start with the Banu Qurayza?
Why is it that we *like* christians but hate muslims? And don’t give me the Jihad stuff. Christians had crusades, which were worse. Could this be some sort of racist thing?
Here’s your answer:
It’s not Arabic but rather Ottoman Turkish which used the Arabic script. What you have is a seal of an Ottoman sultan – likely that of Suleyman The Magnificent (Suleyman Kanuni – the lawgiver in Turkish) who ruled from 1520-1566 and amongst other things had the current walls built around Jerusalem. His seal (tughra) became the seal of the Ottoman Empire. “A tughra is an outstanding calligraphic imperial rigging, monogram or a kind of signature of Ottoman Sultans. It bears the names of the sultan and his father and the prayer statement “ever victorious†in most.” (Wikipedia). You can see a picture of the seal in the enclosed link.
You might also note that Suleyman I, besides building the walls of Jerusalem (something we pray for in each Birkat Hamazon) was also the nephew of Bayezid II (The Just) who allowed the Jews thrown out of Spain and Portugal to settle in the Ottoman Empire.
I will give the people with the ignorant/racist comments above a chance to recant…
Yes. It’s a racist thing. Because there is a Muslim race. I mean, all Muslims are Arabs, right? So criticizing toting around triumphalist statements as fashion, or noting that the Christians haven’t had a crusade in 700 years whereas jihad is a very healthy part of much of modern Islamic theology is, like, totally racist, right? God, I’m so glad that ramming everything in the straitjacket of “racism” has freed me from the responsibility of having to debate or, y’know, think.
While you are at it, you should get a chinese symbol tattoo, maorl tribal armband, celtic necklace, and wear an Indian sari. Then you’d be a complete cultural parasite.
Master your own culture before you usurp another’s.
Hey Michael, the woman said she isn’t political, and this choice of a purse wasn’t political, so why the hell are you attacking her for being political?
And as for the Banu Qurayza issue, as I explained in the post about Jews for Allah, the Zionists are lying, and anyway, the Jews asked for it. Does every last post touching on Islam have to be about Banu Qurayza, Michael? This isn’t the Zionist blog, okay?
Kelsey, I think when a girl sits on your lap your brain stops working. Which is, admittedly, a common affliction among men, so I guess I can forgive you.
Now, I attacked nobody for being political. Just insensitive to be strutting around touting an ideology for which a great many Jews have been persecuted and killed. Or did I miss the new ‘His blood be upon us and our people’ Urban Outfitters shirt and the ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ Louis Vuitton line? I don’t really follow fashion…
Cute girl.
Nice purse.
Overall message…D –
Hey, Shtreimel, keep the sexism out of it, eh? Did dint’ see anyone commenting on how hot any of the male Jewschool writers were when Mobius provided us with pictures…
Sexist!!?? The girl’s IS cute…and the purse IS nice. Where’s the sexism? You want sexism…here…$100 bet that you won’t be seeing an overweight Jewess on the pages of Jewschool anytime soon. Remember Mob’s fawning of the suicide girls? And all the justifications that went along with it. It’s the “I read Hustler for the articles” philosphy.
I must have come to the site after any Suicide Girls discussion. From what I’ve read, it’s a lousy site to work for.
And as for my comment, you basically wrote that you didn’t like the author’s message, but at least she was cute. That’s pretty dismissivel, and I’m I’m guessing you (and others) would be less likely to say it to a guy; if you didn’t like a man’s writing, wouldn’t you likely just say that you didn’t like it, not comment on whether he was cute?
I feel sad that we have upset her feeling that there is “intelligent” discussion on this site. So far there has been very little intelligent argument, and mostly just whining.
I’m curious. Why do you carry around a bag that does incourage the killing of our people? The benefit you apparently get from it is that you have intelligent interfaith dicussions outside of the boardroom. What do you get from those conversations? Are people more happy to hear that a Jew isn’t outraged at the concept of G-d helping massacre any people, or are the happy that you are interested in their culture? I have trouble seeing what kind of dialogue this is creating? Perhaps more positive dialogue could be created by printing in Arabic “Allah and Mohammed praise those who live peacefully with all nations,” I’m pretty sure there is something in the Koran about being nice.
Don’t let some reactionary posts keep you away, I would be interested in hearing how you feel carrying this bag around has helped interfaith/cultural relations? Unfortunately, though you may wish to stay away from politics, walking around with a bag that, to me, clearly advocates jihad against Jews and Christians (and well anyone besides Muslims), puts you squarely in the political field.
You talked about the tricky ethics of printing arabic on leather.
Carrying around a bag that advocates the killing of your own people also involves some slightly tricky ethics.
I just want to put this out there:
But I am so happy that the Torah has nothing in it about killing people who oppose us.
Waitaminnit…..
By the way, regarding this bag, with a statement on it that can placed within a specific historical context regardless of how it may be interpreted today…
How does it clearly advocate jihad against Jews, Christians, and any non-Muslims? Honestly, how the hell do you go from point A to point B?
Anytime there’s a statement in Tanach that would be similar to this, and an anti-Semite uses it against us, we always come forth with “well, you’re taking it out of context…that’s not what it means!”.
That seems to be exactly what is happening in this thread. What if Muhammad’s enemies in that tract of the Koran are ignorance, greed, dishonesty?
The second half of your post clearly shows that you don’t have any trouble getting from A to B either.
You start with a valid question, how do I know the bag references jihad on non-muslims? The problem arises when you don’t argue the reasons why I should assume it references anything else. You go on to assume that it IS referencing non-muslims by arguing about the violent lines in the Tanach, and talking about context.
OK, so lets start over, I’m fluent in arabic and walking down the street (both not true currently, anyway), I live in a world overflowing with violence and killing in the name of whatever god, especially in the Middle East. These are current events on everyone’s mind right? So I read a bag about Mohammed triumphing over his enemies, and my mind jumps to… greed? come on, lets be honest in acknowledging what message this bag is meant to convey. The statement isn’t taken out of context; it is intended to be read in the context of society and current events.
If I come off a little confrontational I’m sorry but I don’t see how you think it could possibly mean anything other than jihad. If you have arguments for interpreting it the other way I’d love to hear them, seriously.
bad color…bad message….ugly bag overall….
And how do we know that jihad means jihad?
Ok, ok…..
Your paths from one point to another are clearly profoundly different from my own. First of all, you’re doing the online equivalent of putting words in my mouth.
By mentioning the Tanach, I am not pointing out my assumption that this is about violence. I am addressing the fact that everyone else in this thread jumped straight to their stereotype of “the violent Muslim”. You’re now missing the context of this thread. And I think it’s absurd to see all of these responses, given the overwhelming amount of violent content in Tanach.
There is no statement of Jihad in the translation of that sentence, and even that (as BZ shows us) is a widely misinterpreted concept that is happily distorted by the mainstream media. I’m not so sure half of us would even recognize the word Jihad if it weren’t in the subtitles of every movie with terrorists made in the last 15-20 years.
And sure, let’s read that statement in the context of current events. Allah’s enemies? The greedy, dishonest Western world that has been interfering with the Middle East for way, way too long.
Triumphing over enemies doesn’t necessarily have to mean killing them; perhaps it just means finally being left the fuck alone to live your own life for once.
As for the bag itself, I live in New York, just moved to Brooklyn. I see what’s called “Muslim Chic” everywhere, and I think it’s hipster nonsense, all due respect to Lilit. After all of the negative portrayal of this community in America, now their language and culture gets hijacked for fashion purposes?
And hey, even I used to parade down the street in an Israeli army t-shirt…..Isn’t the Salute to Israel Parade next week?
I don’t care if you’re being confrontational. I don’t care what it means, and I don’t have to argue that it could mean something else. It could mean 1,000 things. How much could you possibly know about Islam if you jumped straight to Jihad, not to mention the fact that this piece of text is explained explicity very early on in the thread?
Interesting that it’s the same color of badges the nazis forced Jews to wear.
The exegetical question regarding whether the message on the bag is about killing heretics seems misguided just as drawing on the Tanakh for sources of Jewish violence. We understand the message as a support for jihad not by its original context (because how many of us here have encyclopedic knowledge of the koran) but because how it is used today. There is no question that some Muslims use that quotation as justification for violence. In that regard, meaning is imbued through interpretation. Similarly, it seems inappropriate to fault the Tanakh for violent tendencies that have been erraticated by rabbinic exegesis. The violent tendencies that remain in the tradition as well as the viloent streams of Judaism (which happen to be fringe, i think) should be faulted.
I should add that I understand very much that my view of exegesis is replecation of Paul Ricouer and Levinas so in that regard if you are a fundamentalist in the classical sense you will probably disagree.
I do find that particular shade of yellow used in that bag more upsetting than the actual message-
There’s a long history of Jews being forced to wear yellow badges.
* 717 Caliph Omar II orders both Jews and Christians to wear a distinguishing mark.
* 807 Persia Abbassid Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders Jews to wear yellow belt, blue for Christians.
* 853 Caliph Al-Mutavallil of Persia issues a yellow badge edict.
* 1005 Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim orders Jews of Egypt and the Land of Israel to wear bells on their garments and “golden calf” (made of wood) around the neck. In 1301, they were obliged to wear yellow turbans.
* 1121 A letter from Baghdad describes decrees regulating Jewish clothes: “two yellow badges, one on the headgear and one on the neck. Furthermore, each Jew must hang round his neck a piece of lead with the word dhimmi on it. He also has to wear a belt round his waist. The women have to wear one red and one black shoe and have a small bell on their necks or shoes.” (Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews, p.204)
* 1215 Fourth Lateran Council headed by Pope Innocent III declares: “Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress.” (Canon 68)
* 1219 Pope Honorius III issues a dispensation to the Jews of Castile.
* 1222 Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton orders English Jews to wear white band, later changed to yellow.
* 1228 James I orders Jews of Aragon to wear the badge.
* 1267 In a special session, the Vienna city council forces Jews to wear Pileum cornutum (a cone-shaped head dress, prevalent in many medieval illustrations of Jews). This distinctive dress is an addition to yellow badge Jews were already forced to wear.
* 1269 France June 19. St. Louis IX of France ordered all Jews found in public without a badge (AKA rouelle or roue) to be fined ten livres of silver.
* 1274 Edward I of England enforces the decree. The badge was a piece of yellow cloth in the shape of the Tablets of the Law which had to be worn above the heart by every Jew over the age of seven.
* 1294 Erfurt: The earliest mention of the badge in Germany.
* 1315–1326 Emir Ismael Abu-I-Walid forces the Jews of Granada to wear the yellow badge.
* 1321 Henry II of Castile forces the Jews to wear the yellow badge.
* 1415 Bull of the Avignon Pope Benedict XIII insists the Jews to wear a yellow and red badge, the men on their breast, the women on their forehead.
* 1434 Emperor Sigismund reintroduces the badge at Augsburg.
* 1528 The municipal board of Venice allows famous physician and professor Jacob Mantino ben Samuel to wear the regular black doctors’ cap instead of Jewish yellow hat for two months (period extended later), upon the recommendation of the French and English ambassadors, the papal legate, and other dignitaries numbered among his patients.
* 1555 Pope Paul IV decrees, in his Cum nimis absurdum, that the Jews should wear yellow hats.
* 1566 King Sigismund II passes a law that required Lithuanian Jews to wear yellow hats and head coverings. The law was abolished twenty years later.
http://www.answers.com/topic/yellow-badge
Speaking Arabic has a similar effect– people become extremely warm and friendly. It’s quite magical, how people react when they feel that you respect their culture and identity.
However, despite this particular script being the seal of whoever-it-was (probably why it’s on the bag), I’d prefer not to wear something that could be construed to mean killing me. Even if it’s out context, or what have you.
Baalam, if people were putting verses from the Torah that advocate something like jihad on purses or other garments, I would hope we would condemn it and have the same reaction. But one thing — we aren’t (or at least I haven’t seen such a thing).
That the Muslims are putting pro-jihad verses instead of pro-peace verses TODAY — and not in the past, not hidden away in scripture but not utilized or referenced regularly, etc. If anyone is advocating Crusades I would condemn that too — but it’s not happening. And many Jews are anti-Christian (wrongly).
How is it again that white europeans have come to feel entitled to land in the middle east? Oh, right, your religion tells you that it’s yours.
When you say “The Muslims”, whom exactly are you referring to?
One designer puts one statement on the bag, that cannot actually be defined as we would apparently like it to be, and all of a sudden it’s “The Muslims”.
How would Irshad Manji view this purse as opposed to Ismail Haniyeh?
We, I guess they’re both “The Muslims”, so they would probably say the same thing and try to kill us.
Muffti agrees with Shtremiel. The woman is pretty cute. And to keep it non-sexists, the male posters for Jewschool are not cute. Except maybe EV. Ah, what the hell. Kelsey’s got some angles where he ain’t so bad 😉
Muffti,
Regardless of how often I post, it has been universally acknowledged that I am one of the most attracive men in the Jewish blogosphere.
Exhibit A: http://flickr.com/photos/jewschool/153474954/in/set-72157594145526340/
Sincerely,
Balaam’s “Sexy Beast” Donkey
I’m not sure. I want to encourage the young woman’s (and everybody at the party looks SO young to me) sincereity in encouraging interfaith dialogue. But I can’t get past the fairly detached tone of the entry. Those are fightin words on that satchel, and in a society where words meant something other than something to wear on your clothes, those words would be likely be used to chop the sincere young woman’s head off.
Gee whiz, sometimes a bag is just a bag. Even Marry Poppins would have a hard time to put all the Muslims in hers. Give her a break. And if a Jew and a Muslim who otherwise would not met, get talking and help foster – however little – a mutual recognition of our sameness (we all like being noticed), all the better.
Hi, Michigan Mishuganer. As someone born in Ann Arbor and who went to elementary school in Kalamazoo, I like your handle!
But do you really think that the yellow-brown color of this purse is symbolic? I honestly have to doubt it. The quote on the bag, while problematic, doesn’t mention Jews at all. And the examples you cite are of Jews being forced to wear yellow–not of non-Jews printing triumphalist messages on yellow.
All Muslims certainly are NOT Arabs. The largest Muslim country is Indonesia. Iran is also not an Arab country. If I’m not mistaken, Islam, like Judaism, is a religion, not an ethnic group.
I’ve worn yellow many times, especially when I have a tan; it never occurred to me that I was singling myself out as a Jew…
In fact, of the countries with the top 10 largest Muslim populations, only two (Egypt and Morocco) are Arab countries.
I, personally, did not intend to call you a traitor or unintelligent, and i apologize if anything I said came across that way. My point, before it was degenerated into essentially semantics, was why wear a bag that says what it says? Perhaps some disagree about its meaning, but judging by most of the responses, most people see a clear connection between it and advocating fighting against non-muslims.
I wasn’t trying to suggest you are dumb for carrying such a bag around, if you read my first post again, I (myself at least) was trying to figure out what kind of dialogue it actually created for you. And when I talked about tricky ethics, I wasn’t accusing you of agreeing with the bags message, I was just wondering what interfaith discussion it helped start. I truly apologize if my post was one that you felt attacked by, I was merely trying to get at what you feel the bag is actually doing.
-Balaam’s Donkey: Your response to my post started out strong by allowing for a difference of interpretation in what the bag says, and that I like. But then you say I’m putting words in your mouth, but the only thing you talked about was the Tanach and violence. in an effective debate you would argue why you feel it should be interpreted your way, instead of attacking my perceived lack of knowledge in Islam. You don’t HAVE to list your reasons, as you complain about later in the post, thats just merely how one would have intelligent discourse. Saying that I know nothing because I assumed that a phrase printed out of context about triumphing over enemies could possibly have anything to do with Jihad is not intelligent discourse. I think Amechad stated pretty well, the difference between the violence involved in this phrase out of context on a bag, and the violence contained in the Tanach, but you merely argued semantics with him too.
j-lady also said it with this line: “We understand the message as a support for jihad not by its original context (because how many of us here have encyclopedic knowledge of the koran) but because how it is used today.” That is essentially how I got from point A to point B.
shalom
I, personally, did not intend to call you a traitor or unintelligent, and i apologize if anything I said came across that way. My point, before it was degenerated into essentially semantics, was why wear a bag that says what it says? Perhaps some disagree about its meaning, but judging by most of the responses, most people see a clear connection between it and advocating fighting against non-muslims.
I wasn’t trying to suggest you are dumb for carrying such a bag around, if you read my first post again, I (myself at least) was trying to figure out what kind of dialogue it actually created for you. And when I talked about tricky ethics, I wasn’t accusing you of agreeing with the bags message, I was just wondering what interfaith discussion it helped start. I truly apologize if my post was one that you felt attacked by, I was merely trying to get at what you feel the bag is actually doing.
-Balaam’s Donkey: Your response to my post started out strong by allowing for a difference of interpretation in what the bag says, and that I like. But then you say I’m putting words in your mouth, but the only thing you talked about was the Tanach and violence. in an effective debate you would argue why you feel it should be interpreted your way, instead of attacking my perceived lack of knowledge in Islam. You don’t HAVE to list your reasons, as you complain about later in the post, thats just merely how one would have intelligent discourse. Saying that I know nothing because I assumed that a phrase printed out of context about triumphing over enemies could possibly have anything to do with Jihad is not intelligent discourse. I think Amechad stated pretty well, the difference between the violence involved in this phrase out of context on a bag, and the violence contained in the Tanach, but you merely argued semantics with him too.
j-lady also said it with this line: “We understand the message as a support for jihad not by its original context (because how many of us here have encyclopedic knowledge of the koran) but because how it is used today.” That is essentially how I got from point A to point B.
shalom
sorry for the multiple posts by accident
“All Muslims certainly are NOT Arabs. The largest Muslim country is Indonesia. Iran is also not an Arab country. If I’m not mistaken, Islam, like Judaism, is a religion, not an ethnic group.”
You people have obviously never run across sarcasm in your life. Are you sure you’re Jews?
People have already pointed out that a lot of these posts are pretty sexist because they talk about how Lilit looks rather than what she wrote. I agree. I also think they are sexist because usually when people post a comment and they want to refer to the writer of the entry, they do so by name. Not by saying, as in this case – the girl/woman/lady. It’s pretty degrading and I’m sure it makes it difficult to respond when people have been writing about you rather than to you.
Yirmy, darling…..
If you wanted to say you were smarter than me, you didn’t have to make it the implicit message. You can just come out and say it, because you have anonymity here.
“…in an effective debate…”
“That’s just merely how one would have intelligent discourse.”
Like I said before, this is a comment thread on a blog.
I go to JTS. I’m plenty used to smugness.
I DON’T CARE. This isn’t where I necessarily come for Jewish discourse. This is where I come to shoot my mouth off.
I mentioned Tanach and violence because its critical to me that before we engage in criticisms of other people’s and faiths, we must turn and look in upon ourselves.
“Adonai Ish Milchamah…….”
But Balaam — no one is putting that on bags. At best the Kahanists but they are considered by most of Klal Yisrael to be extremists and are rebuked.
My problem isn’t that Islam has these things in their scriptures. Fine, b’seder. You know what — there is a place for war and defense in religion. But there is also a place where it doesn’t belong and this is a place where it doesn’t belong. My problem is that its on bags, articles of clothing, etc. and people are buying them and continue to wear them even after knowing that it advocates jihad against non-Muslims (although lilit doesn’t seem to understand the nature of the problem — no personal offense is, of course, intended, but it just seems so obvious to me) and where Muslims think its cool.
Baalam, if people were putting verses from the Torah that advocate something like jihad on purses or other garments, I would hope we would condemn it and have the same reaction. But one thing — we aren’t (or at least I haven’t seen such a thing).
have you read kabbalat shabbat lately? it says nothing different than what this purse says. “every knee shall bend and every tounge shall swear…”
I thank Mobius for saying what I’ve been trying to, but he’s wicked smahter than me.
We’re ont putting it on t-shirts. We’re just praying for it. As if that’s somehow better.
Anyone read the Aleinu recently?
have you read kabbalat shabbat lately? it says nothing different than what this purse says. “every knee shall bend and every tounge shall swear…â€
Dude, I truly hope you can tell the difference between “every knee shall bend and every tongue shall swear” and “Allah helps Muhammad to triumph over his enemies.” One is an idealized hope that every person will praise God, and another is an idealized hope that God will help Islam destroy the enemies of Islam.
And of course it’s all well and good to draw parallels between verses of the Tanakh and verses from the Quran, but remind me again, which of those two religions’ literal and unmetaphorical goal is to be the world’s one and only religion? Has it become assur to criticize blatant triumphalism in religion? If I criticized Christian triumphalism, all of you would be right there behind me, and you know it, so how is that Islam gets a pass?
Sure, Judaism has some rather offensive aspects (and hey, I’m not a religious Jew, so what do I care?) but are Jews exploding in the streets of Jerusalem and Baghdad? Are Jews warring with Hindus over Kashmir? Are Jews battling Christians for control of Mindanao? Are Jews slaughtering co-religionists whose crime was being the wrong color? Are Jews taking slaves in North Africa? Is there a Jewish country who bars entry to people of specific faiths while it uses its vast oil revenue to ensure that a particularly narrow and reactionary brand of Judaism is the only one taught throughout the world?
Can we get a little fucking perspective? Are we so concerned with absolute equivalence that we don’t notice that Muslim statements of aggression, intolerance and triumphalism are actually being interpreted by large numbers of Muslims as exhortations to be aggressive, intolerant and triumphalist, all over the world? I don’t care how aggressive and intolerant Kahanists are, there’re about 5000 of them at most. The world could crush them (and the rest of us) like a bug if we ever decided to start shit in every corner of the globe. Meanwhile, as bodies pile up in Sudan, you’re going to tell me that Islam can’t be criticized before we look at offensive statements in our own holy texts?
Okay. I looked in upon myself. I reject violence in the name of Judaism. Can I criticize other religions now, or is that still “racist”?
Hey Matt Borus- for the record, I did check out the men in those pictures of the meetup and noticed the guy in the grey tee is seriously hot. Just hadn’t thought to put it in writing.
Siviyo,
I love you.
Sincerely,
The Guy in the Grey Shirt
alright, Baalam’s Ass, Muffti guesses you are tolerably cute too…
Muffti,
Part of why I chose this as my online moniker was so that I could mock the first person to go for the painfully obvious ass joke.
You are guilty, my friend. And now I can choose a new name, finally!
I’m gonna call myself David Kelsey from now on.
I’m afraid we must agree to disagree on this, I’m here to have intelligent discourse, as Lilit praised this site for containing, and you are not. I suppose that is fine, but don’t patronize me for it. I did not claim to be smarter than you directly or indirectly, I did however try to remind you how to have intelligent discourse.
But as you said you’re here to shoot your mouth off, so nothing productive will come of our discussing this anymore. As one last point, read Amechad’s and michael’s latest posts again. They pretty much get it….
Hashem ish milchamah…. only if you want him to be, but my G-d is also one of kindness. I have the self-respect to look into my own religion and see the negative aspects and accept them. I am also able to look into Islam and see the positive aspects of a now villified religion. But which aspect does each religion wear on its sleeve? I try and wear the positive aspects of Judaism. This bag, does not try to wear the positive aspects of Islam.
Shalom.
Ruchel, you have a point. My aplogies to Lilit for not using her name. It was my impression that her essay was cross-posted, and she wasn’t reading this. I’m sorry, Lilit. My comments weren’t intended to be dismissive: they came out of looking at those party pix and suddenly feeling very old.
That said, I can only add: Amen, Michael.
err…woe is Muffti?
I have to admit, when I wrote about this in my personal blog (www.lilitinstereo.com), I did not realize that it would get trackbacked into the comments thread. That being said, I thank all of you for your comments. Also, although it’s belated, but I’d like to point out that the bag also comes in black, navy, red, and white. And the reason Balaam’s Donkey and I are in so many pictures together is because we got on a tangent talking about Lost.
“You people have obviously never run across sarcasm in your life. Are you sure you’re Jews?”
I will NOT have my Jewishness questioned by the Zionists.
“You people have obviously never run across sarcasm in your life. Are you sure you’re Jews?”
I will NOT have my Jewishness questioned by the Zionists.
Kelsey, I would never question your Jewishness. Such a wordsmith and such a relentless neurotic could only come from our strange little tribe.
Y’know, one other perspective on this, and one on which I’d appreciate Lilit’s thoughts as a self-identified cultural critic: even if you interpret the phrase as promoting Islamic triumphalism, does the phrase’s presence on this bag actually promote it? Or does it actually turn in into meaningless kitsch? In some ways, it seems reminiscent of Che Guevara shirts (though I like Che’s message far better, despite my criticism of Cuba). Thousands of people wear them, and haven’t a clue who the dude on their shirt is. It doesn’t promote revolution. Is there a parallel to these bags?
Matt, I’m intrigued by this question as well. The bag was designed by a Muslim artist and manufactured by Brooklyn Industries, which caters to hipsters. I’ve seen plenty of other people in my neighborhood who have this bag or one of its variants (different color or size, but same design) and not a single other one has known what it meant. I’m leaning on the “kitsch” side of the argument. Most of the people who bought the bag just thought the symbol was pretty. Some of them wear the plain leather side on the outside so the symbol can’t be seen. Some of them cover the symbol up- on purpose or not- with keychains or cell phone holders. The argument could be made that the purse’s purpose was more insidious- that it was a call to arms via pop culture appropriation. I don’t buy it. I think extremists are just that. They don’t make their points subtly, and I certainly don’t think they’d be happy with a little Jewess hopping around town carrying a bag with Arabic on it, no matter what the reason. I can’t tell you what the artist intended, but I can tell you what’s happened as a result of his work: a lot of one-on-one positive interfaith interactions. I’ve long held the belief that the surest road to peace is by forging one-on-one relationships between people from the opposing groups.
Okay, so I know I’m just a naive gentile and relatively unversed in basically anything not to do with my own little world, but my great-grandfather was a Jew, as are my step-grandfather and many of my friends, and as such I have witnessed a bris, a bar mitzvah, and a confermation, plus participated in many Chanukkahs and Shabbats. So I feel justified putting in my two cents. Look, if Lilit understands that her bag has a potentially controversial statement emblazoned upon it, and she’s okay with that, then why not let her sport her bag in peace? I mean, it’s not like she’s asking you to sport the bag, she’s just commenting on the pleasant responses she has gotten from Muslims who’ve seen her with it. It’s obvious that Lilit isn’t trying to support interfaith violence; my guess is she’s just looking for a more stylish notebook&pen stash than a rucksack. And what’s so wrong with that?
1) That is quite possibly the hottest picture of my hetero boyfriend I’ve ever seen, except for his mustache picture.
2) I didn’t see a huge uproar about the Asian kid adidas sneakers…oh right, we are on jewschool, not globalconcernforothersnomatterculturalorethnicdistinctionsschool.com
3) Ann Arbor is a whore.
4) It’s a bag, people. Maybe if Lilit was personally using it to bash Jews over the head, or place it over their heads mid-coitus then you should be upset. But clearly, the girl has fashion sense.
Something that I noticed upon visiting this site is “Jewschool is the web’s leading ___progressive___ Jewish weblog…”
And I think it’s very progressive to embrace all designs and accept beliefs that are different from your own.
What I **don’t** find progressive is the need to be overly critical of Muslims, and that everything of Islam and dealing with Allah is sacrelidge. After all, whether you call your deity G-d or Allah or Yahweh, G-d is G-d is G-d. Something that Jews and Christians and Muslims tend to overlook is that each of their G-d is the same. It’s called Monotheism. While you’re pointing fingers and saying that Lilit is a Jihad Supporter, you’re also saying that you refuse to respect Islam because you over-generalize all of Allah’s followers as extremists.
If you want to be an instrument of change, if you truly want peace, you have to accept other people with different beliefs.
Isn’t that what we want? Peace?
Ann Arbor is a whore.
You talking about my home town? Uh oh, fighting words…
And through all this mishegoss, the original meaning of the text is completely lost.
Guys, the “Mohammed” in the insignia wasn’t referring to the prophet, it was referring to a Turkish Sultan named Mehemet of the Ottoman Empire. This was resolved in the 4th comment, guys. The only people who should be offended by this insignia are probably Greeks and Armenians. Don’t read too much into things.
Shammai bleeds green Mr. Borus.
Bring it.
Shammai bleeds green Mr. Borus.
Have you seen a specialist for that?
The only specialist I need is one that would not try and call a time out with the national championship on the line with no time outs left.
But I digress.
How ’bout that Lilit!?
to the topic starter:
The arabic writings on the bag has NOTHING to do with the a Djhad or DOESNT mean “Allah helps Muhammad to triump over his enemies. 
This kind of arabic writings are named “calligraphy”… This calligraphy is from the ottoman-empire and is called “Tugra”.. it is known as the signature of different Sultans of the ottoman-empire… This signature was used in the letterhead to proof the originality, that the letter was from the Sultans.. This is from wikipedia.de (german site):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tugra
for english:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tugra
NOTE:
IF YOU DONT WANT THE BAG, please email me! I WOULD LIKE TO BUY IT SOOOOO MAD! :-)).. HONESTLY!
and DO YOU KNOW IF THE SHOP YOU BOUGHT THIS BAG HAS ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE OTTOMAN-EMPIRE?!
thank you!
love..
axxoo
Amazingly, I have met a woman who has a tughra tattoed on her left hip (very large – I couldn’t see it all). I am almost certain that she is 1) not a Muslim and 2) not aware of the meaning or significance of the text. She works as a waitress near my home in Melbourne, Australia.
Those who see the tughra or – heaven help us – the colour of the bag as somehow “bad for the Jews” need to get a grip.
the sing is the seal of the ottoman empire nothing more nothing less simple use your head, wiki ottoman empire ofr sultan mehmet fathi the second and youll see for youe self