New York Times Religion Writer Touts 'Everyday American' Mujahid Abdul-Rashid to Smear Pamela Geller and Whitewash Jihad

Check out this pathetic and completely ad hoc attack on Pamela Geller, dressed up as a kinda "aw-shucks" epiphany that black U.S.-born converts to Islam are as natural as apple pie. Even more sinister is the promotion of the left's lie that "jihad" is all about inner struggle and not holy war against the West and subjugation of infidels. I'm all for regular folks, regardless of religion or ethnicity, appearing in financial industry commercials. But when the New York Times cherry picks a spot that no one is talking about to attack those fighting for truth and protecting freedom of speech, you know there's a larger agenda going on. The writer, Samuel G. Freedman, takes not one but two swings at Geller in what's no more than a 750 word essay. Behold, once again, what's so desperately wrong with the conventional thinking of today's MSM. And it highlights as powerful as anything the ultimate stakes in the fight over the information battlespace.

See, "In TV Commerical, an Everyday Muslim Is, Finally, Just an Everyday American." As the piece winds along at the introduction, the key dhimmi hook is Freedman's attack on Pamela:

On a Sunday afternoon several months ago, I was engaged in one of my favorite religious rituals, watching pro football on television. During a break in the game, I reflexively clicked the “mute” button on the remote control. But my eyes stayed fixed on a startling commercial.

The screen showed a balding man with tawny skin and a salt-and-pepper goatee, and seconds later it spelled out his name: Mujahid Abdul-Rashid. The advertisement went on to show him fishing, playing in a yard with two toddlers, and sitting down to a family meal.

One week later, again during an N.F.L. game, the same commercial appeared. This time I listened to the words. The advertisement was for Prudential’s financial products for retirees. Mr. Abdul-Rashid was talking about his own retirement after 19 years as a clothing salesman, and the family time he now intended to enjoy.

“That’s my world,” he said over that closing shot of the family dinner.

What I had just seen was something rare and laudable: what seems to be the first mass-market product commercial featuring an identifiably Muslim person not as a security risk, not as a desert primitive, but as an appealing, everyday American.

As if to underscore the point, the Prudential commercial with Mr. Abdul-Rashid was appearing on television during the same period last fall that saw two widespread commercial campaigns vilifying Muslims. One was the series of ads on New York subways and buses placed by a group led by Pamela Geller, the outspoken blogger and critic of Islam, which depicted a worldwide conflict between the civilized West and Islamic “savages.” The other was the billboard during the presidential campaign that showed President Obama submissively kissing the hand of a sheik.

Then, during the Super Bowl last weekend, a Coca-Cola commercial trotted out the stereotype of the Arab on camelback. As points of comparison, consider that Frito-Lay retired its “Frito Bandito” caricature more than 40 years ago. And in 1989, Quaker Oats removed Aunt Jemima’s kerchief and gave her pearl earrings so she no longer evoked a house slave.

I was intrigued enough by the Prudential commercial to find Mr. Abdul-Rashid. Like the other nine people in the campaign, he is an actual person, not a hired performer. And as his name implies, he is Muslim, an African-American born in Los Angeles who converted to Islam in 1980...

Blah, blah, blah. Folks couldn't care less, but this idiot Freedman has to turn this into some massive statement  against counter-jihad, especially with this section on how Abdul-Rashid stresses the meaning of his name as "inner peace":

Mr. Abdul-Rashid’s first name, given to him by a Saudi Arabian teacher with whom he studied Islam before converting, is the kind of thing the Pamela Gellers of the world could have waved like a flag. Even some of Mr. Abdul-Rashid’s theater colleagues suggested after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that maybe he would be wise to change his name. He refused.

“The name Mujahid means someone who strives to live in the way of God,” he said. “And, yes, it means holy warrior, too. But if you ask me, that means fighting the good fight. If you see a hungry person and feed him, that’s fighting holy war. The greatest holy war is within ourselves.”

Not being an advertising specialist, I consulted several experts to hear their view of the Prudential commercial. They concurred on its uniqueness and importance.

“It expands our idea of the American Dream and it gives us a new way of looking at it,” said Timothy Malefyt, a professor of marketing at Fordham University who worked in the advertising industry for 15 years. “This guy shares our ideals, our fears. He talks about his work ethic, his love of family. Right away, you can see he’s Muslim. So he’s different from us, but he’s also like us. This lets us reevaluate American Muslim identity.”

Oh brother. In Islam, "one who strives to live in the way of God" actually means to destroy non-believers of the faith. And when black Americans convert to Islam, there's usually a political --- anti-American --- motivation as much as there is a religious one. Muslim names blare militancy in the black American context. It's a statement. I'm not taking the time, but no doubt if one researched Abdul-Rashid's background we'd find statements critical of the U.S. government in general and the war on terror in particular. The guy's a Bay Area-based actor, for crying out loud. Talk about stereotypical. And the New York Times couldn't resist the  chance to exploit this guy's advertisement for a vicious attack on Pamela, providing no context whatsoever about her "savages" campaign or her work to protect not only free speech rights, but the lives of those threatened by fanatic Muslim "honor" killers of women and children.

Never let these people get away with this. They're depraved politically correct ghouls. The false implications and unspoken lies here are enormous. The Times' editors should be ashamed.

UPDATE: Linked at iOWNTHEWORLD. Thanks!