Applied to Christians or Jews, such rhetoric would be considered taboo

Evidence

Looking at Christianity’s brutal history today, one might well advance an argument that all Catholics are bloodthirsty fanatics. Indeed, this logic would be analogous to the argument that Islam is inherently violent and that Muslims have a “predisposition” toward violence. Yet such a generalization is unthinkable. To my knowledge, no mainstream newspaper or magazine has drawn a straight line between the Crusades and the Nazi Holocaust of Jews, let alone between the birth of Christ and various acts of terrorism committed by Christian fundamentalists. Furthermore, as Talal Asad argues, the same people who call the actions of suicide bombers unjustified legitimize the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. In short, only the violence of certain groups is highlighted and coded as a product of those groups’ religious affinity. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 198 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Formal ambiguities can contest Islamophobia even in sympathetic texts; The media codes only certain groups’ violence as religiously motivated — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 198; Religious labeling of criminals applies to Muslims but not to Christians

Related

• Only Muslim violence is read as caused by the perpetrators’ religion (similarity 0.89)
• Islamophobic ideology selectively attributes violence to religion only in the Muslim case. (similarity 0.89)
• The media codes only certain groups’ violence as religiously motivated (similarity 0.88)
• Popular blame of religious belief for violence remains scientifically untested (similarity 0.88)
• Christian violence is never generalized to all Christians, but Muslim violence is. (similarity 0.87)
• Violence by one Muslim is generalized to all while Christian violence is not (similarity 0.83)
• Media and state mutually reinforce Islam-violence associations for distinct functional reasons (similarity 0.82)
• Powell’s study also claims that the media is much more likely to blame religion for the actions of Muslim terrorists than for white non-Muslim terrorists. This is evident in CNN’s description of… (similarity 0.81)
• Christian violence is individualized while Muslim violence is collectivized. (similarity 0.81)
• For Islam isolated violence offsets billions of peaceful examples, but not for white Christianity. (similarity 0.81)
• Islamophobia is increasingly theorized as a form of racism rather than mere religious prejudice (similarity 0.80)
• The claim that Muslims are intrinsically violent is sociologically inconceivable and unsupported. (similarity 0.80)
• Anti-Muslim rhetoric still targets Islam as a religion, not just its adherents. (similarity 0.80)
• Islamophobia is an ideological construct with real consequences, not mere discourse (similarity 0.79)
• Religious labeling of criminals applies to Muslims but not to Christians (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Religious labeling of criminals applies to Muslims but not to Christians #corroborates (0.75)
• The media codes only certain groups’ violence as religiously motivated #contradicts (0.60) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 198
• Formal ambiguities can contest Islamophobia even in sympathetic texts #complicates (0.50)