Encyclopedists used Islam as a disguised symbol for criticizing Christianity

Evidence

These two early examples demonstrate three significant dimensions of Anglo-American Islamophobia that would be rehearsed repeatedly over succeeding centuries. First, depictions of Muslims— and of the final Islamic prophet in particular—often served as a foil serving social critiques of British and American domestic issues entirely unconnected to Islam. Just in the various editions of the two influential examples noted above, depictions of Muhammad’s life aided endeavors to warn Britons and Americans against deism, federalism, political tyranny, religious apathy, and religious zealotry. — Carl W. Ernst, Islamophobia in America_ The Anatomy of…, 106 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Some volumes more than echo past perspectives: Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross (1993, 2006), for instance, begins by citing Zwemer. This book’s goal of providing Christians with counterarguments to Islamic beliefs – “preparing you with strong apologetic answers” –reflects how the perpetuation of Islamophobia often represents more of an effort to positively define those making the allegations than accurately describe Muslims or Islam. — Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, Common Heritage, Uncommon Fear, 124 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Enlightenment reason politics drove attacks on Christianity as irrational — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 158; Voltaire attacked Christian stereotypes of Islam as projections of Christian idolatry — Sophia Rose Arjana, Muslims in the Western Imagination, 366; Muslim depictions served as foils for unrelated domestic critiques — Carl W. Ernst, Islamophobia in America_ The Anatomy of…, 106 (+7 more)

Related

• Muslim depictions served as foils for unrelated domestic critiques (similarity 0.89)
• Secularists and Christians alike deployed Muslims as foils (similarity 0.87)
• Islamophobic depictions chiefly served domestic critiques unrelated to Islam. (similarity 0.83)
• Anti-Muslim polemic functions primarily to define its Christian authors (similarity 0.82)
• Anti-Muslim images were deployed against unrelated domestic targets (similarity 0.82)
• Christian thinking forced Islam into Christian analogical categories, misrepresenting it (similarity 0.82)
• Anti-Muslim polemics function to define their authors’ identity rather than describe Islam. (similarity 0.82)
• Islam functioned as an opposing foil shared by secularists and Christians alike. (similarity 0.81)
• A Protestant-derived aesthetic of understated realism now underwrites ‘rational’ anti-Islamic prejudice. (similarity 0.81)
• Islamophobic writing functions to define the Christian author, not describe Muslims (similarity 0.81)
• Both the good and bad Muslim stereotype are political packaging tools, not descriptions (similarity 0.80)
• Eighteenth-century writers satirized Christianity through a fictional Muslim mask (similarity 0.80)
• Secularists and Christians alike weaponized Islam as a foil despite opposite agendas. (similarity 0.80)
• Voltaire attacked Christian stereotypes of Islam as projections of Christian idolatry (similarity 0.80)
• Anglo-American discourse framed Islam as Christianity’s inherent and inexorable nemesis. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Muslim depictions served as foils for unrelated domestic critiques #corroborates (0.75) — Carl W. Ernst, Islamophobia in America_ The Anatomy of…, 106
• Anti-Muslim polemics function to define their authors’ identity rather than describe Islam. #expands (0.70) — Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, Common Heritage, Uncommon Fear, 124