Identical rhetoric about killing is prosecuted or celebrated depending on the speaker’s religion

Evidence

If a Muslim were to make the same claim about Israelis that Friedman makes about Palestinians—that inflicting pain and suffering, death and destruction, is teaching them a lesson, is “educating” them—he would be on his way to Guantanamo Bay by now. This is the difference between being a Jew and a Muslim in New York—when the Muslim of 2000s America has become the Jew of 1930s Germany. — Hamid Dabashi, Brown Skin, White Masks, 648

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels Dabashi’s earlier work on the asymmetry of who is permitted to be a native informer; evokes the ‘Muslim as new Jew’ trope in post-9/11 critical theory. — connects to: Religious freedom rhetoric means privilege for one sanctioned creed — Katherine Stewart, The Power Worshippers: Inside the…, 659; Sacralized scriptural precedent is invoked to authorize killing enemy civilians in the IDF — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 893
• BMF: The religious identity determining which speech is criminalized echoes the hierarchical ‘green’/‘grey’ caste logic in Zamyatin’s We, where permitted deviation depends on one’s place in the system.

Related

• Terrorism is labeled by religion only when the perpetrators are Muslim. (similarity 0.80)