Islamophobic ideology selectively attributes violence to religion only in the Muslim case.

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 birth of Christ and various acts of terrorism committed by Christian fundamentalists. Furthermore, as Asad argues, the same people who call the actions of suicide bombers unjustified legitimize US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands. In short, within this ideology only the violence of certain groups, Muslims, is highlighted and coded as a product of those groups’ religious affinity. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 354

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly corroborates the Aziz/Kundnani cluster claim that Islamophobia selectively pathologizes Muslim violence while legitimizing imperial counter-violence, and the asymmetric moral assessment central to Razack’s analysis. — connects to: Christian violence is never generalized to all Christians, but Muslim violence is. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 354; Only Muslim violence is read as caused by the perpetrators’ religion — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 366; Terrorism is labeled by religion only when the perpetrators are Muslim. — Hamid Dabashi, Brown Skin, White Masks, 553 (+4 more)
  • SEED: The christian-violence-comparable-to-Muslim argument is a strong public-intellectual essay hook: a tight comparative thought experiment exposing the double standard.

Broader Connections