1n thread to amplify & expand on an important point that @rahulroushan made. Islam is both a political ideology & a religion. It however mandates both of its followers in one way or the other. Having been developed in the late antiquity/early medieval period. It’s political.....
2n paradigms are distinctly feudal, including the unquestioning religiosity that was the norm of the period. Remember the early & high classical period mandated the questioning of faith. That was when Zoroaster, Buddha, etc preached. This ended in late antiquity when Rome becomes
3n Christian. Remember from this point on it takes 1200 years for Martin Luther to set the reformation in motion, but remember this is sectarian infighting not a real reformation. This happened in Christianity before between Arianism, Monophysites, Nestorianism, etc. The real
4n change comes well after in the 1700s. Hinduism and Buddhism too saw these changes much earlier, having always had strong atheist/agnostic movements within. Why is this important? Because it leads to a natural separation of God & State. The Jews followed a different path
5n mostly arising from the catastrophic failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against Rome. At the time the still embryonic Christian community developed the practice of “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s & render unto god that which is god’s”.
6n these same exile dynamics can be seen with Zoroastrianism (which became rigid & harsh during its confrontation with Byzantium) & the last vestige of feudalism - Tibetan Lamaism, though perhaps not Bhutan. Remember Tibet was a horrid hellhole - nothing like what we think ....
7n of it today. in short every extant religion other than Islam has through one means or another separated god from politics. Followers of these other religions, being sociologically illiterate & anthropologically clueless think Islam is the same. It isn’t. Criticising Islam
8n and it’s adherents behaviour as “Islamophobic”, Is the same as saying Rousseau, Voltaire, The post 137 AD rabbis, the post 651 AD Zoroastrian Magis, Narayana Guru etc were christophobic, judeophobic, zoroastrophobic, or hinduphobic. “Islamophobia” in short
9n is a concoction that serves the purposes of 1) a religion desperately fighting against reform & modernity, 2) clueless dimwits who don’t know head or tail of anthropology 3) politicians who depend on identity consolidation
10n Remember you can & must criticise both Islam & it’s followers if you feel they’re wrong. “Islamophobia” is merely the slur they use when they don’t want to engage with your argument & attack you personally. When they use it, you know they’ve lost the argument.
11n Also to date I’ve asked everyone for a specific definition of Islamophobia. Nobody has ever bothered to come up with one. When they don’t want to define it, then you know it for what it is: undiluted quackery.
12n yet we know Anti-Semitism is real. We’ve all studied about the holocaust. So what makes criticism legitimate or not? Simple. You can criticise a religion - it’s not bigotry. However supporting legislation to curb or restrict a religion is bigotry. Supporting violence like
13n those horrendous concentration camps for uighurs is bigotry. However note, not all legislation is bigotry if evenly applied. Simple example: french banning all public religious wear (which affected Sikhs too). Similarly in india, you can’t ban halal just cuz you don’t like it
14n instead you pass blanket animal cruelty laws. Point being, introspect & understand. Think through your positions carefully. Remember what you hurl at others can be hurled back at you. Use first principles & think through the consequences
