There is no more honest way to describe the world we live in than this: Islamophobia has become the new global currency of power. It is traded in the speeches of politicians, exchanged in the deals of diplomats, printed in the pages of media, and laundered through the language of security and counterterrorism. It buys impunity for genocide, secures legitimacy for authoritarian leaders, and bankrolls new markets of surveillance and control. The Gaza genocide has torn away whatever illusions were left: the blood of Muslims is not just cheap; it is expendable capital in the economy of global powers.
The Gaza genocide is not an isolated catastrophe; it is the center of a global pattern. From the internment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang’s camps to the expulsion of the Rohingya from Myanmar, from the headscarves torn off French Muslim girls in the name of secularism to the US “Muslim ban” dressed in the language of national security, the same logic is at work. Islamophobia is the shared language of power between democracies and dictatorships, between so-called secular republics and openly ethno-nationalist states. It allows brutality to pass as order, apartheid to pass as security, and genocide to pass as policy.
Nowhere is this more visible outside Palestine than in India, where 200 million Muslims are being pushed to the edge of extermination by the RSS-BJP regime. Under Narendra Modi, Islamophobia has been weaponised not as fringe hate but as state ideology. Laws like the Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens have created a framework where Muslims can be rendered stateless in their own homeland. Pogroms in Delhi, lynchings over beef, bulldozers demolishing Muslim homes, and open calls for genocide from Hindutva leaders are not accidents but steps in a carefully scripted project. This project is nourished by propaganda techniques borrowed directly from Zionism: Palestinians are framed as “terrorists” the way Indian Muslims are framed as “jihadis” or “Bangladeshi infiltrators”; Gaza’s resistance is criminalised the same way Indian Muslims’ protests are portrayed as sedition. Both Zionism and Hindutva work by criminalising Muslim existence itself — and both find eager allies in Western capitals that profit from these performances of “civilisational defence.”
Atheism is seen as a virtue when it is used against Christianity, but when used against Muslims it is Islamaphobia.
It depends how it is used. There’s Christians being slaughtered by Atheist Zionists as well.
I’m not gonna engage in whataboutism and talk about the criminalization of other people’s existence as well in places Muslims are majority, and this in no way excuses Zionist crimes against humanity, I just gonna say be pro-arab, pro-persian, pro-turk, pro-people, and fuck religions.
I saw this popular community here Leopards Ate My Face, well, good luck standing for religions that are against you. Defend people, not religions.the world would be better if we were all humble atheists
Nowhere is this more visible outside Palestine than in India, where 200 million Muslims are being pushed to the edge of extermination by the RSS-BJP regime. Under Narendra Modi, Islamophobia has been weaponised not as fringe hate but as state ideology.
I can’t speak for other parts of the world but I can for the Indian subcontinent.
I’m an atheist, and personally, I try not to judge anyone based on their religion — it generally works well, especially with upper and upper middle class communities. From my experience, upper class Muslims are usually integrated into society and not involved in shady activities.
I also don’t agree with government policies that discriminate against people based on religion like requiring proof of ancestry after Independence because such policies are unjust and target citizens unfairly.
That said, I do have concerns about certain practices in some lower income communities in India. Poverty, limited education and social isolation can make people more vulnerable to radical messaging. Madrasas (which btw are even attended by children younger than teenagers) teach extreme ideas, like framing conversion as a duty or promoting a black and white worldview. In rare cases, this can lead some individuals to embrace jihadist ideology or commit illegal acts in the name of religion. Social media can further amplify these messages. While most Muslims are peaceful, certain forms of radicalisation especially among vulnerable Islamic populations can be more organised and aggressive compared to similar movements in other major religions.
So even the propaganda by our right wing government is exaggerated, it does have some truth to it. It can be solved by eliminating all religious education in pre-teen ages and criminalising parents for forcing that type of education on children.
This is nothing new. One of the reasons Columbus was trying to find Western passage to Asia was to launch another crusade; finance it by opening Western trade routes and to strategically coordinate it by giving invaders a Western corridor to the holy land. Killing Muslims and eradicating Islam is basically the foundation of Western civilization and modernity.
Be careful with statements like that because one could just as easily reverse them. Especially when Islam is six centuries younger than Christianity. I would like you to consider for a fact that The holy Land has been conquered many times by many different people because it is important to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
al-Futūḥāt al-ʾIslāmiyya (the Islamic conquests). Is what kicked off that whole back and forth power struggle.
Islamic Conquests (approx. 622-900 CE) 610 CE: Muhammad begins receiving his first revelations on Mount Hira. 622 CE: Muhammad’s arrival in Medina marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar and the first Muslim city-state. 629/630 CE: Mecca is conquered by the burgeoning Muslim forces. 632-661 CE (Rashidun Caliphate): The early successors of Muhammad lead rapid expansion into Byzantine and Sasanian territories. 711 CE: Muslim forces begin their conquest of the Iberian Peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal). By 900 CE: Muslim armies had conquered vast territories in North Africa, the Middle East, parts of Europe, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. The Crusades (approx. 1095-1303 CE) 1095-1099: The First Crusade is called by Pope Urban II and results in the capture of Jerusalem. 1099: The Kingdom of Jerusalem is established by the Crusaders. 1144: The Crusader state of Edessa is captured by the Muslim leader Imad ad-Din Zangi, prompting the Second Crusade. 1187: Saladin, the Muslim leader, recaptures Jerusalem. 1189-1192: The Third Crusade, led by Richard the Lionheart and others, fails to retake Jerusalem but secures pilgrimage access. 1202-1204: The Fourth Crusade diverts to sack the Christian city of Constantinople. 1291 CE: The Fall of Acre to the Mamluks marks the final expulsion of the Crusaders from the Holy Land, though the last major Crusades continued into the late 13th century.
Be careful with statements like that because one could just as easily reverse them.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say?
My statement is that Western civilization grew out of the crusades, the reason Europe pretends to be a different continent from the rest of Asia. Its the foundation for the Doctrine of Discovery, for Manifest Destiny, for Orientalism and the whole colonial period. It’s what created the West as a sociopolitical force in history.
You can’t reverse it without reversing history. You’d have to let the Caliphate be the ones that conquered the Americas to actually create the reverse situation.
The Fall of Acre to the Mamluks marks the final expulsion of the Crusaders from the Holy Land, though the last major Crusades continued into the late 13th century.
Yes, and Columbus wanted to start another Crusade by opening a Western passage to Asia. The fact that he ran into another continent is the only reason he didn’t try to take back Jerusalem.
But they never stopped! The Europeans took back Jerusalem when they defeated the Ottomans in WW1, then in the 1940s they established Israel as a new crusader state with the stroke of a pen. Instead of Christendom we have Judeochristian values, but there’s a clear continuity.
The point is, the OP is not describing anything new. This is all part of the precession of history, the same historical forces that created the West are still in play today.
Not astounded at all that you completely missed the point.
Maybe I can spell it out a little bit clearer. I’m saying that Christianity and Islam have been in a power struggle for over 1400 years. It is ridiculous to say that Western Civilization was forged in these events and to not also realize that Middle Eastern civilization was forged by the same events that impacted both civilizations.
I’m excusing neither I’m holding both accountable. Both committed atrocities upon the other in the name of their flavor of God.
Obviously Eastern civilization was also shaped by the crusades? I’m just describing the historical forces that lead us to this point and pointing out that Islamophobia isn’t the “new global currency of power” as claimed by the OP. It’s as old as the West as a sociopolitical force of history.
In different historical conditions where the Caliphate conquered the Americas instead of Christendom the exact opposite would have happened, maybe Europe would have been colonized by Asia, but that’s not the world we live in.
But now the Caliphate and the Ottomans are gone. The West conquered the world and colonized the East, so hatred of Islam has become normalized by the hegemon because the West rules the world. But it’s not new.
This hypothesis of Columbus trying to finance a crusade is heavily contested, to put it mildly.
I think it is trying to frame conflicts as part of a struggle between entities you see in the modern world. Pre-nation-state Europe was waaaayyyyy more divided than united. The entire east vs. West or even Muslim vs. Christianity narrative is accurate in modern times, but pre Napoleon it falls flat.
France had historically seen the ottomans as a preferable partner to England, religion be damned. When the ottomans conquered the Balkans, many Christians even fought on their side. The Austrian slur for Hungarians, Krüzitürken - cross bearing Turks -, reflects that.
Even the now infamous Reconquista wasnt as much of a fight between Islam and Christianity, as it was a power struggle between rulers that sometimes used Religion as a back drop. But alliances and marriages between these ruling families also crossed sectarian borders. The reframing of the Reconquista is a narrative used by Nationalists and not an accurate description of the history of the nebulous West.
Far too many people think that the political reality of the last 200 years extends back 2000
