Yes and no.
Purely academically, the former is a defensive attitude against a religion and the latter against people who look different.A religion can be discarded, its appearance, its “race”, but its ethnicity not.
The Spanish anti-Judaism after the Reconquista allowed Jews to convert, but then everything was fine.Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, is directed against Jews, because certain characteristics have been attributed to them almost biologically. So you are convicted just because you have the wrong ancestors. Constructive criticism and an option for change are thus excluded. Criticism has always been aimed at annihilation or submission.
Structurally, however, there are some similarities between Islamophobia and racism.Both can have xenophobia as a cause, the psychological sequence is then the same: a person questions his own worldview and thereby triggers an aggressive reflex.Man is perceived as a threat simply because he belongs to a certain group. Not because of what he does, but because of what he representsin the head of the racist.The projection is open to the door. Devaluation, exclusion, deportation to destruction can be the result. Stereotypes are sought to dehumanise the other.
There is also the concept of structural racismfor these psychological patterns.This is an auxiliary construct (in principle polemical) based on analogies, the psychological pattern of flat-rate aggression against theoretically any deviation to maintain one’s own construction of identity because of its structural equality under subsumed into the concept of racism. The non-polemical background is that racism actually names only one of the phenomena, but both are identical in their structure and function.
For me, a clear element is that of fundamental immutability.Has a criticism of a (*follower of any religion*) been settled when he turns his back on religion? Or do I suspect that he did this only to form a fifth column? In principle, it is a question of whether my attitude still results from rational criticism or is fed by paranoia, so the specifically named criticism point is arbitrary, as long as it is only criticized – because it is not about the allegedcriticism, but about the Maintaining my identity. This is often not easy to distinguish.
This psychologically based pattern is clearly to be separated from justified criticism.When someone shows inhumane behaviour, a criticism of that is to be welcomed. If the cause lies in an ideology, this ideology must be criticized, rejected, and its “mistakes” must be named. Criticism, however, is a rational process that derives, for example, from a break between a value system and real states, questions it rationally and pushes constructively towards a solution.
There is nothing wrong with that.However, xenophobics often disguise their structurally racist aggression behind the mask of justified criticism.
There is another form of racism that derives from Suprematism and follows a slightly different pattern.(However, it is related.) I reserve that for another time. Occasionally I have to work … 😉