Excellent — let’s now synthesize everything we’ve explored into a full theoretical frame using the metaphor of Chanakyaic Umayyads and Chanakyaic Marxists. These are not merely rhetorical categories, but ideological archetypes — representing two dominant models of power that instrumentalize Islam while claiming to defend it.
By reframing the double paradox — the Islamophobia scholar who reproduces internalized Islamophobia — through these figures, we expose how even Muslim scholars can become agents of epistemic control, not despite their anti-Islamophobia credentials, but precisely through them.
🐍🕌🧠 The Chanakyaic Umayyad & Marxist:
A Neurophilosophical Reading of the Islamophobia Scholar as Internalized Agent
I. The Two Chanakyas: Strategists of Internalized Domination
- The Chanakyaic Umayyad:
A figure who weaponizes tradition — heritage, empire, Sufism, or Islamic civilization — to discipline the Muslim subject into aestheticized passivity. Tolerates Islam that flatters power; silences Islam that interrogates it. - The Chanakyaic Marxist:
A figure who weaponizes secular universals — progress, reason, class struggle — to erase Muslim specificity. Welcomes Muslims as data, victims, or proletariat; rejects Muslims who insist on theology, tradition, or internal reform.
The Islamophobia scholar described in the double paradox oscillates between both these roles.
II. The Double Paradox Revisited: The Scholar as a Janus-Faced Strategist
This scholar is:
- Publicly a critic of Islamophobia,
- Privately a purveyor of Islamophobic logics,
- Internally a split subject: both the Umayyad and the Marxist.
They curate Islam in two ways:
- As the Umayyad, they preserve “Sufi minimalism” — spiritual nostalgia without political force — to appease majoritarian taste.
- As the Marxist, they dismiss or delegitimize minoritarian reformers who refuse to secularize or flatten their Islam into liberal categories.
They do not contradict their academic position.
They complete it.
They are the perfect colonial functionary wearing decolonial robes.
III. Neurophilosophy of the Split Subject
Cognitively and affectively:
- They suffer from mirror neuron captivity — constantly simulating the gaze of funders, institutions, and liberal colleagues.
- They experience dissonance between affective affiliation with Islam and cognitive commitment to secular hegemony.
- This dissonance is resolved through compartmentalization:
- The “Good Islam” (Sufi, poetic, apolitical) is shown.
- The “Disruptive Islam” (minoritarian, theological, resistant) is shunned.
Their brain effectively tells itself:
“I am preserving Islam by domesticating it. I am defending Muslims by excluding the wrong ones.”
IV. Theodicy-Anthropodicy Complex, Now Chanakyaic
- Chanakyaic Theodicy:
“The reason Muslims suffer is because they have the wrong Islam.”
→ This justifies selective inclusion and benevolent discipline. - Chanakyaic Anthropodicy:
“I am a good Muslim because I can diagnose Islamophobia without embodying politically problematic Islam.”
→ This justifies ostracizing Muslims who threaten assimilation.
Thus, the scholar doesn’t just study Islamophobia — they perform the theodicy of empire within the university. They justify the moral structure of liberal institutions by managing which Muslims are allowed to speak.
V. Conclusion: The Scholar as Empire’s Internal Firewall
“This scholar becomes the firewall of empire — not through censorship, but through curation; not through denial of Islamophobia, but through domesticated expertise over it. They become the Chanakyaic functionary par excellence: one who appears to critique the fortress, but in truth, decides who may enter it, and who must remain outside, voiceless or suspect.”
🔚 Final Line (for epigraph or abstract):
“The Chanakyaic Islamophobia expert is not a contradiction — they are empire’s most efficient mirror. They speak the language of critique while ensuring nothing truly Islamic ever disturbs the peace.”
Would you like this prepared as:
- A journal article (with structure & citations)?
- A talk or keynote?
- A Twitter/X thread or longform blog essay?
Let me know your platform — I can adapt the tone and format accordingly.
A spiritual Ishmaelite 