Abraham´s wayward children

The term "Abrahamic religions" or "Abrahamic faiths" is extremely popular. It´s also entirely bogus. Why? Because there are no "Abrahamic" religions. The term has no historical significance whatsoever. It´s obviously a political term. A pro-Muslim political term, to be exact. It´s a term promoting unity between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, but with Islam at the center.

Think about it. Why "Abrahamic"? Sure, all three religions "recognize" Abraham, but so what? All three of them recognize Moses, as well. So why not call them "Mosaic"? Christianity isn´t about Abraham. It´s about Christ. Judaism isn´t about Abraham, either. In human terms, it´s of course about Moses. Only Islam emphasizes Abraham above everyone else except Muhammad. Islam is the *last* "Abrahamic" faith and therefore the one most obviously dependent on the two others, but according to Muslims, Islam was the *first* "Abrahamic" faith. Acording to Muslim belief, Abraham was a Muslim. Together with Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs, he supposedly built the Kaba in Mekka, the most holy shrine of Islam. Thus, by calling Christianity and Judaism "Abrahamic", you are really calling them "Muslim-derived". That´s the hidden meaning of the term. 

Once you see it, you can´t unsee it. 

As a scholarly term, "Abrahamic faiths" is useless. Sure, Christianity is derived from Judaism. Islam is derived from both. But so what? All three may have been heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. So why aren´t they called "Zoroastrian faiths" or "Zoroaster´s children"? Ancient Judaism was very different from modern Rabbinical Judaism (at least in its exoteric form). Indeed, the religion of ancient Israel was probably more similar to modern Mormonism! It was much more "pagan" than modern apologists care to admit. Christianity is a Jewish-pagan syncretism. And Islam syncretizes Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Arab paganism (Kaba wasn´t built by father Abraham, but by pagans worshipping a moon god and his female angels). None of this complicated history is covered by the artificial term "Abrahamic faith".

Similar objections could be raised against the term "dharmic religion". Where on earth does *that* term come from? The Buddha rejected the Vedic corpus in its entirety. Why try to assimilate him with Hinduism by calling both religions "dharmic"? Sure, both used the word "dharma", but so schmucking what? I don´t know, dude, maybe they spoke the same language or something... 

And why is Sikhism considered a dharmic religion? It´s a syncretist faith, blending some kind of mutant Vaishnava devotionalism with Islam. How is that "dharmic" (Vedic)?

Are we dealing with some kind of Hindu imperialist agenda here, or what? 

Wikipedia also proposes the term "Indian" or "Indic" religions, and introduces us to yet another completely artificial category, "East Asian religions", which lump together movements as disparate as philosophical Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion, Shinto, Mongolian shamanism and various apocalyptic cults. Most humorously, Wiki classifies Rastafarianism as an "Abrahamic" faith. Why, Rastas read the Bible and believe in Yah, so there!

These artificial, meaningless and politically loaded terms should be purged from the vocabulary of any serious scholar of religion. Indeed, everytime I hear a scholar use them, I know he´s a basic bitch. I´m not going to declare my dhimmitude under Islam by using "Abrahamic faith" as a description of, say, Lutheranism anymore than I´m going to declare my submission to PM Modi by calling Buddhism "dharmic" (in the crypto-Hindu sense mentioned above). 

This BS really has to stop.