A single framing of Dearborn as dangerous united Islamophobes and their opponents

Evidence

Many people believed Jones should be at liberty to do and say whatever he wanted, but people understood the desire to defend the Qur’an from injury. As a local school teacher told me, “My son said he would jump in to stop Jones from burning the Qur’an. I could not tell him this was wrong. I was proud of him. I wanted to support the way he felt, but I wanted to defend free speech. It was a strange moment for me.” The idea that free speech exists on special terms in Dearborn, or that risking it was imprudent and possibly dangerous, was found among Islamophobes (who like to claim that Dearborn is ruled by Islamic law), among friends of the Arab/Muslim community (some of whom hold their current positions because Arab voters elected them), among members of the local ACLU, who denounced the court’s ruling against Jones, and among Muslims who do not think anyone should be allowed to insult the Prophet Muhammad or his teachings. — Carl W. Ernst, Islamophobia in America_ The Anatomy of…, 677

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The most potent stereotype operation here is invisible: no one has to assert that Dearborn is dangerous — the converging prudence of every stakeholder (from ACLU to imams to the mother proud of her son) enacts the premise without stating it. Fear of an attack on the Qur’an and fear of Muslims becoming the attackers collapse into one surveillance regime.
• XREF: Connects to the chapter’s overall pivot from interrogating Islam to dissecting the frightened subject — this passage shows the frightened subject occupying every position, including the Muslim mother caught between pride and principle.