British Muslims were reduced to terrorists or apologists, collapsing into one stereotype.

Evidence

Post-9/11, post-7/7 processes have therefore both ‘newly established’ and ‘re-established’ Muslims as chimerical Others. Consequently, British Muslims have dangerously found themselves being identified in pre-determined and bi-polar ways, and even more dangerously, having to do the same in terms of self-definition also. As Sardar suggested, Muslims are contemporarily identified as either terrorists warring against the West, or apologists defending Islam as a peaceful religion. … Given the negative recognition British society has of Muslims, both types of Muslim have through the same lens become increasingly non-differentiated: in essence, whether ‘terrorists’ or ‘apologists’ all Muslims in the UK have become virtually identical. All have become indiscriminately characterised by the same negative and stereotypical attributes, where all Muslims have the capability to either be terrorists or at least be supportive of terrorism. In such ways, the first – and most permeating runnymede closed view of Muslims as a monolithic and static entity – has been clearly present in the way that all Muslims have come to be understood. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 450

Categorization

• DEFINE: Concretely demonstrates how the Runnymede ‘closed view’ of Muslims as monolithic operates in practice, applying the definitional framework to empirical post-9/11 discourse.
• XREF: The terrorist/apologist binary connects to the reader’s survey of Runnymede’s open-closed framework as one of the rival definitional camps. — connects to: The Muslim threat was framed as infesting Britain’s body and values — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 237; British press blame for radicalization shifted toward extremist Islam itself — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 640; Anti-Muslim racism collapses diverse names, skin tones, dress, and nations into one imagined enemy.

Related

• Muslim political actors in 1990 Britain already perceived a state campaign against them. (similarity 0.83)
• The Muslim threat was framed as infesting Britain’s body and values (similarity 0.82)
• Runnymede drew on anti-Semitism analogies yet built a different, dualistic model (similarity 0.82)
• Fragmenting Muslims into moderates and extremists disseminates Islamophobic ideology as effectively as unifying them. (similarity 0.82)
• The Runnymede definition conflates Islamophobia’s effects with its core (similarity 0.81)
• The Runnymede Report’s own practice reproduced the monolithic Muslim it condemned (similarity 0.81)
• British press blame for radicalization shifted toward extremist Islam itself (similarity 0.81)
• Separating Islamophobia as ideology from racism undermines anti-racist struggle (similarity 0.81)
• A worldwide Muslim threat narrative came to frame British perceptions (similarity 0.81)
• Islamophobia is one of several challenges British Muslims confront. (similarity 0.81)
• Efforts to define Islam are what define understanding of Islamophobia (similarity 0.81)
• The closed-versus-open views of Islam dichotomy anchors the Runnymede model. (similarity 0.81)
• The Runnymede model itself reduces Muslims to Islam as a common denominator. (similarity 0.81)
• Islamophobia centers on recognition of Muslim-ness and its ideological meaning (similarity 0.81)
• Islamophobia is an ideology sustaining negative meaning about Muslims. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• The Muslim threat was framed as infesting Britain’s body and values #expands (0.82) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 237
• British press blame for radicalization shifted toward extremist Islam itself #complicates (0.75) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 640