Even denial statements about Muslim threat can partially activate anti-Muslim assumptions

Evidence

International relations scholar Clara Eroukhmanoff argues that “political actors can both securitise Islam and simultaneously declare that ‘Islam is not a threat’ or that ‘Islamophobia is a shame’.” Statements like “Muslims are not the enemy” effectively construct Muslims as the enemy, even though the literal meaning of the phrase indicates the exact opposite because such speech activates, Eroukhmanoff argues, “an Orientalist set of assumptions about Islam” without the speaker having to resort to blatant and overt forms of racism. It works in ways akin to dog whistle tactics where certain words stand in for fully developed racial meanings among racist constituencies. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 589

Categorization

  • DEEPTHINKING: A genuinely counterintuitive inversion — stating ‘Muslims are not the enemy’ primes the enemy-construction — that resists one-line summary and reframes how liberal inclusion and securitization interface.
  • XREF: Feeds the reader’s thesis that today’s Gaza-war coverage (pro-Palestinian framing co-occurring with securitized Muslim speech) shows the same indirect channel still operating. — connects to: Anti-Muslim racism contains internal contradictions and countervailing tendencies that resist neat causal models; Anti-Muslim racism’s power lies in unexamined assumptions presented as fact. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 264; Denying that Muslims are enemies can itself construct them as threats — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 577 (+6 more)
  • QUESTION: Does this make liberal anti-Islamophobia rhetoric counterproductive, or does repression-framing do distinct work from material securitization?

Broader Connections