Good and bad Muslim designations follow support for US empire

Evidence

In Chapters 4 and 5, I study the foreign policy establishment and its attitudes toward the “Islamic threat.” Chapter 4 discusses the shifting, zigzagging attitudes toward “good” and “bad” Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, and Afghans. These constructions are the product of imperial ethnocentric racism because the good/bad designation flows from whether one supports or opposes US policy and empire. Moreover, one can easily go from “good” to “bad.” The chapter also outlines the debate between the two main wings within the foreign policy establishment: the neoconservatives and the liberal interventionists. While the two disagree on whether to confront or accommodate the “Islamic threat,” they are united in their unreserved support for Pax Americana, a global system dominated by the United States. These two approaches within the political class have led to two strands of Islamophobia: conservative and liberal. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 87

Categorization

• XREF: Directly corroborates the Aziz/Razack/Rana cluster claim that anti-Muslim designation is instrumental to imperial policy rather than a reaction to ‘real’ threats — this is the mechanism version of that argument. — connects to: The good versus bad Muslim label tracks support for US empire rather than facts. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 87; US policy treated Islam as good or bad depending on imperial alignment — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 395; Muslims are judged good or bad by loyalty to the US, not piety. — Evelyn Alsultany, Arabs and Muslims in the Media: Race…, 110 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• US policy treated Islam as good or bad depending on imperial alignment #corroborates (0.95) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 395
• Muslims are judged good or bad by loyalty to the US, not piety. #expands (0.90) — Evelyn Alsultany, Arabs and Muslims in the Media, 110
• US imperial interests, not Islamist actions, determine Islamist ally or enemy status #expands (0.90) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 278
• US hostility to Islamism depended on whether it served US interests #corroborates (0.90) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 233
• Liberal inclusion of good Muslims is conditional on embracing empire #expands (0.85)
• Liberal inclusion of ‘good Muslims’ requires acquiescence to American empire #expands (0.85)
• Good and bad Muslim labels encode imperial hierarchy and shift easily #expands (0.85)
• US empire-building abroad drives anti-Muslim racism domestically #complicates (0.75) — Sahar F. Aziz, The Racial Muslim, 1072