Government engagement with Muslim groups was conditional on accepting state security assumptions.

Evidence

It should be stressed (see Gilliat-Ray 2004) that New Labour’s engagement with Muslims – and indeed other faith-based groups and organizations – was undertaken on the basis of an unquestioned, taken-for-granted premise. Groups and organizations had to be a certain size, have a particular narrative around the heritage and history of their faith and communities, and have representatives with the right connections, experience and wealth. More importantly, they also had to be willing to unequivocally accept and support certain governmental assumptions. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 487

Categorization

• XREF: This is evidence for the structural constraint the reader needs: how state power conditions which Muslim voices get heard, relevant to the decolonial/critical framing of the definitional debate. — connects to: Governments select Muslim interlocutors only when they accept official assumptions. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 492; Perceiving Muslims as disloyal shifts the policy frame from anti-discrimination to securitization.; State interests, not religion, defined early US dealings with Muslims. (+3 more)

Related

• Governments select Muslim interlocutors only when they accept official assumptions. (similarity 0.92)
• Counter-terrorism policy and imposed loyalty requirements shaped Muslim political engagement (similarity 0.85)
• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. (similarity 0.84)
• State engineering of Muslim representation differs from its handling of other minorities. (similarity 0.83)
• UK state intervention shaped and rivalized Muslim political representation. (similarity 0.83)
• Integration policy must be decoupled from counter-terrorism aims. (similarity 0.82)
• UK counter-terror funding redirected civic support away from Islamophobia work. (similarity 0.80)
• Official UK integration strategy framed Muslims as a threat to national cohesion (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Counter-terrorism policy forced Muslim groups into complicity or exclusion. #expands (0.90) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 145
• Perceiving Muslims as disloyal shifts the policy frame from anti-discrimination to securitization. #expands (0.85)
• American tolerance of Muslims conditioned on their political quiescence and departure. #exemplifies (0.80)
• Prevent alienates the Muslim communities it claims to engage. #complicates (0.80) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 390
• State interests, not religion, defined early US dealings with Muslims. #expands (0.75)