Inclusive rhetoric naming Muslims simultaneously marked them as liminal outsiders.
Evidence
Locke and others used fictive Muslims to indicate the extremity of their inclusivity, knowing how acutely their audiences would view an actual Muslim presence as a threat. Each time statesmen took Muslims as an extreme example, they helped reinscribe the liminality of Muslims in the popular imagination. … For instance, Locke declared in his Letter that toleration could not extend to those whose religion compels them to be faithful to a foreign prince. His one example was the Muslim who lives under a Christian magistrate “whilst at the same time he acknowledges — Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, Common Heritage, Uncommon Fear, 47
Categorization
- QUESTION: Worth chasing: does this ‘extreme-example’ mechanism recur in other eras’ tolerance debates, e.g. Catholic or Mormon inclusion debates?
- DEFINE: Introduces ‘liminality’ of Muslims as a key analytic concept of the book.
- XREF: connects to: Islamophilia and Islamophobia share assumptions that equally harm Muslim inclusion; Locke’s toleration simultaneously depicted Muslims as both dangerous and tolerable; Islamophobia is powered by the overlap of Muslims being both inside and outside (+3 more)
Broader Connections
- Islamophobia is powered by the overlap of Muslims being both inside and outside
#corroborates(0.90) - Locke’s toleration simultaneously depicted Muslims as both dangerous and tolerable
#corroborates(0.85) - Islamophilia and Islamophobia share assumptions that equally harm Muslim inclusion
#complicates(0.70) - Early American toleration debates explicitly extended civil rights to Muslims.
#complicates(0.65) — Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, Common Heritage, Uncommon Fear, 46 - Small everyday humiliations of Muslims undermined any chance of integration
#qualifies(0.60) — Horne, Alistair, A Savage War of Peace- Algeria 1954-1962, 363 - Muslim inclusion in American civic life comes at the price of disciplined loyalty
#expands(0.60)