Islamist groups differ by national context despite monolithic labeling

Evidence

September 11, however, precipitated unanimous agreement in the foreign policy establishment that the War on Terror would henceforth frame US foreign policy. Barely had the ashes settled from the Twin Towers when loud proclamations that ā€œIslamic terroristsā€ represented existential threats to the United States began to echo in the public sphere. From then on, US policy was geared toward ā€œkeeping Americans safeā€ from Muslim ā€œevildoers.ā€ These claims fly in the face of reality, as the previous chapter outlined, since Islamist organizations typically emerge from local conditions and are focused on those conditions. What then lies behind this Islamophobic rhetoric? The agenda behind this focus on the ā€œIslamic threatā€ is the subject of this chapter. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 376 (#expands, via linked claim)

Worthy of note also is the way in which ā€˜Islam’ was used as a marker for identity within the closed views rather than and in preference of ā€˜Muslim(s)’. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 367 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Islamist groups are locally shaped and resist homogenizing categorization; Labeling diverse Islamist movements with one term erases their national specificity; Islamist groups arise from local conditions, not from anti-American plots — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 376 (+2 more)

Broader Connections