Muslim group identity is socially constructed, not defined by any shared essence.

Evidence

Recognition of course does not mean thinking of Muslims as a group with uniform attributes or a single mindset, all having the same view on religion, personal morality, politics, the international world order and so on. In this respect Muslims are just like any other group – they cannot be understood in terms of a single essence. No one in the social sciences thinks that identities are based on cognitive or behavioural properties that are shared by all who may be members of a relevant group such as women, black people, gay and lesbian people and so on. If group members do not share a common essence then they cannot be simply demarcated from non-group members because there will be many cases where individuals are not simply on one side of the boundary or the other. So, groups cannot have discrete, or indeed fixed, boundaries as these boundaries may vary across time and place, across social contexts, and will be the subject of social construction and social change. This ‘antiessentialism’ is rightly deployed in the study of Islamophobia and Muslims. It is a powerful way of handling ascriptive discourses, of showing that various popular or dominant ideas about Muslims, just as in the case of women, gay people etc., are not true as such but are aspects of socially constructed images that have been made to stick on to those groups of people because the ascribers are more powerful than the ascribed. Anti-essentialism is an intellectually compelling idea, and a powerful resource in the cause of equality. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 591

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘antiessentialism’ as deployed in the study of Islamophobia and explains what recognising Muslims as a group does and does not commit one to.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s Module 1 focus: this passage stakes out the antiessentialist, recognition-based definitional camp against Bleich’s nominalist concept-formation and against essentialist framings. — connects to: Muslim identity is real but never the sole or primary form of social self-understanding. — Fred Halliday, ‘Islamophobia’ Reconsidered, 36; Muslim identity cannot be reduced to religion alone — Fred Halliday, ‘Islamophobia’ Reconsidered, 43; Muslim identity functions as a civic marker rather than mere religious belief. — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 469 (+3 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: The key move — that one can treat Muslims as a recognised group without positing a shared essence, and that antiessentialism is an equality resource — is the crux of the whole definitional debate.

Related

• Muslim identity is real but never the sole or primary form of social self-understanding. (similarity 0.89)
• Muslim identity cannot be reduced to religion alone (similarity 0.86)
• Wittgenstein’s family resemblance justifies Muslims as a real, non-essential group. (similarity 0.85)
• Groups are real for social science and anti-racist politics despite lacking shared essences. (similarity 0.84)
• A valid Islamophobia concept must avoid essentialising Muslims or Islam. (similarity 0.84)
• Muslim identity functions as a civic marker rather than mere religious belief. (similarity 0.83)
• Anti-Muslim signification is culturally constructed rather than biologically grounded. (similarity 0.82)
• Essentialised ‘good Muslim’ framings exclude real Muslims from civic participation (similarity 0.81)
• Anti-Muslim bias is denied legitimacy by framing Muslimness as voluntarily chosen. (similarity 0.80)
• Religion is one factor among many, not the defining one, in Muslim-majority societies (similarity 0.80)
• Efforts to define Islam are what define understanding of Islamophobia (similarity 0.80)
• Islamophobia centers on recognition of Muslim-ness and its ideological meaning (similarity 0.80)
• Anti-Islamophobia must not become the sole analytical frame for studying Western Muslims (similarity 0.80)
• Islamophilia essentializes Muslims just as Islamophobia does. (similarity 0.80)
• Islamophobia requires an acknowledged Muslim or Islamic element to be identified. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• There is no biological or ethnic basis for a monolithic Islam. #corroborates (0.85) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 162
• Anti-Muslim signification is culturally constructed rather than biologically grounded. #exemplifies (0.82) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 822
• Muslim identity is real but never the sole or primary form of social self-understanding. #expands (0.80) — Fred Halliday, ‘Islamophobia’ Reconsidered, 36
• Muslim identity cannot be reduced to religion alone #expands (0.75) — Fred Halliday, ‘Islamophobia’ Reconsidered, 43
• Muslim identity functions as a civic marker rather than mere religious belief. #expands (0.72) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 469