Perceiving Muslims as disloyal shifts the policy frame from anti-discrimination to securitization.

Evidence

In this setting, issues relating to anti-terror and security have far too often been equated with issues relating to immigration where internal and external security policies have become conflated or even interchangeable with each other. Because of this, Muslims have become understood in frames that both acknowledged and perpetuated an ongoing Otherness, one that is inherently foreign, alien and enemy and regularly interchanged with those populist notions of Muslims as ‘terrorists’ and ‘fifth columnists’ amongst others, as has been the case in the UK also. — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 580 (#expands, via linked claim)

The state’s rubber-stamping of widely held stereotypes of Islam and Muslims, through the enactment of surveillance programs, religious and racial profiling, restrictive immigration policies, and the war-on-terror campaign, is the cornerstone of dialectical Islamophobia. This exchange—by which citizens absorb the suspicion and demonization the state assigns to Muslims by way of (structural Islamophobic) law or state action—is an ongoing dialectic that links state policy to hate and violence unleashed by private citizens. — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 136 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Muslim religious identity becomes a racial category through surveillance.; Authoritarianism and preference for cultural homogeneity drive anti-Muslim stereotypes. — Carl W. Ernst, Islamophobia in America_ The Anatomy of…, 253; State policies authorizing suspicion are the cornerstone of dialectical Islamophobia — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 136 (+12 more)

Related

• Anti-terror and immigration policies become conflated in framing Muslims as foreign enemies (similarity 0.89)
• State policies authorizing suspicion are the cornerstone of dialectical Islamophobia (similarity 0.85)
• Islam in America operates as a political identity of otherness beyond religion (similarity 0.84)
• Muslims are positioned as an external threat against America’s internal enemies. (similarity 0.84)
• Structural Islamophobia operates through laws and policies that presume Muslims threaten national security (similarity 0.83)
• Islam-terror association embedded in national security laws changed Muslims’ experiences (similarity 0.83)
• State engineering of Muslim representation differs from its handling of other minorities. (similarity 0.82)
• Perceived disloyalty recasts Muslims as threat rather than discriminated minority (similarity 0.82)
• Private citizens’ discriminatory acts get reinforced by state security policies (similarity 0.82)
• Islamophobia adapts to each society’s own governing concerns (similarity 0.82)
• Religious framing of terrorism justifies state expansion that erodes due process (similarity 0.82)
• State-perpetuated fear racializes Muslim bodies as terrorist enemies (similarity 0.82)
• Counter-terrorism policy and imposed loyalty requirements shaped Muslim political engagement (similarity 0.81)
• Denying that Muslims are enemies can itself construct them as threats (similarity 0.81)
• Anti-Muslim sentiment is shifting from terror fear to cultural-threat framing (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Muslim religious identity becomes a racial category through surveillance. #expands (0.85)
• State policies authorizing suspicion are the cornerstone of dialectical Islamophobia #expands (0.80) — Khaled A. Beydoun, American Islamophobia_ Understanding…, 136
• Anti-terror and immigration policies become conflated in framing Muslims as foreign enemies #expands (0.80) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 580
• The image of Muslims shifted with military threat, not with religion per se #qualifies (0.75) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 95
• Authoritarianism and preference for cultural homogeneity drive anti-Muslim stereotypes. #expands (0.72) — Carl W. Ernst, Islamophobia in America_ The Anatomy of…, 253