Practicing Muslims are labeled bad Muslims presumed prone to terror

Evidence

When the patient identified Saleem as a Muslim, he no longer wanted him to be his doctor. The patient’s distrust of Saleem is triggered because of his Muslim identity. The nurse attempts to defend Saleem by categorizing him as a “good” Muslim as opposed to a “bad” one. This dichotomy of the “good” versus the “bad” Muslim is meant to ease the patient’s anxiety about Saleem, but it also confirms the limitations of Muslim existence in the United States. 
 On one end of the spectrum, there are the Muslims who assimilate and downplay their religious identity, the “good” ones (Mamdani 2004; Shryock 2010). These Muslims do not transgress what are perceived to be American cultural norms, by doing things such as wearing the hijab. They do not display their religiosity in public. On the other end of the spectrum, there are the “bad” Muslims. These Muslims display their religious identity through behavior and dress. These Muslims are viewed as having the potential to be radicalized because their adherence to religious codes is seen as a rejection of American values (Mamdani 2004; Shryock 2010; Kundnani 2012; Kundnani 2014). In a neoliberal society, this notion of “good” and “bad” Muslims segregates citizens into deserving and undeserving. Being labeled a “good” Muslim does not protect Saleem from potential job discrimination. — , Selod, Saher - Forever Suspect_
, 400

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Defines the good/bad Muslim dichotomy and its operational criteria (public religiosity equals radicalization risk).
  • XREF: connects to: The ‘oppressed Muslim woman’ stereotype itself functions as oppression — , Selod, Saher - Forever Suspect_
, 535; Visible religious practice gets read as potential for radicalization — , Selod, Saher - Forever Suspect_
, 401; Being labeled a ‘good’ Muslim does not shield Muslims from prejudice — , Selod, Saher - Forever Suspect_
, 400 (+2 more)