Skip to main content

Answering Mental Falsehoods About Islam

There have been many falsehoods these days about Muslims being spread around, as well as racist diatribe being thrown at them for biased reasons, all in the name of "free speech". Let's just address some of these issues that regard the mentality of Muslims in general.

Misconception 1:Muslims have polarized or all-or-nothing-thinking (e.g.: believers and non-believers, daru-ul-Islam, dar-ul-harb)

Response: This is actually untrue, and very short-minded thinking to begin with. This doesn't exclude extremist elements or bad elements within the Muslim community, but effectively paints all Muslims with the same brush. To start off with, Muslims have not segregated the world into believers and non-believers. Nomenclature is not a sign of division or polarized thinking. Second, Dar-ul-Islam is the Muslim community, and is disunited in its present state. Third, Dar-ul-Harb is the Caliphate analogue to the Ministry of Defense. Fourth, all religions distinguish between those who follow it and those who don't. I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right, but distinctions are nothing new. Speaking of which, doesn't Dubya Bush have polarized thinking? You know, when he said "You're either with us or with the terrorists"?

Misconception 2: Muslims have cataclysmic Thinking (all infidels will go to hell)

Considering that an infidel is a non-Muslim who has aggressed against Muslims and suppressed them, I say, yes, an infidel deserves to go to hell. However, this is not indicative of catastrophic thinking. Such thinking presented here is actually present in all religions. Christians are distinguished as those who have "come to Christ", while others burn in Hell. Jews differentiate between themselves and others (Gentiles).

Misconception 3: Muslims discount the positives, and accentuate the negatives (all kafirs are trying to get Muslims)

"Kafir" comes from the Arabic verb kaffar, meaning "denounced" or "renounced". A kafir is someone who not only disbelieves in a certain religion, but goes as far as to attack it. So, yes, a kafir against Christians is trying to attack Christians as well.Examples of such kafirs are the American and Israeli governments who are constantly aggressing against Muslims.

Misconception 4: Muslims reason with emotion (emotional justification for bombing, beheading, terrorism)

Islam does not condone bombing, but in war, bombing is something military, not religious. Islam is 600 years old, and bombs weren't present during Islam's rise. Beheading is for capital punishment, not for killing senselessly. Go take a look at Jewish Halakha doctrines and you'll find a LOT of similarities. Terrorism is unjustified as well: in fact, if you're talking about Bin Laden, he's not part of the Muslim community. I addressed this misconception before, but I refer you to the previous posts of mine regarding this topic. Besides, the rightwingers themselves, though not all of them, have emotionally justified the war on Iraq and Palestine.

Misconception 5: Muslims label too much (putting a global label on non-believers as kafirs)

Refer to my post above, but I think when Jews call us "Goyim" or "Gentiles", we get labelled as well, right? Labelling is everywhere, but nomenclature does not necessarily mean segregation.

Misconception 6: Muslims downplay a lot (blame the victim, denial, alibi)

Lying is a big sin in Islam, and therefore so are the above four categories.


Misconception 7: Muslims have a mental filter (Failure to see things holistically)

Considering that my posts have been open-sided, I would say "no". Besides, Islam encourages rational and critical thinking, not the other way around. Furthermore, I see a lot of this in the rightwing media when they fail to see the other side of the story and play with ignorance. But again, I am not generalizing either.

Misconception 8: Muslims overgeneralize a lot (making sweeping negative conclusions: Jews are pigs, Christians are rats)

Addressing the "Jews are pigs, Christians are rats" nonsense, this is not taught in any religious school I know. In fact, this "pig-rat" thing is what Bin Laden and his bunch are spewing. I suggest you all don't paint good Muslims and bad Muslims with the same brush. That being said, overgeneralizing against Muslims or any other group for that matter in this way is racist.

Misconception 8: Muslims personalize (Muslims believe Kafirs are behaving negatively because of Islam)

This is not true: we only believe that people behave negatively because they are not close to God or know of no morality. Religion doesn't enter the equation: in God's eyes, your actions are what matters, not your background or your beliefs.

People, avoid such baseless falsehoods. Furthermore, if you do the research, there are MANY prominent Muslim thinkers like Ibn Rushd and Al Ghazali, and most Muslims are very open-minded, but our religion and traditions should be kept as well.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un