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

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...