A Critical Reflection on Neutrality: Freedom from Bias or Reordering of Prejudices?
✍ Written by: Dr. Zahid Mughal
In today’s social and intellectual discussions, certain terms are frequently employed to strengthen arguments or shape narratives, such as:
✔ "My analysis is objective."
✔ "We should adopt a neutral stance by rejecting the understanding of the predecessors."
✔ "Only that which passes the test of reason should be accepted."
These expressions are commonly used by modern thinkers and enlightenment movements to advance specific ideologies, and they continue to play a role in social sciences to convince—or mislead—audiences.
Even among contemporary reformists, such terms rooted in modernist influence are widespread.
In reality, absolute neutrality or complete freedom from bias is impossible.
Humans are always compelled to prefer one position over another.
Even rejecting one ideology in favor of another is itself a form of bias, not neutrality.
Key Point:
The only real choice a person has is to discern between legitimate and illegitimate biases, because complete freedom from all prejudice is unattainable.
🗨 “Prejudices are inevitable; choice is only between legitimate and illegitimate prejudices, not between prejudice and no-prejudice.”
A Muslim who believes Islam to be the truth is engaging in a conscious and justified form of bias, grounded in what he sees as reality.
On the other hand, an atheist who believes in human autonomy attempts to mask his prejudice under the guise of neutrality, though he too holds a defined and biased stance.
Truth:
When an atheist tells a Muslim, “Think beyond your bias,” he is not inviting him to neutrality, but rather calling him to adopt the atheist's position.
In Islamic understanding, leaving Islam does not place one in a neutral zone—it places one in disbelief (kufr), which is itself a subjective and biased worldview.
When a devout Muslim asserts that his understanding of Islam is rooted in historical Islamic tradition, it is a deliberate bias—and he considers it valid and meaningful.
Conversely, for modern thinkers, neutrality implies abandoning traditional interpretations in favor of those aligned with modernist paradigms.
Reality of Modernism:
The modernist call to "unbiased thinking" is not an invitation to objectivity, but rather to their own ideological preference, namely to reshape Islam in accordance with modern principles.
This too is a form of bias, not the absence of it.
Those who claim to be unbiased are essentially claiming independence from social and historical influences.
But in truth:
Human thought cannot be divorced from social and historical contexts.
Even language—our primary tool for expressing thought—is a social construct embedded with ideologies and values.
Conclusion:
In this world, the only real choice is in the arrangement of biases, not in freedom from them.
Claiming that all ideologies, concepts, and beliefs hold equal value is itself a biased position.
This outlook equates truth with falsehood, a notion that is deeply prejudiced in itself.
✔ Man cannot be neutral or a blank slate.
✔ Every individual prefers one idea or position over another, and such preference is evidence of bias.
✔ Claiming to be unbiased is a denial of social and historical reality, making it an unrealistic and baseless idea.
✍ Written by: Dr. Zahid Mughal
❖ The Modern Usage of "Neutrality" in Intellectual Discourse
In today’s social and intellectual discussions, certain terms are frequently employed to strengthen arguments or shape narratives, such as:
✔ "My analysis is objective."
✔ "We should adopt a neutral stance by rejecting the understanding of the predecessors."
✔ "Only that which passes the test of reason should be accepted."
These expressions are commonly used by modern thinkers and enlightenment movements to advance specific ideologies, and they continue to play a role in social sciences to convince—or mislead—audiences.
Even among contemporary reformists, such terms rooted in modernist influence are widespread.
❖ The Myth of Complete Neutrality
In reality, absolute neutrality or complete freedom from bias is impossible.
Humans are always compelled to prefer one position over another.
Even rejecting one ideology in favor of another is itself a form of bias, not neutrality.
Key Point:
The only real choice a person has is to discern between legitimate and illegitimate biases, because complete freedom from all prejudice is unattainable.
🗨 “Prejudices are inevitable; choice is only between legitimate and illegitimate prejudices, not between prejudice and no-prejudice.”
❖ Islam and Atheism: A Case of Competing Prejudices
A Muslim who believes Islam to be the truth is engaging in a conscious and justified form of bias, grounded in what he sees as reality.
On the other hand, an atheist who believes in human autonomy attempts to mask his prejudice under the guise of neutrality, though he too holds a defined and biased stance.
Truth:When an atheist tells a Muslim, “Think beyond your bias,” he is not inviting him to neutrality, but rather calling him to adopt the atheist's position.
In Islamic understanding, leaving Islam does not place one in a neutral zone—it places one in disbelief (kufr), which is itself a subjective and biased worldview.
❖ Historical Understanding vs Modernist Bias
When a devout Muslim asserts that his understanding of Islam is rooted in historical Islamic tradition, it is a deliberate bias—and he considers it valid and meaningful.
Conversely, for modern thinkers, neutrality implies abandoning traditional interpretations in favor of those aligned with modernist paradigms.
Reality of Modernism:The modernist call to "unbiased thinking" is not an invitation to objectivity, but rather to their own ideological preference, namely to reshape Islam in accordance with modern principles.
This too is a form of bias, not the absence of it.
❖ The Claim of Being Unbiased: A Baseless Notion
Those who claim to be unbiased are essentially claiming independence from social and historical influences.
But in truth:Human thought cannot be divorced from social and historical contexts.
Even language—our primary tool for expressing thought—is a social construct embedded with ideologies and values.
Conclusion:In this world, the only real choice is in the arrangement of biases, not in freedom from them.
❖ The Claim of Equal Validity: A Biased Assertion
Claiming that all ideologies, concepts, and beliefs hold equal value is itself a biased position.
This outlook equates truth with falsehood, a notion that is deeply prejudiced in itself.
❖ Summary of Core Insights
✔ Man cannot be neutral or a blank slate.
✔ Every individual prefers one idea or position over another, and such preference is evidence of bias.
✔ Claiming to be unbiased is a denial of social and historical reality, making it an unrealistic and baseless idea.
