As a Christian living in a Muslim country, images of quiet prayer and traditional greetings spring to mind when I think of Islam.
Perhaps when thinking of Christianity, others think of Christmas, or people carrying out charitable acts as good Samaritans.
What doesn't spring to mind for me, is that Islam, and Muslims, equate to terrorism and terrorist attacks — even though I was in central London, two tube stations from a deadly bomb blast on July 7, 2005.
So why is it that a recent column in Forbes magazine makes this equation? "Going Muslim," Tunku Varadarajan, states, "…would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American … discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans."
This statement in itself is gloriously contradictory. On the one hand Varadarajan speaks of the Muslim-American Major Nidal Malek Hassan, who shot dead 13 colleagues before he himself was shot and injured, as one who is "seemingly integrated" (one who stands outside and needs to be integrated into American society). At the same time he refers to his victims as "fellow Americans."
This is despite the fact that Major Hassan was born and bred in the US. "Seemingly integrated" indeed.
So which is he, this man, American or Muslim? It seems he insists on making a distinction between the two, and the two cannot live as one.
How convenient then, for all the media outlets, bent on focusing on the religion of the military psychiatrist behind the Fort Hood killings, and skimming over questions about his own unaddressed mental health issues.
If a soldier wins a medal for bravery, of course, he is an American. If, however, he suffers a mental breakdown and decides to shoot his colleagues, it must be because he's Muslim.
This is a dangerous trend in the Western media, which focuses on Islam and often links it to acts of terrorism. Some terrorist attacks are carried out by a minority of extremists, which — Muslim friends and colleagues have said — blacken the name of Islam and should not even attempt to be justified under the name of God.
What of the other crimes committed in the name of religion? Are the anti-abortion hardline Christians who shoot doctors dead for the sake of unborn children said to be "going Christian". No, because "going Christian" might just conjure up snow scenes and Santa on his sleigh.
It wasn't until I moved out of England to the UAE that I could realistically view the media's portrayal of Islam and Muslims as generally negative. Why couldn't I see it before?
Because, I believe, it's difficult to distance yourself from coverage consistently portraying a religion only in one light. How can you possibly receive and absorb a balanced view of a situation — however tragic — if the portrayal of the incident is biased from the outset?
Of course it's arguable that all media are biased to some extent, depending on the country in which they exist, whether for political, economic or religious reasons.
The shootings are a tragedy for the families and for the American military. So why is the coverage of this issue so clouded by judgement over Major Hassan's religious motives and background? Perhaps because people need a reason, and human nature tells us to search for reasons and apportion blame.
The fact that he's a Muslim is a convenient peg for his alleged crimes — and the media shouldn't be encouraging this.
What is needed is a balanced view. Like, for instance, not referring to an American, who happens to be Muslim, as "seemingly integrated".
As an American, Major Hassan shouldn't need to be "integrated" — this itself shouldn't even be raised as an issue in the first place.
"One of our cardinal rules of coexistence is that we [try always to] judge people only by their actions and not by their identity, whether racial, religious or sexual," Varadarajan says, contradicting his own words. This doesn't seem to be working, does it?
