Cognitive dissonance is when one is faced with some new form of evidence or a thought that conflicts with another belief or previously held thought. These are times where one may find themselves in a position of mental discomfort or psychological stress due to being in a conflict between what one believes and a new piece of evidence conflicting that.

This real psychological discomfort, which can translate into physical anxiety, was first proposed as the theory of cognitive dissonance by psychologist Leon Festinger.

To counteract this discomfort, one must find a way to justify one’s actions in terms of the new information in order to restore the balance and comfort of the mind.

A common example given is that of a smoker, where there is evidence to suggest that smoking is unhealthy, yet the individual continues to smoke. In doing so, they need to deal with this information and justify their actions – or else the conflict between the evidence and their behaviour will bring about physical pain.

In order for cognitive dissonance to occur, two conditions are necessary:

Firstly, there must be the freedom to make a choice. Cognitive dissonance does not apply in situations where one is forced into a position – such as being required to write a paper arguing a point of view that one disagrees with.

Secondly, there must be negative consequences if no action is taken to resolve the issue.

In the case of the smoker who is now confronted with mounting medical evidence of the harmful effects of their habit, they could either decide to stop, or they could decide to continue smoking and deal with the conflict they are facing using some other means.

There are generally four ways this conflict can be dealt with:

1. Change the incoming new information: This is to deny the new evidence and information, and to believe, for example, that smoking is completely safe. This conflicts with the new evidence or information, but, in the mind of the person who is experiencing cognitive dissonance, the issue has been resolved.

2. Change one’s course of action to suit the new information: After researching and confirming the new information, this is to change one’s behaviour in order to seek the best outcome. This would be the most sensible course of action. In the example of the smoker, this would be to attempt to quit smoking.

3. Add a new thought to justify ongoing action: This is to compensate one’s actions to justify continuing one’s behaviour. That is, to say, ‘I will do “this” to compensate for the error of my ways’. A smoker, therefore, may be convinced of the new evidence that smoking harms the body, but will resolve the conflict by eating healthy foods, going to the gym, etc in order to continue smoking and compensate for the damage done by consuming cigarettes.

4. Trivialise the matter: This is to deem the new information as being unimportant and insignificant, looking for proofs contrary to the evidence at hand in order to soothe the mind. The smoker will look towards information that disputes the link between smoking and lung cancer, for example, or cite Sayyid Khoei, famously known to be a chain smoker who lived to over 90 years of age, as evidence that smoking does not shorten one’s lifespan.

With this in mind, we can change the example given from that of a smoker who needs to justify their behaviour, to an individual who is living in a non-Islamic environment. As discussed already, living in this sort of environment restricts religious activities, distorts theological beliefs, and chokes the spiritual growth of individuals and their families.

After reading the information presented here, the reader may be already experiencing this so-called cognitive dissonance: A feeling of discomfort, and the need to either act upon it, or justify where they are and what they do because they are comfortable and established in the environment they are in.

As listed earlier, there are four ways this dissonance can be overcome:

1. Deny the incoming new information: The reader could deny this information by formulating thoughts such as, ‘this does not apply to our modern times’, or, ‘this does not apply to me’, etc.

2. Change one’s course of action to suit the new information: The reader could decide to migrate, and if not possible, they will compensate proactively until they can migrate.

3. Add a new thought to justify ongoing action: The reader could choose to remain where they are and compensate their actions, even though it is possible for them to migrate. There can be a fine line between someone like this and someone who has legitimate reasons not to migrate, such as the danger of persecution if they were to move.

4. Trivialise the matter: The reader may attempt to disregard the information and convince themselves that the interpretation presented here is incorrect – and they will search for information that supports their own view and decisions.

Of course, while this is only a theory that is presented to us by modern Psychology, it is in sync with the narrations and verses of the Holy Qur’an, however this will take us away from the scope of this project.

Cognitive Dissonance and Migration

It must be emphasised that cognitive dissonance applies to where there is the freedom of choice, and not in situations where migrants have been forced to flee for their lives. However, if at some point these dangers are lifted and the freedom of choice is returned, then a choice must be made.

One can choose to study the information provided and act upon it, or else justify a “choice” to ignore it and act contrary to one’s duty. Either way, the choice made will have consequences.

Ultimately, this choice needs to be based on a leap of faith - for the heart that is full of faith in the All-Mighty will not hesitate in making the right decision.

ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَتَطْمَئِنُّ قُلُوبُهُم بِذِكْرِ ٱللَّهِ أَلَا بِذِكْرِ ٱللَّهِ تَطْمَئِنُّ ٱلْقُلُوبُ

Those who believe, their hearts being at rest in God's remembrance -- in God's remembrance are at rest the hearts. (Holy Qur’an, 13:28).