Written by Abdullah Qureshi

In the last days of June, 2024, an episode of Mukalma with Khalil-ur-Rehman Qamar aired on Samaa TV. This show caused ripples of conversation all over the Pakistani internet. Mukalma with Khalil-ur-Rehman is a show which features discussions on various topics. These conversations are usually between the titular writer, Khalil-ur-Rehman, and one or more guests. In this particular episode, the guest was Sahil Adeem.

Sahil Adeem is known as a religious scholar and a psychologist. Over the years, he has publicly appeared in multiple forums. His debate tactics are quite provocative. They often employ derogatory commentary on branches of religious scholarship. However, much of his commentary seems to resonate with many people. I would not deny that he has bits and pieces of information about many different subjects – even if they are misleading.

Sahil Adeem is also a very creative person. He tries to connect scientific discoveries with the Ayat in the Quran. This is not the first time that public figures in Pakistan have tried to do so. Adeem’s own research appears to be limited to anecdotal evidence and pop science.

So, to say that Adeem’s grip, even over pop science or pop psychology, is substantial could be incorrect.

The episode of Mukalma with Khalil-ur-Rehman in question is an example of this.

In this article, I would go over three pieces of evidence highlighting cognitive biases.

Evidence 1: The Validity of the Claim ‘95 Percent of (Muslim) Women in Pakistan are ignorant’

In the most highlighted part of the episode, Sahil Adeem claims that 95% of women in Pakistan are ignorant about Taghut. Taghut in Islam is the concept of focusing on some other being as opposed to Allah (Ahmad, 2009). All in all, Ahmad (2009), drawing on Maududi’s teachings, explains that this concept encompasses the entirety of the state. If any person in the state holds anything ‘above’ Allah in his priorities, he is falling under the ambit of Taghut.

Sahil Adeem claims that most Pakistanis (around 40% of men and 95% of women) do not understand this concept. However, one thing that Adeem fails to mention is that he has no evidence to back this claim.

He has cited no polls. He has cited no studies.

Hence, this claim is a perspective. Perhaps a better way of stating this claim is that it is his hypothesis.

However, even the hypothesis is poorly constructed.

The Issue with Invalid Claims

The entire episode of Mukaalma with Khalil-ur-Rehman has multiple invalidated claims. For example, at a certain point, Khalil-ur-Rehman indicates that 99% of the top brass of media executives are feminists.

This is the demonstration of overgeneralization. Overgeneralization is a cognitive error which is based on incorrectly counting the number of instances. Then, the individual inductively reasons that this is the case for a large population of instances (Franceschi, 2009).

The issues with overgeneralization are multifold.

When you do not operationally define ‘feminists’ or ‘taghut’, you are not clear in what you are measuring. Hence, Sahil Adeem is unlikely to calculate the number of people who understands various levels of this concept.

Secondly, the claims are misleading. They are not proven to be representative of the population. Thus, there is a high risk that your claims are incorrect.

This is particularly harmful if the claim is uttered by people of influence. The opinion-setters of a culture could thus be misleading their audience. Especially in matters of emotional value.

Evidence 2: Intellectual Dishonesty

Not knowing the word ‘taghut’ does not mean one is ignorant about the concept.

While Maududi opposed this, many religious scholars do limit taghut to obeying and/or worshipping of tyrannical authorities or idols. Indeed, in classical Islam, taghut is used in the context of those who consider themselves above the commands of Allah.

“See how they fabricate lies against Allah—this alone is a blatant sin.

Have you ˹O Prophet˺ not seen those who were given a portion of the Scriptures yet believe in idols and false gods and reassure the disbelievers¹ that they are better guided than the believers?” (4:50-4:51)

So, are Muslim women and men ignorant about the consequences of holding equals or superiors to Allah?

By claiming that 95% of women are ignorant of this concept, Sahil Adeem is displaying an inability to understand the other person’s arguments.

Issues with Intellectual Dishonesty

Intellectual dishonesty could be defined as willfully tempering with logical arguments. The problem with this is that it indicates biases. When bias is introduced into an intellectual debate, there is a high probability of misrepresenting the core arguments. For example, Adeem’s claim of ‘jahiliyat’ or ignorance in women is substantiated by the argument that his understanding of ‘taghut’ is not already understood by others.

As I have explained earlier, not knowing the word ‘taghut’ is not indicative of ignorance of the concept.

In Sahil Adeem’s case, the most likely bias to cause this is the illusion of explanatory depth. The Illusion of explanatory depth is a cognitive bias in which Adeem could believe that his explanation of ‘taghut’ has more depth than another individual’s concept (Rozenblit & Keil, 2002). This makes him disregard the fact that many muslims already have the idea or even a more substantiated idea of taghut.

This is why I would want to properly represent the opposition’s arguments.

I would have to understand the other perspective. If one does not understand the other perspective, he/she cannot argue with logic. This makes the debate less productive and insightful.

Evidence 3: Focus on Provocation  

Focus on provocation compromises scientific and intellectual validity in a debate. Provocative statements, however, can be reinforced more heavily.

To claim that 95% of (muslim) women in Pakistan do not understand a major sin in Islam can be reinforcing.

It is reinforcing because people respond more to these claims. Whether people rebut or agree, it seldom matters as long as it gets an emotional reaction.

Unfortunately, there are seldom any checks put on shows in the Pakistani context. Political commentary is fact-checked in a somewhat bipartisan manner. However, the religious commentary is not. Social commentary is also not fact-checked as rigorously as it should be.

This allows commentators to give out provocative statements regularly.

The female host of the show provided some pushback. But these rebuttals were not about the validity of the information that both Khalil-ur-Rehman and Sahil Adeem handed out. Moreover, the panelists seemed to agree on the point that Aurat March featured placards that were ‘obscene.’

At one point, Khalil-ur-Rehman eluded that these cards were made for prostitutes. While my perspective on sex work remains largely amoral, I understand that remarks like these could be considered derogatory. 

But the writer faced no pushback on this claim.

Issues with Provocative Statements

While Khalil-ur-Rehman does not consider himself to be a scientist, Sahil Adeem does. Adeem has claimed at multiple points that he is a psychologist. Psychology is a behavioral science and thus to pose as an authority in that could give credence to certain claims.

The issue with scientists using certain provocative statements is that this compromises their neutrality. A provocative statement can often misconstrue certain facts. In fact, a focus on provocation could even ‘create’ false facts.

Conclusion

The interview reflected the state of television, its regulation, standards of content and reliance on sensationalism. One particular point that really stuck with me was the ease by which this show allowed misinformation by the guests and the hosts. At the end of the day, the ratings and views stacked up. One question remained:

What did we really learn about women’s rights?

Perhaps at a certain point of the future, this issue would be addressed. However, looking at the current specimen, I am not optimistic. Sensationalism is a powerful tool of journalism. But I believe that sensationalism in scholarship, as demonstrated by Sahil Adeem, is indicative of poor standards.

One can still hope that new standards could be set. I, for one, have hope even if it is in futility.  

References

• Ahmad, I. (2009). Genealogy of the Islamic state: reflections on Maududi’s political thought and Islamism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 15, S145-S162.
• Franceschi, P. (2009). Theory of Cognitive Distortions: Over-Generalization and Mislabeling.
• Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive science, 26(5), 521-562.

Written by Abdullah Qureshi