Category: Commentary

Categories
Commentary Current Affairs

Khalil-Ur-Rehman, Crimes, Hypocrisy and Sadism in Pakistan

In July, 2024, a kidnapping made headlines across Pakistani media. According to the victim, the famous screenwriter Khalil-ur-Rehman Qamar, he was lured at night to a place by a woman named ‘Aamna Urooj’ where his phone, cash and wallet were snatched from him. The snatchers then made Qamar transfer about Rs 250,000 to their account and blindfolded him, leaving him at an unknown location.

On paper, this appears to be a harrowing account of ‘honey trap’ kidnapping. However, a significant portion of the digital Pakistani audiences found it anything but serious. A few hours after the incident, the memes were already pooling in.

The memes were generally about the fact that Qamar had said he chose nighttime to be the right hour to go to the woman’s place because his physician told him he could not go out in the sun.

In more recent days, a video was also leaked in which Qamar can be seen being intimate with Aamna Urooj. Qamar says that he was held at gunpoint, to perform those acts. However, once again, the internet responded viciously to Qamar’s apparent plight.

In this brief analysis, I will attempt to reason how it could be that such an incident would receive widespread ridicule rather than condemnation.

Hypocrisy

It is public news that Khalil-ur-Rehman is apparently against ‘obscene’ acts of ‘intimacy’ among members of the opposite sex. He has publicly spoken out against co-education and also lambasted Aurat March for its bold posters.

However, inconsistencies between these beliefs and Qamar’s own actions are very obvious. For example, while being a critic of environments employing and/or providing education to both sexes, his own dramas feature both sexes. This is a very basic inconsistency that has yet to be explored meaningfully in any interview that the screenwriter has given.

Furthermore, there is a clear inconsistency in Qamar’s beliefs that women should be allowed to choose who they want for marriage, but are automatically invalidated if they engage in intimate actions.

This is seemingly even more incompatible with Qamar’s decision to visit Urooj at late night.

There are many auto-immune conditions that could be grounds for not going out in the sun. However, the sun sets before dusk. There is plenty of time to schedule the meeting at a much less suspicious time.

These apparent instances of inconsistencies are the main drivers of the memes online.

Seriousness of the Kidnapping

If one had only the memes and the online discourse as a source, what happened to Khalil-ur-Rehman appears comical.

Many detractors of the seriousness of this incident claim that Qamar got what he deserved.

However, here is a question:

Does a person with double standards deserve to be put through a potentially deadly crime?

According to Qamar, his valuables were snatched from him in a place where he was expecting to meet alone with a person. There was consent involved for Qamar to come to this place. To then be robbed and kidnapped vindicates Qamar of his supposed hypocrisy – simply because he was not forcing anyone here to do anything.

Moreover, firearms were also involved, which could have potentially escalated the incident into a more heinous crime.

Even if we consider the fact that no physical harm was done, Qamar was under gunpoint and blindfolded and driven off to an unknown place. This is disorienting and resembles a near-death experience. Victims of kidnapping can develop major psychiatric problems including major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Stockholm’s Syndrome.

All of these conditions are serious mental issues.

So, why would anyone joke about kidnapping?

Sadism in Pakistan

Sadism, in its essence, is finding pleasure in the misery of others.

Unfortunately, as can be seen in the online discourse of major figures in Pakistan, sadism has become common. Sadism can be found in people making jokes on cricketing star Haris Rauf’s reaction to a fan hassling him in public. Sadism can also be found in people trolling the death of former Prime Minister Nawaz Shareef’s mother and his own poor health.

I do understand that I would probably be very unfair in discounting the context for this trolling. After all, all of these figures have been involved in major upsets for the public of Pakistan.

However, making fun of one’s experience of being kidnapped is an act of sadism which has become too common. Even political commentators with clout, like Muzammil Shah can be seen making light of this violent crime.

But what is the problem with making fun of the kidnapping?

The problem lies in laughing at the victim. It normalizes a pathological behavior of deriving pleasure out of violence inflicted on others. This is indicative of psychopathic tendencies and to see how prevalent it is at the current moment should be cause for alarm.

Why?

It is a problem when we open up the risk of dehumanizing victims with genuine concerns. We open our mainstream discourse to ridicule others publicly.

We risk hurting those who have gone through traumatic experiences.

Even when we ridicule a certain public figure, this could change our attitude as a society towards crimes like kidnapping and robbery.

Conclusion

It is nigh impossible to stop the trolling culture in Pakistani digital spheres. This is because technology has been disseminated to every wrung of society. Almost everyone is on social media. Almost everyone has an opinion.

And many of these opinions are very egocentric.

Another equally impossible problem is of our own sadistic tendencies. No matter who the victim is, a violent crime is a violent crime. It has no legal justification – otherwise it would not be a crime.

Whatever Khalil-ur-Rehman’s beliefs are. However nonsensical and intellectually deficient they might be, it does not take away from the violent nature of the crime.

It is truly unfortunate that crime in Pakistan is now being justified based on the victim’s borderline benign beliefs.

Categories
Commentary Psychoanalysis

What is the Patriarchy? A Psychological Analysis of Gender Norms

It is no secret that women’s representation in many fields has increased since the early-to-middle 20th century. Moreover, female-oriented laws to protect women’s rights have also increased. However, it seems as if the patriarchal attitudes of society still persist. Women are still underrepresented in the STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine) fields. Moreover, many developed countries also continue to have fewer females in key areas of employment and education.

More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic also seems to have affected women more in functional areas. Given the persistent attempts at helping women gain equality, why are we still lagging behind?

In this article, I will address this question through a psychosocial analysis of the patriarchy.

First, nevertheless, it is necessary to define what patriarchy is.

What is Patriarchy?

Patriarchy is an overarching concept of male dominance over women as it presents in society.

As summarized by Strid and Hearn (2022), patriarchy can be understood as a catch all term.

I’ll put forward these definitions briefly.

Patriarchy was used to talk about male dominance and the ways that men control women.  To define effects on women’s mental concept of family systems where men trade women and fathers’ symbolic power in those systems. Patriarchy also defined male power over women and how this affects capitalism. It further denotes a sexual hierarchy shown by women’s roles as mothers, housekeepers, and shoppers in the family. Moreover, patriarchy is also seen as a historically specific form of love power.

Patriarchy as a Psychological Construct

On a psychological level, patriarchy exists in the beliefs of an individual.

This can be exhibited through androcentric language, even by women. These beliefs can also be seen in the similarity of attitudes and values of gender in multiple generations. Some researchers also theorize that because of their subscription to social norms, women might feel pressured to choose gender roles over personal independence.

All these explanations indicate that there is some alignment between women’s self conceptualization and patriarchy.

I’ll explore this alignment in the following section.

Psychological Rationale for Persistence of Patriarchy

Patriarchal elements are difficult to get rid of. These elements can be found in even the most gender neutral countries.

For example, Sweden gets 83.9 out of 100 points on the Gender Equality Index, making it the most equal country in the EU. But, in 2022, women made an average of 90.1% of what men made each month. This indicates a significant gender pay gap.

This pay gap can be explained by women’s preferences regarding work and life in general. However, it can also be explained partially by possible discrimination in the processes of workplace as well.

Thus, it all boils down to psychological elements that boil down to an individual level. This is because preferences are usually formed at an individual level. They can be informed by societal biases – but individual biases themselves could further maintain societal ones.

In particular, there are two strands of psychological rationale that explain patriarchy and its persistence. These are of

  • Essentialist Models of Patriarchy (based on the theory of evolution)
  • Constructionist Models of Patriarchy (based on social constructivism)

To study what maintains patriarchy, I will first refer to evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary Psychology

Evolutionary psychologists reason that there are differences in how much parents invested in their children. This caused sexual selection forces that led to psychological differences between men and women.

As women cared more about their children (for example, by carrying them and feeding them), they became pickier about possible partners than men, who cared less about their children. As a result, men in the past had to fight with each other to get sexual access to women.

Over time, men’s natural tendencies changed to support aggressiveness, competition, and taking risks. It became common for ancestral women to choose partners who could provide for them and their children. Some evolutionary scientists say that sexual selection in humans also happened because women competed with other women to find marriage partners and men chose long-term partners based on their ability to have children and be reliable.

Thus, one rationale for the persistence of patriarchy is of personal preferences for sexual partners. Research appears to be mildly conflicted on this matter.

For instance, research reveals that women tend to prefer men who have several dominance-related traits. These include assertiveness and confidence – among many other characteristics. But it is also suggested that a simple dominant–nondominant dimension may not be very useful when predicting women’s mate preferences.

Nevertheless, without the analysis of the social image of gender, it is impossible to understand the cognitive construct of patriarchy.

Psychological Constructionism

According to psychological constructionism, the way people talk about gender in a society comes from how they relate to the words they use to explain it.

Language has social biases that shape how people think about male and female, like using male names as general. These biases create and support gender inequality. These constructionists think that there aren’t many trait-like differences between men and women that are the same in all situations. They have seen psychology studies as backing this view.

From this point of view, differences in biology between men and women don’t lead to any general trends of psychological differences between the sexes.

It would stand to reason then, that women who exhibit dominant characteristics tend to not conform to a patriarchy.

Research has indicated that women who retain their surname following marriage show a proclivity towards their career. They are also more assertive.

Combining the Two Perspectives

Both evolutionary and constructionist psychology appear to explain parts of what maintains patriarchy. But they fail to provide the entire picture.

There are biological differences among the sexes and these differences do affect one’s view of the world. On the other hand, the way these differences affect a person is based on that person’s interpretations of the social setting and social feedback.

However, just focusing on explaining patriarchal elements through social constructionism cannot explain the gender differences in personal preferences that still persist on a societal level.

After all, there is still a pay gap in Nordic states. Plus, there are major differences in preference for STEMM. One side could argue that these elements continue to exist because of a patriarchal culture. The other side could argue that differences in biology form a basis for such patterns.

I would argue that biological differences and social perceptions and interpretations of these differences are the major maintaining factor for patriarchy.

This can be observed in the phenomenon of gendered beliefs about mathematical ability predicting men’s persistence in careers.

My explanation is this:

Men on average are oriented towards work and they have fewer barriers – biologically and socially – than women to pursue their career. Thus, on average, they occupy more positions of authority. As we move towards a more egalitarian society, women will be more represented in the workforce.

However, social values along with biological aspects of procreation could be a major hindering factor.

While proper representation certainly is a positive development, free choice is equally important. Perhaps, it can be concluded that free choice in itself could also maintain many patriarchal norms.

M Abdullah Qureshi

Categories
Commentary

Analysis: “95 percent of Women in Pakistan are ignorant”

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