Author: Saima Baig

I write on science, history, nature, environment, climate change, feminism, politics and religion.

Of tribes, propaganda and the search for reason

Human beings are social creatures. Our evolutionary pathway has been such that working and living in groups has been an advantage. This has enabled us to not only survive but also to thrive, and therefore we hold our tribes very close to our hearts. These group associations, whether they are national, political, religious or cultural, represent our identities and give us our sense of being. And for the most part it has worked. Our ability to cooperate is an essential property of our brain and it has enabled us to deal with extreme environments and diverse circumstances.

Tribal affiliations have also been a means to control society. If you belong to a particular group, its approval is important. The group’s ideology is your ideology, so in that way it has been a means to an ordered society. But tribal affiliations may ultimately lead to strict adherence to dogma. We see this happening all the time, whether in national, religion, political, and social ideological settings. It may seem to us that it is happening more in the 21st century but the truth is that it has always been a part of human civilizations. Tribal groups and our affiliations to them have been ubiquitous and have served to create order.

But they have also been instrumental in creating division, because excessive competition between groups inevitably leads to conflict. More intense the conflict, the more we see those outside your group as “them”; as members of the other group and not as individuals.

Because our affiliations give us our sense of identity — we define ourselves by asserting our loyalty to our groups — it is very hard to stray away from their prescribed narrative, from group-think. To us, being good members of a group is of extreme value, much more than being correct. We will choose to be in good standing with our peers at the cost of being on the side of facts and evidence.

Human being also subscribe to narratives and there is nothing more binding than group narratives. Which is why, even when presented with evidence, people tend to not venture too far away from the “party line”. Not believing in evolution and climate change are examples. Our affiliations and belief in the sanctity of group narratives make it very hard to understand or pay credence to scientific evidence. The opposite of what we believe in becomes fake news or propaganda. This may also seem to be a new phenomenon, but propaganda, whether perceived or actual, has also been a part of us for a long time and it has also been used to control group members by promoting the narrative in such a way that the “others” – the “outsiders” – are always wrong. It’s not lies, it is post-truth, when it’s from within one’s group and fake news when it is from the other.

To summarize, our tribes are important to us because they give us our sense of identity, and the tribe’s narratives are important to us because we do not want to be denied our group’s goodwill. This is why we incline towards stories that represent our tribe’s ideological viewpoint. Even in the face of strong evidence. There have been experiments that have shown that human beings tend to disregard evidence when it is against their tribe or its beliefs. Henri Tajfel called it Social Identity Theory.

There is also our penchant for short stories, for anecdotes. Take vaccination for example. We will believe the actress who thinks vaccines are bad over doctors, or take herbal medicone for cancer because “big pharma” is bad. Because in both these instances it is easier to believe the anecdote and we do not need to make the effort to look for evidence. How many times have you heard someone tell you very convincingly that they “know” something works, because it works for them? We love the idea of hearing about that woman who cured her cancer only through changing her diet, or that kid who did not get autism because he was never vaccinated. It does not matter that these are just stories. They do not represent facts or evidence. It’s just easier to believe it and to share this information immediately.

So, in a world of strong tribal bonds, proclivity to group narratives, and predilection for anecdotes, how do we make sure that our decisions are informative and that we rely on reason? There is really only one way of doing this — by understanding the scientific method. This does not mean that we all have to be scientists.

Firstly we must always remember that we tend towards our groups and their talking points and every time we are faced with information we must consider that it may not be agreeable to them. It means we have to consider opposing points of view, We need to listen to people whose ideologies differ from ours. We must ensure that we are exposed to differing opinions – to dissent. And when presented with evidence our only course of action should be to accept that evidence and if required, change our minds.

Most importantly, we need to understand the differences between anecdotes and evidence. There are many steps to get from the first to the second. Anecdotes are just stories, they may or may not be factual. Even if a few are, they are not data because for that you need a representative sample. And even if you have the representation, you need to differentiate between correlation and causation. Evidence is only found when all the data makes a particular theory true. If the data can be true for my theory but it can also be true for an opposing theory, it is not evidence.

Once you have evidence, you are armed with reason and that’s all you need to deal with propaganda, post truth or fake news.

Read on Medium

The jihadi bride and moral dilemma

There are an estimated 400 British nationals (there could be more), who left for Syria to join the Islamic State caliphate. Some have died, some are in refugee camps and there is no information about the rest. Here is the dilemma. What do we do when some of them want to come back to the UK?

The Islamic State are some of the most barbaric psychopaths to exist on this planet, who have committed extremely heinous crimes since they launched their “caliphate” in 2014. All those who left their countries to join this group may have had lofty ideals of a perfect Islamic caliphate in their minds; they may have been persecuted as minorities in their own countries but one thing is clear, they join ISIS knowing what they we all knew about them: that they are murderous psychopaths. The UK nationals who joined them also knew this. For me it is hard to relate to the fact that whatever persecution you may face in the UK, (and we know that there is inequality and people do face difficulties due to their race or religion), the option you choose is to join a murderous cult — unless of course you are a psychopath yourself. In which case, I don’t think that they should be allowed to come back. I am not sure that they will provide the kind of information that the intelligence agencies are seeking. Not only did they participate in the murder of people — of British nationals — but also, if they come back, they will be a burden on citizens.

Then there are the young women: the so-called jihadi brides, who left to marry members of a murderous cult. Some of these women were adults, who made conscious decisions to give up their lives and become wives of Charles Manson type individuals. From my vantage point, their lives and liberties in the UK could not have been so bad, even in the worst of situations, that being the fourth wife of Abdullah the Blade in Mosul, was a better option.

However, some of these were young girls — 15 years old — like Shamima Begum, who left with two of her friends to become a jihadi bride. Some experts are of the view that they were groomed and it is entirely possible that they were. And here is where the moral dilemma arises. Shamima is pregnant and wants to return so that she can have her baby in the UK. She is a British national and therefore her child will be too.

I am conflicted in this case. She was 15 years old when she left. A young age. But she would have been able to drive and get married (albeit with parental consent) in another year. These are adult activities. It means that society has deemed it ok for people to enter adulthood at that age. On the other hand, I can understand the kind of inner turmoil girls like her would be going through. South Asian mainly Pakistani or Bangladeshi girls, who are born in the UK, but were restricted from being as free as their counterparts are. Whose parents imposed their outdated ideologies on their kids, especially the girls, and outside the environs of their oppressive households is a completely different world. These girls can be easy targets for groomers, who can promise them actual heaven.

Should these girls be allowed back? Again, I am conflicted. Shamima does not seem to be repentant. She seems to be proud of her decision to go. She is 19 now. I am not convinced she is post-traumatic. “I saw heads in the bins, they did not faze me,” she said in her interview. Based on that, my reaction is that she should be left where she is. However, there is a child, who did not make any choices in this matter. What is our responsibility to that child? Surely, we cannot let him grow up in that situation and potentially become a jihadi too, or should we let him return to the UK and brought up by someone else? I have no sympathy for Shamima, but I do not want society to abandon that child.

Read on Medium

Liverpool City Region Year of Environment 2019

In January 2019, the Liverpool City Region declared 2019 as the official Year of the Environment, the City Region’s contribution to the national Year of Green Action.

This is a cross-agency programme and entails a year of activities, which will engage communities with nature, reducing waste and improving health and well-being. The idea is to involve more and more people in environmental and conservation projects. Activities will be focused around themes such as air quality, climate change and resilience, green spaces, habitats & biodiversity, health and well-being, sustainable energy, waste reduction, water quality and conservation, and connecting with nature.

In order to increase engagement and to promote events #YOE2019LCR and #iwillnature are being used and communities can follow the Liverpool City Region on twitter to keep abreast of the activities.

 

 

The myth of the hijabi woman’s agency

Let’s clear one thing out from the beginning. This blog is not about banning women from wearing the veil. Freedom of religion necessitates that people are able to practice their religion the way they are required to. They are free to make religious decisions, even if those decisions are stupid, so long as they are personal, do not interfere in other people’s lives and are not harmful to members of society.

Types of Islamic headgear

This blog is also not about the false equivalence between veiled women and the so-called “scantily” clad women. There is no equivalence. Yes, women should dress whichever way they want but while — for the most part — choosing to wear less clothes IS actually a personal decision, choosing to wear the veil is another matter.

Which is why I want to talk about agency. When veiled Muslim women are criticised for espousing ridiculous views about patriarchy, i.e. that there is none and that they are free and it is their choice to wear the veil, we are told that we are undermining their agency with our criticism. That they are independent, free women, who have the right to wear the veil. Again, let me reiterate, I am not arguing against their right to wear it. They absolutely have the right to wear it as far as governmental regulations should be concerned.

Coming to this mythical agency everyone keeps mentioning, which basically is the capacity or ability to make a decision and enacting that decision on society. I understand that as being able to exert power on your little corner of the world.

Muslim women do not wear a veil because it is an expression of freedom or a fashion choice. They wear it because they are required to do so as per religion. If they do not, it is a sin and anything bad that may happen to them is their fault, because they are fair game.

From the outset, we can see that much of their agency has been depleted. If they want to be good Muslim women, and go to heaven (although this is also disputable as, apparently, women are going to be a minority in heaven since most are going to hell Sahih Bukhari 7:62:124, Sahih Muslim 36:6596, Sahih Muslim 36:6601), they should cover themselves up appropriately. In this instance, religion undermines the agency.

Now why do I think the veil is the cornerstone of patriarchy? Because it is. Women of respectable families were required to cover themselves long before the advent of Islam, which continued this custom. Believing women are required to cover themselves, so as to not bring dishonour on their fathers, brothers, husbands. Only permitted men are allowed to look at their hair etc. Therefore, the honour of fathers, brothers, and husbands dictates how a woman may dress when she is with other men.

When only certain men are allowed to look at “their women”, said women are property and must be protected as such; by being wrapped up. Which is why the defense of hijab and niqab is given with protecting your lollypop and juicebox (your property) from flies (other men) analogies.

If you dig deep into the bedrock of this, it is clear. This agency is very limited. That is how patriarchy and religion have modernised themselves: by inventing the myth of the agency of women, especially veiled women. It has told them that they are making a choice, and have the freedom to exert that choice. This has been religion — and by extension — patriarchy’s greatest trick: convincing women that they have agency.

To me, their freedom is just like that of mice in a maze that I read in The Handmaid’s Tale, which are free to go anywhere, so long as they remain inside the maze. And that is the extent of agency veiled woman have.

Read on Medium

A new day for Pakistan? The Aasia Bibi Verdict

A strange thing has happened in the land of the pure, the bastion of Islam that is Pakistan. A woman imprisoned for almost nine years and who was on death row for blasphemy has been acquitted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The reason I call this strange is that in Pakistan — it is. The country’s infamous blasphemy laws are used willy-nilly to settle personal scores and it is very difficult to be absolved of this ridiculous crime. Plenty of people are languishing in jail because they had supposedly “blasphemed” against Islam, its Prophet or the Qur’an.  In fact, Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab, was murdered for trying to get Asia Bibi’s acquittal. And it is Asia who has been acquitted today.

This is no doubt a landmark ruling, not least because there was absolutely no evidence against Asia Bibi, but also because it shows that even though the case against her was entirely fabricated she still had to languish in jail for almost a decade before getting justice. Judges would continue to recuse themselves from her case and lawyers were unwilling to represent her.

This is how hard it is to get out of the blasphemy trap in Pakistan. Her acquittal at least gives a little hope that others might get justice too. Much has to be said about her current lawyer Saiful Malook, who argued her case successfully in the supreme court and who is no doubt under threat for his life as well. Her previous lawyer, Naeem Shakir, died last year.

Of course, the religious fanatics cannot just let this go without an outcry. For them it is not important that there was no evidence against her. In Pakistan, the accusation of blasphemy is always the judgement — and sometimes the execution.

Now, TLP (Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan), a party of right-wing religious nut jobs, has come out on the streets to protest against the verdict.  They have threatened the judges, the army chief, the government and, of course, Asia and her lawyers. She and her family are still in danger and it is not clear when she will be released and where she will go.

TLP, like many other religious parties, has been propped up by Pakistan’s military establishment to keep tight control over democratically-elected governments.  They have usually been brought out whenever the ruling party has to be reined in. Recently, the TLP was used to go after Nawaz Sharif’s government.

After Asia’s acquittal, the current Prime Minister Imran Khan addressed the nation.  He supported the verdict and told the TLP and its members on the streets to cease and desist. He warned them that the state will take action if they turn violent.

Yes, this is the same Imran Khan who used the blasphemy card when it was convenient for him to do so, against Nawaz Sharif. In this case he, maintained that Pakistan is an Islamic country, all laws are as per Islam and this decision was too.

The fact that he has changed his tune makes me wonder: has the military establishment had enough of the TLP? Because the only way Imran Khan could have made a speech against a religious party is if he had the backing of the military. Previous prime ministers did not have this backing and therefore always had to tiptoe around fundamentalists.

What is clear from Khan’s bravado is that the military establishment is still very much in control. He is standing his ground because they are behind him. Have they realised that when you unleash monsters, sometimes the monsters come after you?

Are we about to see a change in Pakistan’s support to religious extremists? Perhaps. Or perhaps this is just another strategic move. For now, the army will support the Prime Minister and the TLP will be quietened down. Until the next time.

There is much to celebrate. An innocent woman has been acquitted. But here is the rub.  That very word “innocent,” because she would have been punished if she had been guilty. Asia has been released because there was no evidence against her.

This is the first baby step against the misuse of blasphemy laws in Pakistan. This acquittal has indicated that there needs to be evidence to show that a person has blasphemed. There are many many more steps to follow. This does not mean that there is a wave of support to repeal these arcane laws.

While we should rejoice that she has been released, we must think of all those still incarcerated. And we must not forget the fact that blasphemy as a concept and blasphemy laws as part of the justice system need to be completely abolished.  Human rights demand it.

(Published in Sedaa – Our Voices)