Nostalgia can be a wave that cleanses, or a tide that drowns; so I tell myself every afternoon, when I wake up to what I like to call morning. (Routine is so overrated). Perhaps I’m going slightly mad, but at 26, in the throes of my twenty third episode of unrequited love, I have to ask a few crucial questions, which take me back in time.

Firstly, is it normal for a heterosexual male to discover that his true love, the one soul-mate in whom he finds solace, is a dead homosexual? Secondly, is Freddie Mercury in heaven? We’ll begin with the first, as to be unexpected from one who finds routine anathema to happiness.

Our affair started when he died. One cold November afternoon, at the age of five,  I came home from school to faintly overhear my mother telling my brother: “The…Queen… is dead”. My state of shock was quickly eased into indifference as the blanks were filled in with “…lead singer of…Freddie Mercury…”. With no idea of what she meant, I buried my head back into Janet and Allan Ahlberg’s The Jolly Postman.Readingwas my thing, not music. Little did I know, in just over 24 hours, it would manifest they were talking about the love of my life; my distant companion and emotional guide through the turmoil of life’s heartaches. The following night, a wreath of white lilies was to turn into a bed of roses.

On said evening, sitting in the living room with my head buried in a book my memory cannot recall, my gaze became transfixed to the screen as the sound of the most beautiful, passionate voice to ever bless the planet shot into my ears. Watching the BBC’s Freddie Mercury Tribute Programme, I felt his energy pumping through my veins, watching, in awe, his on stage stride and theatrical hand gestures but most importantly, subconsciously absorbing, through lyrics, his insight into the paradox of human nature, for later comfort.

At the end of the programme I recall telling myself: this is the way to live life; with colourful passion. Unfortunately, years of dull maths, physics and chemistry teachers since put paid to that.

A few days later I had a copy of Queen’s Greatest Hits II and within hours, lyrics such as: “A young fighter screaming, with no time for doubt” became inscribed in my soul, eternally.  Is it any wonder motivation has always been recognised as my greatest strength? (Perhaps I should be less honest about the root of my self starter attitude. In all job interviews, where I thought honesty was appreciated, when asked where my motivation came from I, for a rather verbose creature, succinctly responded, “Freddie Mercury”. Maybe all my interviewees have been homophobes or maybe it was just a non-fitting answer for the corporate world; I now make a living as a freelance writer).

The lyrics to songs such as Breakthru and It’s a Hard Life would later help me through some of the most darkest days of my existence. Indeed, “life is tough on your own…”

Fast forward through twenty broken hearts and we end up in 2008.  The year before, for some odd reason (to be elaborated another time) I, as a so called liberal Muslim, somehow ended up adopting traditionalist, absolutist thought. My Freddie moustache lost its distinction by connecting with a new spurt of facial hair across my cheeks. I felt I had betrayed my beloved. But, as he taught me as a young child: love kills, and the death it caused in me threw me right back into his arms.

For that year, brainwashed by my own material insecurity and desperately seeking solid ground, I experimented with my treasured religion and let me just say, I took things a bit too far, moving from its centre ground to the right wing. However, my libido saved me. With an (unfulfilled) sex drive higher than that of Freddie, Hendrix and Prince put together, my lust could not be stopped by a burka. Spending most of my days in mosques, the catching of unintentional glances from sweet, diamond like eyes, behind mysterious face veils, saw me thrown out by Mullahs for trying to seduce their daughters with my spiritually erotic poetry. “Love is an attribute of God. As his pious worshippers, let us make it, passionately, without restriction” read the subtlest line.

Since my desire for love was again unrequited, the torment left me in a vacuum. Being a pseudo fundamentalist for a year meant I had thrown out my music collection (and torn down all my Freddie posters). With no girlfriend and this time no Freddie to see me through the pain of loneliness with songs like Too Much Love Will Kill You, I went into emotional breakdown. What can one expect under pressure? I was offered counselling. Instead, I chose to download the complete works of Queen. I was saved. Dear Freddie, “whenever this world is cruel to me, I’ve got you to help me forgive…you’re my best friend”.

A year later, at the culmination of a philosophy degree, a different love affair with another moustached Freddie, more commonly known as Nietzsche, began. Still recovering from the straitjacket of absolutist theology, I found peace, and God again, in his Dionysian art. However, with the intense silent study that final year philosophy required, and with the first year in many in which my heart was not broken, I found no presence for the real Freddie in my life. Sometimes those deepest in love need time apart.

But for a romantic like me, heartache is never far away, and so Freddie will always be needed in my life. Thus today, with another broken heart – perhaps the last – as this may be the one that kills me, I ask myself, am I wasting my time chasing after the one woman who I think can make my life more than bearable? Or is Freddie all I need? Or is it the case I keep falling into heartache by subconsciously projecting the turmoil of Freddie’s songs onto my world. Is Freddie the cure or cause?  Is the nostalgia of his music cleansing me or drowning me? To be, or not be?

Pending existential crisis aside, let me assume Freddie is the cure. Where does that leave the soul of my beloved? If I am never to find love outside my affair with Freddie, I need to be certain he’ll be waiting for me inParadisewith a bouquet of flowers and a book of handwritten poetry.

Confused, I went to visit my local Imam. I began: “In the Quran it says: ‘He who saves a life, it is as if he has saved the whole of mankind’. Now, Freddie has saved me from attempted suicide on several occasions. That is, if overdosing on Lucozade can kill you. I’m sure he has saved countless others too. However homosexuality is a grave sin in Islam and Freddie, was more of a rampant Romeo to Johns than Julietts. I know you can’t speak for God, but please help me rest easier at night by telling me if you think it is possible for Freddie to be forgiven.” I walked in with a question; and came out with a black eye.

So there you have it. Freddie and I, two people from two different worlds, one dead, the other alive and yet we have a functioning relationship that most people would say should never have worked.

Yet, something isn’t quite right is it? This isn’t healthy. I get the feeling what I believe to be my medicine might be my poison. Am I drowning in the tide? I want to break free….

Nafees Mahmud is a freelance writer based in London. He blogs at www.nafeesmahmud.com

Each debater makes their opening argument, followed by an optional rebuttal.

The winner will be decided by the online audience and judged according to the strength of the respective arguments.

The motion: “Islam is Incompatible with Feminism”

For the motion: Mohamad Tabbaa

Against the motion: Katrina Daly Thompson

Here is Mohamad Tabbaa with his response:

Islam and Feminism are incompatible – response

Let me begin by apologising. A sincere, heartfelt apology to all. I am most sorry. I apologise from the depth of my heart for being on the wrong side of feminism. I feel as though I have blasphemed. Lord forgive me. I have indeed sinned.

Or so one might assume by reading some of the responses to my original article. It appears as though disagreeing with a feminist opinion is tantamount not only to misogyny, but in some instances to blasphemy itself. The responses I have come across so far have been interesting to say the least. They have ranged from genuine and interesting, to outright absurd (apparently God does actually have a gender: female. Who knew?). Seeing as there was no official response to the debate, I thought it necessary to address some of the questions/concerns which various people have raised, and attempt to provide some clarification and response on my part. I will try to address those which I feel warrant a response, but I will also highlight some of the more absurd claims in order that readers are aware of a range of views within this debate.

However, before proceeding, I wish to make a clarification. Some respondents (without having ever met me) have felt it necessary to attack me personally and make accusations against my personhood, perhaps in an attempt to reduce my credibility in the eyes of the reader. To this end I have been labelled with a number of traits, each as delightful as the next. There is no need for anyone to engage in such accusations, particularly as they know very little about me. Rather, I am most happy to help out in this regard, and will gladly take this task upon myself. Without a doubt, I am a patronising sexist misogynist; I am an arrogant worthless bastard; I am a fundamentalist wahhabist dog; and I am intellectually lazy and a fraud (I am also quite short, in case that helps). I am a male.

Happy? Great. Now that we’re in agreement as to my inherent evilness (or perhaps, maleness), can we please proceed to the actual argument itself and stop fixating on individuals? Thanks.

There were two disturbing trends prevalent in many of the responses to the original article. The first, very disappointing, trend was that many people, in attempting to refute my argument, ironically fell right into the contradictions which were highlighted in the article. Such responses usually began along the lines of, ‘the author is wrong because he doesn’t understand that feminism is xyz, while Islam is open to interpretations’. I don’t feel that such arguments warrant a response, at least until they can demonstrate why and how feminism can be pinned down to one ‘authentic’ meaning (feminism is), but Islam cannot (Islam is open to interpretations). Similarly, others took the Orientalist path by arguing that, ‘the reason Islam needs feminism is because the Muslim world is backward and the western world is advanced”. Again, I don’t think there is a need to address such claims.

The second disturbing trend was that none of the responses I have come across so far have actually addressed the key argument/concern of the first article. As mentioned previously, the original article was “not really about Islam and feminism per se; … [but more] to do with epistemology”. To date, none of the responses have tackled the debate from this epistemological standpoint. Instead, many have simply discussed how some of the concerns of feminism might overlap with some of the concerns of Islam; something which was already acknowledged in the first article. I will return to this core question later on.

Now to the responses/questions themselves.

1-      “The recent empowerment of women is itself a proof that Islam is feminist”

No, this is not a joke. Apparently it’s a very real idea found in certain feminist literature. Where to begin? Well, for starters, if the recent ‘empowerment of women’ is testament to Islam being feminist, then surely, by the same logic, the empowerment of ‘patriarchal men’ for 1000 years prior to this would prove that Islam is patriarchal, no? But this idea also poses numerous other problems. Does the previous empowerment of Nazis also prove that Islam is Nazi? Or does the current empowerment of liberal capitalism (which is what many feminists are actually fighting) prove that Islam is liberal and capitalist? Why not? Are we to believe that God empowered women because He favours feminism, but empowered Nazis for some other, unknown reason? Also, who defines ‘empowerment’ in the first place? Does this empowerment need to reach government, or is it enough that it’s a powerful idea? Do we judge its impact globally, or can we localise it? What happens when two opposing groups are empowered at the same time, do we get two ‘authentic’ Islams? I’m sure you get my point. Besides, the idea that authentic interpretation should reside in the hands of the powerful – precisely due to their power – is quite traumatic.

2-      “A person can be a Muslim and a feminist at the same time”

Of course they can. Just as a person can be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time, or a heterosexual and homosexual at the same time. Us humans are quite unique in our ability to live out contradictions without the need to reconcile between them. But that is not the point. The focus of the discussion here is not on individuals and their discrepancies. Rather, the debate is about whether the two theories of Islam and feminism can be coherently reconciled. I argue that they cannot. Islam is a divinely inspired religion, whereas feminism is not. Feminism, therefore, by its nature as a human creation, must be open to multiple interpretations and definitions. Nobody can claim to represent the ‘true, objective’ feminism, as objectivity can only be attributed to a higher being. While this is all well and good for feminism in a secular context, exporting such a belief into the religious sphere would then conflict with the religious notion of a higher being and hence an objective truth. Therefore, in its essence, the attempt to merge Islam with feminism is an attempt to merge the epistemologies of ‘multiple truth’ and ‘objective truth’ into one. I’m sure all will agree that this is impossible.

However, I would argue that it is in fact worse and more contradictory than this. It is not an equal merger being advocated; it is the merging of Islam into feminism, which means, in the case of epistemology, dropping the Islamic epistemology (of objective truth) for the feminist epistemology of multiple truths. It is, therefore, the attempt to superimpose the feminist epistemology onto the Islamic discourse; or, again, to kill the Islamic God.

3-      “What’s wrong with interpreting the Quran/Islam to suit feminist goals and values?”

Although it may sound noble and innocent, there are a number of problems with this approach. The first is that, attempting to interpret Islam according to feminist values is to place feminism at the centre rather than Islam, thereby raising feminism above Islam. Islam is therefore used as a means by which to gain the ultimate goal of feminism; as if feminism itself is the religion and Islam the human-made idea. We need to ask how it might be justified to place feminist goals at the centre of a religious discourse, seeing as feminism was born of a secular and largely anti-religious trajectory. This is why the first article suggests that an ‘investigative’ approach is required.  Such an approach seeks out the message of the Quran (and then accepts that), rather than trying to transplant one’s own views onto Islam, which arrogantly assumes that we already know what is right, and that it’s now merely a process of selectively quoting convenient passages. An approach of humility is required, which accepts that God knows what is right and wrong, and that we are here first and foremost to learn rather than to teach. After all, the word Muslim means ‘one who submits’.

Then there are the inevitable consequences of such an attempt, some of which were mentioned in the original article. For example, if we agree that reinterpreting Islam to suit feminist values is fine, the surely reinterpreting Islam to fit misogynist values is just as fine, or reinterpreting Islam to fit white-supremacist values is also fine. Where – and most importantly, how- could we draw the line if we agree that Islam is open to interpretations which so obviously go against many of its clearest texts? The other obvious consequence, which is the key concern yet to be addressed, is that opening up Islam to unrestrained interpretation would most definitely entail a denial of an objective Islamic truth – of God’s truth. This is quite a predicament; if we deny the existence of an objective truth, we essentially kill God, as He becomes entirely irrelevant, as does the concept of religion itself; if, however, we accept the belief in an objective truth (as is sensible in religious discussions), how do we go about discovering this truth, and how do we claim that this truth is actually none other than feminism itself? What if we discovered that this truth was actually not in line with feminism; that it was ‘unfeminist’? Would we drop our feminist beliefs as a result, or would we instead insist that we must be right for some mysterious reason? Besides, suggesting that there must be a feminist Islam in order to approach women’s issues suggests that there is a lack in Islam towards such issues, and also reduces Islam to a cultural category.

4-      “Are you saying that Islam is not open to interpretation?”

In short, no. Islam is obviously open to interpretation, and we all know that a multitude of interpretations do already exist. However, that is not the point being argued. What is being argued is that interpretations of Islam exist within a discursive tradition with methodological tools, which makes the tradition both dynamic and restrained. All interpretations of Islam must be subject to certain guidelines and restrictions; they must be restrained in order for Islam to retain any semblance of meaning. The question, then, is what are these restrictions, and from where do they derive? My contention is that such restrictions are already largely in place within the Islamic discourse, and they are based around a number of different factors, including Quran, Hadith, Athar, linguistics, scholarly consensus, historical context and a number of others. Through such a tradition, and utilising such tools, women’s (and men’s, lest we forget) issues are dealt with.

The problem lies in the fact that feminism, despite its variations, has its own methodologies and discursive boundaries. These are obviously not the same as the Islamic ones, and so the two quite often come into conflict. This is why the two cannot be coherently merged. Therefore, if feminists would like to do away with these Islamic parameters and replace them with modern ones, including feminism and secularism, a justification for such a practice – which goes against 1400 years of scholarship – is required. Alternatively, if feminists wish to include feminism as one such parameter, again, a justification for this is required, particularly given feminism’s strong links to secularism and postmodernist thought.

The call for Islam to be open to unrestrained interpretation, which is required to validate a ‘feminist Islam’, seeks to do away with these parameters, as there is no possibility of a feminist reading of Islam with such boundaries in place. However, it is precisely these boundaries which help dictate what can be considered an ‘Islamically valid’ opinion from one that is not. If such boundaries were not in place, there would be absolutely nothing to stop a person from coming out and stating that ‘Islam is about the belief in 7 gods’. The only way to denounce such an opinion as unIslamic is to first accept the parameters present within the Islamic discourse. In this case, one could easily refer to a verse in the Quran (i.e. use the Quranic parameter) to dismiss such a claim as clearly unIslamic. In the case of feminism, without the above parameters, one could easily argue that female infanticide is Islamically valid, and (if interpretations were unrestrained), such an opinion could not be denounced as Islamically ‘wrong’.

5-      “Does that mean that Islam is anti-woman?”

Arguing that Islam and feminism are incompatible does not in any way make a statement about the position of women in Islam. Despite the claims of some, feminism does not have a monopoly over the discourse surrounding women. Opposing feminism in no way amounts to opposing women or women’s rights, and it is disingenuous to conflate the two. My point in raising this issue is not to argue that the oppression of women does not exist or does not need to be addressed, nor is it to deny that we, as Muslims, have real issues to contend with. Likewise, critiquing feminism does not discount its merits, such as its anti-colonial and anti-racist currents.

Rather, my main point is that we, as Muslims, do not need feminism in order to approach such issues and have such conversations. The point I’m trying to convey is that the attempt to merge Islam into feminism is an attempt to colonise the Islamic discourse/space, and ultimately to colonise Islamic/Muslim voices. It is to highlight the epistemological violence which would result from such a merger. Islam already has within its paradigm the language and tools with which to deal with women’s issues. We don’t need feminism to ‘save’ Islam. Couple this with the fact that Islam is divine while feminism is not, and the following questions arise: given that Islam has such tools, why would we choose to constrain our parameters by adopting feminism, and all the constraints and baggage that come with it (including the name itself)? Why is there this idea that one can only approach women’s issues via the use of ‘feminism’? Why must we adopt a secular philosophy – which does not even recognise God in the first instance – in order to interpret religious texts?  It is simply a call to at least resist the colonisation of our thoughts, after many of our countries (and bodies) have already been colonised.

Finally, I was made aware of certain responses made by the team at Muslimah Media Watch. I have to admit that I was quite excited at the prospect of a decent, mature and challenging engagement on the topic. However, I was soon disappointed upon reading the responses, which seemed to lack any real breadth, and importantly did not address the key issues raised. Instead, a number of judgements were made regarding my intentions, as well as some very blatant misquotes attributed to me, which is unfortunate (and somewhat immature). However, amongst the responses, one particularly struck me as quite odd, which was written by Nicole. As I understood it, Nicole was essentially arguing that, as a male, I had no right to be commenting on such issues, and that she was in fact offended by my very act of speaking as a male. Amongst other things, Nicole accused me of putting forward a male-biased view of Islam (‘Hislam’), and eventually dismissed my argument entirely on the following basis: “Oh yeah, because he is a Muslim man, and that’s enough”.

So, apparently my gender disqualifies me from an opinion. Therefore, I would like to ask Nicole some questions, as (being the feeble-minded male that I am) I am somewhat confused: if, based on my gender, I am espousing ‘Hislam’, are you then in return espousing ‘Herslam’ (and I stop to wonder what exactly a trans-gendered person would espouse)? Or are you somehow more neutral than I? If I underwent a sex-change and reposted the same article, would it then be considered valid? Or is there a biological difference between males and females that transcends genitalia? I’d be interested in hearing about this difference, please. If men can be feminists, why then can we not also be anti-feminists? And, most importantly, why are you judging my opinion based solely on my (constructed) gender identity? Is this gender-discrimination not the very injustice which so many feminists seek to eliminate? So how is this discrimination unjustifiable against females, but justifiable against males? Please find it in your heart to look past my condescending sexist misogynist ignorance and enlighten me with a (‘female’) perspective. Thank you.

So, to reiterate my final points, this discussion is not about the definition(s) of feminism, the position of women in Islam, or even the position of feminism in secular discourses. This discussion is primarily about epistemology, colonialism and consistency. And to minimise the possibility of misunderstanding, let me re-emphasise that I am simply advocating the radical notion that Islam is from God, and therefore does not need to be replaced.

Each debater makes their opening argument, followed by an optional rebuttal.

The winner will be decided by the online audience and judged according to the strength of the respective arguments.

The motion: “Islam is Incompatible with Feminism”

For the motion: Mohamad Tabbaa

Against the motion: Katrina Daly Thompson

“God is not dead; and neither is He a feminist”  by Mohamad Tabbaa 

God has not died, just yet. But there is a real push to kill Him. And it’s gaining popular support. I’m sure we’ve all noticed the modern tendency to ‘reconcile’ Islam with almost everything; democracy; liberalism; homosexuality; heck, even Christianity. And now feminism. So what’s the problem, exactly? Surely any right-minded individual would openly embrace the move to bring Islam into modernity, while only a backward Wahhabist regressive fundamentalist caveman would resist, right?

Well, not exactly.

You see, there are a number of fundamental flaws inherent in many of the arguments put forward to ‘modernise’ Islam. I will highlight some of these flaws — especially as they relate to feminism — and argue that not only are Islam and feminism not compatible, but that our actual attempts at reconciling Islam with modern ideologies is futile and misguided.

Rather than launch into definitions of what Islam and feminism mean, I believe it’s important that we first take a step back. This debate, after all, is not really about Islam and feminism per se; this debate is more to do with epistemology. Epistemology, otherwise known as “the theory of knowledge”, is the study of the creation and basis of knowledge itself.[i] Epistemology concerns itself with questions such as: What are the structures and conditions of knowledge? How is knowledge constructed and justified? Does knowledge lead to truth? What are the limits of knowledge? And does God play a role in this process?[ii]

The question being debated here, namely is Islam compatible with feminism, is one which can only be answered by first exploring the epistemological and methodological assumptions underpinning the call for Islamic reformation, and what these mean in the greater scheme of things.

Feminism, in all its variations, depends very heavily on postmodern theories of knowledge; namely that there is no ‘objective’ or transcendental truth; that all realities are merely constructed, contextual and relative, and therefore subject to change; and that all knowledge is intrinsically biased.[iii] Utilising poststructural methods of deconstruction, postmodernists argue that all knowledge is influenced by power, personal interest and especially language, and that therefore no knowledge can claim to be impartial.[iv] It is upon this basis that feminists (rightfully) critique the dominant liberal discourse as being male-oriented and oppressive towards women.

So, while the core concern of feminism might be women’s equality, rights or humanity, postmodernism (and hence, feminism) itself teaches us that one cannot judge an idea based solely on its ‘abstract’ theory, but must instead deconstruct its underlying assumptions in order to ascertain what that idea is really advocating or producing. For example, renowned feminist scholar Margaret Thornton argues that, despite its proclaimed concern of ensuring equality between males and females, liberalism is inherently biased against women; not because of its ‘abstract’ theory, which is neutral, but purely because of its underlying assumptions – its epistemology – which are male-oriented.[v] Likewise, in order to properly assess both the nature and impact of feminism, one must necessarily look past its purported aims and concerns, and instead investigate its philosophical basis.

Let us pause here for a moment. At the core of feminist philosophy lies the belief that there is no transcendental knowledge, there is no objective truth, and that all knowledge is subjective and biased. So what does this mean for Islam, and religion more generally? To begin with, feminism entirely rejects the notion that there is a higher being. That is not to say that one must reject God to be a feminist, but merely that any belief in God must acknowledge that there is no such thing as divine knowledge; basically the idea that you can believe in whichever god you wish, so long as that god stays in your mind and does not intrude into the feminist discourse in any significant way.

Secondly, the idea that there is no objective truth is in stark contrast to one of the core purposes of religion, which is to teach humanity the truth of their existence. Of what benefit is religion if it is just as ‘true’ as atheism? Finally, even if one were inclined to accept the radical notion that God has knowledge, they must also accept that even God’s knowledge is entirely subjective and constructed (perhaps He spent too much time amongst the angels?) or risk departing from feminist philosophy in a very serious way.

In 1967, Roland Barthes took the idea of postmodernism to its inevitable conclusion with his theory of ‘the death of the author’.[vi] Barthes had essentially argued that once a text had been written, it was open to unrestrained interpretation, and, most importantly, that the author’s intention for the work was of no relevance whatsoever. To this end, Barthes wrote that, “it is the language which speaks, not the author”.[vii] Barthes had effectively removed the power to interpret from the author, and instead placed it squarely with the reader. Barthes had killed the author.

The main purpose of this argument, as Margaret Davies explains, was to free interpretation “from anxieties and closures such as ‘is this what the author really meant?’ and [allow it to be] performed in a spirit of openness, and of endless possibility [emphasis added].”[viii] This is what Barthes referred to as the ‘death of the author’. While such an argument may sound convincing given the biased nature of human authors, we must keep in mind what exactly we are dealing with in a religious discourse. In Islam, we are not talking about any old author.

We are talking about God. Therefore, to strip God, the author of the Quran, of authorial authority to interpretation is not only to have a very lowly opinion of God as equal to humans, but it is to kill God Himself. In the Islam/feminism debate, the core conflict lies in the fact that traditional Islamic discourse attempts to understand the intention of God by analysing authentic Islamic texts, while modern discourses, such as feminism, remove God entirely from the equation and place humans at the centre of knowledge. In essence, by arguing that Islam is open to all sorts of interpretation, feminism aims to kill God in Islam.

But it doesn’t end here. Taking the relative, pluralistic approach towards religious interpretations inevitably leads to “endless possibilities”.[ix] The problem with this is that, since there is no ‘authentic’ Islam, and all interpretations are relative and biased, all interpretations must be treated as equal, as there is no basis upon which to criticise one version as ‘unIslamic’ (there is no ‘true’ Islam, remember?). So what exactly does this mean? Well, in short, it means that if we are to accept the feminist interpretation of Islam as valid, then we must also, by default, accept bin Laden’s version as equally valid. Feminists would need to come to the discussion accepting that honour killings, domestic violence, gay-bashings, female infanticide and terrorism are valid Islamic practices, according to one, subjectively valid, interpretation of Islam. Such practices could not be condemned as ‘unIslamic’ if we accept the feminist epistemology of multiple truths and the death of the author.

This is where feminism actually needs traditional Islam, and not the other way around. If feminists wish to condemn the oppression of women in Muslim societies as against the ‘heart’ or ‘nature’ of Islam, then they can only do so by opposing the idea that Islam is open to interpretations, and instead seeking out what God’s authentic Islam teaches. Unfortunately, however, we see that the Muslim feminist discourse regarding Islam is laden with contradictions, and Katrina’s article is no exception. In order to convince us of the validity of feminist Islam, feminists initially argue that “Islam is open to interpretation”.[x] However, many then make the mistake of saying things like, “we must acknowledge some Muslims’ (mis)use [or misrepresentation] of Islam”.[xi] But how can Islam be ‘misrepresented’ or ‘misused’ if there is no singular authentic meaning of Islam by which to judge actions? What if a person genuinely believed that honour killings or domestic violence were an authentic part of their interpretation of Islam? How could we denounce such a view in light of the idea that ‘Islam is open to interpretations’?

Acknowledging this pitfall, many feminists have now turned to human rights as a basis for critiquing such actions, arguing instead that the abovementioned practices are “human rights violations”.[xii] This is a very strange move, and is fundamentally anti-feminist. Many of the most prominent feminists (and postmodernists) have attacked the very core of human rights as being anti-woman and the epitome of (male-oriented) liberalism, such as Catherine MacKinnon, Margaret Thornton, Wendy Brown and Gayatri Spivak.[xiii] In fact, the concept of human rights has been consistently accused of bias and critiqued from every possible standpoint; such that it there is somewhat of a consensus in the legal scholarly world that human rights are fundamentally flawed.[xiv] These are only some of the many fundamental problems associated with attempting to merge Islam into a postmodern discourse such as feminism.

However, a more alarming question also arises and requires urgent attention, which is: Why do we need to merge Islam into anything else in the first place? Is Islam so deficient that we need feminism to ‘save’ it?It is not at all surprising that most of those voices calling for Islamic reformation are of western origin or education. The western (European) experience with religion is extremely different to the Muslim experience, and the results of these different experiences have never played out more clearly than today. The west’s experiment with Christianity (and, to an extent, Judaism) was disastrous to say the least, and does not need any explanation.

Regarding the position of women, they were considered to be sub-human and soulless in the western world; their humanity was denied; they were considered the property of men; they had little to no economic, political, sexual or social rights; and they were generally treated as the root cause of sin and immorality. It is little surprise then that the notion that women were human not only had to be explicitly noted in the western world, but it was also considered a ‘radical’ idea. Given these experiences, many of which were directly related to religion, it is not hard to see why the western world moved in the direction of ‘enlightenment’, secularism and even atheism.

The Muslim experience was not the same, and it is arrogant to assume that the entire globe shares the western experience and mentality. Although the Muslim world obviously had its fair share of bad experiences, these were largely seen to have resulted despite Islam, and not as a result of it. In fact, while many of the European revolutions/movements sought to remove religious authority in order to end oppression and corruption, the Muslim world generally sought to strengthen religious authority to achieve that same end. The recent phenomenal success of Islamist parties across the Muslim world is testament to this ongoing and prevalent attitude. Similarly, Muslims did not need a 19^th Century historian to teach them that women are human; the Quran had already taught them this from the very beginning.

There are a number of points to be made about this difference in religious experience, and how it relates to the current debate on Islam and feminism. It appears that much of this debate rests on oriental racist stereotypes about the ‘backward’ nature of exotic (Muslim) peoples, and the supposed ‘superiority’ of the western (white) world. How? Well, to begin with, the call for feminist Islam suggests that the Muslim scholars of the past 1400 years not only got it terribly wrong, but that they were in fact misogynists. Some have gone so far as to suggest a deliberate cover-up (yes, a conspiracy) amongst all traditional Muslim scholars, who apparently knowingly perpetuated deliberate ‘misreadings’ and ‘mistranslations’ of Islamic texts in order to maintain power.[xv] And it gets worse. Throughout these 1400+ years of cover-up, conspiracy and corruption, the Muslim women who were the (ideal) victims in this narrative were either too stupid or too scared to even speak out against such barbarity, let alone take any assertive action to reclaim their religion.

And so, naturally, the white middle-class enlightened objective free western woman must now come to the rescue of the imperilled and unable female Muslim victim. Yet again. This narrative also suggests that the European experience of mistrusting and secularising religion, which brought us the wonders of enlightenment, colonialism, biological racism, atheism, evolution and capitalism, somehow culminated in the ultimate discovery of the ‘true’ (feminist) meaning of Islam, and of the otherwise unknown representation of God as The Feminist. Very convincing. Indeed.

So in concluding, God is not dead. Alhamdulillah. And it is not in our best interests to try to kill Him. Islam is not feminism, just as feminism is not Islam. The fact that feminists need to radically reinterpret — or at times entirely disregard — very clear Islamic texts highlights this fact beyond a doubt. Islam and feminism are differing ideologies. Each has its own foundations, epistemologies, methodologies, worldviews, discourses and paradigms. This means that, while they have the potential to overlap at times, they cannot be coherently merged into one another without fundamentally compromising one or radically expanding the other. The push to merge Islam into feminism is akin to trying to squeeze an elephant into a birdcage; either the elephant will be killed by being forced into such a narrow entrance, or the birdcage will have to expand so significantly that it would no longer be recognised as a birdcage. Besides, suggesting that Islam ought to merge into feminism suggests the superiority of feminism, and the inferiority of Islam.

So, where to from here? Well, Muslim feminists must now make the choice between the Islamic paradigm, which is centred around God, or the secularised modern theology, which is based almost exclusively around (white) men. We must also move away from this tendency to merge Islam with anything and everything, as this method is limitless, and there is nothing to stop such an approach ultimately leading to a merger between Islam and atheism, with god presented as The Atheist. We should take an investigative approach towards Islam, trying to decipher God’s intention from His revelations, rather than entering with our own preconceived ideas of right and wrong and then attempting to mould Islam into these ideas. Humble pie is ultimately more fulfilling than arrogant pie. If you personally feel the need to become a feminist, a socialist, a liberal or a capitalist, by all means, knock yourself out. But there’s no need to drag Islam down with you.

Mohamad Tabbaa is a recent Honours graduate in Legal Studies at La Trobe University, Melbourne, and former president of the La Trobe Unoversity Islamic Society. 

Each debater makes their opening argument, followed by an optional rebuttal.

The winner will be decided by the online audience and judged according to the strength of the respective arguments.

The motion: “Islam is Incompatible with Feminism”

For the motion: Mohamad Tabbaa

Against the motion: Katrina Daly Thompson

Feminism and Islam are compatible

Katrina Daly Thompson

There are two groups who might argue that feminism and Islam are incompatible: Muslims who don’t understand what feminism is, and feminists who don’t understand that Islam is open to interpretation, including feminist interpretations.  I’ll address each of these groups in turn.

Many people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, don’t understand what feminism is.  They might think it’s a Western idea focused on man-hating, female superiority, or bra burning, but none of that is accurate.  There are three definitions of feminism that inspire me; the first defines feminism as an idea, the second as a movement, and the third as an intellectual approach.

What does feminism mean as an idea? “Feminism,” Cheris Kramerae wrote, “is the radical notion that women are human beings.”[i]  It’s that simple. Feminists argue that human beings should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sex or gender. For Muslims, this should be an easy argument to get behind.  After all, the Qur’an tells us,

“Verily, for all men and women who have surrendered themselves unto God, and all believing men and believing women, and all truly devout men and truly devout women, and all men and women who are true to their word, and all men and women who are patient in adversity, and all men and women who humble themselves [before God], and all men and women who give in charity, and all self-denying men and self-denying women, and all men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and all men and women who remember God unceasingly: for [all of] them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward.”[ii]

In other words, the Qur’an teaches that God treats all human beings equally, whether we are men or women, not differentiating among us by sex or gender but rather by the extent to which we’ve surrendered, believe in God, are devout, truthful, patient, humble, generous, modest, and worshipful.  We are all subject to the same rewards from God.  God, we might say, is a feminist.  The Feminist. 

What is feminism as a political movement?  Feminist linguist Deborah Cameron defined it as a movement to promote the recognition of women’s full humanity.[iii] The feminist movement may have started in the West but there’s nothing inherently Western about believing in women’s humanity; if there were, women would be far better off in the West than we are. And while the movement is woman-made, the idea that women are fully human is an important theme in the Qur’an, so feminism is just a human means for demanding what Allah has already ordained for us. Cameron also writes that this full humanity is different from “equality” and “women’s rights.”

“Equality presupposes a standard to which one is equal: in this case, the implied standard is men. Feminists are ultimately in pursuit of a more radical change, the creation of a world in which one gender does not set the standard of human value.”[iv]

The distinction between “full humanity” and “equality” is an important one, especially for Muslim feminists, since we are often told by non-feminist Muslims that we should be content with “equity” and not fight for “equality.”  We need to stop talking about equality and move on to imagining more radical change.  What would it look like if Muslim spaces were not segregated by gender?  How would discussion of hijab shift if Muslim women weren’t taught to protect themselves from the male gaze?  How does reading the Qur’an without gendered pronouns change the way one imagines God?   These are just a few examples of questions that might help us imagine and enact radical change.  Islam needs feminists who are open to imagining other forms of radical change, within Islam rather than in opposition to it.

Before addressing the third definition of feminism, an intellectual approach, let’s turn to the feminists who believe that Islam and feminism are incompatible.   Some feminists in this camp may not be singling out Islam, but rather have problems with patriarchal religions more generally, and specifically with the idea of “God the Father,” the God of the Old and New Testaments and Western art for the last 600 years.  As Mary Daly wrote in Beyond God the Father,

“If God in ‘his’ heaven is a father ruling his people, then it is the ‘nature’ of things and according to divine plan and the order of the universe that society be male dominated.”[v]

Although Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is an Abrahamic religion, unlike the religious texts that preceded it the Qur’an does not refer to God as a father.  In fact, for Muslims, God has no gender at all, nor any form that humans can comprehend. The Qur’an tell us,

“There is nothing like unto Him.”[vi]

Don’t be fooled by the use of the masculine pronoun “Him” in that quotation.  Linguists distinguish between natural and grammatical gender, and while the word Allah (God) in Arabic is grammatically masculine, this does not imply that God himself is male or masculine.  In fact, we see throughout the Qur’an that God has both masculine and feminine attributes.  Every chapter of the Qur’an, save one, begins with the blessing, Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim (In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Compassionate). Both Rahman and Rahim come from the same triconsonantal root r-h-m, which means, among other things, womb.[vii]

Despite the fact that there is no God the Father in the Qur’an, many feminists have some specific problems with Islam.  They may have read a patriarchal translation of the Qur’an—noticing, among other things all the references to God as ‘He’—or have come across some misogynist Muslims. (Who hasn’t?)  More likely they’ve simply heard about abhorrent practices that take place in some parts of the Muslim world—female genital mutilation, honor killings, women being denied their freedom of movement, gay bashing—and assumed that these are representative of Islam.  Although we must acknowledge some Muslims’ (mis)use of Islam to justify these human rights violations, we must not mistake these practices for Islam.  This is not a matter of Western intellectuals pointing out to Muslims elsewhere that they are misrepresenting Islam; there are strong voices and activists throughout the Muslim world who make this point. For example, Sisters in Islam in Malaysia has as its mission “promoting an understanding of Islam that recognises the principles of justice, equality, freedom, and dignity within a democratic nation state.”[viii]

The reason that it’s important for feminists to engage with the Qur’an rather than to simply dismiss it as a patriarchal text is that, in addition to feminism as an idea and as a movement, feminism is also an intellectual approach:

“Feminism seeks to understand how current relations between men and women are constructed—and we take it that they are constructed, rather than natural—and in the light of this understanding, how they can be changed.”[ix]

This involves both describing the conditions of women’s lives today and in the past, and theorizing (explaining) those conditions, the goals of which ultimately fold back into politics: how can we bring about radical change in those conditions?  An open-minded feminist reading of the Qur’an, like other progressive readings of this sacred text, follows this intellectual approach.  Feminist readings that dismiss the Qur’an as patriarchal out of hand are simply too close to the readings of puritanical or Wahabbi Muslims, who, as Khaled abou el Fadl puts it, “construct their exclusionary and intolerant theology by reading Qur’anic verses in isolation, as if the meaning of the verses were transparent.”[x]   Instead, feminists must distance themselves from these puritans and explore more progressive readings of the Qur’an that interpret the text historically and contextually.

We must admit that the lack of Father-like God has not prevented Muslims from assuming that it is God’s plan that society be male dominated, as Mary Daly critiqued. Patriarchal Muslims and non-Muslim feminists alike will find plenty of verses in the Qur’an that seem to suggest that God favors men over women.  There are verses, problematic for Muslim feminists, that do seem to differentiate between men and women, giving women a lesser share of inheritance or positioning men as the ‘maintainers’ of women.  How are those ideas compatible with feminism?  Feminist Muslims must not only come to terms with these problematic verses but also use feminism to deconstruct the notion that our religion can be used to oppress us.  We can do this through both understanding the context in which the Qur’an was revealed and by investigating different translations and interpretations of the Qur’an.  Alhamdulillah, Muslim feminism seems to be on the rise and so there is no shortage of feminist interpretations of these verses to aid us in our understanding.  For example, in a comprehensive re-reading and translation of the Qur’anic verse (4:34) that has been interpreted by most translators—not coincidentally, men—as allowing Muslim men to beat their wives, Laleh Bakhtiar shows that the Arabic verb for ‘beat’ actually has numerous other meanings that make more sense in this verse.[xi]  Her research and new translation shows that it is Muslims—intepreters of the Qur’an—who bear the responsibility for misogyny, not the Qur’an itself.   Muslim feminists like Bakhtiar heed Khaled abou el Fadl’s warning that “the reader must take responsibility for the normative values he or she brings to the text,” which “provides possibilities for meaning, not inevitabilities.”[xii]  Non-Muslim feminists who aim to understand Islam must heed the same warning (as, indeed, must non-feminist Muslims).  As feminist Muslim scholar Amina Wadud writes,

“Exclusionary textual readings marginalize women’s full human agency within society.”[xiii]

In this quote, the exclusionary readings Wadud refers to are patriarchal Muslim readings of the Qur’an.  However, I would add that feminists who think that Islam and feminism are incompatible are guilty of the same types of readings, the same marginalization of Muslim women.

The acknowledgement that Islam is open to interpretation and that some acts cannot be justified by Islam even though Muslims perpetrate them pushes us further than mere claims of compatibility between Islam and feminism. Not only are Islam and feminism compatible, even fundamentally linked, but Islam as a lived practice—as a social justice movement—needs feminists. Islam, at its heart, promotes social justice, and the Prophet Mohamed showed us how to turn Qur’anic ideas into a social justice movement, one designed to eliminate not only poverty but also extreme wealth, tribalism, racism, and discrimination against women and girls.  When we see people (including Muslims) that are oppressing others, we must stand up against them and defend the rights of those who are being oppressed. Indeed, the Qur’an commands:

“O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in upholding equity, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk. Whether the person concerned be rich or poor, God’s claim takes precedence over [the claims of] either of them. Do not, then, follow your own desires, lest you swerve from justice: for if you distort [the truth], behold, God is indeed aware of all that you do!”[xiv]

While Muslim feminists value the input of non-Muslim feminists, their lack of a nuanced understanding of our religion often leaves us feeling attacked by our sisters in feminism.  Feminism and Islam both need Muslim feminists—Muslim men and women who believe in the full humanity of women—to fight against gender discrimination within Muslim cultures and spaces.  When feminist demands—such as ending gender segregation in mosques—seem to conflict with the long-standing practices of orthodox Muslims, we need a space for open discussion and debate where feminist viewpoints and interpretations can be heard.  Claiming that feminism and Islam are incompatible leaves both feminists and Muslims without the means to fight against the injustices that threaten Muslim women the world over.

Katrina Daly Thompson is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at UCLA, where she does research on the discourse of Muslim women on the Swahili coast.  She has been a Muslim since 2009, and a feminist for her entire life.  She recently founded a blog called Occupy the Patriarchy, which provides a forum for the voices of Muslim women, feminists, and allies.

Each debater makes their opening argument,  followed by an optional rebuttal.

The winner will be decided by the online audience and judged according to the strength of the respective arguments.

The motion: ” The US should stop Aid to Pakistan”

For the motion: Saqib Mausoof

Against the motion: Sabahat Ashraf

Saqib Mausoof For the Motion

US should stop military aid to Pakistan. It is seen as a tactical waste by the US lawmakers and blood money by the populist Pakistan media. Some of this aid also bolsters Pakistan’s covert nuclear armament program and extraneous benefits for the top military brass. Very little of this approximately $2.5 bn annual aid trickles down to the Pakistani people. Investing this money at home in the USA for public services and infrastructure upgrades is better use. Eventually, divesting from Pakistan Army will enable US law makers to see Pakistan without the perception of an “ally from hell” but as an independent nation that is not subservient to US interests only.

Since 1948, US have provided $55 bn in Aid to Pakistan and most of it has gone to the Pakistan military. This aid has created an oligarchy which is controlled by various Military foundations. It has further ruined democratic institutions like the judiciary and the parliament. Since early 1950’s, when the Dulles brothers, John as Secretary of State and Allen as head of CIA, snubbed Pakistan’s civilian leadership under then premiere Liaquat Ali Khan and gave Field Marshall Ayub Khan special treatment, Pakistan has served as a “Sipahi” state for American policy makers. The first rectifying treaty on this was the Baghdad pact or CENTO signed between Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, UK and US in 1955.

This relationship was fully intact in 1960 when Gary Powers flew out of Peshawar airbase his ill-fated U-2 spy plane which was subsequently shot down by a Russian SAM missile. It continued with Prime Minster Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto negotiating President Nixon’s secretive visit to China, and probably climaxed under Gen Zia’s “Jihad” which created the Mujahedeen’s as a religious force to fight off the Soviets occupation of Afghanistan. During that time, the heads of the Haqqani clan were called the “moral equivalent of America founding fathers” by President Ronald Reagan. A case can be made that successive American administrations have always supported and preferred a military ruler in Pakistan rather than a civilian leadership.

The first decade of the 21^st century under the military leadership of Gen Pervaiz Musharraf had seen an increasing amount of US military aid to Pakistan. The offering of the aid carrot was accompanied by a big stick in a not so subtle threat by the US deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage, who told President Musharraf that Pakistan should be prepared to be bombed “back to the stone age” if they refuse to fight against Al-Qaida and the Taliban. The subsequent agreement between the two governments created a complex aid package that constituted of four buckets, Military assistance, Economic Assistance, USAID projects, and coalition support funds.

In the most simplistic way, this money is paid as a bribe to the Pakistani officials to provide full support to American military operations in Afghanistan and look the other way if the hot war spills over the border to Pakistan. For example, coalitions support funds pay for usage of Pakistan’s air bases like Miranshah, Jacobabad, Shamsi which are then used by American aircrafts and drones for monitoring and bombing within Pakistan’s borders. There are also allegations that US supplied advanced Jetfighters (F-16s) can only be flown and maintained only by US approved flyers thereby negating the authority of Pakistan air force. Pakistan’s immigration services already reports all passengers’ activity to the FBI and Gen Musharraf’s regime has been accused of handing over hundreds of Pakistani citizens to the US authorities by extraordinary renditions without any due process of law.

Similarly US backed economic aid projects are privy to much speculation, for example the road construction in Waziristan is not designed to help villages deliver goods to centrals towns, but instead the roads run parallel to the border for supporting future troop movement inside Pakistan borders.

Publicly, this aid also demands a heavy price from the Pakistani populist media, which keeps reminding the public the price Pakistan has paid for this devils bargain. The frequent drone attacks that frequently kill civilian, the sacrifice of 10,000 of Pakistan Army personnel’s, hundreds of suicide bombing, multiple Army operations in the Swat valley and Waziristan, the release of American spy-diplomat Raymond Davos and cross-borders raids, most notoriously the one that got Osama.

If the current tidings are any indication, the populist parties in Pakistan’s election are also demanding an end to the special US relationship, return of dignity and sovereignty to the Pakistani nations. Cornered and humiliated by the Obama administration, the Pakistan army is also now seeking a civilian leader that can bolster their image and boost the nation’s morale. The cricketer turned politician Imran Khan is making headways with the public furor and is demanding a stop to the CIA sponsored drone attacks and unlimited military cooperation with NATO. The charge by the media, right wing populists is clear, US Aid is blood money.

The argument here is for cutting military assistance, but not economic cooperation. Pakistan is a developing country with cash flow problems, power shortage, a high population growth rate, increasing poverty and illiteracy. It needs breathing room so that its business can bounce back. Some sort of debt relief would be ideal for Pakistani civilian government so that it does not fail on its commitment.

This would go further than any sort of military aid. Pakistan received negligible aid during the 90′s from America, even though it was mostly democratic at that time with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto or Nawaz Shareef at the helm. Not only did Pakistan survive, some businesses recorded phenomenal growth. During that time, most of the Pakistan textile and apparel industry exported to the US, but since then due to high tariffs and stranglehold on cotton quota in US, Pakistan exports are now mostly going to EU and Asia.

Instead of providing military and economic assistance, US needs to provide space for Pakistan’s exporters to enter the US market, especially cotton textile and fashion apparel. Current quota system forces Pakistani businessmen to shift their manufacturing bases to Bangladesh, Kenya and Jordan, nations that enjoy freer trade agreements with the US.

At the same time, Pakistan’s technology and IT industry is more competitive then neighboring India and ripe for Investment. If global franchises like Coca Cola, Carrefour, Makros, McDonalds, Hardy’s, Pizza Hut, can flourish in Pakistan, same can be said for American business and technology companies. With 25 MM internet connections and 90MM mobile phone, Pakistan is a market that can no longer be ignored.

Continuing to empower the Pakistan military also gives the military secret service (ISI) the broad shoulders to push civilians around, intimidate journalists as well as sponsor covert operations into neighboring Afghanistan and India. Because of Pakistan’s strategic positions, nobody expects this “Great Game” to end as long as the US maintains a presence in Afghanistan. The area continues to be a hotbed for strategic leveraging around oil & gas pipelines initiatives as well as security concerns as it borders Iran, China, India and Afghanistan which will continue to remain a US proxy for the next decade or so.

A potential loss for the US from cutting off aid could be that the policymakers might lose leverage with the Pakistan Army. Tis alienation could result in increased cooperation between China and Pakistan military establishment. However, that is a moot point as these two nations have a special relationship that is based on regional cooperation and military technology exchange.

American policy makers know this and have never been privy to that level of trust that exists between China and Pakistan. But with a cut off in aid, Pakistan military strategists will be forced to make some tough decisions and one of the benefits could result in improved relationships with Big Brother India.

Evidence of this is already been seen. Recently Pakistan’s cabinet agreed to normalize trade with India grating it Most Favored Nation (MFN) status while India removed its objections for Pakistan textile to gain duty free access to EU markets as compensation for the devastating floods. If economic and cultural cooperation continues between the two countries, a demilitarized South Asia is possible and Pakistani and India can prosper with mutually assured security.

2012 is election time for both US and Pakistani. The issue of US-Pakistan aid will keep rearing its ugly head in American media and in congress. At the same time, the Obama’s administration has made a public policy of humiliating the only friend they had in an increasing radicalized Pakistan, that is the Pakistan Army. Now this 60 year special relationship is at its nadir, and there is no going back.

The best way forward for both nations is for the US to cut off this aid and start with a clean slate with a civilian government. Pakistan will lose valuable aid money and the US might lose a strategic lever in controlling the Pak Army, but that ship has already sailed. However, through economic and military cooperation that is negotiated on equal footing a new set of agreements could be worked out that re-assess the situation.

Nobody expects military cooperation to stop, as the ties go deep and both countries face a common enemy with the Taliban insurgency. Similarly, ending all drone attacks on militants might not be possible, but having the program under the control of the US military rather than the CIA will go a long way with Pakistani politicians. The way forward is now through mutual respect that is not enforced by blood money, or bribery.

It is time for the US to start treating Pakistan’s democratic institutions as equal partners, rather than embracing the entity that has been responsible for much double dealings. On the same note, Pakistan has to take this time to rebuild its image under a civilian government and put to rest the notion that Pakistan is a haven for international terrorism.

Saqib Mausoof is a filmmaker based in San Francisco. His narrative Kala Pul – The Black Bridge, a topical noir shot in Karachi, was short listed at the Asian Festival of First Films festival. His shorts have played at festivals around the world. He is currently working on his next feature, The Elemental which centers on a US soldier encountering a supernatural spirit in Iraq.

References

http://missinginpakistan.wordpress.com/

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2011/11/23/india-support-on-textiles-cant-help-pakistan/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/pakistan-grants-india-most-favored-nation-trade-status/2011/11/02/gIQAFBGjfM_story.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/11/us-aid-to-pakistan

http://www.slideshare.net/Zash/pakistan-army-and-fight-against-terror

Alliance curse: how America lost the Third World  By Hilton L. Root

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5369198.stm

http://voiceamidstsilence.blogspot.com/2011/10/good-taliban-bad-taliban.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Treaty_Organization