Middle East Press On Biden Presidency, Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and Malcolm X: New Age Islam's Selection, 10 October 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Bureau
10 October
2020
• Will A Biden Presidency Be Good For The
Middle East?
By Ellen Laipson
• Between A Rock And Hard Place: Iran’s Dilemma
In Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
By Ali Hashem
• Hezbollah Is Buying Time with Farcical Lebanese-Israeli
Maritime Border Talks
By Makram Rabah
• Back to the Future: BLM Overcomes Obama and
Returns to Malcolm X
By Hamid Dabashi
------
Will A Biden Presidency Be Good For The Middle
East?
By Ellen Laipson
October 9,
2020
Presidential
candidate Joe Biden speaks in North Carolina on 23 September (AFP)
----
A Biden
administration might see an opportunity to demonstrate, without any major
military commitments that the US can play a productive role in resolving
disputes.
The world
may think that America is falling apart at the seams, but it's still worth
spending some time preparing for the plausible and even probable scenario of a
Biden administration in place in January 2021. A robust team of experienced
foreign policy scholars and practitioners are hard at work thinking through how
Joe Biden could design and implement a post-Trump foreign policy.
The Middle
East is not the centre of gravity of these deliberations about America's role
in the world. In fact, for more than a decade, leaders across party lines have
suggested that it's time to rethink and scale back American commitments in the
region.
Mostly
driven by the fatigue of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, but also affected
by greater energy independence and a more nationalistic view of US security
responsibilities globally, the Trump administration has gone farther than the
Obama administration in signalling this shift. Across the national security
community, a growing consensus that the US needs to organise itself for threats
in the Asia-Pacific region also has fed into this thinking, from the 'pivot' of
the Obama years to the hard-edged geopolitical showdown with China of the
current administration.
The
countervailing trends relate first to Iran as an enduring threat to regional
stability, from its nuclear activities to its entrenched positions in Lebanon
and Syria, and its opportunistic activities in Yemen. The Obama administration
had hoped to build on the 2015 nuclear agreement to defuse tensions with
Tehran; Trump went in the opposite direction, but now lurches between
aggressive rhetoric and vague hopes that diplomatic engagement can occur.
The second
trend is the new pattern of normalisation between Israel and some Gulf states,
that the Trump administration is eager to tout as its diplomatic success,
notwithstanding the fact that the process began well before 2017. It is good
news, for sure, but for those who see a higher moral imperative for the US to
focus on the Palestine question, the normalisation agreements are a sort of
consolation prize for the larger failure of the Kushner "peace plan."
So how
would a President Biden navigate these waters? It is important to look not only
at the particulars of each Middle East trouble spot, but also the more general
way Biden wants to frame American foreign policy if elected.
He
recognises that he can't turn the clock back to 2016, and has to deal with some
of the broken crockery of Trump's bullish behaviour. Those broader principles
include restoring alliances, giving priority to democracies as a response to
rising authoritarianism, recalibrating military commitments to align with
fiscal imperatives and working in multilateral forums on the transcendent
issues of climate change, global health and terrorism.
Alongside
these external goals, Biden will work to restore trust within US society and
inside the US government. He will work to rein spire public servants to be able
to perform their duties in the national security arena in an apolitical way.
The Middle
East is not an acute arena for alliance repair work, compared to Europe and
Asian allies. Biden will be able to re-establish positive personal
relationships with key Middle East leaders. He will have to deal with strong
sentiment in Congress that that relationship may not reflect 21st century
values, despite the decades long economic and security partnership. While many
leaders of friendly states may well prefer Trump's re-election, they will adapt
in order to keep the US engaged in the region. For many states, the idea of US
retrenchment is alarming.
Given a
likely renewed emphasis on democracy and human rights, the Middle East will
present some challenges for a Biden administration. It will support the small
number of democratising states such as Tunisia, Morocco, and Jordan. Lebanon
may be an opportunity for a new team to help the beleaguered state with the
daunting challenge of restoring trust and taking some radical steps in
governance and political reform.
Iran also
is a tricky test for a Biden administration. Simply restoring US adherence to
the 2015 nuclear agreement will not suffice; Biden's nonproliferation experts
might take the lead in proposing amendments to the accord and working with
allies to salvage it, while Iran's regional behaviour would be the responsibility
of regional officials in the State and Defense Departments.
Syria is
also fraught with history and a present reality that is not conducive to any
early American diplomatic success. Likely to be seen by historians as Obama's
greatest foreign policy failure, Biden will have to determine if there is
anything to be done to bring closure in the civil war. His advisors have been
particularly critical of Trump's treatment of Syrian Kurdish allies in the
fight against Daesh, and may focus on providing support to the areas of Syria
not under government control. But it is likely to play a supporting, not
leading, role in efforts to resume negotiations over the future of the country,
under UN or Russian leadership.
While the
Eastern Mediterranean issues may not affect American interests the way the
Israel-Palestine question, or Gulf security, have over many decades, it is
still an important new source of uncertainty involving Nato allies and major
Middle East partners of the US. A Biden administration might well see an
opportunity to demonstrate, without any major military commitments, that the US
can play a productive role in resolving regional disputes and avoiding larger
conflicts.
-----
Ellen Laipson, a former vice chair of the US's
National Intelligence Council, is director at George Mason University in
Virginia. -Syndication Bureau
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/what-mideast-can-expect-from-biden-presidency
----
Between A Rock and Hard Place: Iran’s Dilemma
in Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
By Ali Hashem
Oct 9, 2020
An
Armenian soldier of the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabagh aims his
Kalashnikov assault rifle as he stands in a trench at the frontline on the
border with Azerbaijan near the town of Martakert, July 6, 2012. Photo by KAREN
MINASYAN/AFP/GettyImages.
-----
In a
country where a quarter of the population belongs to the Azeri ethnicity, over
400 miles of border are shared with Azerbaijan and the official version of
Islam in both countries is Shiism, it shouldn’t be a very difficult choice to
make when the northern neighbor goes to war.
However,
there are many reasons for Iran to think twice before siding with Azerbaijan in
its recent conflict with Armenia.
Armenia
shares about 27 miles of border with the Islamic Republic and plays a positive
role as the only Christian neighbor to the sanction-laden country.
Iranians of
Armenian origin make up the overwhelming majority of the country’s Christian
minority, which number more than 150,000 of the total population of 84 million.
As for the Azeris, there is no accurate number, but according to several
sources it varies between 10 million and 20 million.
In the city
of Tabriz in the north of Iran, dozens of Azeri Iranians headed out into the
streets slamming the state’s neutral position on the war, while others
demonstrated in Tehran chanting slogans in support of the army of the Republic
of Azerbaijan.
The
official Iranian stance — expressed by the Foreign Ministry on several
occasions — has been to call on both parties to practice restraint, offering to
mediate.
Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh told Reuters earlier this week,
“Iran has prepared a plan with a specific framework containing details after
consultations with both sides of the dispute, Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well
as regional states and neighbors, and will pursue this plan."
It is
important to note that Iran's official stance, despite offering mediation and
refraining from taking sides, recognizes the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region
as an Azeri territory and calls on Armenia to withdraw from it.
This was
expressed by Ali Rabiei, spokesman of the Iranian presidency, and also
unofficially but remarkably by Ali Akbar Velayati, international affairs
adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, who expressed this view to Kayhan daily, the
newspaper whose editor in chief is believed to be one of Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei’s confidants.
Khamenei,
an Azeri-Iranian himself, has yet to comment on the developments, but a number
of his representatives in Azeri-populated northwestern Iran issued a statement
declaring support for Azerbaijan in the conflict.
The
signatories — Khamenei’s representatives in the provinces of Ardabil, East
Azerbaijan, West Azerbaijan and Zanjan — stressed, "There is no doubt that
Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan and its government's move to recapture
the region is completely legal, according to Sharia, and in line with four
resolutions of the United Nation's Security Council.”
Moreover,
Khamenei’s representative in the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ali Akbar Ajagnejad,
said during a speech Oct. 3 that he is ready to go to Nagorno-Karabakh and
fight beside the Azeri youth until he is martyred.
For the
moment, the Iranian stance seems to be inconsistent, but the fact is that
decision-makers in Tehran are counting on time to get them a solution that
would rid them from the urge to take a side, for whatever the side they take,
there are going to be some bitter repercussions.
If Tehran
decides to support Armenia, then the internal implications aren’t going to be
easy, given the wide support Azerbaijan enjoys among the Azeris inside Iran;
besides, it goes without saying that ties with Azerbaijan will receive a blow.
This is
going to give Israel, which has backed Azerbaijan by selling arms, additional
leverage on Iran’s borders. Just a few weeks ago, Israel reached a
normalization agreement with both the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, giving
it an unprecedented reach to the waters of the Persian Gulf.
On Sept.
30, a drone that entered Iranian airspace was downed by the country’s air
defenses. Iran’s concerns over Azerbaijan’s drones is related mainly to the
fact that most of Baku’s drones are bought from Israel.
Back in
2014, Iran blamed Azerbaijan, without naming it, for being the base of an
Israeli drone that Tehran says to have shot down near the highly sensitive
nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz in central Iran.
Although
Iranian officials didn't specify Azerbaijan, they said the drone came from a
“former Soviet republic to the north.” Azerbaijan's government has denied the
claim calling it a "provocation."
Another
sensitive element that makes Iran want this war to finish before it gets to the
point of no return are the recent reports about the transferring of Syrian
fighters by Turkey to fight alongside Azerbaijan.
A report by
Al-Monitor’s Sultan Kanj confirmed these reports, highlighting the fact that
Turkish-backed Syrian militants are turning into a regional task force ready to
intervene wherever Ankara is involved. This itself is a matter of concern to
Tehran, which does not accept having such forces close to its border. To Iran,
this is a threat for stability on its northern border and a weight for Turkey
it is unlikely to accept in its backyard.
Moreover,
there are reports that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is looking to
take advantage of Russia being bogged down in conflicts elsewhere to claim a
bigger role in this conflict.
The flock
of fighters to both sides of the border is in fact a matter of concern to
Tehran. Christian Armenian fighters heading from Lebanon and Syria to Armenia
to fight alongside Armenian forces in Artsakh — as the region is known in
Armenian — is also a long-term threat for stability and brings close to home
the fragility of the Levant.
The
Armenian-Azeri rivalry outside Iran might for many reasons spill over the
borders of the Islamic Republic, and this is what Tehran is anticipating by
sending forces to the border areas.
The promise
of stability that Iran’s Islamic establishment has always made to justify its
involvement in conflicts away from home, such as in Syria and Iraq, is now
under threat, especially with the cocktail of players on the other side of the
border.
The economy
is another element that worries the Iranian decision-makers, with pressure
mounting day after day amid additional US sanctions. The plan to link the
Iranian southern port city of Chabahar to Russia through a railway crossing
through Azerbaijan creates more reasons for concern in Tehran. While on the
Armenian side, a 90-mile-long gas pipeline makes it clear that this time Iran
can't cherry-pick its position based on its own preferences alone.
Back in the
1990s, the Karabakh conflict created a dilemma of another type for Iran.
Tehran
mediated between the two newly established countries, though it was more on the
Azerbaijani side. This is reflected in the diaries of late President Hashemi
Rafsanjani, and in several other accounts by Iranian officials who witnessed
that period. According to a report by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps-affiliated Mashregh News, Iran facilitated the transfer of hundreds of
Afghani fighters to Azerbaijan to fight alongside the government of late
President Haydar Aliyev, the father of current President Ilham Aliyev. However,
in less than two years, Aliyev’s alliance with the Iranians came to an end, and
he called on them to leave and started a crackdown on their main ally, the
Islamic party, whose leadership was arrested for allegations it is financed by
Tehran.
After 1994,
Iran shifted to be more on Armenia’s side due to the political differences with
Aliyev. Yet Iranian volunteers continue to flock to Azerbaijan to fight beside
the Azeris in the war with Armenia, and many Iranian fighters were killed and
buried in several locations around the war front.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/10/iran-dilemma-nagorno-karabakh-azerbaijan-armenia-mediate.html
-----
Hezbollah Is Buying Time With Farcical
Lebanese-Israeli Maritime Border Talks
By Makram Rabah
09 October
2020
Lebanon’s
recent announcement that it would start talks with Israel to demarcate its
maritime border was welcomed by many. But on closer inspection, the move is a
farce that has little chance of solving Lebanon’s problems.
In theory,
the demarcation of the contested areas between Lebanon and Israel will allow
both sides to benefit from the oil and gas fields on their border and encourage
international oil companies to invest in the area. This is especially important
to Lebanon given that any injection of funds would help its crumbling economy
and stop the rapid devaluation of the currency and the accompanying inflation.
On face
value, Hezbollah’s agreement to the talks may appear to be a softening of its
position on Israel. The Trump administration, which mediated the process, can
also present the talks as another diplomatic achievement following the
normalization deals between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain.
However, a
closer inspection reveals the talks are a farcical attempt by Hezbollah to ease
mounting pressure against it. Hezbollah and its Iranian overlords are trying to
buy time amid biting US financial sanctions, repeated Israeli attacks against
its fighters, and the recent mysterious explosion in their military facilities.
It is no
fluke that Iran, through Hezbollah, has sanctioned the demarcation to commence
a mere month from the US presidential elections. Iran hopes Democratic nominee
Joe Biden will win, facilitating the reinstatement of the 2015 nuclear deal.
The Trump
administration secured the talks by going through Nabih Berri, the Shia speaker
of parliament who heads the Hezbollah-allied Amal party. This was a baffling
mistake, as it gave Hezbollah a public relations victory, suggesting that it
needed to be consulted with to achieve progress. Instead, the proper move would
have been for the US to engage directly with the executive branch, which has
the constitutional right to negotiate demarcation issues.
The talks
themselves may also aid Hezbollah and its Iranian backers. Hezbollah’s position
in the country is currently so entrenched that any new sources of funds from
gas revenues could be hijacked by the organization, cementing its hold over the
Lebanese state.
What will
take place on October 14 – the date outlined for the talks at the United
Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) headquarters on the border – will not
just be talks about merely demarcating the border? Instead, the talks are a
clear message that Iran wants to pursue its version of normalization with
Israel. But unlike the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which have normalized
diplomatic relations with Israel, Iran’s approach is not based on normal
relations. As with the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran likes to present itself as open
to diplomacy while in fact using the grace period from talks to gain more
ground through expanding its militia network. Even if it engages the US and
Israel in any forms of talks, Iran will refuse to disarm its Hezbollah or work
toward empowering Lebanon. Instead, Iran’s approach means tightening its grip
over all aspect of the Lebanese state, or what remains of it. Rather than
normalization, Iran is willing to engage in just demarcation while advancing
its aims elsewhere.
Even then,
Hezbollah has only showed openness to demarcating borders that do not undermine
its interests. There has been no progress made on the disputed Shebaa Farms, a
28 square kilometer region right on the nexus of the Syrian-Lebanese-Israeli
border, which technically belongs to Syria and is currently occupied by Israel.
The Shebaa Farms has long provided Hezbollah with the pretext to keep its arms
and therefore putting it at the center of the demarcation talks would have
given the Lebanese people, or at least those fighting for them, the chance to
demand the decommissioning of Hezbollah’s arms.
Nevertheless,
even if these maritime demarcation talks do not remove the Shebaa pretext, they
have proven that diplomatic channels are the best recourse for Lebanon to
achieve its long-term interests. Yet , the Lebanese state is nowhere to be
found, and its diplomatic channels have been completely hijacked by Hezbollah
and its allies who have alienated and ostracized the international community.
This includes Emmanuel Macron’s France, which has expressed eagerness to help.
The August
4 Beirut Port blast did not only destroy the eastern part of the capital but it
also killed and injured many of the families of the diplomatic corps in
Lebanon. This corps always went out of its way to help Lebanon, was underserving
of a phone call or even a consolation letter to check up on their children and
spouses, will hold this intended lapse to heart.
The
Israeli-Iranian demarcation, or possible normalization, using Lebanon has
proven yet again that Hezbollah has no red lines, and that if the Lebanese
truly want their country to become worthy again, they should reconnect with the
international community and ask their assistance to redraw a new map that leads
them to reclaim their lost state. Ultimately demarcation, or the illusion of
it, should not side-line the ever-important demands for Lebanon’s neutrality
and disassociation – the only exit from Lebanon’s current inferno.
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2020/10/09/Hezbollah-is-buying-time-with-farcical-Lebanese-Israeli-maritime-border-talks
----
Back to The Future: BLM Overcomes Obama And
Returns To Malcolm X
By Hamid Dabashi
9 Oct 2020
As the news
of Donald Trump and his wife Melania having contracted COVID-19 sends shudders
down the spine of American and global politics, steady remains the perils and
promises of the most principled and revolutionary uprising of this nation:
Black Lives Matter.
So let us
disregard the static noise of the daily news, and the Trump campaign’s
desperate attempts to turn the president’s coronavirus diagnosis to electoral
advantage, and focus on what endures.
On
September 1, a few weeks before he casually told the violent white supremacist
gangs among his supporters “to stand back and stand by” – presumably until
given further instructions – Trump went out of his way to denounce the Black
Lives Matter uprising. “It’s so discriminatory,” Trump said of what is rightly
considered perhaps “the largest movement in US history”. It is a “Marxist
organisation,” he warned his supporters.
A “Marxist
organisation?” If only: the leaders of the Black Lives Matter have their work
cut out for them.
The Long Arch Of History
History
does not progress on a steady path. It zigzags, regresses, stumbles, until it
reaches the point of an epistemic shift.
In Egypt,
the charismatic thunder of Gamal Abdel Nasser eventually led to the
dictatorship of Abdel Fattah el-Sissi. In India, the saintly and legendary
figure of Mahatma Gandhi leading an anti-colonial struggle eventually resulted
in the murderous Hindu-supremacist fascism of Narendra Modi. In Iran, the
anti-colonial struggle led by Mohammad Mosaddegh eventually gave birth to the
reactionary Islamic Republic ruled by a platoon of militant mullahs. In Syria,
the promising political philosophy of Michel Aflaq eventually resulted in the
murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad.
We can
continue apace on this list, but the point here is the United States, where the
revolutionary charisma of Malcolm X gave birth to the reactionary liberalism of
Barack Obama.
American
liberals sickened by Trump’s presidency are celebrating the speech Obama gave
at the Democratic Party’s national convention in August, in which he tearfully
endorsed his former vice president, Joe Biden, as a defining moment for their
agenda to defeat Trump and restore “American dignity”.
But
American dignity cannot be “restored” by electing a washed-up liberal
apparatchik like Biden. American dignity, today more than ever, is in the
principled and dignified Black Lives Matter uprising. Obama and his endorsement
of Biden are nothing but impediments to a far superior politics of liberation
unfolding on the streets and in the critical consciousness of the best of
Americans.
Obama Is A Dead End
Trump is
the worst of America, but he is not alone. About one out of two eligible voters
voted for him in 2016 and, however the 2020 election turns out, he still
commands the loyalties of millions of Americans who share his unrepentant
racism and bigotry. Trump represents racist fascism deeply rooted in American
society and history.
Against
this engrained racism rose the Black Lives Matter movement – ethically
principled, morally righteous, and with the mighty power of history on its
side. But the movement’s struggle is against not only Trump, but also the false
figure of Obama and what he represents.
“Young
black people have exploded in rebellion over the grotesque killing of George
Floyd,” writes Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor in a recent opinion piece for The New
York Times, “we are now witnessing the broadest protest movement in American
history. And yet the response of black elected officials has been cautious and
uninspired.”
Taylor, who
is a professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, is being
very polite, circumspect, and generous. The response of the Black elected
officials led by Obama to the movement has been positively reactionary,
bordering on a conscious betrayal of what the Black Lives Matter uprising can
achieve.
Professor
Taylor rightly accuses both the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama of trying
to push the Black Lives Matter uprising into the tepid and largely futile
sideways of electoral politics, which has historically acted like a
diversionary tactic to stifle and dissipate any progressive act of political
uprising.
Futility Of Electoral Politics
For the
historic unfolding of the Black Lives Matter uprising, Obama is not the
solution but a problem. Here is why: What we are witnessing in Black Lives
Matter today is an historic shift back to Malcolm X, bypassing the generation
that had culminated in Obama’s presidency of liberal imperialism.
Historically,
except for the towering figure of Malcolm X, the civil rights movement was
afflicted with a debilitating parochialism that disregarded the global scene,
bar a limited concern for the global consequences of the Vietnam War.
The
legendary speech Martin Luther King Jr delivered on racism, militarism and
poverty at the Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, for example, was the only occasion
when he considered the more global frame of the Civil Rights Movement. And his
equivocal position on the apartheid state of Israel, even disregarding the
forged letter the Zionists have attributed to him, remains a serious compromise
to his moral standing.
But today,
with figures like Alice Walker, Cornel West, and Angela Davis, we have a far
more global awareness of injustice evident in the Black Lives Matter’s position
on militarism and its Zionist gestation. This fact takes the Black Lives Matter
movement right back to the road map Malcolm X charted for the future of Black
liberation – not just the US, but Africa, Latin America, and Asia were the
domains of the revolutionary thinking of Malcolm X.
Against the
grain of this global understanding of injustice that is at the core of the
Black Lives Matter uprising, the centrist electoral politics that Obama
aggressively peruses is an Achilles’ Heel of the movement and a false
subterfuge for a far superior and urgent critical thinking and massive social protests.
Consider
the lamentations of Cornel West when it comes to the sad legacy of Obama: “We
hit the streets again with Black Lives Matter and other groups and went to jail
for protesting against police killing black youth. We protested when the
Israeli Defense Forces killed more than 2,000 Palestinians [including 550
children] in 50 days. Yet Obama replied with words about the difficult plight
of police officers … and the additional $225m in financial support of the
Israeli army. Obama said not a mumbling word about the dead Palestinian
children but he did call Baltimore black youth ‘criminals and thugs’.”
Electoral
politics gave us Obama 12 years ago, and now it is giving us his female version
in Kamala Harris. Two reactionary liberals, fanatical centrists, steadfast
Zionists, one of them allowed a violent and militarised police force to target
Black communities with impunity under his watch, the other aided and abetted
the mass incarceration and criminalisation of young Black men throughout her
career. Obama and Harris are burying the memory of Malcolm X and turning his
charismatic presence into a museum relic.
Bypassing
Obama and his ilk, we are witness to a seismic change in American politics and
Black Lives Matter is the very heartbeat of it. There is a new generation of
bold and brilliant leaders, as Professor Taylor reminds us, “women like Mary
Hooks from Southerners on New Ground in Atlanta and Miski Noor and Kandace
Montgomery of the Black Vision Collective in Minneapolis” who are
rearticulating an entirely different vision of their America. The world must
bypass the liberal drumming up of the centrist reactionaries like Obama, Biden
and Harris, and listen to these younger leaders.
Today the
critical links between the generation of Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass,
Rosa Parks, WEB DuBois, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr, Medgar Evers, Ruby
Bridges and countless others and the younger leaders of the Black Lives Matter
are the towering figures of Cornel West, Angela Davis, and Alice Walker – all of
them unequivocally among the leading voices speaking bravely for the justice of
the Palestinian cause. This is not just
for the justice of the Palestinian cause. This is equally for the justice of
Black Lives Matter.
-----
Hamid
Dabashi is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative
Literature at Columbia University. He received a dual PhD in Sociology of
Culture and Islamic Studies from the University of Pennsylvania in 1984,
followed by a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard University.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/10/9/back-to-the-future-blm-overcomes-obama-and-returns-to-malcolm-x/
-----
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/middle-east-press-biden-presidency,/d/123099
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism