The Unsealed Series

Essay 8: Surah Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War)

A Forensic Neurocognitive Analysis from a Divergent Mind
 

​

Preface: Methodological Framework
 

This essay continues The Unsealed Series with a forensic examination of Surah Al-Anfal, a chapter saturated in divine militarism, collective mobilization, and behavioral conditioning through fear, loyalty, and reward.This essay does not offer devotional tafsir. It applies a neuroforensic framework to examine how sacred text becomes cognitive architecture. The surah is dissected not for belief, but for its psychological infrastructure—how it encodes obedience, justifies violence, and rewires moral cognition.

​

Surah Al-Anfal is not merely a record of war; it is a manual for sacred control. The battlefield becomes a behavioral laboratory where divine will is tested through blood, loyalty, and submission. Every command is a data point in a larger algorithm of fear-based compliance. Divine authority here does not whisper—it commands, surveils, and punishes deviation with unflinching precision.

​

The lens remains trauma-informed, neurodivergent, and unsentimental. This surah will not be read as sacred reassurance but as cognitive programming. Repeated patterns of “Obey Allah and His Messenger” (8:1, 8:20, 8:46) are not neutral theology—they are psychological imperatives, aimed at collapsing the space between command and internal compliance.

​

We do not enter this text seeking moral clarity. We enter to expose the machinery:

​

• How does divine warfare manipulate group identity?
   

• How are dissent, fear, and tribal protection weaponized as moral tools?
   

• What happens to the neurodivergent mind when faith becomes conditional on alignment with violence?

​

To unseal Al-Anfal is to descend into the most dangerous terrain of sacred text: the justification of holy war, the sanctification of obedience, and the psychological cost of spiritualizing bloodshed.

​

This is not interpretation.
It is interrogation.

Not for faith’s survival—
But for ours.

​​

​

I. Spoils, Submission, and the Erasure of Moral Autonomy

​

Surah Al-Anfal opens not with universal ethics or divine mercy—but with a logistical question about war booty. The first verse is blunt:

​

“They ask you about the spoils of war. Say: The spoils are for Allah and the Messenger…” (8:1)

​

This is not moral reflection—it is asset seizure. The aftermath of battle becomes a theological opportunity to centralize control. Material gain is no longer negotiated among fighters; it is redirected upward—to divine and prophetic discretion. Power, in this framing, is not shared. It is sanctified and hoarded.

​

The immediate shift is from inquiry to obedience:

​

“So fear Allah and set matters right among yourselves. Obey Allah and His Messenger if you are believers.” (8:1)

​

A question is met not with dialogue but with command. Inquiry is dissolved into compliance. The condition of faith becomes obedience—not just to God, but to His Messenger. There is no space here for conscience, deliberation, or dissent. The text merges material redistribution with spiritual submission, collapsing the external and internal into a singular behavioral demand: obey, or be excluded from belief itself.

​

The following verses lay out the emotional criteria for “true believers”:

​

“When Allah is mentioned, their hearts tremble...” (8:2)

“...they put their trust in their Lord.” (8:2)

“They establish prayer... they spend from what We have provided.” (8:3)

​

These are not descriptors of spiritual maturity—they are affective diagnostics. Faith is defined by bodily reaction: tremors, obedience, generosity on command. This is not love—it is somatic submission. Emotional response becomes theological currency. Belief is operationalized as somatic responsiveness. Faith, in this schema, is affect measured through physiological compliance.

​

From a neurodivergent lens, this framing is perilous. The assumption that hearts must “tremble” when God is mentioned pathologizes cognitive and emotional variance. What of those whose nervous systems do not register fear as faith? What of those whose trauma responses resist automatic trust?

​

This opening section sets the tone:
 

• Authority is absolute.

• Assets are centralized.

• Emotion is surveillance.

• Belief is not a journey—it is a checklist of triggered responses.

And for those whose wiring does not conform, faith becomes not a sanctuary, but a sentence.
 

​

II. Battlefield Conditioning and the Weaponization of Fear

​

Surah Al-Anfal transitions from spoils to strategy, embedding theological authority directly into the machinery of war. What begins as a battlefield becomes a behavioral laboratory: fear, resistance, and death are not only permitted—they are regulated.

​

“Just as your Lord made you go out from your home with the truth, although a party among the believers disliked it...” (8:5)

“They disputed with you about the truth after it had become clear, as if they were being driven toward death while looking at it.” (8:6)

​

Here, hesitation in the face of war is cast as moral failure. Discomfort is disobedience. Fear is not a natural human reaction—it is rebellion against divine command. This is not trauma-informed theology. It is psychological reprogramming by decree.

​

Foucault’s (1977) analysis of disciplinary power mirrors this structure: obedience is manufactured through the repetition of surveillance and fear.

​

“Allah promised you one of the two groups... but you wished the unarmed one to be yours. And Allah intended to establish the truth...” (8:7)

​

Desire for an easier outcome is dismissed as selfishness. God “intended” something harder—not because it was just, but because it proved a point. The divine will here is not protective—it is demonstrative. Suffering becomes proof of obedience. The harder the trial, the more sacred the outcome.

​

“Remember when you asked help from your Lord, and He responded: ‘I will reinforce you with a thousand angels, rank upon rank.’” (8:9)

​

But this reinforcement is later revealed to be symbolic:

​

“Allah made it only as good tidings and that your hearts might be at rest. Victory is only from Allah...” (8:10)

​

The angelic reinforcement functions more as affective reassurance than ontological intervention—a morale tactic rather than metaphysical aid. Divine reassurance becomes a manipulation of morale. What calms the fighters is not a change in reality, but an engineered illusion of support. This is not spiritual comfort—it is tactical psychology.

​

And then the violence escalates:

​

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike above the necks and strike off every fingertip of them.” (8:12)

​

This is not metaphor. This is anatomical warfare, divinely commanded. The justification?

​

“That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger—indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” (8:13)

​

Moral justification dissolves into alignment with authority. Violence is not wrong—it is wrongness that invites violence. God is not patient here. He is punitive, tactical, and absolute.

​

For neurodivergent readers—especially those with histories of coercion, hypersensitivity to authoritarian structures, or moral scrupulosity—this section can trigger severe cognitive and emotional dissonance. To question is to resist. To resist is to betray. And betrayal, in this schema, is worthy of mutilation.

​

This is not just a description of war. It is the architecture of obedience, built on the rubble of fear.

In this battlefield theology, terror is not the enemy—it is the instrument of faith.

​

III. The Illusion of Agency and the Doctrine of Divine Control

​​

Surah Al-Anfal proceeds to dismantle any residual belief in human autonomy. Victory is not the result of strategy, skill, or courage—it is wholly attributed to divine intervention:

​

“You did not kill them, but Allah killed them. And you did not throw when you threw, but Allah threw...” (8:17)

​

Agency is erased. The soldier is a vessel. The Prophet is a conduit. The battlefield becomes a stage on which God acts through human bodies. This doctrine of divine control is absolute: all causality flows from above, and any sense of personal volition is retroactively denied.

​

For neurodivergent minds—especially those grappling with questions of moral responsibility, executive function, or free will—this verse collapses the boundaries of selfhood. If even one’s arm is not their own, if even the throw is divine, then where does accountability lie? What does repentance mean in a world without true autonomy?

​

The surah then warns the unbelievers who prayed for judgment:

​

“If you [disbelievers] sought victory, the victory has come to you; but if you desist, it is better for you. But if you return, We will return…” (8:19)

​

This is not a negotiation. It is a trapdoor. If you submit, you live. If you don’t, God returns—not to persuade, but to punish.

​

What follows is a series of obedience commands:

​

“O you who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn away from him while you hear.” (8:20)

“Do not be like those who say ‘We hear’ while they do not listen.” (8:21)

​

This is not about understanding. It’s about compliance. Hearing is a moral category—not a sensory process. The worst beings are those who hear but do not obey:

​

“Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason.” (8:22)

​

Ahmed’s theory of affective economies reminds us that power flows through emotional circuits. Here, cognition is not a protected terrain—it is a site of divine scrutiny. To not “reason” as prescribed is to be cast as subhuman. Intellectual divergence is redefined as spiritual degeneracy.

​

Ahmed’s (2004) relational affect theory supports this mechanism of divine emotion functioning as a form of social discipline rather than comfort.

​

And then the surah delivers its most intimate threat:

​

“Know that Allah intervenes between a person and their heart, and that to Him you will be gathered.” (8:24)

​

This verse enacts a theological intrusion into interiority, collapsing the boundary between divine will and affective autonomy. There is no safe place—not even one’s own heart. The God of Al-Anfal is not only above and around. He is within—monitoring, manipulating, possessing. This is not divine closeness as comfort. It is divine closeness as surveillance.

​​

This echoes Butler’s (1997) argument that subject formation under coercion involves psychic submission, not authentic assent.​

​

Neurodivergent readers—particularly those who have experienced religious gaslighting, emotional enmeshment, or loss of bodily autonomy—may find in these verses not peace, but psychological peril.

​

This is not a call to faith. It is a call to surrender—to the erasure of self, to the dominance of divine will, to a theology where the only acceptable posture is submission under threat.

IV. Behavioral Engineering and Affective Manipulation

 

Surah Al-Anfal moves from metaphysical doctrine to psychological conditioning. The battlefield is not just physical; it is cognitive. Emotional states are manipulated to produce the desired behaviors in believers:

​

“Remember when Allah showed them to you in your dream as few. Had He shown them as many, you would have lost courage and disputed in the matter, but Allah saved you…” (8:43)

 

This is not divine revelation as instruction—it is emotional engineering. God distorts perception to regulate morale. Epistemic control is exercised through selective revelation, where affective compliance is prioritized over informational transparency.

​

Similarly, during the battle:

​

“He made you appear few in their eyes, and made them appear few in your eyes, so that Allah might accomplish what was destined.” (8:44)

​

What you see is not what is. Visual input is curated. Perception is weaponized. This is theology as cognitive behavioral modification.

​

And then the command:

​

“O you who believe! When you meet the enemy forces, stand firm and remember Allah much, so that you may succeed.” (8:45)

​

The goal is not reflective discernment. It is conditioned action—stand firm, invoke God, do not think. Doubt is disobedience. Hesitation is failure. The stakes are not military—they are existential.

​

The warning follows swiftly:

​

“Do not dispute, lest you lose courage and your strength depart…” (8:46)

​

Disunity is framed not as a tactical weakness, but as spiritual betrayal. Even interpersonal conflict among believers is a threat to divine favor.

​

The enemy, meanwhile, is caricatured through their affect:

​

“Do not be like those who came out of their homes boastfully, to be seen by people and to obstruct others from the path of Allah…” (8:47)

​

The opposition’s emotional state—boastfulness—is pathologized. Their intent is dismissed as arrogance. Their presence is read not through complexity but condemnation. This is othering at the affective level: they are not just wrong; they are emotionally corrupt.

​

Said (1979) would identify this as Orientalist caricature: reducing the Other to emotional dysfunction and spiritual deviance.

​

Finally, Satan is introduced:

​

“And [remember] when Satan made their deeds pleasing to them and said, ‘No one can overcome you today…’ But when the two armies met, he turned on his heels…” (8:48)

​

Even the devil is shown to abandon the emotionally inflated. The message is clear: if you feel too confident, too independent, you will be deserted—by both God and Satan.

​

For neurodivergent individuals—especially those with affective dysregulation or trauma-induced vigilance—this section presents a theology of controlled emotional states. It offers not comfort, but conditioning. Faith is not a space for emotional authenticity. It is a factory of regulated responses—designed not to heal the self, but to mold it.

​

Yergeau (2018) argues that non-normative cognitive responses are not pathological—they are rendered so by systems designed to erase neurodivergent agency.

 

This is not spiritual maturation.
It is affective submission.

V. Divine Attribution and Erasure of Human Agency

​

Surah Al-Anfal strips combatants of agency, recoding violent acts as divine operations. Even the throwing of dust or the act of killing is reassigned:

​

“It was not you who killed them, but Allah killed them. And it was not you who threw [dust], but Allah threw…” (8:17)

​

This is not just metaphorical speech. It is a theological recoding of responsibility. Human action is absorbed into divine will. Accountability is dissolved. War is no longer a human choice—it is a god-sanctioned inevitability.

​

For those trained in trauma-informed ethics, this is deeply problematic. Attribution of violence to God can serve to justify atrocity while numbing moral reflection. When war becomes sacred, conscience is silenced.

​

“This was so that He might test the believers with a good test from Himself…” (8:17, continued)

​

Suffering is not an unfortunate consequence—it is a test. Victory is not a product of strategy or justice—it is divine favor. This theology renders historical complexity irrelevant. If God claims responsibility, who dares to question the means?

​

Further, the Qur’an declares:

​

“If you [disbelievers] sought victory, then surely the victory has come to you. But if you desist, it will be better for you…” (8:19)

​

This verse pretends to offer choice—but within tightly bound limits. “Desist, and you will be spared. Persist, and you invite annihilation.” It’s not negotiation—it’s ultimatum.

​

Even spiritual guidance is positioned as obedience:

​

“O you who believe! Respond to Allah and the Messenger when He calls you to that which gives you life...” (8:24)

​

But what kind of life is this? One where even thought, sensation, and initiative are not yours? Life here is not about flourishing—it’s about submission. The verse continues:

​

“...Know that Allah comes between a man and his heart...” (8:24)

​

This is not intimacy. This is intrusion. The boundary between internal world and external command is dissolved. God is not only watching—He is inside you. He preempts feeling. He regulates desire. This doctrine dissolves cognitive sovereignty, reframing interior life as territory for divine occupation.

​

For neurodivergent readers, especially those navigating autonomy, dissociation, or histories of mental manipulation, this framing is deeply familiar—and deeply violent.

​

This is not divine companionship.
It is divine possession.

VI. Psychological Warfare and the Engineering of Terror

​

Surah Al-Anfal is not subtle about its strategic use of fear as a tool of governance. It does not just authorize warfare; it mandates psychological manipulation as divine command:

​

“When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, so make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike their necks and strike every fingertip of them.” (8:12)

​

This is not hyperbole. It is a divine directive to decapitate and mutilate—explicit, physical, and meant to induce fear. But fear is not just collateral—it is the goal. Theologically weaponized fear becomes a sacred tool. The battlefield is not only geographic—it is cognitive.

​

“Prepare against them whatever you are able of power and steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy…” (8:60)

​

Here, the objective is not just defense—it is terror. The verse commands the engineering of dread, crafting fear as a military asset and moral virtue. Fear is framed not as a tragedy of war, but as its righteousness. 

​

Puar (2007) explores how national and religious bodies use terror as a regulatory function—here sacredized as a virtue. Ahmed (2010) identifies fear as a social adhesive—here, weaponized to enforce religious cohesion through emotional circuitry.

​

This reframing of terror as piety destabilizes any notion of divine compassion. What Milton diagnosed as the tyranny of celestial dictatorship finds confirmation here. And through Ahmed’s lens, terror becomes a relational structure—a means by which theological subjects are emotionally disciplined.

​

For the neurodivergent reader—particularly those with PTSD or histories of emotional coercion—this is not divine reassurance. It is psychological retraumatization.

​

Fear ceases to be reactive; it is ritualized as sacred praxis.

​

And in this schema, to be afraid is to be devout.
To resist fear is to resist God.

​​​

​

​VII. Divine Possession and the Erasure of Agency

​

Surah Al-Anfal blurs the boundary between human will and divine action. The violence enacted by believers is reattributed—almost retroactively—to God:

​

“You did not kill them, but Allah killed them. And you did not throw when you threw, but Allah threw…” (8:17)

​

This theological displacement reframes agency as illusion. Human action becomes divine extension. Moral accountability is deflected—obliteration is not murder, it is mission. Bloodshed is no longer a decision. It is a divine reflex, executed through human limbs.

​

This erasure of volition is not isolated. The text repeatedly stresses that even strategic advantages in war—such as underestimating the enemy’s size—are orchestrated by God to accomplish a predestined outcome:

​

“Even if you had made a mutual appointment, you would certainly have failed... but [thus] Allah might accomplish a matter already enacted.” (8:42)

​

For trauma-impacted minds, this totalizing framework collapses the distinction between choice and coercion. Victim and perpetrator are both reframed as puppets in a pre-written narrative. There is no space for ethical nuance—only roles in a cosmic script.

​

And for the neurodivergent, whose sense of control is often hard-won, this obliteration of agency is not metaphysics. It is psychological destabilization.

​

You do not act—God acts through you.
Agency is displaced—bodily autonomy is reframed as divine instrumentation.

And in this theology, war is not horror. It is choreography.

​​​

​

VIII. War as Moral Architecture: Obedience, Fear, and Stratified Worth

​

Surah Al-Anfal elevates war into a spiritual algorithm—a test not of tactical prowess but of obedience and psychological conditioning. Military victory is tied not to numbers but to “sabr” (patient endurance) and submission:

​

“If there are twenty among you who are steadfast, they will overcome two hundred.” (8:65)

​

Here, warfare is not strategy—it is spiritual arithmetic. Obedience multiplies force. Dissent dilutes it.

​

The surah weaponizes morale: hesitation is treason; unity is faith. Disputes lead to disempowerment:

​

“Do not dispute, or you will lose courage and your strength will depart.” (8:46)

​

This theological behaviorism reinforces a militarized spirituality—where the divine is not healer but war general. God strengthens hearts, plants feet, and commands angels to sever necks and fingertips. The believer’s value lies not in moral clarity but in behavioral compliance under pressure.

​

“O Prophet, urge the believers to battle…” (8:65)

​

It is not peace that marks belief—it is readiness to fight when called. Noncompliance, even emotional, becomes disloyalty. Fear is only allowed if it collapses into obedience. Any other fear—paralysis, moral hesitation, grief—is a spiritual defect.

​

For trauma survivors and neurodivergent individuals with complex relationships to authority, this system encodes a double demand: suppress the body’s natural alarm, and channel its adrenaline toward divine instruction.

​

This is not just holy war. It is theocratic conditioning.

 

Where submission is valorized, and warfare becomes the metric of spiritual fidelity.

​​

​

IX. The Machinery of Divine Terror: Psychological Warfare and Theological Conditioning

​

Surah Al-Anfal ends not with peace, but with legal codification of warfare, property, and hierarchy—establishing divine rules for captives, spoils, and allegiance. Warfare becomes a means of theological purification:

​

“It is not for a prophet to have prisoners until he has thoroughly subdued the land…” (8:67)

​

This is not a caution—it is a mandate. Mercy is not foundational; conquest is. Captives are only legitimized after dominance is absolute. Compassion is contingent—granted only when supremacy has been secured.

​

“You desire the goods of this world, but Allah desires the Hereafter.” (8:67)

​

Material mercy is framed as moral weakness. Wanting gentleness is a worldly deviation.

This sets up a split between divine desire and human instinct—between conquest and conscience.

​

Even the treatment of prisoners is transactional:

​

“If Allah finds good in your hearts, He will give you better than what was taken from you.” (8:70)

​

The moral worth of the defeated is conditional. Dignity becomes a reward, not a right.

​

Al-Azami (2020) critiques such frameworks as historically exploitative, distorting justice into theocratic absolutism.​

​

This closing sequence institutionalizes a full theological economy—warfare, trust, exile, kinship—all encoded into law. Allegiance becomes measurable. Belief is no longer internal conviction; it is participation in a military-theocratic system. Exile, aid, and battle become the metrics of belonging.

​

For neurodivergent minds and survivors of coercive systems, this produces a devastating epistemic outcome: morality is no longer discerned—it is assigned. Justice is not felt—it is distributed by power.

​

Faith is not configured as sanctuary here—it emerges as a behavioral scaffold calibrated through surveillance and threat.

The disciplinary matrix described by Foucault (1977) finds its religious echo here: control is achieved not just through doctrine, but internalized self-policing.

And in this machinery, doubt is treason.
Silence is betrayal.
And the sacred is indistinguishable from the strategic.

​​

​

X. Conclusion – The Surah of Sacred Militarism and Cognitive Submission

​

Surah Al-Anfal does not veil its intent. It is not a parable-laden reflection nor a mystical invitation. It is a war document—legislating loyalty, moralizing violence, and reconfiguring faith as combat.

​

Sachedina (2001) proposes pluralism as an antidote to such theocratic militarism, advocating an ethical faith over combative loyalty.

​

The surah establishes:

​

• Cognitive obedience as faith – You obey not because you understand, but because you were commanded. (8:1, 8:20)

• Divine terror as emotional regulation – Fear is the architecture of belief. (8:12, 8:24)

• Warfare as epistemic proof – Battle is not only political—it validates revelation. (8:17, 8:42)

• Victory as moral justification – Divine approval is retrofitted into successful domination. (8:10, 8:44)

• Disbelief as animalistic deficiency – The other is not just wrong—they are deaf, dumb, and beastly. (8:22)

​

For neurodivergent readers—especially those shaped by authoritarian parenting, institutional violence, or religious indoctrination—this surah offers no room for internal process. There is no space for doubt, nuance, repair, or contradiction. Only alignment. Only loyalty. Only war.

​

What begins as a question about spoils ends as a theology of sacred conquest—where mercy is procedural, and disobedience is not just punished, but extinguished.

​

To read Surah Al-Anfal through a trauma-informed, neuroforensic lens is not to distort it—it is to see it. Without the glow of piety. Without the shield of apologetics. Without the anesthesia of inherited reverence.

​

It is to hold the surah in bare hands—blood-soaked, rage-wrapped, discipline-bound—and ask: What happens to the human nervous system under a theology that sanctifies fear?

​

The answer is this: Divine subjecthood here is not a process of becoming—but of withstanding. God is not known; He is endured.​

 

This echoes Butler’s formulation of power not as external force but internalized surveillance—where obedience becomes self-regulation.

​

​

Glossary and Critical Annotations

​

1. Neuroforensic Reading
An interpretive approach that analyzes sacred texts through the lens of trauma psychology, neurodivergence, and systems of obedience. It treats scripture not as divine comfort but as cognitive architecture—mapping how belief systems shape, suppress, or rewire the human nervous system.

​

2. Surveillance Theology
A theological structure in which God is depicted as a constant observer whose omniscience serves not as emotional attunement but as behavioral control. This concept reappears across the Qur’an but becomes militarized in Surah Al-Anfal.

​

3. Affective Regulation via Threat
The use of divine punishment, fear, and eschatological anxiety as tools for emotional conditioning. In Surah Al-Anfal, spiritual development is less about cultivating trust than about maintaining alertness under threat.

​

4. Sacred Militarism
The merging of faith and warfare into a unified divine directive. Combat is not a last resort but a theologically mandated expression of loyalty. Warfare becomes a ritual of obedience rather than a geopolitical necessity.

​

5. Double Empathy Problem (Milton)
A concept in autism research that posits breakdowns in communication between autistic and non-autistic people are mutual, not one-sided. Applied here, it questions whether God's 'communication failures' with disbelievers are framed unfairly, blaming the cognitive other for a divine inability—or refusal—to attune. Milton’s (2012) double empathy problem reframes this dynamic as mutual misattunement—not failure by the neurodivergent.

​

6. Relational Affect Theory (Ahmed)
Sara Ahmed’s theory that emotions are not internal states but relational forces that move between bodies and shape social organization. In the context of Surah Al-Anfal, divine emotions—such as wrath or favor—are not passive traits but instruments of group formation, exclusion, and loyalty.

​

7. Neuroqueer Critique (Yergeau)
A framework that challenges normative ideas of cognition, identity, and legitimacy in religious and secular systems. Yergeau’s work interrogates how neurodivergent modes of knowing are erased or demonized. In Surah Al-Anfal, non-compliance and cognitive difference are collapsed into moral evil.

​

8. Epistemic Gating
The control of who can access, interpret, or speak truth. Surah Al-Anfal creates a binary between those aligned with revelation and those epistemically invalid. Inquiry from outside this boundary is dismissed as rebellion or madness.

​

9. Sacred Submission
A term describing the total integration of divine command into self-regulation. In Anfal, the believer is not just loyal—they are neurologically trained to obey, fear, and fight. Religion becomes a conditioning protocol.

​

10. Cognitive Colonization
A process in which one’s mental and emotional frameworks are overwritten by an external authority. In the essay, divine speech is analyzed as colonizing internal processes—where feeling, doubting, or thinking differently is treated as treasonous.

​​​

​

References

Ahmed, S. (2004). The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh University Press.

Ahmed, S. (2010). The Promise of Happiness. Duke University Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1975)

Milton, D. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008

Yergeau, M. (2018). Authoring Autism: On Rhetoric and Neurological Queerness. Duke University Press.

Butler, J. (1997). The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford University Press.

Puar, J. K. (2007). Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Duke University Press.

Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. Vintage Books.

Al-Azami, U. F. (2020). The Qur’an and the Just Society. Edinburgh University Press.

Sachedina, A. (2001). The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford University Press.

Next