Gach Iontráil sa "Jemaah Islamiyah" Catagóir
Amárach Arabach
DAVID B. OTTAWAY
Deireadh Fómhair 6, 1981, Bhí sé i gceist go mbeadh sé ina lá ceiliúrtha san Éigipt. Ba chomóradh é an bua is mó a bhí ag an Éigipt i dtrí choimhlint Arabach-Iosraelach, nuair a chuaigh arm faoi thalamh na tíre trasna Chanáil Suez i laethanta oscailte na tíre 1973 Cogadh Yom Kippur agus chuir sé trúpaí Iosraelacha sa tóir ar chúlú. Ar fionnuar, maidin gan scamall, bhí staidiam Cairo pacáilte le teaghlaigh Éigipteacha a tháinig chun na crua-earraí míleata a fheiceáil. Ar an seastán athbhreithnithe, Uachtarán Anwar el-Sadat,ailtire an chogaidh, d'fhéach sé le sásamh agus fir agus meaisíní ag paráid os a chomhair. Bhí mé in aice láimhe, comhfhreagraí eachtrach nua-theacht.Suddenly, Stopadh ceann de na trucailí airm díreach os comhair an tseastáin athbhreithnithe díreach agus sé scaird Mirage ag ruathar lastuas i dtaibhiú androgsaineach, péinteáil an spéir le rianta fada dearg, buí, corcra,agus deatach glas. Sheas Sadat suas, de réir dealraimh ag ullmhú chun beannachtaí a mhalartú le meithle eile de thrúpaí na hÉigipte. Rinne sé sprioc foirfe dó féin do cheathrar feallmharfóirí Ioslamacha a léim as an trucail, stormed an podium, agus lán urchair ar a chorp. Mar a lean na marfóirí ar aghaidh ar feadh an chuma ar an tsíoraíocht chun an seastán a spraeáil lena tine mharfach., Rinne mé machnamh láithreach ar cé acu an mbuailfinn ar an talamh agus an baol a bheith á satailt chun báis ag lucht féachana a raibh scaoll orthu nó fanacht faoi chois agus an baol ann piléar strae a thógáil. Dúirt Instinct liom fanacht ar mo chosa, agus chuir mo chiall ar dhualgas iriseoireachta brú orm dul ag fáil amach an raibh Sadat beo nó marbh.
Ioslam, Ioslam polaitiúil agus Meiriceá
Léargas Arabach
An bhfuil “Bráithreachas” le Meiriceá Féideartha?
Khailil al-anani
Islamist Opposition Parties and the Potential for EU Engagement
Toby Archer
Heidi Huuhtanen
Sayyid Qutb: The Karl Marx of the Islamic Revolution
Leslie Evans
why are there no arab democracies ?
Larry Diamond
Ag éileamh an Ionaid: Ioslam Polaitiúil san Idirthréimhse
Eoin L.. Esposito
Sna 1990idí Ioslam polaitiúil, rud a ghlaonn cuid “Bunúsachas Ioslamach,” tá láithreacht mhór fós sa rialtas agus i bpolaitíocht fhreasúra ón Afraic Thuaidh go Oirdheisceart na hÁise. D'ardaigh Ioslam Polaitiúil atá i gcumhacht agus sa pholaitíocht go leor ceisteanna agus ceisteanna: “An bhfuil Ioslam frithbheathach don nuachóiriú?,” “An bhfuil Ioslam agus an daonlathas neamh-chomhoiriúnach?,” “Cad iad na himpleachtaí atá ag rialtas Ioslamach don iolrachas, cearta mionlaigh agus mná,” “Cé chomh ionadaíoch is atá Ioslamaigh,” “An bhfuil modhnóirí Ioslamacha ann?,” “Dá mbeadh eagla ar an Iarthar faoi bhagairt thrasnáisiúnta Ioslamach nó cic sibhialtachtaí?” Athbheochan Ioslamach Comhaimseartha Nochtann tírdhreach an domhain Mhoslamach inniu teacht chun cinn poblacht Ioslamach nua (An Iaráin, An tSúdáin, Afganastáin), iomadú gluaiseachtaí Ioslamacha a fheidhmíonn mar ghníomhaithe móra polaitiúla agus sóisialta laistigh de na córais atá ann cheana, agus polaitíocht achrannach antoisceach foréigneach radacach._ I gcodarsnacht leis na 1980idí nuair nach raibh Ioslam polaitiúil ach cothrom leis an Iaráin réabhlóideach nó le grúpaí folaitheach le hainmneacha mar jihad Ioslamach nó Arm Dé, is é an domhan Moslamach sna 1990idí ceann inar ghlac Ioslamaigh páirt sa phróiseas toghcháin agus ina bhfuil siad le feiceáil mar phríomh-airí, oifigigh comh-aireachta, cainteoirí tionóil náisiúnta, parlaiminteoirí, agus méaraí i dtíortha atá chomh héagsúil leis an Éigipt, An tSúdáin, turcaí, An Iaráin, Liobáin, Cuáit, Éimin, An Iordáin, An Phacastáin, An Bhanglaidéis, An Mhalaeisia, An Indinéis, agus Iosrael / an Phalaistín. Ag tús an aonú haois is fiche, Leanann Ioslam polaitiúil de bheith ina fhórsa mór d’ord agus neamhord sa pholaitíocht dhomhanda, ceann a ghlacann páirt sa phróiseas polaitiúil ach freisin i ngníomhartha sceimhlitheoireachta, dúshlán don domhan Moslamach agus don Iarthar. Nádúr an Ioslam polaitiúil a thuiscint inniu, agus go háirithe na saincheisteanna agus na ceisteanna a d’eascair as eispéireas an ama a chuaigh thart, fós ríthábhachtach do rialtais, lucht déanta beartas, agus mic léinn na polaitíochta idirnáisiúnta araon.
MUSLIM INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL MOBILIZATION
SARA SILVESTRI
In Europe, and most of the Western world, Muslim presence in the publicsphere is a recent phenomenon that characterised the last decade of the 20thcentury and has deeply marked the beginning of the 21st. This visiblepresence, which amounts to something between 15 agus 20 millionindividuals, can best be analysed if dissected into a number of components.The first part of this chapter illustrates where, when and why organisedMuslim voices and institutions have emerged in Europe, and which actorshave been involved. The second part is more schematic and analytical, inthat it seeks to identify from these dynamics the process through whichMuslims become political actors and how they relate to other, often incompeting political forces and priorities. It does so by observing theobjectives and the variety of strategies that Muslims have adopted in orderto articulate their concerns vis-à-vis different contexts and interlocutors.The conclusions offer an initial evaluation of the impact and of theconsequences of Muslim mobilisation and institution-formation forEuropean society and policy-making.
Gluaiseacht Ioslamach: Political Freedom & Daonlathas
Dr.Yusuf al-Qaradawi
It is the duty of the (Ioslamach) Movement in the coming phase tostand firm against totalitarian and dictatorial rule, political despotism and usurpation of people’s rights. The Movement should always stand by political freedom, as represented by true,not false, daonlathas. It should flatly declare it refusal of tyrantsand steer clear of all dictators, even if some tyrant appears to havegood intentions towards it for some gain and for a time that is usually short, as has been shown by experience.The Prophet (SAWS) said, “ When you see my Nation fall victim to fear and does not say to a wrong –doer, “You are wrong”, thenyou may lose hope in them.” So how about a regime that forces people to say to a conceited wrongdoer, “How just, how great you are. O our hero, our savior and our liberator!”The Quran denounces tyrants such as Numrudh, Pharaoh, Haman and others, but it also dispraises those who follow tyrants andobey their orders. This is why Allah dispraises the people of Noahby saying, “ But they follow (m en) whose wealth and childrengive them no increase but only loss.” [Surat Nuh; 21]Allah also says of Ad, people of Hud, “ And followed thecommand of every powerful, obstinate transgressor”. [Surat Hud:59]See also what the Quran says about the people of Pharaoh, “ Butthey followed the command of Pharaoh, and the command ofPharaoh was not rightly guided.[Surat Hud: 97] “Thus he made fools of his people, and they obeyed him: truly they were a people rebellious (against Allah).” [Surat Az-Zukhruf: 54]A closer look at the history of the Muslim Nation and the IslamicMovement in modern times should show clearly that the Islamicidea, the Islamic Movement and the Islamic Awakening have never flourished or borne fruit unless in an atmosphere ofdemocracy and freedom, and have withered and become barren only at the times of oppression and tyranny that trod over the willof the peoples which clung to Islam. Such oppressive regimesimposed their secularism, socialism or communism on their peoples by force and coercion, using covert torture and publicexecutions, and employing those devilish tools that tore flesh,shed blood, crushed bone and destroyed the soul.We saw these practices in many Muslim countries, including Turkey, An Éigipt, An tSiria, An Iaráic, (the former) South Yemen, Somaliaand northern African States for varying periods of time, depending on the age or reign of the dictator in each country.On the other hand, we saw the Islamic Movement and the Islamic Awakening bear fruit and flourish at the times of freedom and democracy, and in the wake of the collapse of imperial regimes that ruled peoples with fear and oppression.Therefore, I would not imagine that the Islamic Movement could support anything other than political freedom and democracy.The tyrants allowed every voice to be raised, except the voice ofIslam, and let every trend express itself in the form of a politicalparty or body of some sort, except the Islamic current which is theonly trend that actually speaks for this Nation and expresses it screed, values, essence and very existence.
Living with Democracy in Egypt
Daniel Consolatore
Hosni Mubarek was almost elected president of Egypt in September 2005. Not that the seventy-seven-year-old secular autocrat who has ruled that nationfor the past twenty-four years lost the election; by the official count, he took nearly 85 percent of the vote.His nearest competitor, Ayman Nour, the upstart headof the fledgling opposition party al-Ghad (“Tomorrow”),managed less than 8 percent. The only other candidate to take any significant tally was the aged NomanGamaa of the venerable al-Wafd (“Delegation”)party, who managed less than 3 percent. The Ikhwanal-Muslimeen (“Muslim Brotherhood”), feared by somany Westerners for its purist Islamic social and politicalagenda, didn’t even field a candidate.Mubarek’s decisive victory would seem to be reassuringto most people—particularly secular Americans—worried for the future of the few Westernfriendly,moderate Arab regimes, threatened as theyare by the Islamicization of politics in the region. The Bush administration would also seem to have reasonto be pleased, given its recent change of heart aboutArab democracy. The missing chemical weapons in Iraq and subsequent justification of the war thereas precedent for democratization have inspired theWhite House to push for as many elections as possible in the region. In fact, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke at the American University inCairo in June, she announced to some surprise that“for sixty years” the United States had been mistakenin “pursu[ing] stability at the expense of democracy”in the Middle East. For generations, U.S.. pundits weresure that the “Arab street” couldn’t be trusted with the vote, as they might hand over power to communistsor fundamentalist Islamists. Realpolitik dictated that autocrats and dictators, like Mubarek and Saddam Hussein, had to be coddled in order to maintain “stability”in the region. If they would then stage election sor dispense with them altogether, deny free speech,and let loose secret police to terrorize the population,the White House would likely turn a blind eye. But ifMubarek could now claim a true democratic mandate,that would be the best of all worlds.
Political Transitions in the Arab World
Dina Shehata
The year 2007 marked the end of a brief interval of political liberalization in the Arab world which began shortly after the occupation of Iraq and which resulted primarily from external pressures on Arab regimes to reform and democratize. External pressures during the 2003-2006 period created a political opening which activists across the region used to press for longstanding demands for political and constitutional reform.Faced with a combination of growing external and internal pressures to reform, Arab regimes were forced to make some concessions to their challengers.In Egypt, upon the request of the President, Parliament passed a constitutional amendment to allowfor direct competitive presidential elections. In September2005, Egypt witnessed its first competitive presidential election ever and as expected Mubarak was elected for a fifth term with 87%of the vote. Thairis sin,during the November 2005 parliamentary elections,which were freer than previous elections, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest opposition movement in Egypt, won 88 seats. This was the largest number of seats won by an opposition group in Egypt since the 1952 revolution.Similarly, in the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a majority of the seats.Hamas was thereby able to establish control over the Palestinian Legislative Council which had been dominated by Fatah since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1996. In Lebanon, in the wake of the assassination of Rafiq Hariri on 14th February2005, a coalition of pro-Hariri political forces was ablet hrough broad-based mass mobilization and external support to force Syrian troops to pull out from Lebanon and the pro-Syrian Government to resign. Elections were held, and the 14th February coalition was able to win a plurality of the votes and to form a new government.In Morocco, King Mohamed VI oversaw the establishment of a truth and reconciliation committee which sought to address the grievances of those who had been abused under the reign of his father.The Gulf Cooperation Council countries (GCC) also under took some important reforms during the 2003-2006 period. I 2003 Qatar promulgated a written constitution for the first time in its history. In 2005,Saudi Arabia convened municipal elections for the firsttime in five decades. And in 2006, Bahrain held parliamentaryelections in which the Shiite society of AlWefaqwon 40%of the seats. Subsequently, the first Shiitedeputy prime minister in Bahrain was appointed.Theses events, which came to be known as ‘the Arab Spring,’ led some optimists to believe that the Arabworld was on the brink of a democratic transformation similar to those experienced in Latin American and Eastern and Central Europe during the 1980s and1990s. ach, isteach 2007, as political liberalization gave way to heightened polarization and to renewed repression,these hopes were dispelled. The failure ofthe openings of the 2003-2006 period to create a sustained momentum towards democratization can beat tributed to a number of factors. The deteriorating security situation in Iraq and the failure of the United States to create a stable and democratic regime dampened support for democracy promotion efforts within the American administration and reinforced the views ofthose who held that security and stability must come before democracy. Thairis sin, the electoral successes of Islamists in Egypt and in Palestine further dampened Western support for democracy promotion efforts in the region since the principals of thesemovements were perceived to be at odds with the interestsof theWest.
Radical Islam In Egypt A Comparison Of Two Groups
By David Zeidan
The author compares two key Egyptian radical Islamic groups, the Society of Muslims(Takfir wal-Hijra) and the Society of Struggle (Jama’at al-Jihad) and analyzes their differencesin doctrine and strategy. This study is presented in the context of a broader examination of thehistory of militant Islamic groups in Egypt. The author argues that the two societies furnishexamples of basic types of radical Islamic movements. In addition, Jama’at al-Jihad remainsimportant in contemporary Egyptian politics and in that country’s internal struggle.The Egyptian radical groups understudy here, the Society of Muslims (Takfirwal-Hijra) and the Society of Struggle(Jama’at al-Jihad), espoused drasticallydifferent ideologies and strategies forgaining power. The Society of Muslims(Takfir) had a passive separatist andmessianic ideology, delaying activeconfrontation with the state to an indefinitepoint in the future when it could reach acertain degree of strength. In comparison,the Society of Struggle (al-Jihad) followedan activist, militant ideology that committedit to immediate and violent action againstthe regime.ISLAMIC RESURGENCEHistory reveals cyclical patterns ofIslamic revival in times of crisis.Charismatic leaders arose attempting torenew the fervor and identity of Muslims,purify the faith from accretions and corruptreligious practices, and reinstate the pristineIslam of the Prophet Muhammad’s day.Leaders of revivals tended to appear eitheras renewers of the faith promised at the startof each century (mujaddids), or as thedeliverer sent by God in the end of times toestablish the final kingdom of justice andpeace (mahdi).
The W&M Progressive
Accepting the Responsibility of Electoral Choice
The development of democratic institutions comes with negative externalities. As a political progressive, I believe that the big picture – establishing a solid democratic foundation – outweighs the possible emergence of political parties that may advocate religious or gender intolerance. I am a firm believer in the workings of the democratic process. While I have been studying in Egypt for the semester, I am reminded that despite the imperfections of the United States democratic system, it is still many times better than living under any authoritarian regime that outlaws political parties and posts military police at a variety of locations in an effort to exert control and maintain power.
In Egypt, the electoral process is not democratic. The National Political Party – the party of President Mubarak – exerts tremendous influence in the country. Its main opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood, which was created in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. The Muslim Brotherhood is based on very strict interpretations of the Koran and the idea that secular governments are a direct violation of the teaching of the Koran. The party has a very violent past; it has been directly responsible for several assassination attempts and the assassination of the Egyptian leader Anwar-as-Sadat in 1981.
The Muslim Brotherhood is an illegal political party. Because the political party is religious, it is not allowed to participate in the public sphere under Egyptian law. Despite this technicality, the party has members in the Egyptian Parliament. ach, the parliamentarians cannot officially declare their affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood but instead identify as Independents. Though the party remains illegal, it remains the most powerful opposition to the ruling National Democratic Party.
An tSochaí Shibhialta agus Daonlathaithe sa Domhan Arabach
an 500 Moslamaigh is mó tionchair
John Esposito
Ibrahim Kalin
Is é an foilseachán atá agat i do lámha an chéad cheann de shraith is súil againn a bheidh ann a thabharfaidh léargas ar ghluaiseachtaí agus ar chroitheadh an Domhain Mhuslamach.. Rinneamar ár ndícheall aird a tharraingt ar dhaoine a bhfuil tionchar acu mar Mhoslamaigh, Is é sin, daoine a bhfuil a dtionchar díorthaithe óna chleachtadh Ioslam nó ón bhfíric gur Moslamach iad. Is dóigh linn go dtugann sé seo léargas luachmhar ar na bealaí éagsúla a mbíonn tionchar ag na Moslamaigh ar an domhan, agus taispeánann sé freisin an éagsúlacht sa chaoi a bhfuil daoine ag maireachtáil mar Mhoslamaigh sa lá atá inniu ann. Coincheap casta is ea an tionchar. Tagann a bhrí ón bhfocal Laidine influens a chiallaíonn sreabhadh isteach, ag tagairt do sheansmaoineamh astrological a fheiceann fórsaí nach bhfacthas riamh (cosúil leooon) difear don chine daonna. Tá an cumas ag na figiúirí ar an liosta seo dul i bhfeidhm ar an daonnacht freisin. Ar bhealaí éagsúla tá tionchar ag gach duine ar an liosta seo ar shaol líon mór daoine ar domhan. Tá an 50 déantar próifíliú ar na figiúirí is mó tionchair. Tagann a dtionchar ó fhoinsí éagsúla; Mar sin féin tá siad aontaithe ag an bhfíric go bhfuil tionchar acu ar fad raon ollmhór na daonnachta. Táimid tar éis briste suas ansin an 500 ceannairí isteach 15 catagóirí - Scoláireach, Polaitiúil,Riaracháin, Líneáil, Preachers, Mná, An Óige, Daonchairdeas, Forbairt,Eolaíocht agus Teicneolaíocht, Na hEalaíona agus Cultúr, Meáin, Radacaigh, Líonraí Ioslamacha Idirnáisiúnta, agus Ceisteanna an Lae - chun cabhrú leat tuiscint a fháil ar na cineálacha éagsúla bealaí a mbíonn tionchar ag Ioslam agus ag Moslamaigh ar an domhan inniu. Léiríonn dhá liosta ilchodacha an chaoi a n-oibríonn tionchar ar bhealaí éagsúla: Léiríonn Líonraí Idirnáisiúnta Ioslamacha daoine atá chun tosaigh ar líonraí trasnáisiúnta tábhachtacha Moslamaigh, agus cuireann Eagrán an Lae béim ar dhaoine aonair a bhfuil tábhacht acu mar gheall ar cheisteanna reatha a bhaineann leis an gcine daonna.
Reform in the Muslim World: The Role of Islamists and Outside Powers
Shibley Telhami
The Bush Administration’s focus on spreading democracyin the Middle East has been much discussed over the past several years, not only in the United Statesand Arab and Muslim countries but also around theworld. In truth, neither the regional discourse about theneed for political and economic reform nor the Americantalk of spreading democracy is new. Over the pasttwo decades, particularly beginning with the end of theCold War, intellectuals and governments in the MiddleEast have spoken about reform. The American policyprior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 also aimedto spread democracy in the Arab world. But in that case,the first Gulf War and the need to forge alliances withautocratic regimes were one reason talk of democracydeclined. The other reason was the discovery that politicalreform provided openings to Islamist political groupsthat seemed very much at odd with American objectives.The fear that Islamist groups supported democracy onlybased on the principle of “one man, one vote, one time,”as former Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejianonce put it, led the United States to backtrack. Evenearly in the Clinton Administration, Secretary of StateWarren Christopher initially focused on democracy inhis Middle East policy but quickly sidelined the issueas the administration moved to broker Palestinian-Israelinegotiation in the shadow of militant Islamist groups,especially Hamas.
The future of Islam after 9/11
Mansoor Moaddel
There is no consensus among historians and Islamicists about the nature of theIslamic belief system and the experience of historical Islam, on which one couldbase a definitive judgment concerning Islam’s compatibility with modernity. Mar sin féin,the availability of both historical and value survey data allow us to analyzethe future of Islam in light of the horrific event of 9/11. The key factor that woulddetermine the level of societal visibility necessary for predicting the future developmentof a culture is the nature and clarity of the ideological targets in relation towhich new cultural discourses are produced. Based on this premise, I shall try toilluminate the nature of such targets that are confronted by Muslim activists inIran, An Éigipt, and Jordan.