seyyed vali reza nasr
I 1979 Ginearál Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, rialóir míleata na Pacastáine, dhearbhaigh sé go ndéanfaí an Phacastáin ina stát Ioslamach. Bheadh luachanna agus noirm Ioslamacha mar bhunús ag an bhféiniúlacht náisiúnta, Dlí, Geilleagar, agus caidreamh sóisialta, agus spreagfadh sé gach ceapadh beartais. I 1980 Mahathir Muhammad, príomh-aire nua na Malaeisia, tugadh isteach plean leathan-bhunaithe comhchosúil chun déanamh beartas stáit a dhaingniú i luachanna Ioslamacha, agus dlíthe agus cleachtais eacnamaíocha a thíre a thabhairt ar aon dul le teagasc an Ioslaim. Cén fáth ar roghnaigh na rialóirí seo cosán an “Ioslamaithe” dá dtíortha? Agus conas a d’éirigh le stáit iarchoilíneacha tuata aonuaire a bheith ina ngníomhairí don Ioslamú agus ina n-airí ar an stát Ioslamach “fíor”.?
Tá an Mhalaeisia agus an Phacastáin ó dheireadh na 1970idí go dtí tús na 1980idí tar éis cosán uathúil a leanúint i dtreo na forbartha atá éagsúil ó thaithí stáit eile sa Tríú Domhan.. Sa dá thír seo rinneadh féiniúlacht reiligiúnach a chomhtháthú in idé-eolaíocht an stáit chun bonn eolais a chur faoin sprioc agus faoin bpróiseas forbartha le luachanna Ioslamacha.
Chuir an gealltanas seo pictiúr an-difriúil i láthair freisin ar an gcaidreamh idir Ioslam agus polaitíocht i sochaithe Moslamach. Sa Mhalaeisia agus sa Phacastáin, institiúidí stáit a bhí ann seachas gníomhaithe Ioslamacha (iad siúd a mholann léamh polaitiúil ar Ioslam; ar a dtugtar freisin athbheochanóirí nó bunúsacha) that have been the guardians of Islam and the defenders of its interests. This suggests a
very different dynamic in the ebbs and flow of Islamic politics—in the least pointing to the importance of the state in the vicissitudes of this phenomenon.
What to make of secular states that turn Islamic? What does such a transformation mean for the state as well as for Islamic politics?
This book grapples with these questions. This is not a comprehensive account of Malaysia’s or Pakistan’s politics, nor does it cover all aspects of Islam’s role in their societies and politics, although the analytical narrative dwells on these issues considerably. This book is rather a social scientific inquiry into the phenomenon of secular postcolonial states becoming agents of Islamization, agus níos leithne an chaoi a bhfreastalaíonn cultúr agus reiligiún ar riachtanais chumhacht agus fhorbairt an stáit. Braitheann an anailís anseo ar phlé teoiriciúil
sna heolaíochtaí sóisialta ar iompar stáit agus ról an chultúir agus an reiligiúin ann. Níos tábhachtaí, baineann sé tátail ó na cásanna atá á scrúdú chun tátail níos leithne a bhaineann leis na disciplíní a dhéanamh.
KENNETH ROTH
Today, virtually every government wants to be seen as a democracy, but many resist allowing the basic human rights that would make democracy meaningful because that might jeopardize their grasp on power. Instead, governments use a variety of subterfuges to manage or undermine the electoral process. Their task is facilitated by the lack of a broadly accepted definition of ‘democracy’ akin to the detailed rules of international human rights law. But much of the problem lies in the fact that, because of commercial or strategic interests, the world’s established democracies often close their eyes to electoral manipulation, making it easier for sham democrats to pass themselves off as the real thing. That acquiescence undermines the efforts to promote human rights because it can be more difficult for human rights organizations to stigmatize a government for its human rights violations when that government can hold itself up as an accepted ‘democracy.’ The challenge facing the human rights movement is to highlight the ploys used by dictatorial regimes to feign democratic rule and to build pressure on the established democracies to refuse to admit these pretenders into the club of democracies on the cheap. Keywords: civil society, democracy promotion, dictatorship, toghcháin,
electoral manipulation, political violence Rarely has democracy been so acclaimed yet so breached, so promoted yet so disrespected, so important yet so disappointing. Democracy has become the key to legitimacy. Few governments want to be seen as undemocratic. Yet the credentials of the claimants have not kept pace with democracy’s
growing popularity. These days, even overt dictators aspire to the status conferred by the democracy label. Determined not to let mere facts stand in their way, these rulers have mastered the art of democratic rhetoric which bears
little relationship to their practice of governing.
This growing tendency poses an enormous challenge to the human rights movement. Human rights groups can hardly oppose the promotion of democracy, but they must be wary that the embrace of democracy not become a subterfuge for avoiding the more demanding standards of international human rights law. Human rights groups must especially insist that their natural governmental allies – the established democracies – not allow competing interests and short-sighted strategies to stand in the way of their
embrace of a richer, more meaningful concept of democracy.
Beyond ‘Terrorism’ and ‘StateHegemony’: assessing the Islamistmainstream in Egypt and Malaysia
JAN STARK
International networks of Islamic ‘terrorism’ have served as themost popular explanation to describe the phenomenon of political Islam sincethe 11 September attacks.
This paper argues that both the self-proclaimeddoctrinal Islam of the militants and Western perceptions of a homogeneousIslamist threat need to be deconstructed in order to discover the oftenambiguous manifestations of ‘official’ and ‘opposition’ Islam, of modernity andconservatism.
As a comparison of two Islamic countries, Egypt and Malaysia,which both claim a leading role in their respective regions, shows, moderateIslamic groups have had a considerable impact on processes of democratisationand the emergence of civil society during the quarter century since the ‘Islamicresurgence’.
Shared experiences like coalition building and active participationwithin the political system demonstrate the influence and importance of groupssuch as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM) or the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS).
These groups haveshaped the political landscape to a much larger extent than the current pre-occupation with the ‘terrorist threat’ suggests. The gradual development of a‘culture of dialogue’ has rather revealed new approaches towards politicalparticipation and democracy at the grassroots level.