Lahat ng Entries sa "Hamas" Kategoryang
Ang Arabo Bukas
DAVID B. OTTAWAY
Oktubre 6, 1981, ay sinadya upang maging isang araw ng pagdiriwang sa Egypt. Minarkahan nito ang anibersaryo ng pinakadakilang sandali ng tagumpay ng Egypt sa tatlong salungatan ng Arab-Israeli, nang ang underdog na hukbo ng bansa ay tumawid sa Suez Canal sa mga pagbubukas ng araw ng 1973 Yom Kippur War at nagpadala ng mga tropang Israeli sa pag-urong. Sa isang cool, walang ulap na umaga, ang istadyum ng Cairo ay puno ng mga pamilyang Ehipsiyo na dumating upang makita ang militar na strut ang hardware nito. Sa reviewing stand, Pangulong Anwar el-Sadat,arkitekto ng digmaan, nanonood nang may kasiyahan habang nagpaparada ang mga lalaki at makina sa kanyang harapan. Nasa malapit ako, isang bagong dating na foreign correspondent.Bigla, isa sa mga trak ng hukbo ay direktang huminto sa harap ng reviewing stand habang anim na Mirage jet ang umuungal sa itaas sa isang akrobatikong pagtatanghal, pagpinta sa langit na may mahabang landas na pula, dilaw, lila,at berdeng usok. Tumayo si Sadat, tila naghahanda na makipagpalitan ng mga pagpupugay sa isa pang pangkat ng mga tropang Egyptian. Ginawa niyang perpektong target ang kanyang sarili para sa apat na Islamist assassin na tumalon mula sa trak, bumangga sa podium, at nilagyan ng mga bala ang kanyang katawan. Habang ang mga pumatay ay nagpatuloy para sa tila isang walang hanggan upang iwiwisik ang stand ng kanilang nakamamatay na apoy, Nag-isip ako saglit kung tatama sa lupa at nanganganib na matapakan hanggang mamatay ng mga natarantang manonood o mananatiling lakad at nanganganib na matamaan ng ligaw na bala. Instinct told me to stay on my feet, at ang aking pakiramdam ng tungkulin sa pamamahayag ay nagtulak sa akin na alamin kung si Sadat ay buhay o patay na.
| Sep 26, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
PEMINISMO SA PAGITAN NG SEKULARISMO AT ISLAMISMO: ANG KASO NG PALESTIN
Sinabi ni Dr., Islah Jad
Legislative elections na ginanap sa West Bank at Gaza Strip sa 2006 dinala sa kapangyarihan ang kilusang Islam na Hamas, na nagpatuloy sa pagbuo ng mayorya ng Palestinian Legislative Council at gayundin ang unang mayoryang pamahalaan ng Hamas. Ang mga halalan na ito ay nagresulta sa paghirang ng unang babaeng ministro ng Hamas, na naging Ministro ng Women’s Affairs. Sa pagitan ng Marso 2006 at Hunyo 2007, dalawang magkaibang babaeng ministro ng Hamas ang umako sa post na ito, ngunit pareho silang nahirapang pamahalaan ang Ministri dahil karamihan sa mga empleyado nito ay hindi miyembro ng Hamas ngunit kabilang sa ibang mga partidong pampulitika, at karamihan ay miyembro ng Fatah, ang nangingibabaw na kilusan na kumokontrol sa karamihan ng mga institusyong Awtoridad ng Palestinian. Ang isang maigting na panahon ng pakikibaka sa pagitan ng mga kababaihan ng Hamas sa Ministry of Women's Affairs at ng mga babaeng miyembro ng Fatah ay natapos kasunod ng pagkuha ng kapangyarihan ng Hamas sa Gaza Strip at ang resulta ng pagbagsak ng gobyerno nito sa West Bank – isang pakikibaka na kung minsan ay nagiging marahas. Ang isang dahilan sa kalaunan ay binanggit upang ipaliwanag ang pakikibaka na ito ay ang pagkakaiba sa pagitan ng sekular na feminist na diskurso at Islamist na diskurso sa mga isyu ng kababaihan. Sa kontekstong Palestinian, ang hindi pagkakasundo na ito ay nagkaroon ng mapanganib na kalikasan dahil ginamit ito upang bigyang-katwiran ang pagpapatuloy ng madugong pakikibaka sa pulitika., ang pagtanggal sa mga kababaihan ng Hamas sa kanilang mga posisyon o post, at ang pulitikal at heograpikal na mga paghahati na namamayani sa panahong iyon sa parehong West Bank at sa sinasakop na Gaza Strip.
Ang pakikibaka na ito ay nagtataas ng ilang mahahalagang katanungan: dapat ba nating parusahan ang kilusang Islamista na nasa kapangyarihan, o dapat nating isaalang-alang ang mga dahilan na humantong sa kabiguan ni Fateh sa larangan ng pulitika? Maaari bang mag-alok ang feminismo ng komprehensibong balangkas para sa kababaihan, anuman ang kanilang panlipunan at ideolohikal na kaakibat? Can a discourse of a shared common ground for women help them to realize and agree upon their common goals? Is paternalism only present in Islamist ideology, and not in nationalism and patriotism? What do we mean by feminism? Is there only one feminism, or several feminisms? What do we mean by Islam – is it the movement known by this name or the religion, the philosophy, or the legal system? We need to go to the bottom of these issues and consider them carefully, and we must agree upon them so that we can later decide, as feminists, if our criticism of paternalism should be directed at religion (pananampalataya), which should be confined to the heart of the believer and not be allowed to take control of the world at large, or the jurisprudence, na nauugnay sa iba't ibang paaralan ng pananampalataya na nagpapaliwanag sa sistemang legal na nakapaloob sa Quran at mga kasabihan ng Propeta – ang Sunnah.
| Sep 19, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
AKTIBISMO NG MGA KABABAIHAN ISLAM SA SINAKOP NA PALESTIN
Mga panayam ni Khaled Amayreh
Panayam kay Sameera Al-Halayka
Si Sameera Al-Halayka ay isang nahalal na miyembro ng Palestinian Legislative Council. Siya ay
ipinanganak sa nayon ng Shoyoukh malapit sa Hebron noong 1964. Mayroon siyang BA sa Sharia (Islamic
Jurisprudence) mula sa Hebron University. Nagtrabaho siya bilang isang mamamahayag mula sa 1996 sa 2006 kailan
pumasok siya sa Palestinian Legislative Council bilang nahalal na miyembro sa 2006 halalan.
Siya ay may asawa at may pitong anak.
Q: Mayroong pangkalahatang impresyon sa ilang kanluraning bansa na natatanggap ng mga kababaihan
mababang pagtrato sa loob ng mga grupo ng paglaban sa Islam, tulad ng Hamas. Totoo ba ito?
Paano ginagamot ang mga babaeng aktibista sa Hamas?
Ang mga karapatan at tungkulin ng mga babaeng Muslim ay nagmumula sa Islamic Sharia o batas.
Ang mga ito ay hindi boluntaryo o kawanggawa o mga kilos na natatanggap namin mula sa Hamas o sinuman
iba pa. Sa gayon, hanggang sa pakikilahok sa pulitika at aktibismo ay nababahala, karaniwang mayroon ang mga kababaihan
ang parehong mga karapatan at tungkulin ng mga lalaki. Kung tutuusin, ang mga kababaihan ay bumubuo ng hindi bababa sa 50 porsyento ng
lipunan. Sa isang tiyak na kahulugan, sila ang buong lipunan dahil pinanganak nila, at itaas,
ang bagong henerasyon.
Samakatuwid, Masasabi kong ang katayuan ng mga kababaihan sa loob ng Hamas ay ganap na umaayon sa kanya
katayuan sa Islam mismo. Nangangahulugan ito na siya ay ganap na kasosyo sa lahat ng antas. Sa totoo lang, ito ay magiging
hindi patas at hindi makatarungan para sa isang Islam (o Islamist kung gusto mo) babaeng magiging katuwang sa paghihirap
while she is excluded from the decision-making process. This is why the woman’s role in
Hamas has always been pioneering.
Q: Do you feel that the emergence of women’s political activism within Hamas is
a natural development that is compatible with classical Islamic concepts
regarding the status and role of women, or is it merely a necessary response to
pressures of modernity and requirements of political action and of the continued
Israeli occupation?
There is no text in Islamic jurisprudence nor in Hamas’ charter which impedes women from
political participation. I believe the opposite is true — there are numerous Quranic verses
and sayings of the Prophet Muhammed urging women to be active in politics and public
issues affecting Muslims. But it is also true that for women, as it is for men, aktibismo sa pulitika
ay hindi sapilitan ngunit boluntaryo, at higit na napagpasyahan ayon sa kakayahan ng bawat babae,
mga kwalipikasyon at indibidwal na kalagayan. None the less, nagpapakita ng pagmamalasakit sa publiko
ang mga bagay ay ipinag-uutos sa bawat at bawat Muslim na lalaki at babae. Ang Propeta
sabi ni Muhammad: "Siya na hindi nagpapakita ng pagmamalasakit sa mga gawain ng mga Muslim ay hindi isang Muslim."
At saka, Ang mga Palestinian Islamist na kababaihan ay kailangang kunin ang lahat ng layunin na mga kadahilanan sa lupa
account kapag nagpapasya kung sasali sa pulitika o makisali sa aktibismo sa pulitika.
| Sep 19, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
pagpapahid: Paano kumalat ang mga Islamophobes ng takot, pagkapanatiko at maling impormasyon
PATAS
Julie Hollar
Jim Naureckas
Paggawa ng Islamophobia na Mainstream:
Kung paano i-broadcast ng mga Muslim-basher ang kanilang pagkapanatiko
Isang kahanga-hangang bagay ang nangyari sa National Book Critics Circle (NBCC) nominasyon noong Pebrero 2007: Ang karaniwang mataas ang kilay at mapagparaya na grupo ay hinirang para sa pinakamahusay na libro sa larangan ng kritisismo ng isang aklat na malawak na tinitingnan bilang nanlalait sa isang buong grupo ng relihiyon.
Ang nominasyon ng While Europe Slept ni Bruce Bawer: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West From Within didn’t pass without controversy. Past nominee Eliot Weinberger denounced the book at the NBCC’s annual gathering, calling it ‘‘racism as criticism’’ (New York Times, 2/8/07). NBCC board president John Freeman wrote on the group’s blog (Critical Mass, 2/4/07): ‘‘I have never been
more embarrassed by a choice than I have been with Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept…. Its hyperventilated rhetoric tips from actual critique into Islamophobia.’’
Though it didn’t ultimately win the award, While Europe Slept’s recognition in the highest literary circles was emblematic of a mainstreaming of Islamophobia, not just in American publishing but in the broader media. This report takes a fresh look at Islamophobia in today’s media and its perpetratrators, outlining some of the behind-the-scenes connections that are rarely explored in media. The report also provides four snapshots, or “case studies,” describing how Islamophobes continue to manipulate media to in order to paint Muslims with a broad, hateful brush. Our aim is to document smearcasting: the public writings and appearances of Islamophobic activists and pundits who intentionally and regularly spread fear, pagkapanatiko at maling impormasyon. The term “Islamophobia” refers to hostility toward Islam and Muslims that tends to dehumanize an entire faith, portraying it as fundamentally alien and attributing to it an inherent, essential set of negative traits such as irrationality, intolerance and violence. And not unlike the charges made in the classical document of anti-Semitism, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, some of Islamophobia’s more virulent expressions–like While Europe Slept–include evocations of Islamic designs to dominate the West.
Islamic institutions and Muslims, of course, should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny and criticism as anyone else. For instance, when a Norwegian Islamic Council debates whether gay men and lesbians should be executed, one may forcefully condemn individuals or groups sharing that opinion without pulling all European Muslims into it, as did Bawer’s Pajamas Media post (8/7/08),
“European Muslims Debate: Should Gays Be Executed?"
Ganun din, extremists who justify their violent actions by invoking some particular interpretation of Islam can be criticized without implicating the enormously diverse population of Muslims around the world. Kung tutuusin, reporters managed to cover the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh–an adherent of the racist Christian Identity sect–without resorting to generalized statements about “Christian terrorism.” Likewise, media have covered acts of terrorism by fanatics who are Jewish–for instance the Hebron massacre carried out by Baruch Goldstein (Extra!, 5/6/94)–without implicating the entirety of Judaism.
| Sep 16, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
Islam, Political Islam at Amerika
Pananaw ng Arab
Posible ba ang "Kapatiran" sa Amerika?
khalil al-anani
"Walang pagkakataon na makipag-usap sa anumang U.S. pamamahala hangga't mapanatili ng Estados Unidos ang matagal nang pagtingin nito sa Islam bilang isang tunay na panganib, isang pagtingin na inilalagay ang Estados Unidos sa parehong bangka tulad ng kaaway ng Zionist. Wala kaming paunang naiisip na mga ideya tungkol sa mga mamamayang Amerikano o sa U.S.. lipunan at mga organisasyong sibiko nito at mga think tank. Wala kaming problema sa pakikipag-usap sa mga mamamayang Amerikano ngunit walang sapat na pagsisikap na ginagawa upang mapalapit kami,”Sabi ni Dr.. Issam al-Iryan, pinuno ng kagawaran ng pampulitika ng Pagkakapatiran ng Muslim sa isang pakikipanayam sa telepono.
Al-Iryan’s words sum up the Muslim Brotherhood’s views of the American people and the U.S. government. Other members of the Muslim Brotherhood would agree, as would the late Hassan al-Banna, who founded the group in 1928. Al- Banna viewed the West mostly as a symbol of moral decay. Other Salafis – an Islamic school of thought that relies on ancestors as exemplary models – have taken the same view of the United States, but lack the ideological flexibility espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood. While the Muslim Brotherhood believes in engaging the Americans in civil dialogue, other extremist groups see no point in dialogue and maintain that force is the only way of dealing with the United States.
| Sep 15, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
Trabaho, Kolonyalismo, Apartheid?
The Human Sciences Research Council
The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa commissioned this study to test the hypothesis posed by Professor John Dugard in the report he presented to the UN Human Rights Council in January 2007, in his capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel (namely, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, at
Gaza, hereafter OPT). Professor Dugard posed the question: Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. At the same time, elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the Occupying Power and third States?
In order to consider these consequences, this study set out to examine legally the premises of Professor Dugard’s question: is Israel the occupant of the OPT, at, if so, do elements of its occupation of these territories amount to colonialism or apartheid? South Africa has an obvious interest in these questions given its bitter history of apartheid, which entailed the denial of selfdetermination
to its majority population and, during its occupation of Namibia, the extension of apartheid to that territory which South Africa effectively sought to colonise. These unlawful practices must not be replicated elsewhere: other peoples must not suffer in the way the populations of South Africa and Namibia have suffered.
To explore these issues, an international team of scholars was assembled. The aim of this project was to scrutinise the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric. This study is the outcome of a fifteen-month collaborative process of intensive research, consultation, writing and review. It concludes and, it is to be hoped, persuasively argues and clearly demonstrates that Israel, since 1967, has been the belligerent Occupying Power in the OPT, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid. Belligerent occupation in itself is not an unlawful situation: it is accepted as a possible consequence of armed conflict. At the same time, under the law of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law), occupation is intended to be only a temporary state of affairs. International law prohibits the unilateral annexation or permanent acquisition of territory as a result of the threat or use of force: should this occur, no State may recognise or support the resulting unlawful situation. In contrast to occupation, both colonialism and apartheid are always unlawful and indeed are considered to be particularly serious breaches of international law because they are fundamentally contrary to core values of the international legal order. Colonialism violates the principle of self-determination,
which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed as ‘one of the essential principles of contemporary international law’. All States have a duty to respect and promote self-determination. Apartheid is an aggravated case of racial discrimination, which is constituted according to the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973,
hereafter ‘Apartheid Convention’) by ‘inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them’. The practice of apartheid, saka, is an international crime.
Professor Dugard in his report to the UN Human Rights Council in 2007 suggested that an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s conduct should be sought from the ICJ. This advisory opinion would undoubtedly complement the opinion that the ICJ delivered in 2004 on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territories (hereafter ‘the Wall advisory opinion’). This course of legal action does not exhaust the options open to the international community, nor indeed the duties of third States and international organisations when they are appraised that another State is engaged in the practices of colonialism or apartheid.
| Sep 07, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
ISLAM, DEMOCRACY & THE USA:
Cordoba Foundation
Abdullah Faliq |
Intro ,
In spite of it being both a perennial and a complex debate, Arches Quarterly reexamines from theological and practical grounds, the important debate about the relationship and compatibility between Islam and Democracy, as echoed in Barack Obama’s agenda of hope and change. Whilst many celebrate Obama’s ascendancy to the Oval Office as a national catharsis for the US, others remain less optimistic of a shift in ideology and approach in the international arena. While much of the tension and distrust between the Muslim world and the USA can be attributed to the approach of promoting democracy, typically favoring dictatorships and puppet regimes that pay lip-service to democratic values and human rights, the aftershock of 9/11 has truly cemented the misgivings further through America’s position on political Islam. It has created a wall of negativity as found by worldpublicopinion.org, according to which 67% of Egyptians believe that globally America is playing a “mainly negative” role.
America’s response has thus been apt. By electing Obama, many around the world are pinning their hopes for developing a less belligerent, but fairer foreign policy towards the Muslim world. Th e test for Obama, as we discuss, is how America and her allies promote democracy. Will it be facilitating or imposing?
At saka, can it importantly be an honest broker in prolonged zones of confl icts? Enlisting the expertise and insight of prolifi
c scholars, academics, seasoned journalists and politicians, Arches Quarterly brings to light the relationship between Islam and Democracy and the role of America – as well as the changes brought about by Obama, in seeking the common ground. Anas Altikriti, the CEO of Th e Cordoba Foundation provides the opening gambit to this discussion, where he refl ects on the hopes and challenges that rests on Obama’s path. Following Altikriti, the former advisor to President Nixon, Dr Robert Crane off ers a thorough analysis of the Islamic principle of the right to freedom. Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, enriches the discussion with the practical realities of implementing democracy in Muslim dominant societies, namely, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, USA, who explores Muslim countries lagging in democratisation and modernisation. Th is is complemented by terrorism writer, Dr Nafeez Ahmed’s explanation of the crisis of post-modernity and the
demise of democracy. Dr Daud Abdullah (Director of Middle East Media Monitor), Alan Hart (former ITN and BBC Panorama correspondent; author of Zionism: Th e Real Enemy of the Jews) and Asem Sondos (Editor of Egypt’s Sawt Al Omma weekly) concentrate on Obama and his role vis-à-vis democracy-promotion in the Muslim world, as well as US relations with Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Minister of Foreign Aff airs, Maldives, Ahmed Shaheed speculates on the future of Islam and Democracy; Cllr. Gerry Maclochlainn
– a Sinn Féin member who endured four years in prison for Irish Republican activities and a campaigner for the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6, refl ects on his recent trip to Gaza where he witnessed the impact of the brutality and injustice meted out against Palestinians; Dr Marie Breen-Smyth, Director of the Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Contemporary Political Violence discusses the challenges of critically researching political terror; Dr Khalid al-Mubarak, writer and playwright, discusses prospects of peace in Darfur; and fi nally journalist and human rights activist Ashur Shamis looks critically at the democratisation and politicisation of Muslims today.
We hope all this makes for a comprehensive reading and a source for refl ection on issues that aff ect us all in a new dawn of hope.
Thank you
| Sep 07, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace
Henry Siegman
Failed bilateral talks over these past 16 years have shown that a Middle East peace accord can never be reached by the parties themselves. Israeli governments believe they can defy international condemnation of their illegal colonial project in the West Bank because they can count on the US to oppose international sanctions. Bilateral talks that are not framed by US-formulated parameters (based on Security Council resolutions, the Oslo accords, the Arab Peace Initiative, the “road map” and other previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements) cannot succeed. Israel’s government believes that the US Congress will not permit an American president to issue such parameters and demand their acceptance. What hope there is for the bilateral talks that resume in Washington DC on September 2 depends entirely on President Obama proving that belief to be wrong, and on whether the “bridging proposals” he has promised, should the talks reach an impasse, are a euphemism for the submission of American parameters. Such a US initiative must offer Israel iron-clad assurances for its security within its pre-1967 borders, but at the same time must make it clear these assurances are not available if Israel insists on denying Palestinians a viable and sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza. This paper focuses on the other major obstacle to a permanent status agreement: the absence of an effective Palestinian interlocutor. Addressing Hamas’ legitimate grievances – and as noted in a recent CENTCOM report, Hamas has legitimate grievances – could lead to its return to a Palestinian coalition government that would provide Israel with a credible peace partner. If that outreach fails because of Hamas’ rejectionism, the organization’s ability to prevent a reasonable accord negotiated by other Palestinian political parties will have been significantly impeded. If the Obama administration will not lead an international initiative to define the parameters of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement and actively promote Palestinian political reconciliation, Europe must do so, and hope America will follow. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that can guarantee the goal of “two states living side by side in peace and security.”
But President Obama’s present course absolutely precludes it.
| Sep 07, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
Islamism revisited
MAHA AZZAM
Mayroong krisis pampulitika at seguridad na nakapalibot sa tinukoy na Islamismo, isang krisis na ang mga antecedents ay matagal nang nauna 9/11. Sa nakaraan 25 taon, nagkaroon ng iba't ibang pagbibigay diin sa kung paano ipaliwanag at labanan ang Islamismo. Mga analista at gumagawa ng patakaran
noong 1980s at 1990s ay pinag-uusapan ang mga ugat na sanhi ng militanteng Islam bilang pagiging malaise sa ekonomiya at marginalisasyon. Kamakailan lamang ay nagkaroon ng pagtuon sa repormang pampulitika bilang isang paraan ng pagpapahina ng apela ng radicalism. Dumarami ngayon, ang ideolohiyang at relihiyosong mga aspeto ng Islamismo ay kailangang tugunan sapagkat sila ay naging mga tampok ng isang mas malawak na debate sa politika at seguridad. May kaugnayan man sa terorismo ng Al-Qaeda, repormang pampulitika sa mundong Muslim, ang isyu sa nukleyar sa Iran o mga lugar ng krisis tulad ng Palestine o Lebanon, naging pangkaraniwan upang makita na ang ideolohiya at relihiyon ay ginagamit ng mga magkasalungat na partido bilang mapagkukunan ng pagiging lehitimo, inspirasyon at poot.
Ang sitwasyon ay mas kumplikado ngayon sa pamamagitan ng lumalaking pagkontra tungo sa at takot sa Islam sa Kanluran dahil sa mga pag-atake ng terorista na kung saan ay nakakaapekto sa mga saloobin patungo sa imigrasyon, relihiyon at kultura. Ang mga hangganan ng umma o pamayanan ng mga tapat ay umaabot sa kabila ng mga estado ng Muslim sa mga lunsod sa Europa. Ang umma ay potensyal na umiiral saanman may mga pamayanang Muslim. Ang ibinahaging pakiramdam ng pagiging kabilang sa isang karaniwang pananampalataya ay nagdaragdag sa isang kapaligiran kung saan ang kahulugan ng pagsasama sa nakapalibot na komunidad ay hindi malinaw at kung saan maaaring maging maliwanag ang diskriminasyon. Mas malaki ang pagtanggi sa mga halaga ng lipunan,
maging sa Kanluran man o maging sa estado ng Muslim, mas malaki ang pagsasama-sama ng moral na puwersa ng Islam bilang isang kultural na pagkakakilanlan at halaga-system.
Kasunod sa mga pambobomba sa London noong 7 Hulyo 2005 naging mas maliwanag na ang ilang mga kabataan ay nagpapatunay ng relihiyosong pangako bilang isang paraan ng pagpapahayag ng etniko. Ang mga ugnayan sa pagitan ng mga Muslim sa buong mundo at ang kanilang pang-unawa na mahina ang mga Muslim ay humantong sa maraming magkakaibang mga bahagi ng mundo upang pagsamahin ang kanilang sariling mga lokal na kalagayan sa mas malawak na Muslim., pagkakaroon ng identifi ed sa kultura, alinman sa pangunahin o bahagyang, na may isang malawak na defi ned Islam.
| Sep 06, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
PRECISION IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR:
Sherifa zuhur
Seven years after the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks, many experts believe al-Qa’ida has regained strength and that its copycats or affiliates are more lethal than before. The National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 asserted that al-Qa’ida is more dangerous now than before 9/11.1 Al-Qa’ida’s emulators continue to threaten Western, Middle Eastern, and European nations, as in the plot foiled in September 2007 in Germany. Bruce Riedel states: Thanks largely to Washington’s eagerness to go into Iraq rather than hunting down al Qaeda’s leaders, the organization now has a solid base of operations in the badlands of Pakistan and an effective franchise in western Iraq. Its reach has spread throughout the Muslim world and in Europe . . . Osama bin Laden has mounted a successful propaganda campaign. . . . His ideas now attract more followers than ever.
It is true that various salafi-jihadist organizations are still emerging throughout the Islamic world. Why have heavily resourced responses to the Islamist terrorism that we are calling global jihad not proven extremely effective?
Moving to the tools of “soft power,” what about the efficacy of Western efforts to bolster Muslims in the Global War on Terror (GWOT)? Why has the United States won so few “hearts and minds” in the broader Islamic world? Why do American strategic messages on this issue play so badly in the region? Why, despite broad Muslim disapproval of extremism as shown in surveys and official utterances by key Muslim leaders, has support for bin Ladin actually increased in Jordan and in Pakistan?
This monograph will not revisit the origins of Islamist violence. It is instead concerned with a type of conceptual failure that wrongly constructs the GWOT and which discourages Muslims from supporting it. They are unable to identify with the proposed transformative countermeasures because they discern some of their core beliefs and institutions as targets in
this endeavor.
Several deeply problematic trends confound the American conceptualizations of the GWOT and the strategic messages crafted to fight that War. These evolve from (1) post-colonial political approaches to Muslims and Muslim majority nations that vary greatly and therefore produce conflicting and confusing impressions and effects; at (2) residual generalized ignorance of and prejudice toward Islam and subregional cultures. Add to this American anger, fear, and anxiety about the deadly events of 9/11, and certain elements that, despite the urgings of cooler heads, hold Muslims and their religion accountable for the misdeeds of their coreligionists, or who find it useful to do so for political reasons.
| Sep 06, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
EGYPT’S MUSLIM BROTHERS: CONFRONTATION OR INTEGRATION?
Research
The Society of Muslim Brothers’ success in the November-December 2005 elections for the People’s Assembly sent shockwaves through Egypt’s political system. In response, the regime cracked down on the movement, harassed other potential rivals and reversed its fledging reform process. This is dangerously short-sighted. There is reason to be concerned about the Muslim Brothers’ political program, and they owe the people genuine clarifications about several of its aspects. But the ruling National Democratic
Party’s (NDP) refusal to loosen its grip risks exacerbating tensions at a time of both political uncertainty surrounding the presidential succession and serious socio-economic unrest. Though this likely will be a prolonged, gradual process, the regime should take preliminary steps to normalise the Muslim Brothers’ participation in political life. The Muslim Brothers, whose social activities have long been tolerated but whose role in formal politics is strictly limited, won an unprecedented 20 per cent of parliamentary seats in the 2005 halalan. They did so despite competing for only a third of available seats and notwithstanding considerable obstacles, including police repression and electoral fraud. This success confirmed their position as an extremely wellorganised and deeply rooted political force. At the same time, it underscored the weaknesses of both the legal opposition and ruling party. The regime might well have wagered that a modest increase in the Muslim Brothers’ parliamentary representation could be used to stoke fears of an Islamist takeover and thereby serve as a reason to stall reform. If so, the strategy is at heavy risk of backfiring.
| Sep 05, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
Iraq and the Future of Political Islam
James Piscatori
Sixty-five years ago one of the greatest scholars of modern Islam asked the simple question, “whither Islam?", where was the Islamic world going? It was a time of intense turmoil in both the Western and Muslim worlds – the demise of imperialism and crystallisation of a new state system outside Europe; the creation and testing of the neo- Wilsonian world order in the League of Nations; the emergence of European Fascism. Sir Hamilton Gibb recognised that Muslim societies, unable to avoid such world trends, were also faced with the equally inescapable penetration of nationalism, secularism, and Westernisation. While he prudently warned against making predictions – hazards for all of us interested in Middle Eastern and Islamic politics – he felt sure of two things:
(a) the Islamic world would move between the ideal of solidarity and the realities of division;
(b) the key to the future lay in leadership, or who speaks authoritatively for Islam.
Today Gibb’s prognostications may well have renewed relevance as we face a deepening crisis over Iraq, the unfolding of an expansive and controversial war on terror, and the continuing Palestinian problem. In this lecture I would like to look at the factors that may affect the course of Muslim politics in the present period and near-term future. Although the points I will raise are likely to have broader relevance, I will draw mainly on the case of the Arab world.
Assumptions about Political Islam There is no lack of predictions when it comes to a politicised Islam or Islamism. ‘Islamism’ is best understood as a sense that something has gone wrong with contemporary Muslim societies and that the solution must lie in a range of political action. Often used interchangeably with ‘fundamentalism’, Islamism is better equated with ‘political Islam’. Several commentators have proclaimed its demise and the advent of the post-Islamist era. They argue that the repressive apparatus of the state has proven more durable than the Islamic opposition and that the ideological incoherence of the Islamists has made them unsuitable to modern political competition. The events of September 11th seemed to contradict this prediction, yet, unshaken, they have argued that such spectacular, virtually anarchic acts only prove the bankruptcy of Islamist ideas and suggest that the radicals have abandoned any real hope of seizing power.
| Sep 04, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
Islam at Demokrasya
ITAC
Kung may magbasa ng press o nakikinig sa mga komentarista sa mga pang-internasyonal na gawain, it is often said – and even more often implied but not said – that Islam is not compatible with democracy. In the nineties, Samuel Huntington set off an intellectual firestorm when he published The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which he presents his forecasts for the world – writ large. In the political realm, he notes that while Turkey and Pakistan might have some small claim to “democratic legitimacy” all other “… Muslim countries were overwhelmingly non-democratic: monarchies, one-party systems, military regimes, personal dictatorships or some combination of these, usually resting on a limited family, clan, or tribal base”. The premise on which his argument is founded is that they are not only ‘not like us’, they are actually opposed to our essential democratic values. He believes, as do others, that while the idea of Western democratization is being resisted in other parts of the world, the confrontation is most notable in those regions where Islam is the dominant faith.
The argument has also been made from the other side as well. An Iranian religious scholar, reflecting on an early twentieth-century constitutional crisis in his country, declared that Islam and democracy are not compatible because people are not equal and a legislative body is unnecessary because of the inclusive nature of Islamic religious law. A similar position was taken more recently by Ali Belhadj, an Algerian high school teacher, preacher and (in this context) leader of the FIS, when he declared “democracy was not an Islamic concept”. Perhaps the most dramatic statement to this effect was that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq who, when faced with the prospect of an election, denounced democracy as “an evil principle”.
But according to some Muslim scholars, democracy remains an important ideal in Islam, with the caveat that it is always subject to the religious law. The emphasis on the paramount place of the shari’a is an element of almost every Islamic comment on governance, moderate or extremist. Only if the ruler, who receives his authority from God, limits his actions to the “supervision of the administration of the shari’a” is he to be obeyed. If he does other than this, he is a non-believer and committed Muslims are to rebel against him. Herein lies the justification for much of the violence that has plagued the Muslim world in such struggles as that prevailing in Algeria during the 90s
| Sep 04, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
Organizational Continuity in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood
Tess Lee Eisenhart
As Egypt’s oldest and most prominent opposition movement, the Society of
Muslim Brothers, al-ikhwan al-muslimeen, has long posed a challenge to successive secular
regimes by offering a comprehensive vision of an Islamic state and extensive social
welfare services. Since its founding in 1928, the Brotherhood (Kapatiran) has thrived in a
parallel religious and social services sector, generally avoiding direct confrontation with
ruling regimes.1 More recently over the past two decades, gayunpaman, the Brotherhood has
dabbled with partisanship in the formal political realm. This experiment culminated in
the election of the eighty-eight Brothers to the People’s Assembly in 2005—the largest
oppositional bloc in modern Egyptian history—and the subsequent arrests of nearly
1,000 Brothers.2 The electoral advance into mainstream politics provides ample fodder
for scholars to test theories and make predictions about the future of the Egyptian
rehimen: will it fall to the Islamist opposition or remain a beacon of secularism in the
Arab world?
This thesis shies away from making such broad speculations. Instead, it explores
the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood has adapted as an organization in the past
decade.
| Sep 01, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
Hizbollah’s Political Manifesto 2009
Following World War II, the United States became the centre of polarization and hegemony in the world; as such a project witnessed tremendous development on the levels of domination and subjugation that is unprecedented in history, making use and taking advantage of the multifaceted achievements on the several levels of knowledge, culture, technology, economy as well as the military level- that are supported by an economic-political system that only views the world as markets that have to abide by the American view.
The most dangerous aspect in the western hegemony-the American one precisely- is that they consider themselves as owners of the world and therefore, this expandin strategy along with the economic-capitalist project has become a “western expanding strategy” that turned to be an international scheme of limitless greed. Savage capitalism forces- embodied mainly in international monopoly networks o fcompanies that cross the nations and continents, networks of various international establishments especially the financial ones backed by superior military force have led to more contradictions and conflicts of which not less important are the conflicts of identities, cultures, civilizations, in addition to the conflicts of poverty and wealth. These savage capitalism forces have turned into mechanisms of sowing dissension and destroying identities as well as imposing the most dangerous type of cultural,
national, economic as well as social theft .
| Aug 27, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
Islamist Opposition Parties and the Potential for EU Engagement
Toby Archer
Heidi Huuhtanen
In light of the increasing importance of Islamist movements in the Muslim world and
the way that radicalisation has influenced global events since the turn of the century, it
is important for the EU to evaluate its policies towards actors within what can be loosely
termed the ‘Islamic world’. It is particularly important to ask whether and how to engage
with the various Islamist groups.
This remains controversial even within the EU. Some feel that the Islamic values that
lie behind Islamist parties are simply incompatible with western ideals of democracy and
mga karapatang pantao, while others see engagement as a realistic necessity due to the growing
domestic importance of Islamist parties and their increasing involvement in international
affairs. Another perspective is that democratisation in the Muslim world would increase
European security. The validity of these and other arguments over whether and how the
EU should engage can only be tested by studying the different Islamist movements and
their political circumstances, country by country.
Democratisation is a central theme of the EU’s common foreign policy actions, as laid
out in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union. Many of the states considered in this
report are not democratic, or not fully democratic. In most of these countries, Islamist
parties and movements constitute a significant opposition to the prevailing regimes, at
in some they form the largest opposition bloc. European democracies have long had to
deal with governing regimes that are authoritarian, but it is a new phenomenon to press
for democratic reform in states where the most likely beneficiaries might have, from the
EU’s point of view, different and sometimes problematic approaches to democracy and its
related values, such as minority and women’s rights and the rule of law. These charges are
often laid against Islamist movements, so it is important for European policy-makers to
have an accurate picture of the policies and philosophies of potential partners.
Experiences from different countries tends to suggest that the more freedom Islamist
parties are allowed, the more moderate they are in their actions and ideas. In many
cases Islamist parties and groups have long since shifted away from their original aim
of establishing an Islamic state governed by Islamic law, and have come to accept basic
democratic principles of electoral competition for power, the existence of other political
competitors, and political pluralism.
| Aug 21, 2010 | Mga Komento 0
IkhwanScope Sa Facebook
IkhwanScope On Scribd
IkhwanScope Sa Twitter