RSSLahat 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.

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 Islamis 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.

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 truethere 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.


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 expressionslike While Europe Sleptinclude 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 McVeighan adherent of the racist Christian Identity sectwithout resorting to generalized statements about “Christian terrorism.” Likewise, media have covered acts of terrorism by fanatics who are Jewishfor instance the Hebron massacre carried out by Baruch Goldstein (Extra!, 5/6/94)–without implicating the entirety of Judaism.

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.
Ang mga salita ni Al-Iryan ay nagbubuod sa mga pananaw ng Muslim Brotherhood sa mga Amerikano at sa U.S. pamahalaan. Ang ibang miyembro ng Muslim Brotherhood ay sasang-ayon, gaya ng ginawa ng yumaong si Hassan al-Banna, na nagtatag ng grupo sa 1928. Sinabi ni Al- Itinuring ni Banna ang Kanluran bilang simbolo ng pagkabulok ng moralidad. Ang iba pang Salafis – isang Islamic school of thought na umaasa sa mga ninuno bilang mga huwarang modelo – ay nagkaroon ng parehong pananaw sa Estados Unidos, ngunit kulang sa ideological flexibility na itinataguyod ng Muslim Brotherhood. Habang ang Muslim Brotherhood ay naniniwala sa pakikipag-ugnayan sa mga Amerikano sa civil dialogue, ang ibang mga grupong ekstremista ay walang nakikitang punto sa pag-uusap at pinananatili na ang puwersa ay ang tanging paraan ng pakikitungo sa Estados Unidos.

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 (ibig sabihin, 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, kung gayon, 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.

ISLAM, DEMOKRASYA & ANG USA:

Cordoba Foundation

Abdullah Faliq |

Intro ,


Sa kabila ng pagiging parehong pangmatagalan at kumplikadong debate, Ang Arches Quarterly ay muling nagsusuri mula sa teolohiko at praktikal na mga batayan, ang mahalagang debate tungkol sa relasyon at pagkakatugma sa pagitan ng Islam at Demokrasya, bilang echoed sa Barack Obama's agenda ng pag-asa at pagbabago. Habang marami ang nagdiriwang sa pag-akyat ni Obama sa Oval Office bilang isang pambansang catharsis para sa US, ang iba ay nananatiling hindi gaanong optimistiko sa pagbabago ng ideolohiya at diskarte sa internasyonal na arena. Habang ang karamihan sa tensyon at kawalan ng tiwala sa pagitan ng mundo ng Muslim at ng USA ay maaaring maiugnay sa diskarte ng pagtataguyod ng demokrasya, karaniwang pinapaboran ang mga diktadurya at papet na rehimen na nagbibigay ng lip-service sa mga demokratikong halaga at karapatang pantao, ang aftershock ng 9/11 ay tunay na pinatibay ang mga pag-aalinlangan sa pamamagitan ng posisyon ng Amerika sa politikal na Islam. Lumikha ito ng pader ng negatibiti gaya ng natagpuan ng worldpublicopinion.org, ayon sa kung saan 67% naniniwala ang mga taga-Ehipto na sa buong mundo ang America ay gumaganap ng isang "pangunahing negatibo" na papel.
Ang tugon ng Amerika ay naging angkop. Sa pamamagitan ng pagpili kay Obama, marami sa buong mundo ang umaasa sa pagbuo ng hindi gaanong palaaway, ngunit mas patas na patakarang panlabas patungo sa mundo ng Muslim. Ang pagsubok para kay Obama, habang tinatalakay natin, ay kung paano itaguyod ng Amerika at ng kanyang mga kaalyado ang demokrasya. Magiging facilitating ba ito o kahanga-hanga?
At saka, maaari ba itong maging isang matapat na broker sa matagal na mga lugar ng mga salungatan? Pagkuha ng kadalubhasaan at pananaw ng prolifi
c mga iskolar, akademya, mga batikang mamamahayag at pulitiko, Binibigyang liwanag ng Arches Quarterly ang ugnayan sa pagitan ng Islam at Demokrasya at ang papel ng Amerika – pati na rin ang mga pagbabagong dulot ni Obama, sa paghahanap ng karaniwang batayan. Anas Altikriti, ang CEO ng Th e Cordoba Foundation ay nagbibigay ng pambungad na sugal sa talakayang ito, kung saan siya ay sumasalamin sa mga pag-asa at hamon na nakasalalay sa landas ni Obama. Kasunod ng Altikriti, ang dating tagapayo ni Pangulong Nixon, Nag-aalok si Dr Robert Crane ng masusing pagsusuri sa prinsipyo ng Islam ng karapatan sa kalayaan. Anwar Ibrahim, dating Deputy Prime Minister ng Malaysia, pinayaman ang talakayan sa mga praktikal na katotohanan ng pagpapatupad ng demokrasya sa mga dominanteng lipunan ng Muslim, ibig sabihin, sa Indonesia at Malaysia.
Mayroon din kaming Dr Shireen Hunter, ng Georgetown University, USA, na gumagalugad sa mga bansang Muslim na nahuhuli sa demokratisasyon at modernisasyon. Ito ay kinukumpleto ng manunulat ng terorismo, Ang paliwanag ni Dr Nafeez Ahmed sa krisis ng post-modernity at ang
pagkamatay ng demokrasya. Dr. Daud Abdullah (Direktor ng Middle East Media Monitor), Alan Hart (dating ITN at BBC Panorama correspondent; may-akda ng Zionism: Ang Tunay na Kaaway ng mga Hudyo) at Asem Sondos (Editor ng Egypt's Sawt Al Omma linggu-linggo) tumutok kay Obama at sa kanyang tungkulin vis-à-vis democracy-promote sa Muslim world, gayundin ang relasyon ng US sa Israel at sa Muslim Brotherhood.
Minister of Foreign Aff airs, Maldives, Nag-isip si Ahmed Shaheed sa hinaharap ng Islam at Demokrasya; Cllr. Gerry Maclochlainn
– isang miyembro ng Sinn Féin na nagtiis ng apat na taon sa bilangguan para sa mga aktibidad ng Irish Republican at isang campaigner para sa Guildford 4 at Birmingham 6, sumasalamin sa kanyang kamakailang paglalakbay sa Gaza kung saan nasaksihan niya ang epekto ng kalupitan at kawalang-katarungang ginawa laban sa mga Palestinian; Dr Marie Breen-Smyth, Ang Direktor ng Center for the Study of Radicalization at Contemporary Political Violence ay tumatalakay sa mga hamon ng kritikal na pagsasaliksik ng politikal na terorismo; Dr Khalid al-Mubarak, manunulat at manunulat ng dula, tinatalakay ang mga prospect ng kapayapaan sa Darfur; at sa wakas ang mamamahayag at aktibistang karapatang pantao na si Ashur Shamis ay tumitingin nang kritikal sa demokratisasyon at pamumulitika ng mga Muslim ngayon.
Inaasahan namin na ang lahat ng ito ay gumagawa para sa isang komprehensibong pagbabasa at isang mapagkukunan para sa pagmumuni-muni sa mga isyu na nakakaapekto sa ating lahat sa isang bagong bukang-liwayway ng pag-asa.
salamat po

Hinaharang ng patakaran ng US Hamas ang kapayapaan sa Gitnang Silangan

Henry Siegman


Nabigo ang bilateral talks nitong nakaraan 16 taon ay nagpakita na ang isang kasunduang pangkapayapaan sa Gitnang Silangan ay hindi kailanman makakamit ng mga partido mismo. Naniniwala ang mga gobyerno ng Israel na maaari nilang labanan ang internasyonal na pagkondena sa kanilang iligal na kolonyal na proyekto sa West Bank dahil maaasahan nila ang US na tutulan ang mga internasyonal na parusa. Bilateral talks na hindi naka-frame sa pamamagitan ng US-formulated parameters (batay sa mga resolusyon ng Security Council, ang mga kasunduan ng Oslo, ang Arab Peace Initiative, ang "mapa ng daan" at iba pang mga nakaraang kasunduan ng Israeli-Palestinian) hindi magtagumpay. Naniniwala ang gobyerno ng Israel na hindi papahintulutan ng US Congress ang isang Amerikanong presidente na mag-isyu ng mga naturang parameter at hingin ang kanilang pagtanggap. Ano ang pag-asa para sa bilateral talks na magpapatuloy sa Washington DC sa Setyembre 2 ganap na nakasalalay kay Pangulong Obama na nagpapatunay na mali ang paniniwalang iyon, at kung ang mga "bridging proposal" ba ay ipinangako niya, kung ang mga pag-uusap ay umabot sa isang hindi pagkakasundo, ay isang euphemism para sa pagsusumite ng mga parameter ng Amerikano. Ang ganitong inisyatiba ng US ay dapat mag-alok ng Israel ng mga katiyakan para sa seguridad nito sa loob ng mga hangganan nito bago ang 1967, ngunit sa parehong oras ay dapat linawin ang mga katiyakang ito ay hindi magagamit kung ang Israel ay igiit na ipagkait sa mga Palestinian ang isang mabubuhay at soberanong estado sa West Bank at Gaza. Nakatuon ang papel na ito sa iba pang malaking balakid sa isang permanenteng kasunduan sa katayuan: ang kawalan ng isang epektibong Palestinian interlocutor. Pagtugon sa mga lehitimong hinaing ng Hamas - at tulad ng nabanggit sa isang kamakailang ulat ng CENTCOM, Ang Hamas ay may mga lehitimong hinaing - maaaring humantong sa pagbabalik nito sa isang Palestinian coalition government na magbibigay sa Israel ng isang mapagkakatiwalaang partner sa kapayapaan. Kung nabigo ang outreach na iyon dahil sa pagtanggi ng Hamas, ang kakayahan ng organisasyon na pigilan ang isang makatwirang kasunduan na napag-usapan ng iba pang mga partidong pampulitika ng Palestinian ay lubhang nahadlangan. Kung ang administrasyong Obama ay hindi mamumuno sa isang internasyonal na inisyatiba upang tukuyin ang mga parameter ng isang Israeli-Palestinian na kasunduan at aktibong isulong ang Palestinian political reconciliation, Dapat gawin ito ng Europa, at sana sumunod ang America. Sa kasamaang palad, walang pilak na bala na magagarantiyahan ang layunin ng "dalawang estado na magkatabi sa kapayapaan at seguridad."
Ngunit ang kasalukuyang kurso ni Pangulong Obama ay ganap na humahadlang dito.

Muling binisita ang Islamismo

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 awestern expanding strategythat 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 .

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.