RSSKaikki merkinnät "Syyrian MB" Luokka

toteutettiin Baselin yliopistossa, Poliittinen islam ja Amerikka

Arab Insight

toteutettiin Baselin yliopistossa?

toteutettiin Baselin yliopistossa

toteutettiin Baselin yliopistossa. toteutettiin Baselin yliopistossa, näkemys, joka asettaa Yhdysvallat samaan veneeseen sionistivihollisen kanssa. Meillä ei ole ennakkokäsityksiä amerikkalaisista tai Yhdysvalloista. yhteiskunta ja sen kansalaisjärjestöt ja ajatushautomot. Meillä ei ole ongelmia kommunikoida amerikkalaisten kanssa, mutta riittäviä ponnisteluja ei ryhdytä lähentämään meitä," sanoi Dr. Issam al-Iryan, Muslimiveljeskunnan poliittisen osaston päällikkö puhelinhaastattelussa.
Al-Iryanin sanat tiivistävät Muslimiveljeskunnan näkemykset amerikkalaisista ja Yhdysvalloista. hallitus. Muut Muslimiveljeskunnan jäsenet olisivat samaa mieltä, kuten edesmennyt Hassan al-Banna, joka perusti ryhmän vuonna 1928. Al- Banna piti länttä enimmäkseen moraalisen rappeutumisen symbolina. Muut salafit – islamilainen ajatuskoulu, joka luottaa esivanhempiin mallimalleina – ovat ottaneet saman näkemyksen Yhdysvalloista., mutta heiltä puuttuu Muslimiveljeskunnan kannattama ideologinen joustavuus. Muslimiveljeskunta uskoo saavansa amerikkalaiset mukaan kansalaisvuoropuheluun, muut ääriryhmät eivät näe vuoropuhelussa mitään järkeä ja väittävät, että voima on ainoa tapa käsitellä Yhdysvaltoja.

ISLAM, DEMOKRATIA & USA:

Cordoban säätiö

Abdullah Faliq

Johdanto ,


Siitä huolimatta, että se on sekä ikuinen että monimutkainen keskustelu, Arches Quarterly tarkastelee uudelleen teologisista ja käytännön syistä, tärkeä keskustelu islamin ja demokratian suhteesta ja yhteensopivuudesta, kuten Barack Obaman toivon ja muutoksen asialistassa toistettiin. Vaikka monet juhlivat Obaman nousua ovaalitoimistoon Yhdysvaltojen kansallisena katarsisina, toiset eivät ole yhtä optimistisia ideologian ja lähestymistavan muutoksen suhteen kansainvälisellä areenalla. Suurin osa muslimimaailman ja USA:n välisestä jännitteestä ja epäluottamuksesta johtuu demokratian edistämisestä., tyypillisesti suosivat diktatuureja ja nukkehallituksia, jotka puhuvat sananpalveluksessa demokraattisia arvoja ja ihmisoikeuksia, -kohdan jälkijäristys 9/11 on todella vahvistanut epäilyjä edelleen Amerikan kannan kautta poliittiseen islamiin. Se on luonut negatiivisuuden muurin, jonka worldpublicpublicopinion.org havaitsi, jonka mukaan 67% Egyptiläiset uskovat, että maailmanlaajuisesti Amerikassa on "pääasiassa negatiivinen" rooli.
Amerikan vastaus on siis osuva. Valitsemalla Obaman, monet ympäri maailmaa asettavat toiveensa kehittää vähemmän sotaa, mutta oikeudenmukaisempaa ulkopolitiikkaa muslimimaailmaa kohtaan. Testi Obamalle, kuten keskustelemme, Näin Amerikka ja hänen liittolaisensa edistävät demokratiaa. Onko se helpottavaa vai pakottavaa?
Lisäksi, voiko se olla rehellinen välittäjä pitkittyneillä konfliktialueilla? Prolifin asiantuntemuksen ja näkemyksen hyödyntäminen
c tutkijat, akateemikot, kokeneita toimittajia ja poliitikkoja, Arches Quarterly tuo esiin islamin ja demokratian suhteen sekä Amerikan roolin – sekä Obaman tuomat muutokset, yhteistä säveltä etsiessään. Anas Altikriti, Th e Cordoba Foundationin toimitusjohtaja tarjoaa tämän keskustelun avauksen, 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, eli, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Meillä on myös tohtori Shireen Hunter, Georgetownin yliopistosta, USA, joka tutkii muslimimaita, jotka ovat jäljessä demokratisoitumisessa ja modernisaatiossa. Tätä täydentää terrorismikirjailija, Tri Nafeez Ahmedin selitys postmodernin kriisistä ja
demokratian romahtaminen. Tohtori Daud Abdullah (Middle East Media Monitorin johtaja), Alan Hart (entinen ITN:n ja BBC Panoraman kirjeenvaihtaja; sionismin kirjoittaja: Juutalaisten todellinen vihollinen) ja Asem Sondos (Egyptin Sawt Al Omma -lehden toimittaja) Keskity Obamaan ja hänen rooliinsa demokratian edistämisessä muslimimaailmassa, sekä Yhdysvaltojen suhteet Israeliin ja Muslimiveljeskuntaan.
Ulkoministeri esittelee, Malediivit, Ahmed Shaheed spekuloi islamin ja demokratian tulevaisuutta; Cllr. Gerry Maclochlainn
– Sinn Féinin jäsen, joka kesti neljä vuotta vankeutta Irlannin republikaanien toiminnasta ja Guildfordin puolustaja 4 ja Birmingham 6, heijastaa hänen äskettäistä matkaansa Gazaan, jossa hän näki palestiinalaisiin kohdistuneen julmuuden ja epäoikeudenmukaisuuden vaikutuksen; Tohtori Marie Breen-Smyth, Radikalisoitumisen ja nykyajan poliittisen väkivallan tutkimuskeskuksen johtaja keskustelee poliittisen terrorismin kriittisen tutkimuksen haasteista; Tohtori Khalid al-Mubarak, kirjailija ja näytelmäkirjailija, keskustelee Darfurin rauhannäkymistä; ja lopuksi toimittaja ja ihmisoikeusaktivisti Ashur Shamis tarkastelee kriittisesti muslimien demokratisoitumista ja politisoitumista nykyään.
Toivomme kaiken tämän olevan kattavaa luettavaa ja lähteen pohdiskelulle aiheista, jotka vaikuttavat meihin kaikkiin uudessa toivon aamunkoitteessa.
Kiitos

Islamism revisited

MAHA Azzam

There is a political and security crisis surrounding what is referred to as Islamism, a crisis whose antecedents long precede 9/11. Over the past 25 vuotta, there have been different emphases on how to explain and combat Islamism. Analysts and policymakers
in the 1980s and 1990s spoke of the root causes of Islamic militancy as being economic malaise and marginalization. More recently there has been a focus on political reform as a means of undermining the appeal of radicalism. Increasingly today, the ideological and religious aspects of Islamism need to be addressed because they have become features of a wider political and security debate. Whether in connection with Al-Qaeda terrorism, political reform in the Muslim world, the nuclear issue in Iran or areas of crisis such as Palestine or Lebanon, it has become commonplace to fi nd that ideology and religion are used by opposing parties as sources of legitimization, inspiration and enmity.
The situation is further complicated today by the growing antagonism towards and fear of Islam in the West because of terrorist attacks which in turn impinge on attitudes towards immigration, religion and culture. The boundaries of the umma or community of the faithful have stretched beyond Muslim states to European cities. The umma potentially exists wherever there are Muslim communities. The shared sense of belonging to a common faith increases in an environment where the sense of integration into the surrounding community is unclear and where discrimination may be apparent. The greater the rejection of the values of society,
whether in the West or even in a Muslim state, the greater the consolidation of the moral force of Islam as a cultural identity and value-system.
Following the bombings in London on 7 Heinäkuu 2005 it became more apparent that some young people were asserting religious commitment as a way of expressing ethnicity. The links between Muslims across the globe and their perception that Muslims are vulnerable have led many in very diff erent parts of the world to merge their own local predicaments into the wider Muslim one, having identifi ed culturally, either primarily or partially, with a broadly defi ned Islam.

Islamic Political Culture, Demokratia, and Human Rights

Daniel E. Hinta

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes in Muslim nations. Consequently, scholars, commentators, and government officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, kuitenkin, is based primarily on the analysis of texts, Islamic political theory, and ad hoc studies of individual countries, which do not consider other factors. It is my contention that the texts and traditions of Islam, like those of other religions, can be used to support a variety of political systems and policies. Country specific and descriptive studies do not help us to find patterns that will help us explain the varying relationships between Islam and politics across the countries of the Muslim world. Hence, a new approach to the study of the
connection between Islam and politics is called for.
I suggest, through rigorous evaluation of the relationship between Islam, democracy, and human rights at the cross-national level, that too much emphasis is being placed on the power of Islam as a political force. I first use comparative case studies, which focus on factors relating to the interplay between Islamic groups and regimes, economic influences, ethnic cleavages, and societal development, to explain the variance in the influence of Islam on politics across eight nations. I argue that much of the power
attributed to Islam as the driving force behind policies and political systems in Muslim nations can be better explained by the previously mentioned factors. I also find, contrary to common belief, that the increasing strength of Islamic political groups has often been associated with modest pluralization of political systems.
I have constructed an index of Islamic political culture, based on the extent to which Islamic law is utilized and whether and, if so, how,Western ideas, institutions, and technologies are implemented, to test the nature of the relationship between Islam and democracy and Islam and human rights. This indicator is used in statistical analysis, which includes a sample of twenty-three predominantly Muslim countries and a control group of twenty-three non-Muslim developing nations. In addition to comparing
Islamic nations to non-Islamic developing nations, statistical analysis allows me to control for the influence of other variables that have been found to affect levels of democracy and the protection of individual rights. The result should be a more realistic and accurate picture of the influence of Islam on politics and policies.

Islamic Political Culture, Demokratia, and Human Rights

Daniel E. Hinta

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the

values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes

in Muslim nations. Consequently, scholars, commentators, and government

officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next

ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, kuitenkin, is based primarily

on the analysis of texts, Islamic political theory, and ad hoc studies

of individual countries, which do not consider other factors. It is my contention

that the texts and traditions of Islam, like those of other religions,

can be used to support a variety of political systems and policies. Country

specific and descriptive studies do not help us to find patterns that will help

us explain the varying relationships between Islam and politics across the

countries of the Muslim world. Hence, a new approach to the study of the

connection between Islam and politics is called for.
I suggest, through rigorous evaluation of the relationship between Islam,

democracy, and human rights at the cross-national level, that too much

emphasis is being placed on the power of Islam as a political force. I first

use comparative case studies, which focus on factors relating to the interplay

between Islamic groups and regimes, economic influences, ethnic cleavages,

and societal development, to explain the variance in the influence of

Islam on politics across eight nations.

Islamic Political Culture, Demokratia, and Human Rights

Daniel E. Hinta

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the

values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes
in Muslim nations. Consequently, scholars, commentators, and government
officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next
ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, kuitenkin, is based primarily
on the analysis of texts, Islamic political theory, and ad hoc studies
of individual countries, which do not consider other factors. It is my contention
that the texts and traditions of Islam, like those of other religions,
can be used to support a variety of political systems and policies. Country
specific and descriptive studies do not help us to find patterns that will help
us explain the varying relationships between Islam and politics across the
countries of the Muslim world. Hence, a new approach to the study of the
connection between Islam and politics is called for.
I suggest, through rigorous evaluation of the relationship between Islam,
democracy, and human rights at the cross-national level, that too much
emphasis is being placed on the power of Islam as a political force. I first
use comparative case studies, which focus on factors relating to the interplay
between Islamic groups and regimes, economic influences, ethnic cleavages,

and societal development, to explain the variance in the influence of

Islam on politics across eight nations.

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, se

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

ihmisoikeudet, 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, ja

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.

Political Islam in the Middle East

Ovatko Knudsen

This report provides an introduction to selected aspects of the phenomenon commonly

referred to as “political Islam”. The report gives special emphasis to the Middle East, sisään

particular the Levantine countries, and outlines two aspects of the Islamist movement that may

be considered polar opposites: democracy and political violence. In the third section the report

reviews some of the main theories used to explain the Islamic resurgence in the Middle East

(Figure 1). In brief, the report shows that Islam need not be incompatible with democracy and

that there is a tendency to neglect the fact that many Middle Eastern countries have been

engaged in a brutal suppression of Islamist movements, causing them, some argue, to take up

arms against the state, and more rarely, foreign countries. The use of political violence is

widespread in the Middle East, but is neither illogical nor irrational. In many cases even

Islamist groups known for their use of violence have been transformed into peaceful political

parties successfully contesting municipal and national elections. Nonetheless, the Islamist

revival in the Middle East remains in part unexplained despite a number of theories seeking to

account for its growth and popular appeal. In general, most theories hold that Islamism is a

reaction to relative deprivation, especially social inequality and political oppression. Alternative

theories seek the answer to the Islamist revival within the confines of religion itself and the

powerful, evocative potential of religious symbolism.

The conclusion argues in favour of moving beyond the “gloom and doom” approach that

portrays Islamism as an illegitimate political expression and a potential threat to the West (“Old

Islamism”), and of a more nuanced understanding of the current democratisation of the Islamist

movement that is now taking place throughout the Middle East (“New Islamism”). This

importance of understanding the ideological roots of the “New Islamism” is foregrounded

along with the need for thorough first-hand knowledge of Islamist movements and their

adherents. As social movements, its is argued that more emphasis needs to be placed on

understanding the ways in which they have been capable of harnessing the aspirations not only

of the poorer sections of society but also of the middle class.

STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING POLITICAL ISLAM

SHADI HAMID

AMANDA Kadlec

Political Islam is the single most active political force in the Middle East today. Its future is intimately tied to that of the region. If the United States and the European Union are committed to supporting political reform in the region, they will need to devise concrete, coherent strategies for engaging Islamist groups. Vielä, the U.S. has generally been unwilling to open a dialogue with these movements. Eikä toisin kuin perinteisessä antisemitismin asiakirjassa esitetyt syytökset, EU engagement with Islamists has been the exception, not the rule. Where low-level contacts exist, they mainly serve information-gathering purposes, not strategic objectives. The U.S. and EU have a number of programs that address economic and political development in the region – among them the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Union for the Mediterranean, and the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) – yet they have little to say about how the challenge of Islamist political opposition fits within broader regional objectives. USA. and EU democracy assistance and programming are directed almost entirely to either authoritarian governments themselves or secular civil society groups with minimal support in their own societies.
The time is ripe for a reassessment of current policies. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, supporting Middle East democracy has assumed a greater importance for Western policymakers, who see a link between lack of democracy and political violence. Greater attention has been devoted to understanding the variations within political Islam. The new American administration is more open to broadening communication with the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the vast majority of mainstream Islamist organizations – including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordanian islamilainen toimintarintama (IAF), Morocco’s Justice and Development Party (PJD), the Islamic Constitutional Movement of Kuwait, and the Yemeni Islah Party – have increasingly made support for political reform and democracy a central component in their political platforms. In addition, many have signaled strong interest in opening dialogue with U.S. and EU governments.
The future of relations between Western nations and the Middle East may be largely determined by the degree to which the former engage nonviolent Islamist parties in a broad dialogue about shared interests and objectives. There has been a recent proliferation of studies on engagement with Islamists, but few clearly address what it might entail in practice. As Zoé Nautré, visiting fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, puts it, “the EU is thinking about engagement but doesn’t really know how.”1 In the hope of clarifying the discussion, we distinguish between three levels of “engagement,” each with varying means and ends: low-level contacts, strategic dialogue, and partnership.

ISLAMIST MOVEMENTS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN THE ARAB WORLD: Exploring the Gray Zones

Nathan J. Ruskea, Amr Hamzawy,

Marina Ottaway

During the last decade, Islamist movements have established themselves as major political players in the Middle East. Together with the governments, Islamistiset liikkeet, moderate as well as radical, will determine how the politics of the region unfold in the foreseeable future. Th ey have shown the ability not only to craft messages with widespread popular appeal but also, and most importantly, to create organizations with genuine social bases and develop coherent political strategies. Other parties,
by and large, have failed on all accounts.
Th e public in the West and, in particular, the United States, has only become aware of the importance of Islamist movements after dramatic events, such as the revolution in Iran and the assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat in Egypt. Attention has been far more sustained since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As a result, Islamist movements are widely regarded as dangerous and hostile. While such a characterization is accurate regarding organizations at the radical end of the Islamist spectrum, which are dangerous because of their willingness to resort to indiscriminate violence in pursuing their goals, it is not an accurate characterization of the many groups that have renounced or avoided violence. Because terrorist organizations pose an immediate
threat, kuitenkin, policy makers in all countries have paid disproportionate attention to the violent organizations.
It is the mainstream Islamist organizations, not the radical ones, that will have the greatest impact on the future political evolution of the Middle East. Th e radicals’ grandiose goals of re-establishing a caliphate uniting the entire Arab world, or even of imposing on individual Arab countries laws and social customs inspired by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam are simply too far removed from today’s reality to be realized. Th is does not mean that terrorist groups are not dangerous—they could cause great loss of life even in the pursuit of impossible goals—but that they are unlikely to change the face of the Middle East. Mainstream Islamist organizations are generally a diff erent matter. Th ey already have had a powerful impact on social customs in many countries, halting and reversing secularist trends and changing the way many Arabs dress and behave. And their immediate political goal, to become a powerful force by participating in the normal politics of their country, is not an impossible one. It is already being realized in countries such as Morocco, Jordan, and even Egypt, which still bans all Islamist political organizations but now has eighty-eight Muslim Brothers in the Parliament. Politiikka, not violence, is what gives mainstream Islamists their infl uence.

ISLAM, ISLAMISTS, AND THE ELECTORAL PRINCIPLE I N THE MIDDLE EAST

James Piscatori

For an idea whose time has supposedly come, ÒdemocracyÓ masks an astonishing

number of unanswered questions and, in the Muslim world, has generated

a remarkable amount of heat. Is it a culturally specific term, reflecting Western

European experiences over several centuries? Do non-Western societies possess

their own standards of participation and accountabilityÑand indeed their own

rhythms of developmentÑwhich command attention, if not respect? Does Islam,

with its emphasis on scriptural authority and the centrality of sacred law, allow

for flexible politics and participatory government?

The answers to these questions form part of a narrative and counter-narrative

that themselves are an integral part of a contested discourse. The larger story

concerns whether or not ÒIslamÓ constitutes a threat to the West, and the supplementary

story involves IslamÕs compatibility with democracy. The intellectual

baggage, to change the metaphor, is scarcely neutral. The discussion itself has

become acutely politicised, caught in the related controversies over Orientalism,

the exceptionalism of the Middle East in particular and the Muslim world in general,

and the modernism of religious ÒfundamentalistÓ movements.

Political Islam and European Foreign Policy

POLITICAL ISLAM AND THE EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY

MICHAEL EMERSON

RICHARD YOUNGS

Since 2001 and the international events that ensued the nature of the relationship between the West and political Islam has become a definingissue for foreign policy. In recent years a considerable amount of research and analysis has been undertaken on the issue of political Islam. This has helped to correct some of the simplistic and alarmist assumptions previously held in the West about the nature of Islamist values and intentions. Parallel to this, the European Union (EU) has developed a number of policy initiatives primarily the European Neighbourhood Policy(ENP) that in principle commit to dialogue and deeper engagement all(non-violent) political actors and civil society organisations within Arab countries. Yet many analysts and policy-makers now complain of a certain a trophy in both conceptual debate and policy development. It has been established that political Islam is a changing landscape, deeply affected bya range of circumstances, but debate often seems to have stuck on the simplistic question of ‘are Islamists democratic?’ Many independent analysts have nevertheless advocated engagement with Islamists, but theactual rapprochement between Western governments and Islamist organisations remains limited .

Islamistiset puolueet , ARE THEY DEMOCRATS? DOES it matter ?

Tarek Masoud

Driven by a sense that “the Islamists are coming,” journalists and policy makers have been engaged of late in fevered speculation over whether Islamist parties such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or Palestine’s Hamas really believe in democracy. While I attempt to outline the boundaries of the Islamist democratic commitment, Uskon, että islamistiseen sieluun kurkistaminen on energioiden väärinkäyttöä. Islamistit eivät ole tulossa. Lisäksi, kuten Adam Przeworski ja muut ovat väittäneet, demokratiaa koskevat sitoumukset syntyvät useammin ympäristörajoitteista kuin aidosta uskosta. Sen sijaan, että murehdit, ovatko islamistit todellisia demokraatteja,
tavoitteemme tulisi olla demokraattisten ja liberaalien instituutioiden ja toimijoiden vahvistaminen, jotta mikään ryhmä – islamilainen tai muu – ei voi horjuttaa niitä..
Mutta mikä on tämä liike, jonka demokraattisesta vilpittömyydestä huolehdimme?? Islamismi on liukas käsite. Esimerkiksi, jos leimaamme islamistiksi puolueet, jotka vaativat shariaa, meidän on suljettava pois Turkin oikeus- ja kehityspuolue (jota pidetään laajalti islamistina) ja mukaan lukien Egyptiä hallitseva kansallisdemokraattinen puolue (joka tukahduttaa aktiivisesti islamisteja). Sen sijaan, että juuttuisit määritelmäongelmiin, meidän olisi parempi keskittyä poliittisiin puolueisiin, jotka ovat kasvaneet samoista historiallisista juurista, johdattavat monet tavoitteestaan ​​ja asemastaan ​​samoista ideoista, ja ylläpitää organisaatiositeitä toisiinsa – toisin sanoen, ne puolueet, jotka kumpuavat kansainvälisestä MB:stä. Näihin kuuluu egyptiläinen äitijärjestö (perustettu 1928), mutta myös Hamas, Jordanian islamilainen toimintarintama, Algerian liike rauhanomaisen yhteiskunnan puolesta, Irakin islamilainen puolue, Libanonin islamilainen ryhmä, ja muut.

The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood

Robert S. näkökohta

Steven Brooke

The Muslim Brotherhood is the world’s oldest, largest, and most influential Islamist organization. It is also the most controversial,
condemned by both conventional opinion in the West and radical opinion in the Middle East. American commentators have called the Muslim Brothers “radical Islamists” and “a vital component of the enemy’s assault forcedeeply hostile to the United States.” Al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri sneers at them for “lur[ing] thousands of young Muslim men into lines for electionsinstead of into the lines of jihad.” Jihadists loathe the Muslim Brotherhood (known in Arabic as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen) for rejecting global jihad and embracing democracy. These positions seem to make them moderates, the very thing the United States, short on allies in the Muslim world, seeks.
But the Ikhwan also assails U.S. ulkopolitiikka, especially Washington’s support for Israel, and questions linger about its actual commitment to the democratic process. Over the past year, we have met with dozens of Brotherhood leaders and activists from Egypt, Ranska, Jordan, Espanja, Syyria,Tunisia, and the United Kingdom.

Energizing US-Syria Relations: Leveraging Ancillary Diplomatic Vehicles

Benjamin E. Power,

Andrew Akhlaghi,

Steven Rotchtin

The prospect for greater stability in the Middle East largely hinges on the ability to bring Syria into diplomatic and security discussions as a productive stakeholder, necessitating a thaw in the less than normal state of U.S. – Syrian relations. While Syria’s
importance as a keystone state to a Middle East peace process was acknowledged in the 2006 Iraq Study Group Report,1 which called for a shift from disincentives to incentives in seeking constructive results, only in the past few months has there been a demonstrable shift in Washington’s disposition. Recent meetings between high-ranking U.S. officials and their counterparts in Damascus, and even the announcement of reinstating a U.S. ambassador to Syria, have led to widespread speculation in policy circles that a diplomatic thaw is afoot.
This report analyzes key trends in Syria’s domestic and regional socio-political situation that currently function to make Syria a natural ally of the United States.

From Rebel Movement to Political Party

Alastair Crooke

The view held by many in the West that transformation from an armed resistance movement to political party should be linear, should be preceded by a renunciation of violence, should be facilitated by civil society and brokered by moderate politicians has little reality for the case of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). This is not to suggest that Hamas has not been subject to a political transformation: it has. But that transformation has been achieved in spite of Western efforts and not facilitated by those efforts. While remaining a resistance movement, Hamas has become the government of the Palestinian Authority and has modified its military posture. But this transformation has taken a different course from the one outlined in traditional conflict resolution models. Hamas and other Islamist groups continue to see themselves as resistance movements, but increasingly they see the prospect that their organizations may evolve into political currents that are focused on non-violent resistance.Standard conflict resolution models rely heavily on Western experience in conflict resolution and often ignore the differences of approach in the Islamic history of peace-making. Not surprisingly, the Hamas approach to political negotiation is different in style to that of the West. Also, as an Islamist movement that shares the wider optic of the impact of the West on their societies, Hamas has requirements of authenticity and legitimacy within its own constituency that bear on the importance attached to maintaining an armed capability. These factors, together with the overwhelming effect of long term conflict on a community’s psychology (an aspect that receives little attention in Western models that put preponderant weight on political analysis), suggests that the transformation process for Hamas has been very different from the transformation of arms movements in traditional analysis. In addition, the harsh landscape of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict gives the Hamas experience its special characteristics.Hamas is in the midst of an important transformation, but the political currents within Israel, and within the region, make the outcome of this transformation unpredictable. Much will depend on the course of Western policy (its “Global War on Terror”) and how that policy effects revivalist Islamist groups such as Hamas, groups that are committed to elections, reform and good-governance.