RSSAll Entries in the "Региони" Category

Арапската утре


October 6, 1981, was meant to be a day of celebration in Egypt. It marked the anniversary of Egypt’s grandest moment of victory in three Arab-Israeli conflicts, when the country’s underdog army thrust across the Suez Canal in the opening days ofthe 1973 Yom Kippur War and sent Israeli troops reeling in retreat. On a cool, cloudless morning, the Cairo stadium was packed with Egyptian families that had come to see the military strut its hardware.On the reviewing stand, President Anwar el-Sadat,the war’s architect, watched with satisfaction as men and machines paraded before him. I was nearby, a newly arrived foreign correspondent.Suddenly, one of the army trucks halted directly in front of the reviewing stand just as six Mirage jets roared overhead in an acrobatic performance, painting the sky with long trails of red, yellow, purple,and green smoke. Sadat stood up, apparently preparing to exchange salutes with yet another contingent of Egyptian troops. He made himself a perfect target for four Islamist assassins who jumped from the truck, stormed the podium, and riddled his body with bullets.As the killers continued for what seemed an eternity to spray the stand with their deadly fire, I considered for an instant whether to hit the ground and risk being trampled to death by panicked spectators or remain afoot and risk taking a stray bullet. Instinct told me to stay on my feet, and my sense of journalistic duty impelled me to go find out whether Sadat was alive or dead.

Исламот и изработка на државната власт

seyyed vali Реза Наср

во 1979 Општи Мухамед Зија ул-Хак, на воен владетел на Пакистан, изјави дека Пакистан ќе стане исламска држава. Исламските вредности и норми ќе служат како основа на националниот идентитет, закон, економија, и општествените односи, и ќе ги инспирира сите политики. во 1980 Mahathir Muhammad, the new prime minister of Malaysia, introduced a similar broad-based plan to anchor state policy making in Islamic values, and to bring his country’s laws and economic practices in line with the teachings of Islam. Why did these rulers choose the path of “Islamization” for their countries? And how did one-time secular postcolonial states become the agents of Islamization and the harbinger of the “true” Islamic state?
Malaysia and Pakistan have since the late 1970s–early 1980s followed a unique path to development that diverges from the experiences of other Third World states. In these two countries religious identity was integrated into state ideology to inform the goal and process of development with Islamic values.
This undertaking has also presented a very different picture of the relation between Islam and politics in Muslim societies. In Malaysia and Pakistan, it has been state institutions rather than Islamist activists (those who advocate a political reading of Islam; also known as revivalists or fundamentalists) that have been the guardians of Islam and the defenders of its interests. This suggests a
very different dynamic in the ebbs and flow of Islamic politics—in the least pointing to the importance of the state in the vicissitudes of this phenomenon.
What to make of secular states that turn Islamic? What does such a transformation mean for the state as well as for Islamic politics?
This book grapples with these questions. This is not a comprehensive account of Malaysia’s or Pakistan’s politics, nor does it cover all aspects of Islam’s role in their societies and politics, although the analytical narrative dwells on these issues considerably. This book is rather a social scientific inquiry into the phenomenon of secular postcolonial states becoming agents of Islamization, and more broadly how culture and religion serve the needs of state power and development. The analysis here relies on theoretical discussions
in the social sciences of state behavior and the role of culture and religion therein. More important, it draws inferences from the cases under examination to make broader conclusions of interest to the disciplines.

Феминизмот помеѓу секуларизмот и исламот: СЛУЧАЈОТ на Палестина

Dr, Islah Jad

Legislative elections held in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 2006 brought to power the Islamist movement Hamas, which went on to form the majority of the Palestinian Legislative Council and also the first majority Hamas government. These elections resulted in the appointment of the first female Hamas minister, who became the Minister of Women’s Affairs. Between March 2006 and June 2007, two different female Hamas ministers assumed this post, but both found it difficult to manage the Ministry since most of its employees were not Hamas members but belonged to other political parties, and most were members of Fatah, the dominant movement controlling most Palestinian Authority institutions. A tense period of struggle between the women of Hamas in the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the female members of Fatah came to an end following Hamas’ takeover of power in the Gaza Strip and the resultant fall of its government in the West Bank – a struggle which sometimes took a violent turn. One reason later cited to explain this struggle was the difference between secular feminist discourse and Islamist discourse on women’s issues. In the Palestinian context this disagreement took on a dangerous nature as it was used to justify perpetuating the bloody political struggle, the removal of Hamas women from their positions or posts, and the political and geographical divides prevailing at the time in both the West Bank and the occupied Gaza Strip.
This struggle raises a number of important questions: should we punish the Islamist movement which has come to power, or should we consider the reasons which led to Fateh’s failure in the political arena? Can feminism offer a comprehensive framework for women, regardless of their social and ideological affiliations? 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 (вера), 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, which relates to different schools of faith which explain the legal system contained in the Quran and the sayings of the Prophetthe Sunnah.

Исламистички женскиот активизам во окупирана PALESTINE

Interviews by Khaled Amayreh

Интервју со Самира Ал Halayka

Sameera Al-Halayka is an elected member of the Palestinian Legislative Council. She was

born in the village of Shoyoukh near Hebron in 1964. She has a BA in Sharia (Исламската

Jurisprudence) from Hebron University. She worked as a journalist from 1996 to 2006 when

she entered the Palestinian Legislative Council as an elected member in the 2006 избори.

She is married and has seven children.

Q: There is a general impression in some western countries that women receive

inferior treatment within Islamic resistance groups, such as Hamas. Is this true?

How are women activists treated in Hamas?
Rights and duties of Muslim women emanate first and foremost from Islamic Sharia or law.

They are not voluntary or charitable acts or gestures we receive from Hamas or anyone

else. Thus, as far as political involvement and activism is concerned, women generally have

the same rights and duties as men. After all, women make up at least 50 per cent of

society. In a certain sense, they are the entire society because they give birth to, and raise,

the new generation.

Затоа, I can say that the status of women within Hamas is in full conformity with her

status in Islam itself. This means that she is a full partner at all levels. Навистина, it would be

unfair and unjust for an Islamic (or Islamist if you prefer) woman to be partner in suffering

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, political activism

is not compulsory but voluntary, and is largely decided in light of each woman’s abilities,

qualifications and individual circumstances. None the less, showing concern for public

matters is mandatory upon each and every Muslim man and woman. The Prophet

Muhammed said: “He who doesn’t show concern for the affairs of Muslims is not a Muslim.”

Moreover, Palestinian Islamist women have to take all objective factors on the ground into

account when deciding whether to join politics or get involved in political activism.

Иранките по Исламската револуција

Ansiia Khaz Allii

Повеќе од триесет години поминаа од триумфот на Исламската револуција во Иран, yet there remain a number of questions and ambiguities about the way the Islamic Republic and its laws deal with contemporary problems and current circumstances, особено во однос на жените и правата на жените. This short paper will shed light on these issues and study the current position of women in various spheres, comparing this to the situation prior to the Islamic Revolution. Reliable and authenticated data has been used wherever possible. The introduction summarises a number of theoretical and legal studies which provide the basis for the subsequent more practical analysis and are the sources from where the data has been obtained.
The first section considers attitudes of the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards women and women’s rights, and then takes a comprehensive look at the laws promulgated since the Islamic Revolution concerning women and their position in society. The second section considers women’s cultural and educational developments since the Revolution and compares these to the pre-revolutionary situation. На third section looks at women’s political, social and economic participation and considers both quantative and qualitative aspects of their employment. The fourth section then examines questions of the family, the relationship between women and the family, and the family’s role in limiting or increasing women’s rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

smearcasting: Како Islamophobes шири страв, нетрпеливост и дезинформации


Џули Холар

Џим Naureckas

Making Islamophobia Mainstream:
How Muslim-bashers broadcast their bigotry
Неверојатна работа се случи во Критичарите круг од Националниот Книга (NBCC) номинации во февруари 2007: Нормално интелектуален и толерантни група номинирана за најдобра книга од областа на критиката книга широко се гледа како оцрнување на целата религиозна група.
The nomination of Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept: 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’’ (Њујорк тајмс, 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, нетрпеливост и дезинформации. 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?
Similarly, 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. After all, 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.

Тоталитаризмот на џихад исламизам и предизвик во Европа и во исламот

Басо Tibi

При читањето на мнозинството на текстови кои се огромно литература која е објавена од страна самопрогласени експерти на политичкиот ислам, тоа е лесно да се пропушти фактот дека ново движење има појавено. Further, this literature fails to explain in a satisfactory manner the fact that the ideology which drives it is based on a particular interpretation of Islam, and that it is thus a politicised religious faith,
not a secular one. The only book in which political Islam is addressed as a form of totalitarianism is the one by Paul Berman, Terror and Liberalism (2003). The author is, сепак, not an expert, cannot read Islamic sources, and therefore relies on the selective use of one or two secondary sources, thus failing to grasp the phenomenon.
One of the reasons for such shortcomings is the fact that most of those who seek to inform us about the ‘jihadist threat’ – and Berman is typical of this scholarship – not only lack the language skills to read the sources produced by the ideologues of political Islam, but also lack knowledge about the cultural dimension of the movement. This new totalitarian movement is in many ways a novelty
in the history of politics since it has its roots in two parallel and related phenomena: first, the culturalisation of politics which leads to politics being conceptualised as a cultural system (a view pioneered by Clifford Geertz); and second the return of the sacred, or ‘re-enchantment’ of the world, as a reaction to its intensive secularisation resulting from globalisation.
The analysis of political ideologies that are based on religions, and that can exert appeal as a political religion as a consequence of this, involves a social science understanding of the role of religion played by world politics, especially after the bi-polar system of the Cold War has given way to a multi-polar world. In a project conducted at the Hannah Arendt Institute for the application of totalitarianism to the study of political religions, I proposed the distinction between secular ideologies that act as a substitute for religion, and religious ideologies based on genuine religious faith, which is the case in religious fundamentalism (see note
24). Another project on ‘Political Religion’, carried out at the University of Basel, has made clearer the point that new approaches to politics become necessary once a religious faith becomes clothed in a political garb.Drawing on the authoritative sources of political Islam, this article suggests that the great variety of organisations inspired by Islamist ideology are to be conceptualised both as political religions and as political movements. The unique quality of political Islam lies is the fact that it is based on a transnational religion (see note 26).

исламот, Политичкиот ислам и Америка

Арапски Insight

Is “Brotherhood” with America Possible?

khalil al-anani

"Не постои можност за комуникација со било U.S. administration so long as the United States maintains its long-standing view of Islam as a real danger, a view that puts the United States in the same boat as the Zionist enemy. We have no pre-conceived notions concerning the American people or the U.S. society and its civic organizations and think tanks. We have no problem communicating with the American people but no adequate efforts are being made to bring us closer,” said Dr. Issam al-Iryan, chief of the political department of the Muslim Brotherhood in a phone interview.
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.

Либералната демократија и политички ислам: Потрага по заедничка основа.

Mostapha Benhenda

Овој труд се обидува да воспостави дијалог помеѓу демократските и исламските политички теории.1 Врската меѓу нив е збунувачка: на пример, со цел да се објасни односот што постои помеѓу демократијата и нивното сфаќање за идеалното исламско политичко
режим, пакистанскиот научник Абу Ала Маудуди го измислил неологизмот „теодемократија“, додека францускиот научник Луис Масињон предложил оксиморон „секуларна теократија“. Овие изрази сугерираат дека некои аспекти на демократијата се оценуваат позитивно, а други се оценуваат негативно. На пример, Муслиманските научници и активисти често го поддржуваат принципот на отчетност на владетелите, што е дефинирачка карактеристика на демократијата. Напротив, тие често го отфрлаат принципот на поделба помеѓу религијата и државата, што честопати се смета за дел од демократијата (барем, на демократијата како што е познато во Соединетите држави денес). Со оглед на оваа мешана проценка на демократските принципи, се чини интересно да се одреди концепцијата за демократија која лежи во основата на исламските политички модели. Со други зборови, треба да се обидеме да откриеме што е демократско во „теодемократијата“. За таа цел, меѓу импресивната разновидност и плуралност на исламските традиции на нормативната политичка мисла, ние во суштина се фокусираме на широката струја на размислување што се враќа на Абу Ала Маудуди и египетскиот интелектуалец Сајед Кутб.8 Овој посебен тренд на размислување е интересен затоа што во муслиманскиот свет, лежи во основата на некои од најпредизвикувачките спротивставувања на дифузијата на вредностите што потекнуваат од Западот. Врз основа на верските вредности, овој тренд разработи политички модел алтернатива на либералната демократија. Широко кажано, концепцијата на демократијата вклучена во овој исламски политички модел е процедурална. Со некои разлики, оваа концепција е инспирирана од демократските теории што ги застапуваат некои уставници и политички научници.10 Таа е тенка и минималистичка, до одредена точка. На пример, не се потпира на ниту еден поим за народен суверенитет и не бара никакво раздвојување помеѓу религијата и политиката. Првата цел на овој труд е да ја разработи оваа минималистичка концепција. Ние правиме детално повторување на тоа со цел да ја изолираме оваа концепција од нејзината морална (либерален) темели, кои се контроверзни од посебната исламска гледна точка разгледани овде. Навистина, демократскиот процес обично се изведува од принципот на лична автономија, што не е одобрено од овие исламски теории.11 Еве, покажуваме дека таквиот принцип не е неопходен за да се оправда демократски процес.

Принципот на поместување во структурата на исламот

Dr. Мухамед Икбал

Како културно движење исламот отфрла старата статичен поглед на универзумот, и достигнува динамичен преглед. Како емоционална систем на обединување ја признава вредноста на поединецот како таков, и ги отфрла bloodrelationship како основа на човечкото единство. Blood-relationship is earthrootedness. The search for a purely psychological foundation of human unity becomes possible only with the perception that all human life is spiritual in its origin.1 Such a perception is creative of fresh loyalties without any ceremonial to keep them alive, and makes it possible for man to emancipate himself from the earth. Christianity which had originally appeared as a monastic order was tried by Constantine as a system of unification.2 Its failure to work as such a system drove the Emperor Julian3 to return to the old gods of Rome on which he attempted to put philosophical interpretations. A modern historian of civilization has thus depicted the state of the civilized world about the time when Islam appeared on the stage of History: It seemed then that the great civilization that it had taken four thousand years to construct was on the verge of disintegration, and that mankind was likely to return to that condition of barbarism where every tribe and sect was against the next, and law and order were unknown . . . На
old tribal sanctions had lost their power. Hence the old imperial methods would no longer operate. The new sanctions created by
Christianity were working division and destruction instead of unity and order. It was a time fraught with tragedy. Civilization, like a gigantic tree whose foliage had overarched the world and whose branches had borne the golden fruits of art and science and literature, stood tottering, its trunk no longer alive with the flowing sap of devotion and reverence, but rotted to the core, riven by the storms of war, and held together only by the cords of ancient customs and laws, that might snap at any moment. Was there any emotional culture that could be brought in, to gather mankind once more into unity and to save civilization? This culture must be something of a new type, for the old sanctions and ceremonials were dead, and to build up others of the same kind would be the work
of centuries.’The writer then proceeds to tell us that the world stood in need of a new culture to take the place of the culture of the throne, and the systems of unification which were based on bloodrelationship.
It is amazing, he adds, that such a culture should have arisen from Arabia just at the time when it was most needed. There is, сепак, nothing amazing in the phenomenon. The world-life intuitively sees its own needs, and at critical moments defines its own direction. This is what, in the language of religion, we call prophetic revelation. It is only natural that Islam should have flashed across the consciousness of a simple people untouched by any of the ancient cultures, and occupying a geographical position where three continents meet together. The new culture finds the foundation of world-unity in the principle of Tauhâd.’5 Islam, as a polity, is only a practical means of making this principle a living factor in the intellectual and emotional life of mankind. It demands loyalty to God, not to thrones. And since God is the ultimate spiritual basis of all life, loyalty to God virtually amounts to man’s loyalty to his own ideal nature. The ultimate spiritual basis of all life, as conceived by Islam, is eternal and reveals itself in variety and change. A society based on such a conception of Reality must reconcile, in its life, the categories of permanence and change. It must possess eternal principles to regulate its collective life, for the eternal gives us a foothold in the world of perpetual change.

Исламската реформацијата

Аднан Кан

Италијанскиот премиер, Силвио Берлускони се пофали по настаните во 9/11:
„... ние мора да бидеме свесни за супериорноста на нашата цивилизација, систем кој гарантирал

благосостојба, почитување на човековите права и – за разлика од исламските земји – почит

за верски и политички права, систем кој има свои вредности разбирање за различноста

и толеранција… Западот ќе ги освои народите, како да го освои комунизмот, дури и ако е тоа

значи конфронтација со друга цивилизација, исламскиот, заглави каде беше

1,400 пред години… ”1

И во А. 2007 пријавете го институтот РАНД прогласен:
„Борбата што се одвива низ поголемиот дел од муслиманскиот свет во суштина е војна

идеи. Неговиот исход ќе го одреди идниот правец на муслиманскиот свет “.

Градење умерени муслимански мрежи, Институт РАНД

Концептот на „Ислах“ (реформи) е концепт непознат за муслиманите. Никогаш не постоела во текот на

историја на исламската цивилизација; никогаш не било расправано, па дури и разгледувано. Последен поглед на класиката

Исламската литература ни покажува дека кога класичните научници ги поставиле темелите на узулот, и кодифицирано

нивните исламски пресуди (фикх) тие само гледаа на разбирање на исламските правила со цел да

примени ги. Слична ситуација се случи и кога беа утврдени правилата за хадисот, тафер и

Арапски јазик. Научници, thinkers and intellectuals throughout Islamic history spent much time

understanding Allah’s revelation – the Qur’an and applying the ayaat upon the realities and coined

principals and disciplines in order to facilitate understanding. Hence the Qur’an remained the basis of

study and all the disciplines that evolved were always based upon the Qur’an. Those who became

smitten by Greek philosophy such as the Muslim philosophers and some from amongst the Mut’azilah

were considered to have left the fold of Islam as the Qur’an ceased to be their basis of study. Thus for

any Muslim attempting to deduce rules or understand what stance should be taken upon a particular

issue the Qur’an is the basis of this study.

Првиот обид за реформа на исламот се случил кон крајот на 19 век. До крајот на

век, Уммата беше во долг период на опаѓање, кога глобалниот баланс на моќта се смени

од Хилафа до Велика Британија. Монтажните проблеми го зафатија Хилафа додека беше Западна Европа

среде индустриската револуција. Уммата започна да го губи чистото разбирање за исламот, и

во обид да се сврти падот што ги опфаќа утманите (Османлиите) некои муслимани беа испратени во

Вест, и како резултат станаа поразени од она што го видоа. Рифа’а Рафи ’ал-Тахтави од Египет (1801-1873),

на враќање од Париз, напишал биографска книга наречена Тахлис ал-ибриз ила такхис Бариз (На

Извлекување на злато, или преглед на Париз, 1834), фалејќи ја нивната чистота, loveубов кон работата, и погоре

целиот општествен морал. He declared that we must mimic what is being done in Paris, advocating changes to

the Islamic society from liberalising women to the systems of ruling. This thought, and others like it,

marked the beginning of the reinventing trend in Islam.



In the aftermath of September 11, the long and checkered relationship between Islam and the West entered a new phase. The attacks were interpreted as the fulfillment of a prophecy that had been in the consciousness of the West for a long time, i.e., the coming of Islam as a menacing power with a clear intent to destroy Western civilization. Representations of Islam as a violent, militant, and oppressive religious ideology extended from television programs and state offices to schools and the internet. It was even suggested that Makka, the holiest city of Islam, be “nuked” to give a lasting lesson to all Muslims. Although one can look at the widespread sense of anger, hostility, and revenge as a normal human reaction to the abominable loss of innocent lives, the demonization of Muslims is the result of deeper philosophical and historical issues.
In many subtle ways, the long history of Islam and the West, from the theological polemics of Baghdad in the eighth and ninth centuries to the experience of convivencia in Andalusia in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, informs the current perceptions and qualms of each civilization vis-à-vis the other. This paper will examine some of the salient features of this history and argue that the monolithic representations of Islam, created and sustained by a highly complex set of image-producers, think-tanks, academics, lobbyists, policy makers, and media, dominating the present Western conscience, have their roots in the West’s long history with the Islamic world. It will also be argued that the deep-rooted misgivings about Islam and Muslims have led and continue to lead to fundamentally flawed and erroneous policy decisions that have a direct impact on the current relations of Islam and the West. The almost unequivocal identification of Islam with terrorism and extremism in the minds of many Americans after September 11 is an outcome generated by both historical misperceptions, which will be analyzed in some detail below, and the political agenda of certain interest groups that see confrontation as the only way to deal with the Islamic world. It is hoped that the following analysis will provide a historical context in which we can make sense of these tendencies and their repercussions for both worlds.

Исламот на Запад

Jocelyne Cesari

The immigration of Muslims to Europe, North America, and Australia and the complex socioreligious dynamics that have subsequently developed have made Islam in the West a compelling new ªeld of research. The Salman Rushdie affair, hijab controversies, the attacks on the World Trade Center, and the furor over the Danish cartoons are all examples of international crises that have brought to light the connections between Muslims in the West and the global Muslim world. Овие нови ситуации повлекуваат теоретски и методолошки предизвици за проучување на современиот ислам, и стана клучно да избегнеме суштинско значење или на исламот или на муслиманите и да се спротивставиме на реторичките структури на дискурсите кои се преокупирани со безбедноста и тероризмот.
Во овој напис, Јас тврдам дека исламот како религиозна традиција е тераса инкогнита. Прелиминарна причина за оваа ситуација е тоа што не постои консензус за религијата како предмет на истражување. Религија, како академска дисциплина, се распадна меѓу историските, социолошки, и херменевтички методологии. Со исламот, ситуацијата е уште посложена. На Запад, изучувањето на исламот започна како гранка на ориенталистичките студии и затоа следеше посебен и карактеристичен пат од проучувањето на религиите. Even though the critique of Orientalism has been central to the emergence of the study of Islam in the ªeld of social sciences, tensions remain strong between Islamicists and both anthropologists and sociologists. The topic of Islam and Muslims in the West is embedded in this struggle. One implication of this methodological tension is that students of Islam who began their academic career studying Islam in France, Germany, or America ªnd it challenging to establish credibility as scholars of Islam, particularly in the North American academic

професија, колонијализмот, апартхејд?

Советот за истражување на хуманистичките науки

Истражувања на Советот за човекови науки на Јужна Африка овластена оваа студија да се тестира хипотезата поставени од страна на професорот Џон Dugard во извештајот што го претстави пред Советот за човекови права на ОН во јануари 2007, во својство на специјален известувач на ОН за состојбата на човековите права во палестинските територии окупирани од Израел (имено, на Западниот Брег, вклучувајќи ги и Источен Ерусалим, и
Газа, во понатамошниот текст OPT). Професорот Dugard постави прашањето: Израел е јасно во воена окупација на OPT. Во исто време, елементи на професијата претставуваат облици на колонијализам и апартхејд, кои се во спротивност со меѓународното право. Кои се правните последици од режимот на продолжен окупација со карактеристики на колонијализам и апартхејд за зафатени луѓе, окупаторска сила и трети земји?
Со цел да се разгледа овие последици, оваа студија е утврдено да се испита законски просториите на прашањето професор Dugard е: е Израел носителот на OPT, и, ако така, се елементи на окупацијата на овие територии изнесува колонијализам или апартхејд? Јужна Африка има очигледен интерес за овие прашања со оглед на горчливата историја на апартхејдот, која бараше одбивање на selfdetermination
на мнозинството на населението и, за време на окупацијата на Намибија, продолжување на апартхејдот на таа територија која Јужна Африка ефикасно бара да се колонизираат. Овие незаконски практики не смее да се повтори и на други места: другите народи не смее да трпи во начинот на популациите на Јужна Африка и Намибија претрпеле.
Да се ​​истражуваат овие прашања, меѓународен тим на научници е составен. Целта на овој проект беше да се изанализира ситуацијата од непартиска гледна точка на меѓународното право, наместо да се вклучат во политичкиот дискурс и реторика. Оваа студија е исходот од петнаесет месеци колаборативен процес на интензивни истражувања, консултација, пишување и преглед. Во него се заклучува и, тоа е да се надеваме, убедливо тврди и јасно покажува дека Израел, од 1967, е воинствените окупаторска сила во OPT, и дека окупацијата на овие територии стана колонијални претпријатие, кое се спроведува систем на апартхејд. Воинствените окупација по себе не е противправно ситуација: тоа е прифатено како можна последица на вооружен конфликт. Во исто време, според законот на вооружен конфликт (исто така познат како меѓународното хуманитарно право), занимање е наменета да биде само привремена состојба на работите. Меѓународното право забранува еднострано анексија или постојано стекнување на територија, како резултат на закана или употреба на сила: Ако се случи ова, ниту една држава може да го препознае или поддршка како резултат на незаконско ситуација. За разлика од окупацијата, и колонијализам и апартхејд секогаш се незаконски и навистина се смета за особено сериозни прекршувања на меѓународното право, бидејќи тие се суштински спротивно на основните вредности на меѓународниот правен поредок. Колонијализмот го нарушува принципот на самоопределување,
кој Меѓународниот суд на правдата (Меѓународниот суд на правдата) ја потврди како "еден од основните принципи на современото меѓународно право '. Сите држави имаат обврска да ги почитуваат и унапредуваат самоопределување. Апартхејд е влошена случај на расната дискриминација, која се состои во согласност со Меѓународната конвенција за сузбивање и казнување на злосторството апартхејд (1973,
"Апартхејд Конвенцијата во понатамошниот текст) со "нехумани дела извршени со цел воспоставување и одржување на доминација на една расна група на лица над било која друга расна група на лица и систематски ќе ги угнетува". Практиката на апартхејдот, Згора на тоа, е меѓународен криминал.
Професорот Dugard во својот извештај до Советот за човекови права на ОН во 2007 смета дека треба да се бара советодавно мислење за правните последици од однесувањето на Израел од Меѓународниот суд на правдата. Ова советодавно мислење несомнено ќе се надополнуваат на мислење дека Меѓународниот суд на правдата донесено во 2004 на правните последици од изградба на ѕид во окупираните палестински територии (во понатамошниот текст "Ѕидот советодавно мислење"). Овој курс за правно дејство не ја исцрпува опции се отворени за меѓународната заедница, ниту, пак обврските на трети земји и меѓународни организации, кога тие се оценети дека некоја друга држава е ангажирана во практиките на колонијализам или апартхејд.


Cordoba Foundation

Абдула 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, 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?
Moreover, 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, имено, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, САД, 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

US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace

Хенри 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. За жал, 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.