Vsi vnosi v "regije" Kategorija

leta 1979 General Mohamed Zia ul-Haq, vojaški vladar Pakistan, izjavil, da bi Pakistan postala islamska država. Islamske vrednote in norme bi služil kot temelj nacionalne identitete, pravo, gospodarstvo, in socialni odnosi, in bi navdih vse oblikovanju politike. leta 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?

Malezija in Pakistan sta od poznih sedemdesetih do zgodnjih osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja sledila edinstveni poti razvoja, ki se razlikuje od izkušenj drugih držav tretjega sveta.. V teh dveh državah je bila verska identiteta integrirana v državno ideologijo, da bi se cilj in proces razvoja seznanil z islamskimi vrednotami.

Ta podvig je predstavil tudi zelo drugačno sliko odnosa med islamom in politiko v muslimanskih družbah. V Maleziji in Pakistanu, to so bile državne institucije in ne islamistični aktivisti (tisti, ki zagovarjajo politično branje islama; znani tudi kot revivalisti ali fundamentalisti) ki so bili varuhi islama in zagovorniki njegovih interesov. To nakazuje 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. Analiza tukaj sloni na teoretičnih razpravah

v družbenih vedah državnega vedenja in vloge kulture in religije pri tem. Bolj pomembno, sklepa iz primerov, ki jih preučuje, da naredi širše zaključke, ki so zanimivi za discipline.

Zakonodajne volitve na Zahodnem bregu in v Gazi v 2006 na oblast pripeljal islamistično gibanje Hamas, ki je nato oblikovala večino palestinskega zakonodajnega sveta in tudi prvo večinsko vlado Hamasa. Rezultat teh volitev je bilo imenovanje prve ministrice Hamasa, ki je postala ministrica za ženske zadeve. Med marcem 2006 in junija 2007, to mesto sta prevzeli dve različni ministrici Hamasa, vendar sta oba težko vodila ministrstvo, saj večina njegovih zaposlenih ni bila članov Hamasa, ampak je pripadala drugim političnim strankam, večina pa je bila članov Fataha, prevladujoče gibanje, ki nadzoruje večino institucij palestinske oblasti. Napeto obdobje boja med ženskami Hamasa na ministrstvu za ženske zadeve in članicami Fataha se je končalo po Hamasovem prevzemu oblasti na območju Gaze in posledičnem padcu njegove vlade na Zahodnem bregu – boj ki je včasih dobilo silovit preobrat. Eden od razlogov, ki so ga kasneje navedli za razlago tega boja, je bila razlika med sekularnim feminističnim diskurzom in islamističnim diskurzom o ženskih vprašanjih.. V palestinskem kontekstu je to nesoglasje postalo nevarno, saj je bilo uporabljeno za opravičevanje nadaljevanja krvavega političnega boja., odstranitev Hamasovih žensk z njihovih položajev ali delovnih mest, ter politične in geografske ločnice, ki so takrat prevladovale tako na Zahodnem bregu kot na okupiranem območju Gaze.

Ta boj odpira številna pomembna vprašanja: bi morali kaznovati islamistično gibanje, ki je prišlo na oblast, ali bi morali razmisliti o razlogih, ki so pripeljali do Fatehovega neuspeha na političnem prizorišču? Ali lahko feminizem ponudi celovit okvir za ženske?, ne glede na njihovo socialno in ideološko pripadnost? Ali lahko diskurz skupne skupne osnove za ženske pomaga pri uresničevanju in dogovoru o skupnih ciljih?? Je paternalizem prisoten samo v islamistični ideologiji, in ne v nacionalizmu in domoljubju? Kaj mislimo s feminizmom? Ali obstaja samo en feminizem, ali več feminizmov? Kaj mislimo z islamom – ali je to gibanje, znano pod tem imenom, ali religija, filozofija, ali pravni sistem? Tem težavam moramo iti do dna in jih natančno preučiti, in o njih se moramo dogovoriti, da se lahko kasneje odločimo, kot feministke, če naj bo naša kritika paternalizma usmerjena proti veri (vera), ki bi morala biti omejena na srce vernika in ne bi smela prevzeti nadzora nad svetom na splošno, ali sodna praksa, ki se nanaša na različne verske šole, ki pojasnjujejo pravni sistem, ki ga vsebujejo Koran in izreki preroka – suna.

Izjemen je zgodilo na National Book Critics Circle, (NBCC) nominacije v februarju 2007: Običajno Prefinjenega okusa in tolerantni skupina nominirana za najboljšo knjigo na področju kritike knjiga pogosto razumemo kot diskreditirati celotno versko skupino.

Nominacija filma Medtem ko je Evropa spala Brucea Bawerja: Kako radikalni islam uničuje Zahod od znotraj, ni minilo brez polemik. Prejšnji nominiranec Eliot Weinberger je knjigo obsodil na letnem srečanju NBCC, to imenujemo "rasizem kot kritika" (New York Times, 2/8/07). Predsednik uprave NBCC John Freeman je zapisal na blogu skupine (Kritična masa, 2/4/07): ''Nikoli nisem bil

bolj osramočen zaradi izbire, kot sem bil z Bruceom Bawerjem Medtem ko je Evropa spala…. Njegova hiperventilirana retorika prehaja iz dejanske kritike v islamofobijo.''

Čeprav na koncu ni dobil nagrade, Medtem ko je bilo priznanje Europe Slept v najvišjih literarnih krogih simbolično za vključevanje islamofobije, ne samo v ameriškem založništvu, ampak v širših medijih. To poročilo ponuja nov pogled na islamofobijo v današnjih medijih in njene povzročitelje, oris nekaterih zakulisnih povezav, ki jih mediji redko raziskujejo. Poročilo vsebuje tudi štiri posnetke, ali »študije primerov,«, ki opisuje, kako islamofobi še naprej manipulirajo z mediji, da bi muslimane slikali s široko, sovražna krtača. Naš cilj je dokumentirati razvajanje: javna pisanja in nastopi islamofobnih aktivistov in strokovnjakov, ki namerno in redno širijo strah, fanatizma in dezinformacije. Izraz "islamofobija" se nanaša na sovražnost do islama in muslimanov, ki teži k dehumanizaciji celotne vere., ki ga prikazujejo kot bistveno tujega in mu pripisujejo inherentno, bistveni niz negativnih lastnosti, kot je iracionalnost, nestrpnost in nasilje. In ne drugače kot obtožbe v klasičnem dokumentu o antisemitizmu, Protokoli sionskih starešin, nekaj bolj virulentnih izrazov islamofobije–kot Medtem ko je Evropa spala–vključujejo spomine na islamske načrte za prevlado nad Zahodom.

Islamske institucije in muslimani, seveda, bi morali biti predmet enakega nadzora in kritike kot vsi drugi. Na primer, ko norveški islamski svet razpravlja o tem, ali je treba homoseksualce in lezbijke usmrtiti, posameznike ali skupine, ki delijo to mnenje, je mogoče odločno obsoditi, ne da bi vanj potegnili vse evropske muslimane, tako kot objava Bawer's Pyjamas Media (8/7/08),

»Razprava o evropskih muslimanih: Ali je treba homoseksualce usmrtiti?”

podobno, skrajneže, ki svoja nasilna dejanja opravičujejo s sklicevanjem na določeno razlago islama, je mogoče kritizirati, ne da bi vpletali v to izjemno raznoliko populacijo muslimanov po vsem svetu.. Konec koncev, novinarjem je uspelo pokriti bombni napad v Oklahoma Cityju Timothyja McVeigha–pripadnik rasistične sekte krščanske identitete–brez zatekanja k posplošenim izjavam o »krščanskem terorizmu«. Prav tako, mediji so poročali o terorističnih dejanjih fanatikov, ki so Judje–na primer pokol v Hebronu, ki ga je izvedel Baruch Goldstein (Dodatno!, 5/6/94)–brez impliciranja celotnega judovstva.

Pri branju večino besedil, ki sestavljajo veliko literature, ki je bila s samooklicane poznavalci objavljen na politični islam, je enostaven za miss, da je nastalo novo gibanje. Nadalje, ta literatura ne razloži na zadovoljiv način dejstva, da ideologija, ki jo poganja, temelji na določeni interpretaciji islama, in da gre torej za politizirano versko vero,

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, vendar, 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

v zgodovini politike, saj ima svoje korenine v dveh vzporednih in sorodnih pojavih: prvi, kulturalizacija politike, ki vodi v konceptualizacijo politike kot kulturnega sistema (pogled, ki ga je uvedel Clifford Geertz); in drugič vrnitev svetega, ali "ponovno začaranje" sveta, kot odziv na njeno intenzivno sekularizacijo, ki je posledica globalizacije.

Analiza političnih ideologij, ki temeljijo na religijah, in to lahko kot posledica tega postane privlačno kot politična religija, vključuje družboslovno razumevanje vloge religije v svetovni politiki, zlasti po tem, ko se je bipolarni sistem hladne vojne umaknil večpolarnemu svetu. V projektu, ki se izvaja na Inštitutu Hannah Arendt za uporabo totalitarizma pri preučevanju političnih religij, Predlagal sem razlikovanje med sekularnimi ideologijami, ki delujejo kot nadomestek za religijo, in verske ideologije, ki temeljijo na pristni verski veri, kar je v verskem fundamentalizmu (glej opombo

24). Še en projekt o "politični veri", izvedel na Univerzi v Baslu, je pojasnil, da novi pristopi k politiki postanejo potrebni, ko se verska vera odene v politično obleko. Sklicevanje na verodostojne vire političnega islama, ta članek nakazuje, da je treba veliko različnih organizacij, ki jih navdihuje islamistična ideologija, konceptualizirati kot politične religije in kot politična gibanja. Edinstvena kakovost laži političnega islama je dejstvo, da temelji na transnacionalni veri (glej opombo 26).

"Ni nobene možnosti komuniciranja z vsemi zunaj ZDA. administracije, dokler ZDA ohranjajo svoj dolgoletni pogled na islam kot resnično nevarnost, pogled, ki Združene države postavlja v isti čoln kot cionistični sovražnik. Nimamo nobenih vnaprejšnjih predstav o ameriških ljudeh ali ZDA. družbe ter njenih civilnih organizacij in možganskih trustov. Nimamo težav pri komuniciranju z ameriškim ljudstvom, vendar ni vloženih ustreznih naporov, da bi nas zbližali,” je dejal dr. Issam al-Iryan, vodja političnega oddelka Muslimanske bratovščine v telefonskem intervjuju.

Al-Iryanove besede povzemajo poglede Muslimanske bratovščine na Američane in ZDA. vlada. Drugi člani Muslimanske bratovščine bi se strinjali, tako kot pokojni Hassan al-Banna, ki je skupino ustanovil v 1928. Al- Banna je na Zahod gledal predvsem kot na simbol moralnega propada. Drugi salafisti – islamska miselna šola, ki se opira na prednike kot vzorne modele – so zavzeli enako stališče do ZDA, vendar nimajo ideološke prožnosti, ki jo zagovarja Muslimanska bratovščina. Medtem ko Muslimanska bratovščina verjame v vključitev Američanov v civilni dialog, druge skrajne skupine ne vidijo smisla v dialogu in trdijo, da je sila edini način za obravnavo Združenih držav.

Ta dokument skuša vzpostaviti dialog med demokratično in islamsko politično teorijo.1 Medsebojno delovanje med njima je zmedeno.: na primer, da bi pojasnili razmerje med demokracijo in njihovim pojmovanjem idealne islamske politične

režim, pakistanski učenjak Abu 'Ala Maududi je skoval neologizem "teodemokracija", medtem ko je francoski učenjak Louis Massignon predlagal oksimoron "sekularna teokracija". Ti izrazi kažejo, da so nekateri vidiki demokracije ocenjeni pozitivno, drugi pa negativno. na primer:, Muslimanski učenjaki in aktivisti pogosto podpirajo načelo odgovornosti vladarjev, kar je odločilna značilnost demokracije. Nasprotno, pogosto zavračajo načelo ločevanja med vero in državo, ki se pogosto šteje za del demokracije (vsaj, demokracije, kot jo poznajo danes ZDA). Glede na to mešano oceno demokratičnih načel, zdi se zanimivo določiti koncept demokracije, ki je podlaga za islamske politične modele. Z drugimi besedami, poskusiti bi morali ugotoviti, kaj je demokratično v "teodemokraciji". V ta namen, med impresivno raznolikostjo in pluralnostjo islamskih tradicij normativne politične misli, v bistvu se osredotočamo na širok tok misli, ki sega nazaj do Abu Ala Maududija in egiptovskega intelektualca Sayyeda Qutba.8 Ta poseben miselni trend je zanimiv, ker je v muslimanskem svetu, leži v osnovi nekaterih najzahtevnejših nasprotij širjenju vrednot, ki izvirajo iz Zahoda. Temelji na verskih vrednotah, ta trend je razvil politični model, ki je alternativa liberalni demokraciji. Na splošno, koncept demokracije, vključen v ta islamski politični model, je proceduralni. Z nekaj razlikami, ta koncept se zgleduje po demokratičnih teorijah, ki jih zagovarjajo nekateri konstitucionalisti in politologi.10 Je tanka in minimalistična, do določene točke. na primer:, ne opira se na noben pojem ljudske suverenosti in ne zahteva nobene ločitve med vero in politiko. Prvi cilj tega prispevka je izdelati to minimalistično zasnovo. Podrobno ga ponovimo, da bi to zasnovo ločili od njene morale (liberalni) temelje, ki so sporne s posebnega islamskega stališča, obravnavanega tukaj. Prav zares, demokratični proces običajno izhaja iz načela osebne avtonomije, česar te islamske teorije ne potrjujejo.11 Tukaj, pokažemo, da takšno načelo ni potrebno za opravičevanje demokratičnega procesa.

Kot kulturnega gibanja Islam zavrača stari statični pogled na vesolje, in doseže dinamično pogled. Kot čustveno sistema poenotenja priznava vrednost posameznika, kot je na primer, in zavrača bloodrelationship kot osnova človekove enotnosti. Krvno sorodstvo je ukoreninjenost. Iskanje čisto psihološke podlage človeške enotnosti postane možno le z zaznavo, da je vse človeško življenje po svojem izvoru duhovno.1 Takšna zaznava ustvarja sveže zvestobe brez kakršnih koli ceremonialov, ki bi jih ohranjali pri življenju., in omogoča človeku, da se osvobodi zemlje. Krščanstvo, ki se je prvotno pojavilo kot meniški red, je Konstantin preizkusil kot sistem združevanja.2 Njegov neuspeh kot takšen sistem je gnal cesarja Julijana3, da se je vrnil k starim rimskim bogovom, na katere je poskušal postaviti filozofske razlage.. Sodobni civilizacijski zgodovinar je tako orisal stanje civiliziranega sveta v času, ko je islam nastopil na odru zgodovine.: Takrat se je zdelo, da je velika civilizacija, ki je gradila štiri tisoč let, tik pred razpadom., in da se bo človeštvo verjetno vrnilo v tisto stanje barbarstva, kjer je vsako pleme in sekta proti drugemu, in zakon in red sta bila neznana . . . The

stare plemenske sankcije so izgubile svojo moč. Zato stare imperialne metode ne bi več delovale. Nove sankcije, ki jih je uvedel

Krščanstvo je delalo delitev in uničenje namesto enotnosti in reda. To je bil čas, poln tragedij. Civilizacija, kot velikansko drevo, katerega listje je prekrilo svet in katerega veje so rodile zlate sadove umetnosti, znanosti in literature, stal opotekajoč, njegovo deblo ni več živo od tekočega soka vdanosti in spoštovanja, vendar je zgnil do srži, razklana od vojnih viharjev, in jih držijo skupaj samo vrvi starodavnih običajev in zakonov, ki lahko vsak trenutek zaskoči. Ali je bilo mogoče vnesti kakšno čustveno kulturo, ponovno zbrati človeštvo v enotnost in rešiti civilizacijo? Ta kultura mora biti nekaj novega tipa, kajti stare sankcije in obredi so bili mrtvi, in zgraditi druge iste vrste bi bilo delo

stoletja.« Pisatelj nam nato pove, da je svet potreboval novo kulturo, ki bi prevzela mesto kulture prestola., in sistemi združevanja, ki so temeljili na krvnem sorodstvu.

Čudovito je, dodaja, da bi morala taka kultura iz Arabije priti ravno v času, ko je bila najbolj potrebna. Tukaj je, vendar, nič neverjetnega v tem pojavu. Svet-življenje intuitivno vidi svoje potrebe, in v kritičnih trenutkih določi svojo smer. To je kaj, v jeziku vere, imenujemo preroško razodetje. Povsem naravno je, da je islam zablestel v zavesti preprostega ljudstva, ki se ga nobena starodavna kultura ni dotaknila., in zaseda geografski položaj, kjer se tri celine srečajo. Nova kultura najde temelj svetovne enotnosti v načelu Tauhâd.«5 Islam, kot politiko, je le praktično sredstvo, da to načelo postane živi dejavnik v intelektualnem in čustvenem življenju človeštva. Zahteva zvestobo Bogu, ne na prestole. In ker je Bog končna duhovna osnova vsega življenja, zvestoba Bogu dejansko pomeni človekovo zvestobo svoji idealni naravi. Najvišja duhovna osnova vsega življenja, kot ga pojmuje islam, je večna in se razodeva v raznolikosti in spreminjanju. Družba, ki temelji na takšnem pojmovanju Realnosti, se mora uskladiti, v svojem življenju, kategorije stalnosti in spreminjanja. Imeti mora večna načela za urejanje svojega skupnega življenja, kajti večno nam daje oporo v svetu nenehnih sprememb.

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.

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. These new situations entail theoretical and methodological challenges for the study of contemporary Islam, and it has become crucial that we avoid essentializing either Islam or Muslims and resist the rhetorical structures of discourses that are preoccupied with security and terrorism.

In this article, I argue that Islam as a religious tradition is a terra incognita. A preliminary reason for this situation is that there is no consensus on religion as an object of research. Religion, as an academic discipline, has become torn between historical, sociological, and hermeneutical methodologies. With Islam, the situation is even more intricate. In the West, the study of Islam began as a branch of Orientalist studies and therefore followed a separate and distinctive path from the study of religions. 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

context.

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 (namreč, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in

Gaza, hereafter OPT). Professor Dugard posed the question: Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. Ob istem času, 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, in, if so, do elements of its occupation of these territories amount to colonialism or apartheid? South Africa has an obvious interest in these questions given its bitter history of apartheid, which entailed the denial of selfdetermination

to its majority population and, during its occupation of Namibia, the extension of apartheid to that territory which South Africa effectively sought to colonise. These unlawful practices must not be replicated elsewhere: other peoples must not suffer in the way the populations of South Africa and Namibia have suffered.

To explore these issues, an international team of scholars was assembled. The aim of this project was to scrutinise the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric. This study is the outcome of a fifteen-month collaborative process of intensive research, consultation, writing and review. It concludes and, it is to be hoped, persuasively argues and clearly demonstrates that Israel, since 1967, has been the belligerent Occupying Power in the OPT, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid. Belligerent occupation in itself is not an unlawful situation: it is accepted as a possible consequence of armed conflict. Ob istem času, 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, moreover, 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.

In spite of it being both a perennial and a complex debate, Arches Quarterly reexamines from theological and practical grounds, the important debate about the relationship and compatibility between Islam and Democracy, as echoed in Barack Obama’s agenda of hope and change. Whilst many celebrate Obama’s ascendancy to the Oval Office as a national catharsis for the US, others remain less optimistic of a shift in ideology and approach in the international arena. While much of the tension and distrust between the Muslim world and the USA can be attributed to the approach of promoting democracy, typically favoring dictatorships and puppet regimes that pay lip-service to democratic values and human rights, the aftershock of 9/11 has truly cemented the misgivings further through America’s position on political Islam. It has created a wall of negativity as found by worldpublicopinion.org, according to which 67% of Egyptians believe that globally America is playing a “mainly negative” role.

America’s response has thus been apt. By electing Obama, many around the world are pinning their hopes for developing a less belligerent, but fairer foreign policy towards the Muslim world. Th e test for Obama, as we discuss, is how America and her allies promote democracy. Will it be facilitating or imposing?

Še več, 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, namreč, in Indonesia and Malaysia.

We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, ZDA, 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.