RSSВсички записи в "Далеч на изток" Категория

Ислямът и създаването на държавна власт

seyyed vali reza nasr

В 1979 Генерал Мохамед Зия ул-Хак, военният владетел на Пакистан, обяви, че Пакистан ще стане ислямска държава. Ислямските ценности и норми биха послужили като основа на националната идентичност, закон, икономика, и социалните отношения, и би вдъхновил всички политики. В 1980 Махатхир Мохамед |, новият премиер на Малайзия, въведе подобен широкообхватен план за закрепване на изготвянето на държавна политика в ислямските ценности, и да приведе законите и икономическите практики на своята страна в съответствие с учението на исляма. Защо тези владетели избраха пътя на “ислямизацията” за своите страни? И как някогашните светски постколониални държави станаха агенти на ислямизацията и предвестник на „истинската“ ислямска държава?
Малайзия и Пакистан след края на 70 -те - началото на 80 -те години следват уникален път на развитие, който се различава от опита на други държави от Третия свят. В тези две държави религиозната идентичност е интегрирана в държавната идеология, за да информира целта и процеса на развитие с ислямските ценности.
Това начинание също представи много различна картина на връзката между исляма и политиката в мюсюлманските общества. В Малайзия и Пакистан, това са държавни институции, а не ислямистки активисти (тези, които се застъпват за политически прочит на исляма; известен също като възрожденци или фундаменталисти) които са били пазители на исляма и защитници на неговите интереси. Това предполага а
много различна динамика в приливите и отливите на ислямската политика - най-малкото сочеща значението на държавата в перипетиите на това явление.
Какво да правим със светските държави, които се превръщат в ислямски? Какво означава такава трансформация за държавата, както и за ислямската политика?
Тази книга се бори с тези въпроси. Това не е изчерпателен разказ за политиката на Малайзия или Пакистан, нито обхваща всички аспекти на ролята на исляма в техните общества и политика, въпреки че аналитичният разказ се спира значително на тези въпроси. Тази книга е по-скоро социално научно изследване на феномена на светските постколониални държави, които се превръщат в агенти на ислямизация, и по-широко как културата и религията обслужват нуждите на държавната власт и развитие. 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.

ИСЛЯМ, ДЕМОКРАЦИЯ & САЩ:

Фондация Кордоба

Абдула Фалик |

Въведение ,


Въпреки, че това е многогодишен и сложен дебат, Arches Quarterly преразглежда от богословска и практическа основа, важният дебат за връзката и съвместимостта между исляма и демокрацията, както е отекнало в дневния ред на Барак Обама за надежда и промяна. Докато мнозина празнуват възхода на Обама в Овалния кабинет като национален катарзис за САЩ, други остават по-малко оптимисти за промяна в идеологията и подхода на международната арена. Докато голяма част от напрежението и недоверието между мюсюлманския свят и САЩ може да се дължи на подхода за насърчаване на демокрацията, обикновено предпочитат диктатури и марионетни режими, които плащат на глас на демократичните ценности и правата на човека, вторичният трус от 9/11 наистина засили опасенията допълнително чрез позицията на Америка относно политическия ислям. Той създаде стена от негативизъм, както е намерено от worldpublicopinion.org, според което 67% от египтяните вярват, че в световен мащаб Америка играе „предимно негативна“ роля.
Следователно реакцията на Америка е подходяща. С избирането на Обама, мнозина по света възлагат надеждите си за развитие на по-малко войнствена, но по-справедлива външна политика спрямо мюсюлманския свят. Тестът за Обама, както обсъждаме, е как Америка и нейните съюзници насърчават демокрацията. Дали ще бъде улесняващо или налагащо?
освен това, може ли важното да бъде честен брокер в продължителни зони на конфликти? Привличане на експертиза и прозрение на prolifi
c учени, академици, опитни журналисти и политици, Arches Quarterly извежда на бял свят връзката между исляма и демокрацията и ролята на Америка – както и промените, направени от Обама, в търсене на общото. Анас Алтикрити, главният изпълнителен директор на Th e Cordoba Foundation дава началния гамбит за тази дискусия, където разсъждава върху надеждите и предизвикателствата, които лежат на пътя на Обама. След Алтикрити, бившият съветник на президента Никсън, Д-р Робърт Крейн предлага задълбочен анализ на ислямския принцип на правото на свобода. Ануар Ибрахим, бивш вицепремиер на Малайзия, обогатява дискусията с практическите реалности на прилагането на демокрацията в мюсюлманските доминиращи общества, а именно, в Индонезия и Малайзия.
Имаме и д-р Ширийн Хънтър, от Джорджтаунския университет, САЩ, който изследва мюсюлманските страни, изоставащи в демократизацията и модернизацията. Това е допълнено от писателя на тероризма, Обяснението на д-р Нафиз Ахмед за кризата на постмодерността и
крах на демокрацията. д-р Дауд Абдула (Директор на Middle East Media Monitor), Алън Харт (бивш кореспондент на ITN и BBC Panorama; автор на ционизма: Истинският враг на евреите) и Асем Сондос (Редактор на египетския седмичник Sawt Al Omma) да се съсредоточи върху Обама и неговата роля по отношение на насърчаването на демокрацията в мюсюлманския свят, както и отношенията на САЩ с Израел и Мюсюлманските братя.
Министър на външните работи, Малдивите, Ахмед Шахид спекулира с бъдещето на исляма и демокрацията; Cllr. Гери Маклохлайн
– член на Шин Фейн, който изтърпя четири години затвор за дейностите на ирландските републикански и активист на Гилфорд 4 и Бирмингам 6, отразява неотдавнашното си пътуване до Газа, където стана свидетел на въздействието на бруталността и несправедливостта, извършени срещу палестинците; Д-р Мари Брийн-Смит, Директорът на Центъра за изследване на радикализацията и съвременното политическо насилие обсъжда предизвикателствата на критично изследване на политическия терор; д-р Халид ал-Мубарак, писател и драматург, обсъжда перспективите за мир в Дарфур; и накрая журналистът и активист за правата на човека Ашур Шамис гледа критично на демократизацията и политизацията на мюсюлманите днес.
Надяваме се всичко това да бъде изчерпателно четене и източник за размисъл по въпроси, които засягат всички нас в нова зора на надеждата.
Благодаря ти

Мюсюлмански архипелаг

Max L. Брутно

Тази книга се създава много години, както обяснява авторът в своя Предговор, въпреки че той написа по-голямата част от действителния текст през годината си като старши научен сътрудник в Центъра за стратегически разузнавателни изследвания. Авторът е бил дълги години декан на Школата по разузнаване в Съвместния колеж за военно разузнаване. Въпреки че изглежда, че книгата е можела да бъде написана от всеки добър историк или регионален специалист от Югоизточна Азия, тази работа е осветена от повече от три десетилетия на работа на автора в националната разузнавателна общност. Неговият регионален опит често се прилага при специални оценки за Общността. С познаване на исляма, несравнимо сред връстниците му, и неутолима жажда за определяне как целите на тази религия могат да се играят в области, далеч от фокуса на вниманието на повечето политици в момента, авторът се възползва максимално от тази възможност, за да запознае разузнавателната общност и по-широка читателска аудитория със стратегическото оценяване на даден регион в разгара на помирението на светските и религиозните сили.
Тази публикация е одобрена за неограничено разпространение от Службата за преглед на сигурността, Министерство на отбраната.

Islamist Opposition Parties and the Potential for EU Engagement

Тоби Арчър

Хайди Хуутанен

In light of the increasing importance of Islamist movements in the Muslim world and

the way that radicalisation has influenced global events since the turn of the century, it

is important for the EU to evaluate its policies towards actors within what can be loosely

termed the ‘Islamic world’. It is particularly important to ask whether and how to engage

with the various Islamist groups.

This remains controversial even within the EU. Some feel that the Islamic values that

lie behind Islamist parties are simply incompatible with western ideals of democracy and

човешки права, 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, и

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.

Resolving America’s Islamist Dilemma: Lessons from South and Southeast Asia

Шади Хамид
нас. efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East have long been paralyzed by the “Islamist dilemma”: in theory, we want democracy, but, in practice, fear that Islamist parties will be the prime beneficiaries of any political opening. The most tragic manifestation of this was the Algerian debacle of 1991 и 1992, when the United States stood silently while the staunchly secular military canceled elections after an Islamist party won a parliamentary majority. More recently, the Bush administration backed away from its “freedom agenda” after Islamists did surprisingly well in elections throughout region, including in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories.
But even our fear of Islamist parties—and the resulting refusal to engage with them—has itself been inconsistent, holding true for some countries but not others. The more that a country is seen as vital to American national security interests, the less willing the United States has been to accept Islamist groups having a prominent political role there. въпреки това, in countries seen as less strategically relevant, and where less is at stake, the United States has occasionally taken a more nuanced approach. But it is precisely where more is at stake that recognizing a role for nonviolent Islamists is most important, и, here, American policy continues to fall short.
Throughout the region, the United States has actively supported autocratic regimes and given the green light for campaigns of repression against groups such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and most influential political movement in the region. In March 2008, during what many observers consider to be the worst period of anti-Brotherhood repression since the 1960s, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waived a $100 million congressionally mandated reduction of military aid to Egypt. The situation in Jordan is similar. The Bush administration and the Democratic congress have hailed the country as a “model” of Arab reform at precisely the same time that it has been devising new ways to manipulate the electoral process to limit Islamist representation, and just as it held elections plagued by widespread allegations of outright fraud
and rigging.1 This is not a coincidence. Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab countries that have signed peace treaties with Israel. освен това, they are seen as crucial to U.S. efforts to counter Iran, stabilize Iraq, and combat terrorism.

BETWEEN THE GLOBAL AND THE LOCAL

АНТОНИ БУБАЛО

GREG FEALY

Against the background of the ‘war on terror’,many people have come to view Islamism as amonolithic ideological movement spreading from thecenter of the Muslim world, the Middle East, toMuslim countries around the globe. To borrow aphrase from Abdullah Azzam, the legendary jihadistwho fought to expel the Soviet Union fromAfghanistan in the 1980s, many today see all Islamistsas fellow travellers in a global fundamentalist caravan.This paper evaluates the truth of that perception. Itdoes so by examining the spread of two broad categoriesof Islamic thinking and activism — the morepolitically focused Islamism and more religiouslyfocused ‘neo-fundamentalism’ — from the MiddleEast to Indonesia, a country often cited as an exampleof a formerly peaceful Muslim community radicalizedby external influences.Islamism is a term familiar to many.Most commonly itis used to categorize ideas and forms of activism thatconceive of Islam as a political ideology. Today, a widerange of groups are classified as Islamist, from theEgyptian Muslim Brotherhood to al-qa‘ida.While sucha categorization remains appropriate in many cases,Islamism seems less useful as a label for those groupsthat do not see Islam as a political ideology and largelyeschew political activism — even if their activism sometimeshas political implications. Included in this categoryare groups concerned primarily with Islamic mission-IV Be t w e e n t h e G l o b a l a n d t h e L o c a l : Ислямизъм, the Mi d d l e E a s t , a n d Indonesiaary activity, but it would also include a group such asal-qa‘ida whose acts of terrorism are arguably drivenless by concrete political objectives than religious inspiration,albeit of a misguided form. This paper thereforeuses the term ‘neo-fundamentalist’, developed by theFrench scholar Olivier Roy, to describe these groups andwill study the transmission of both Islamist and neofundamentalistideas to Indonesia.

ISLAMIC MODERNITIES: FETHULLAH GULEN and CONTEMPORARY ISLAM

ФАХРИ ЦАКИ

The Nurju movement1, being the oldest moderate Islamist movement which is probably peculiar to Modern Turkey, was broken into several groups since Said Nursi, the founder of the movement, passed away in 1960. At the present time, there are more than ten nurcu groups with different agendas and strategies. Despite all their differences, today the Nurju groups seem to acknowledge each other’s identity and try to keep a certain level of solidarity. Theplace of the Fethullah Gulen group within the Nurju movement, въпреки това, seems to be a bit shaky.Fethullah Gulen (b.1938) split himself, at least in appearance, from the overall Nurju movement in 1972 and succeeded in establishing his own group with a strong organizational structure in the 1980’s and the 90’s. Due to the development of its broad school network both in Turkey and abroad2, his group attracted attention. Those schools fascinated not only Islamist businessmen and middle classes but also a large number of secularist intellectuals and politicians. Although it originally emerged out of the overall Nurju movement, some believe that the number of the followers of the Fethullah Gulen group is much larger than that of the total of the rest of the nurju groups. Yet, there seems to be enough reason to think that there was a price to pay for this success: alienation from other Islamist groups as well as from the overall Nurju movement of which the Fethullah Gulen group3 itself is supposed to be a part.

Прогресивна ислямска мисъл, гражданското общество и движението на Гюлен в национален контекст

Greg Barton

Фетхулах Гюлен (born 1941), or Hodjaeffendi as he is known affectionately by hundreds of thousands of people in his native Turkey and abroad, is one of the most significant Islamic thinkers and activists to have emerged in the twentieth century. His optimistic and forward-looking thought, with its emphasis on self development of both heart and mind through education, of engaging proactively and positively with the modern world and of reaching out in dialogue and a spirit of cooperation between religious communities, social strata and nations can be read as a contemporary reformulation of the teachings of Jalaluddin Rumi, Yunus Emre, and other classic Sufi teachers (Michel, 2005а, 2005b; Saritoprak, 2003; 2005а; 2005b; Unal and Williams, 2005). More specifically, Gulen can be seen to be carrying on where Said Nursi (1876-1960), another great Anatolian Islamic intellectual, left off: chartinga way for Muslim activists in Turkey and beyond to effectively contribute to the development of modern society that avoids the pitfalls and compromises of party-political activism and replaces the narrowness of Islamist thought with a genuinely inclusive and humanitarian understanding of religion’s role in the modern world (Abu-Rabi, 1995; Markham and Ozdemir, 2005; Vahide, 2005, Yavuz, 2005а).

The United States and Egypt

A Conference Report

The study of bilateral relations has fallen deeply out of favor in the academiccommunity. Political science has turned to the study of international state systemsrather than relations between individual states; anthropologists and sociologists arefar more interested in non-state actors; and historians have largely abandonedstates altogether. It is a shame, because there is much to be learned from bilateralrelationships, and some such relationships are vital—not only to the countriesinvolved, but also to a broader array of countries.One such vital relationship is that between the United States and Egypt. Forgedduring the Cold War almost entirely on the issue of Arab-Israeli peacemaking, theU.S.-Egyptian bilateral relationship has deepened and broadened over the lastquarter century. Egypt remains one of the United States’ most important Arab allies,and the bilateral relationship with Washington remains the keystone of Egypt’sforeign policy. Strong U.S.-Egyptian bilateral relations are also an important anchorfor states throughout the Middle East and for Western policy in the region. Therelationship is valuable for policymakers in both countries; doing without it isunthinkable.To explore this relationship, the CSIS Middle East Program, in cooperation with theAl-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, convened a one-dayconference on June 26, 2003, entitled, “The United States and Egypt: Building thePartnership.” The goal of the meeting was to brainstorm how that partnership mightbe strengthened.Participants agreed that much needs to be done on the diplomatic, political, военни,and economic levels. Although all did not agree on a single course forward, theparticipants unanimously concurred that a stronger U.S.-Egyptian relationship is verymuch in the interests of both countries, and although it will require a great deal ofwork to achieve, the benefits are worth the effort.

Will Turkey Have An Islamist President?

Майкъл Рубин


While the campaigns have not officially begun, election season in Turkey is heating up. This spring, the

Turkish parliament will select a president to replace current president Ahmet Necdet Sezer, whose seven-year

term ends on May 16, 2007. On or before November 4, 2007, Turks will head to the polls to choose a new

parliament. Not only does this year mark the first since 1973—and 1950 before that—in which Turks will

inaugurate a new president and parliament in the same year, but this year’s polls will also impact the future

of Turkey more than perhaps any election in the past half century. If Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo˘gan

wins the presidency and his Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, also known as

ПСР) retains its parliamentary majority, Islamists would control all Turkish offices and be positioned to

erode secularism and redefine state and society.If Erdo˘gan ascends to Çankaya Palace—the

Turkish White House—Turks face the prospect if an Islamist president and a first lady who wears

a Saudi-style headscarf. Such a prospect has fueled speculation about intervention by the Turkish military,

which traditionally serves as the guardian of secularism and the Turkish constitution. In December

2006, например, Newsweek published an essay entitled “The Coming Coup d’Etat?” predicting

а 50 percent chance of the military seizing control in Turkey this year.1

While concern about the future of Turkish secularism is warranted, alarmism about military
intervention is not. There will be no more military coups in Turkey. Erdog˘ an may be prepared to
spark a constitutional crisis in pursuit of personal ambition and ideological agenda, but Turkey’s
civilian institutions are strong enough to confront the challenge. The greatest danger to Turkish
democracy will not be Turkish military intervention,but rather well-meaning but naïve interference
by U.S. diplomats seeking stability and downplaying the Islamist threat.

While the campaigns have not officially begun, election season in Turkey is heating up. This spring, theTurkish parliament will select a president to replace current president Ahmet Necdet Sezer, whose seven-yearterm ends on May 16, 2007. On or before November 4, 2007, Turks will head to the polls to choose a newparliament. Not only does this year mark the first since 1973—and 1950 before that—in which Turks willinaugurate a new president and parliament in the same year, but this year’s polls will also impact the futureof Turkey more than perhaps any election in the past half century. If Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo˘gan wins the presidency and his Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi, also known asAKP) retains its parliamentary majority, Islamists would control all Turkish offices and be positioned toerode secularism and redefine state and society.If Erdo˘gan ascends to Çankaya Palace—theTurkish White House—Turks face the prospect if an Islamist president and a first lady who wearsa Saudi-style headscarf. Such a prospect has fueled speculation about intervention by the Turkish military,which traditionally serves as the guardian of secularism and the Turkish constitution. In December2006, например, Newsweek published an essay entitled “The Coming Coup d’Etat?” predictinga 50 percent chance of the military seizing control in Turkey this year.1While concern about the future of Turkish secularism is warranted, alarmism about militaryintervention is not. There will be no more military coups in Turkey. Erdog˘ an may be prepared tospark a constitutional crisis in pursuit of personal ambition and ideological agenda, but Turkey’scivilian institutions are strong enough to confront the challenge. The greatest danger to Turkishdemocracy will not be Turkish military intervention,but rather well-meaning but naïve interferenceby U.S. diplomats seeking stability and downplaying the Islamist threat.

Islamic Movements and the Use of Violence:

Есен Кирдис

.


Despite recent academic and popular focus on violent transnational Islamic terrorist networks,there is a multiplicity of Islamic movements. This multiplicity presents scholars with two puzzles. The first puzzle is understanding why domestic-oriented Islamic movements that were formed as a reaction to the establishment of secular nation-states shifted their activities and targets onto a multi-layered transnational space. The second puzzle is understanding why groups with similar aims and targets adopt different strategies of using violence or nonviolence when they “go transnational.” The two main questions that this paper will address are: Why do Islamic movements go transnational? And, why do they take on different forms when they transnationalize? First, I argue that the transnational level presents a new political venue for Islamic movements which are limited in their claim making at the domestic level. Второ, I argue that transnationalization creates uncertainty for groups about their identity and claims at the transnational level. The medium adopted, i.e. use of violence versus non-violence, is dependent on type of transnationalization, the actors encounter at the transnational level, and leadership’s interpretations on where the movement should go next. To answer my questions, I will look at four cases: (1) Turkish Islam, (2) the Muslim Brotherhood, (3) Джемаа Исламия, и (4) Tablighi Jamaat

Assessing the Islamist mainstream in Egypt and Malaysia

Beyond ‘Terrorism’ and ‘StateHegemony’: assessing the Islamistmainstream in Egypt and Malaysia

ДЖАН СТАРКMalaysia-Islamists

International networks of Islamic ‘terrorism’ have served as themost popular explanation to describe the phenomenon of political Islam sincethe 11 September attacks.

This paper argues that both the self-proclaimeddoctrinal Islam of the militants and Western perceptions of a homogeneousIslamist threat need to be deconstructed in order to discover the oftenambiguous manifestations of ‘official’ and ‘opposition’ Islam, of modernity andconservatism.

As a comparison of two Islamic countries, Egypt and Malaysia,which both claim a leading role in their respective regions, shows, moderateIslamic groups have had a considerable impact on processes of democratisationand the emergence of civil society during the quarter century since the ‘Islamicresurgence’.

Shared experiences like coalition building and active participationwithin the political system demonstrate the influence and importance of groupssuch as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM) or the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS).

These groups haveshaped the political landscape to a much larger extent than the current pre-occupation with the ‘terrorist threat’ suggests. The gradual development of a‘culture of dialogue’ has rather revealed new approaches towards politicalparticipation and democracy at the grassroots level.