RSSTotes les entrades al "Orient" Categoria

L'Islam i la creació del poder estatal

Seyyed Reza Vali Nasr

a 1979 General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, el governant militar del Pakistan, va declarar que el Pakistan es convertiria en un estat islàmic. Els valors i les normes islàmiques servirien com a fonament de la identitat nacional, Llei, economia, i les relacions socials, i inspiraria tota l'elaboració de polítiques. a 1980 Mahathir Muhammad, el nou primer ministre de Malàisia, va introduir un pla similar de base àmplia per ancorar l'elaboració de polítiques estatals als valors islàmics, i posar les lleis i pràctiques econòmiques del seu país en línia amb els ensenyaments de l'Islam. Per què aquests governants van triar el camí de la "islamització" per als seus països? I com es van convertir els estats postcolonials laics en un temps en els agents de la islamització i en el presagi del "vertader" estat islàmic?
Des de finals de la dècada de 1970 i principis de la dècada de 1980, Malàisia i Pakistan han seguit un camí únic cap al desenvolupament que divergeix de les experiències d'altres estats del Tercer Món.. En aquests dos països la identitat religiosa es va integrar a la ideologia estatal per informar l'objectiu i el procés de desenvolupament amb valors islàmics..
Aquesta empresa també ha presentat una imatge molt diferent de la relació entre l'islam i la política a les societats musulmanes. A Malàisia i Pakistan, han estat institucions estatals més que activistes islamistes (aquells que defensen una lectura política de l'islam; també coneguts com a revivalistes o fonamentalistes) 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, i de manera més àmplia com la cultura i la religió serveixen les necessitats del poder i el desenvolupament de l'estat. L'anàlisi aquí es basa en discussions teòriques
en les ciències socials del comportament de l'estat i el paper de la cultura i la religió en ell. Més important, extreu inferències dels casos examinats per treure conclusions més àmplies d'interès per a les disciplines.

ISLAM, DEMOCRÀCIA & ELS ESTATS UNITS D'AMÈRICA:

Fundació Còrdova

Abdullah Faliq

Introducció ,


Tot i que és alhora un debat perenne i complex, Arches Quarterly reexamina des de motius teològics i pràctics, l'important debat sobre la relació i la compatibilitat entre l'islam i la democràcia, tal com es fa ressò a l'agenda d'esperança i canvi de Barack Obama. Mentre que molts celebren l'ascens d'Obama a l'Oficina Oval com a catarsi nacional dels EUA, d'altres continuen sent menys optimistes pel que fa a un canvi d'ideologia i d'enfocament en l'àmbit internacional. Si bé bona part de la tensió i desconfiança entre el món musulmà i els EUA es pot atribuir a l'enfocament de promoció de la democràcia, normalment afavoreixen dictadures i règims titella que presten la boca als valors democràtics i als drets humans, la rèplica de 9/11 ha consolidat realment els recels a través de la posició dels Estats Units sobre l'islam polític. Ha creat un mur de negativitat tal com ha trobat worldpublicopinion.org, segons el qual 67% dels egipcis creuen que a nivell mundial Amèrica està jugant un paper "principalment negatiu"..
Per tant, la resposta dels Estats Units ha estat encertada. Amb l'elecció d'Obama, molts d'arreu del món estan tenint les seves esperances per desenvolupar un país menys bel·ligerant, però una política exterior més justa envers el món musulmà. La prova per a Obama, mentre comentem, és com Amèrica i els seus aliats promouen la democràcia. Serà facilitador o imposant?
A més, Pot ser important ser un corredor honest en zones prolongades de confl ictes? Reclutar l'experiència i la visió de prolifi
c estudiosos, acadèmics, periodistes i polítics experimentats, Arches Quarterly treu a la llum la relació entre l'islam i la democràcia i el paper d'Amèrica, així com els canvis provocats per Obama, en la recerca del terreny comú. Anas Altikriti, el conseller delegat de la Fundació Còrdova ofereix el punt d'obertura d'aquesta discussió, on reflexiona sobre les esperances i els reptes que descansa en el camí d'Obama. Seguint Altikriti, l'antic assessor del president Nixon, El doctor Robert Crane ofereix una anàlisi exhaustiva del principi islàmic del dret a la llibertat. Anwar Ibrahim, exviceprimer ministre de Malàisia, enriqueix la discussió amb les realitats pràctiques de la implementació de la democràcia a les societats dominants musulmanes, és a dir, a Indonèsia i Malàisia.
També tenim la doctora Shireen Hunter, de la Universitat de Georgetown, EUA, que explora els països musulmans endarrerits en la democratització i la modernització. Això es complementa amb l'escriptor de terrorisme, L'explicació del doctor Nafeez Ahmed de la crisi de la postmodernitat i la
desaparició de la democràcia. Dr. Daud Abdullah (Director de Middle East Media Monitor), Alan Hart (antic corresponsal d'ITN i BBC Panorama; autor del sionisme: El veritable enemic dels jueus) i Asem Sondos (Editor del setmanari egipci Sawt Al Omma) concentrar-se en Obama i el seu paper en la promoció de la democràcia al món musulmà, així com les relacions dels EUA amb Israel i els Germans Musulmans.
Ministre d'Afers Exteriors, Maldives, Ahmed Shaheed especula sobre el futur de l'islam i la democràcia; Cllr. Gerry Maclochlainn
– membre del Sinn Féin que va suportar quatre anys de presó per activitats republicanes irlandeses i activista de Guildford 4 i Birmingham 6, reflexiona sobre el seu recent viatge a Gaza, on va presenciar l'impacte de la brutalitat i la injustícia contra els palestins.; Dr. Marie Breen-Smyth, El director del Centre per a l'Estudi de la Radicalització i la Violència Política Contemporània parla dels reptes de la investigació crítica del terror polític; Dr Khalid al-Mubarak, escriptor i dramaturg, discuteix les perspectives de pau a Darfur; i, finalment, el periodista i activista dels drets humans Ashur Shamis mira de manera crítica la democratització i la politització dels musulmans d'avui.
Esperem que tot això sigui una lectura exhaustiva i una font de reflexió sobre temes que ens afecten a tots en una nova alborada d'esperança..
Gràcies

A Muslim Archipelago

Max L. brut

This book has been many years in the making, as the author explains in his Preface, though he wrote most of the actual text during his year as senior Research Fellow with the Center for Strategic Intelligence Research. The author was for many years Dean of the School of Intelligence Studies at the Joint Military Intelligence College. Even though it may appear that the book could have been written by any good historian or Southeast Asia regional specialist, this work is illuminated by the author’s more than three decades of service within the national Intelligence Community. His regional expertise often has been applied to special assessments for the Community. With a knowledge of Islam unparalleled among his peers and an unquenchable thirst for determining how the goals of this religion might play out in areas far from the focus of most policymakers’ current attention, the author has made the most of this opportunity to acquaint the Intelligence Community and a broader readership with a strategic appreciation of a region in the throes of reconciling secular and religious forces.
This publication has been approved for unrestricted distribution by the Office of Security Review, Department of Defense.

Islamist Opposition Parties and the Potential for EU Engagement

Toby Archer

Heidi Huuhtanen

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

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

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

drets humans, 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, islamista

parties and movements constitute a significant opposition to the prevailing regimes, i

in some they form the largest opposition bloc. European democracies have long had to

tractar amb règims de govern que són autoritaris, però és un fenomen nou de premsa

per a la reforma democràtica als estats on els beneficiaris més probables podrien tenir, des del

punt de vista de la UE, enfocaments diferents i de vegades problemàtics de la democràcia i la seva

valors relacionats, com ara els drets de les minories i de les dones i l'estat de dret. Aquests càrrecs són

sovint contra els moviments islamistes, per tant, és important que els responsables polítics europeus ho facin

tenir una imatge precisa de les polítiques i les filosofies dels possibles socis.

Les experiències de diferents països tendeixen a suggerir que més llibertat és islamista

es permeten festes, més moderats són en les seves accions i idees. En molts

casos, els partits i grups islamistes fa temps que s'han allunyat del seu objectiu original

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

Shadi Hamid
nosaltres. 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 i 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. malgrat això, 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, i, aquí, 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. Al març 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. A més, they are seen as crucial to U.S. efforts to counter Iran, stabilize Iraq, and combat terrorism.

BETWEEN THE GLOBAL AND THE LOCAL

ANTHONY Bubalo

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. avui, 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 : islamisme, 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

Ferguson Caki

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, malgrat això, 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. No obstant això, 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.

pensament islàmic progressiva, la societat civil i el moviment Gülen en el context nacional

Greg Barton

Gülen (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, 2005a, 2005b; Saritoprak, 2003; 2005a; 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, 2005a).

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, militar,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?

Michael Rubin


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

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

AKP) 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, for example, Newsweek published an essay entitled “The Coming Coup d’Etat?” predicting

a 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, for example, 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.

Moviments islàmics i ús de la violència:

Esen Kirdis

.


Malgrat l'enfocament acadèmic i popular recent en les xarxes terroristes islàmiques transnacionals violentes,hi ha una multiplicitat de moviments islàmics. Aquesta multiplicitat presenta dos trencaclosques als estudiosos. El primer trencaclosques és entendre per què els moviments islàmics d'orientació domèstica que es van formar com a reacció a l'establiment d'estats-nació seculars van canviar les seves activitats i objectius cap a un espai transnacional de múltiples capes.. El segon trencaclosques és entendre per què grups amb objectius i objectius similars adopten estratègies diferents d'utilitzar la violència o la noviolència quan "esdevenen transnacionals". Les dues qüestions principals que tractarà aquest article són: Per què els moviments islàmics són transnacionals?? I, per què adopten formes diferents quan es transnacionalitzen? Primer, Argumento que el nivell transnacional presenta un nou espai polític per als moviments islàmics que es limiten a fer reivindicacions a nivell intern.. Segon, Argumento que la transnacionalització crea incertesa per als grups sobre la seva identitat i reivindicacions a nivell transnacional.. El mitjà adoptat, és a dir. ús de la violència versus la no violència, depèn del tipus de transnacionalització, es troben els actors a nivell transnacional, i les interpretacions del lideratge sobre cap a on hauria d'anar el moviment. Per respondre les meves preguntes, Miraré quatre casos: (1) Islam turc, (2) els Germans Musulmans, (3) rovell Islamiya, i (4) Tablighi Jamaat

Assessing the Islamist mainstream in Egypt and Malaysia

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

gener FORTMalaysia-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.