RSSВсе записи в "Дальний Восток" Категория

Ислам и создание государственной власти

Сейед Реза Вали Наср

В 1979 Генерал Мухаммад Зия уль-Хак, военный правитель Пакистана, заявил, что Пакистан станет исламским государством. Исламские ценности и нормы послужат основой национальной идентичности., закон, экономика, и социальные отношения, и будет вдохновлять всю политику. В 1980 Махатхир Мухаммад, новый премьер-министр Малайзии, представил аналогичный широкомасштабный план, чтобы закрепить государственную политику на исламских ценностях., и привести законы и экономическую практику своей страны в соответствие с учением ислама.. Почему эти правители выбрали путь «исламизации» своих стран? И как некогда светские постколониальные государства стали агентами исламизации и предвестниками «настоящего» исламского государства?
Малайзия и Пакистан с конца 1970-х – начала 1980-х годов пошли по уникальному пути развития, отличающемуся от опыта других государств третьего мира.. В этих двух странах религиозная идентичность была интегрирована в государственную идеологию, чтобы наполнить цель и процесс развития исламскими ценностями..
Это предприятие также представило совершенно иную картину отношений между исламом и политикой в ​​мусульманских обществах.. В Малайзии и Пакистане, это были государственные институты, а не исламистские активисты (те, кто выступает за политическое прочтение ислама; также известный как возрожденцы или фундаменталисты) 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, и, в более широком смысле, как культура и религия служат нуждам государственной власти и развития.. Анализ здесь основан на теоретических дискуссиях.
в социальных науках о государственном поведении и роли в нем культуры и религии. Более важный, он делает выводы из рассматриваемых случаев, чтобы сделать более широкие выводы, представляющие интерес для дисциплин.

ISLAM, DEMOCRACY & THE USA:

Cordoba Foundation

Абдулла 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 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?
более того, 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, а именно, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, США, 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

A Muslim Archipelago

Макс L. Брутто

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.

Исламистские оппозиционные партии и потенциал взаимодействия с ЕС

Тоби Арчер

Хайди Huuhtanen

В свете растущего значения исламистских движений в мусульманском мире и

как радикализация повлияла на глобальные события с начала века, Это

ЕС важно оценить свою политику по отношению к акторам в рамках того, что может быть свободно

называют «исламским миром».. Особенно важно задаться вопросом, следует ли и как привлекать

с различными исламистскими группировками.

Это остается спорным даже в ЕС.. Некоторые считают, что исламские ценности, которые

лежащие за исламистскими партиями, просто несовместимы с западными идеалами демократии и

права человека, в то время как другие рассматривают взаимодействие как реальную необходимость в связи с растущим

значение исламистских партий внутри страны и их растущее участие в международной

дела. Другая точка зрения состоит в том, что демократизация в мусульманском мире усилится.

Европейская безопасность. Справедливость этих и других аргументов относительно того,

ЕС должен участвовать, можно проверить только путем изучения различных исламистских движений и

их политические обстоятельства, страна за страной.

Демократизация является центральной темой общих внешнеполитических действий ЕС., как положено

в статье 11 Договора о Европейском Союзе. Многие из государств, рассматриваемых в этом

доклад не демократичен, или не совсем демократично. В большинстве этих стран, исламист

партии и движения составляют значительную оппозицию господствующим режимам, а также

в некоторых они образуют крупнейший оппозиционный блок. Европейские демократии давно вынуждены

иметь дело с правящими режимами, которые являются авторитарными, но это новое явление, чтобы нажать

демократических реформ в штатах, где наиболее вероятные бенефициары могли, от

точка зрения ЕС, различные и иногда проблематичные подходы к демократии и ее

связанные значения, такие как права меньшинств и женщин и верховенство закона. Эти обвинения

часто выдвигается против исламистских движений, поэтому для европейских политиков важно

иметь точное представление о политике и философии потенциальных партнеров.

Опыт разных стран свидетельствует о том, что чем больше свободы исламисты

вечеринки разрешены, тем более они умеренны в своих действиях и идеях. Во многих

случаи, когда исламистские партии и группы уже давно отошли от своей первоначальной цели

создания исламского государства, основанного на исламском праве, и пришли к принятию основных

демократические принципы избирательной борьбы за власть, наличие других политических

конкуренты, и политический плюрализм.

Решение исламистских Америки Дилемма: Уроки из стран Южной и Юго-Восточной Азии

Шади Хамид
США. efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East have long been paralyzed by the “Islamist dilemma”: in theory, we want democracy, но, 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 а также 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. тем не мение, 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, а также, 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. более того, they are seen as crucial to U.S. efforts to counter Iran, stabilize Iraq, and combat terrorism.

МЕЖДУ глобальные и локальные

Антоний Бубало

Грег 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 : Исламизм, 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.

ИСЛАМСКАЯ MODERNITIES: Фетхуллаха Гюлена и современном Исламском

Почетный нож

Nurju movement1, является старейшим умеренные исламистские движения которая, вероятно, свойственных современной Турции, была разбита на несколько групп, так как Саид Нурси, основатель движения, скончался в 1960. В настоящее время, Есть более чем 10 групп nurcu различных программах и стратегиях. Несмотря на все их различия, Сегодня Nurju групп как представляется, признать личности друг друга и попытаться сохранить определенный уровень солидарности. Theplace группы Фетхуллаха Гюлена в движении Nurju, однако, , кажется, немного shaky.Fethullah Гюлена (b.1938) split himself, по крайней мере по внешнему виду, от общего движения в Nurju 1972 и преуспел в создании своей собственной группы с сильной организационной структуры в 1980-х и 90-х годов. В связи с развитием его широкая сеть школ в Турции и abroad2, его группа привлекла внимание. Эти школы очарованы не только исламистские предпринимателей и среднего класса, но и большое количество светских интеллектуалов и политиков. Хотя первоначально возникли из общего движения Nurju, некоторые считают, что число последователей группы Фетхуллаха Гюлена гораздо больше, чем у всего остального nurju групп. Еще, как представляется, будет достаточно оснований полагать, что существует плата за успех: отчуждение от других исламистских групп, а также от общего движения Nurju которых Фетхуллаха Гюлена group3 сама должна быть частью.

Прогрессивная исламской мысли, гражданского общества и движения Гюлена в национальном контексте

Greg Barton

Фетхуллаха Гюлена (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, 2005б; Saritoprak, 2003; 2005а; 2005б; 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, военные,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.

Будет ли Турция исламистским Президента?

Майкл Рубин


Хотя кампании официально не началась, сезон выборов в Турции накаляется. Весной этого года, 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

парламент. 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, 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.

Хотя кампании официально не началась, сезон выборов в Турции накаляется. Весной этого года, 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.

Исламских движений и применение насилия:

Блоуинг Kirdis

.


Несмотря на недавнее научное и популярное внимание к насильственным транснациональным исламским террористическим сетям,существует множество исламских движений. Эта множественность ставит перед учеными две головоломки.. Первая загадка заключается в понимании того, почему исламистские движения внутренней ориентации, сформировавшиеся как реакция на создание светских национальных государств, перенесли свою деятельность и цели в многослойное транснациональное пространство.. Вторая загадка - понять, почему группы со схожими целями и задачами применяют разные стратегии использования насилия или ненасилия, когда они «переходят на международный уровень». В этом документе будут рассмотрены два основных вопроса:: Почему исламские движения становятся транснациональными? И, почему они принимают разные формы при транснационализации? Первый, Я утверждаю, что транснациональный уровень представляет собой новую политическую площадку для исламских движений, которые ограничены в своих претензиях на внутреннем уровне.. Второй, Я утверждаю, что транснационализация создает для групп неуверенность в отношении их идентичности и требований на транснациональном уровне.. Среда принята, т.е.. использование насилия против ненасилия, зависит от типа транснационализации, актеры сталкиваются на транснациональном уровне, и интерпретации руководства о том, где движение должно развиваться дальше. Чтобы ответить на мои вопросы, Я посмотрю на четыре случая: (1) Турецкий ислам, (2) Братья-мусульмане, (3) "Джемаа исламия", а также (4) Таблиги Джамаат

Оценка основных исламистских в Египте и Малайзии

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

Январь STRONGMalaysia-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.