RSSУсе запісы ў "Малайзія" Катэгорыя

Islam and the Making of State Power

Сеед Валі Наср Рэза

У 1979 General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, the military ruler of Pakistan, declared that Pakistan would become an Islamic state. Islamic values and norms would serve as the foundation of national identity, law, economy, and social relations, and would inspire all policy making. У 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? І як аднаразовыя свецкія посткаланіяльныя дзяржавы сталі агентамі ісламізацыі і прадвеснікамі "сапраўднай" ісламскай дзяржавы?
Малайзія і Пакістан з канца 1970-х - пачатку 1980-х гадоў прайшлі унікальны шлях да развіцця, які разыходзіцца з вопытам іншых дзяржаў Трэцяга свету. У гэтых дзвюх краінах рэлігійная ідэнтычнасць была ўбудаваная ў дзяржаўную ідэалогію, каб забяспечыць мэта і працэс развіцця ісламскімі каштоўнасцямі.
Гэта пачынанне таксама прадставіла зусім іншую карціну адносін паміж ісламам і палітыкай у мусульманскіх грамадствах. У Малайзіі і Пакістане, гэта былі дзяржаўныя інстытуты, а не ісламісцкія актывісты (тыя, хто выступае за палітычнае прачытанне ісламу; таксама вядомы як адраджэнцы альбо фундаменталісты) that have been the guardians of Islam and the defenders of its interests. This suggests a
very different dynamic in the ebbs and flow of Islamic politics—in the least pointing to the importance of the state in the vicissitudes of this phenomenon.
What to make of secular states that turn Islamic? What does such a transformation mean for the state as well as for Islamic politics?
This book grapples with these questions. This is not a comprehensive account of Malaysia’s or Pakistan’s politics, nor does it cover all aspects of Islam’s role in their societies and politics, although the analytical narrative dwells on these issues considerably. This book is rather a social scientific inquiry into the phenomenon of secular postcolonial states becoming agents of Islamization, and more broadly how culture and religion serve the needs of state power and development. The analysis here relies on theoretical discussions
in the social sciences of state behavior and the role of culture and religion therein. More important, it draws inferences from the cases under examination to make broader conclusions of interest to the disciplines.


Cordoba Foundation

Абдула Faliq

Intro ,

In spite of it being both a perennial and a complex debate, Arches Quarterly reexamines from theological and practical grounds, the important debate about the relationship and compatibility between Islam and Democracy, as echoed in Barack Obama’s agenda of hope and change. Whilst many celebrate Obama’s ascendancy to the Oval Office as a national catharsis for the US, others remain less optimistic of a shift in ideology and approach in the international arena. While much of the tension and distrust between the Muslim world and the USA can be attributed to the approach of promoting democracy, typically favoring dictatorships and puppet regimes that pay lip-service to democratic values and human rights, the aftershock of 9/11 has truly cemented the misgivings further through America’s position on political Islam. It has created a wall of negativity as found by, according to which 67% of Egyptians believe that globally America is playing a “mainly negative” role.
America’s response has thus been apt. By electing Obama, many around the world are pinning their hopes for developing a less belligerent, but fairer foreign policy towards the Muslim world. Th e test for Obama, as we discuss, is how America and her allies promote democracy. Will it be facilitating or imposing?
Прычым, 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 менавіта, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, ЗША, 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

Max L. брута

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.

Апазіцыйныя партыі ісламістаў і патэнцыял для ўдзелу ў ЕС

Тобі Арчер

Хайдзі Huuhtanen

У святле ўсё большага значэння ісламісцкіх рухаў у мусульманскім свеце і

тое, як радыкалізацыя паўплывала на глабальныя падзеі з пачатку стагоддзя, гэта

для ЕС важна ацаніць сваю палітыку ў дачыненні да суб'ектаў у межах таго, што можа быць свабодна

называюць "ісламскім светам". Асабліва важна спытаць, ці трэба і як удзельнічаць

з рознымі ісламісцкімі групамі.

Гэта застаецца спрэчным нават унутры ЕС. Некаторыя лічаць, што іслам гэта цэніць

ляжаць за ісламісцкімі партыямі проста несумяшчальныя з заходнімі ідэаламі дэмакратыі і

правы чалавека, у той час як іншыя разглядаюць удзел як рэальную неабходнасць у сувязі з ростам

унутранае значэнне ісламісцкіх партый і іх павелічэнне ўдзелу ў міжнародных

спраў. Іншая перспектыва - павелічэнне дэмакратызацыі ў мусульманскім свеце

Еўрапейская бяспека. Абгрунтаванасць гэтых і іншых аргументаў наконт таго, як і як

ЕС павінен удзельнічаць можа быць правераны толькі шляхам вывучэння розных ісламісцкіх рухаў і

іх палітычныя абставіны, краіна за краінай.

Дэмакратызацыя з'яўляецца цэнтральнай тэмай агульных знешнепалітычных дзеянняў ЕС, як паклаў

з артыкула 11 Дагавора аб Еўрапейскім Саюзе. У гэтым разглядаліся многія дзяржавы

справаздачы не дэмакратычныя, альбо не цалкам дэмакратычны. У большасці гэтых краін, Ісламіст

партыі і рухі складаюць значную апазіцыю пануючым рэжымам, і

у некаторых яны складаюць найбуйнейшы апазіцыйны блок. Еўрапейскія дэмакратыі даўно павінны былі

мець справу з рэжымамі кіравання, якія з'яўляюцца аўтарытарнымі, але гэта новая з'ява для прэсы

за дэмакратычныя рэформы ў дзяржавах, дзе найбольш верагодныя бенефіцыяры могуць мець, ад

Пункт гледжання ЕС, розныя і часам праблемныя падыходы да дэмакратыі і яе

звязаныя значэнні, такія як правы меншасцей і жанчын і вяршэнства закона. Гэтыя абвінавачванні ёсць

часта выступаў супраць ісламісцкіх рухаў, таму для еўрапейскіх палітыкаў важна

мець дакладнае ўяўленне пра палітыку і філасофію патэнцыяльных партнёраў.

Вопыт розных краін, як правіла, мяркуе, што тым больш свабоды ісламіст

вечарыны дазволены, тым больш умераныя яны ў сваіх дзеяннях і ідэях. У многіх

справы ісламісцкія партыі і групы даўно адышлі ад сваёй першапачатковай мэты

стварэння ісламскай дзяржавы, якая рэгулюецца ісламскім заканадаўствам, і прынялі асноўнае

дэмакратычныя прынцыпы выбарчай канкурэнцыі за ўладу, існаванне іншых паліт

канкурэнты, і палітычны плюралізм.

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

Шадзі Хамід
U.S. efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East have long been paralyzed by the “Islamist dilemma”: in theory, we want democracy, але, 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 і 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, Саўдаўская Аравія, 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. Аднак, 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, і, 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. Прычым, they are seen as crucial to U.S. efforts to counter Iran, stabilize Iraq, and combat terrorism.