RSSAlle Einträge in der "Malaysia" Kategorie

Islam und dem Making of State Power

Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr

In 1979 General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, die militärischen Herrscher von Pakistan, erklärt, dass Pakistan würde ein islamischer Staat werden. Islamische Werte und Normen würde als Grundlage der nationalen Identität dienen, Gesetz, Wirtschaft, und soziale Beziehungen, und würde inspirieren alle politischen Entscheidungen. In 1980 Mahathir Mohammed, der neue Premierminister von Malaysia, einen ähnlich breit angelegten Plan Ankerstaatspolitik eingeführt in islamischen Werten zu machen, und in seinem Land Gesetze bringen und wirtschaftliche Praktiken im Einklang mit den Lehren des Islam. Warum haben Sie diese Herrscher den Weg der „Islamisierung“ für ihre Länder? Und wie hat einmalige säkulare postkolonialer Staaten die Mittel der Islamisierung und der Vorbote des „wahren“ islamischen Staat geworden?
Malaysia und Pakistan haben seit Ende der 1970er Jahre Anfang der 1980er Jahre einen einzigartigen Weg zur Entwicklung gefolgt, dass divergiert von den Erfahrungen anderer Staaten der Dritten Welt. In diesen beiden Ländern wurde die religiöse Identität in Staatsideologie integriert das Ziel und den Prozess der Entwicklung mit islamischen Werten zu informieren.
Das Unternehmen hat auch ein ganz anderes Bild von der Beziehung zwischen Islam und Politik in muslimischen Gesellschaften vorgestellt. In Malaysia und Pakistan, es ist eher die staatlichen Institutionen gewesen, als Islamisten (diejenigen, die eine politische Lesart des Islam befürworten; auch als Erneuerer oder Fundamentalisten bekannt) das haben die Hüter des Islam und die Verteidiger seiner Interessen gewesen. Dies lässt darauf schließen ein
sehr unterschiedliche Dynamik der Ebben in und islamisch-Politik einfließen Geringsten zeigt auf die Bedeutung des Staates in den Wechselfällen dieses Phänomens.
Was von säkularen Staaten zu machen, die islamischen drehen? Was bedeutet eine solche Transformation Mittel für den Staat als auch für die islamische Politik?
Dieses Buch setzt sich mit diesen Fragen. Dies ist kein umfassendes Bild von Malaysias oder Pakistans Politik, noch deckt es alle Aspekte des Islam der Rolle in ihrer Gesellschaft und Politik, obwohl die analytische Erzählung wohnt wesentlich zu diesen Themen. Dieses Buch ist eher eine soziale wissenschaftliche Untersuchung des Phänomens der säkularen Staaten postkolonialer Agenten der Islamisierung immer, und im weiteren Sinne, wie Kultur und Religion dienen, die Bedürfnisse der Staatsgewalt und Entwicklung. Die Analyse stützt sich hier auf theoretische Diskussionen
in den Sozialwissenschaften der staatlichen Verhalten und die Rolle der Kultur und der Religion darin. Wichtiger, es zieht Schlüsse aus den vorliegenden Rechtssachen zu weiteren Schlussfolgerungen von Interesse für die Disziplinen zu machen.


Cordoba Foundation

Abdullah 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?
Außerdem, 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, nämlich, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, US-, 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

Ein Moslem-Archipel

Max L. Gross

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, 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

Menschenrechte, 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, und

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.

Beheben von America's islamistischen Dilemma: Lehren aus Süd-und Südostasien

Shadi Hamid
US-. 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 und 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. Aber, 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, und, 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. Außerdem, they are seen as crucial to U.S. efforts to counter Iran, stabilize Iraq, and combat terrorism.