RSSУсе запісы ў "Блізкі Усход" Катэгорыя

Ісламская палітычная культура, дэмакратыя, і правы чалавека

Daniel E. цана

Сцвярджалася, што іслам спрыяе аўтарытарызму, contradicts the values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes in Muslim nations. Такім чынам, навукоўцы, каментатары, and government officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next ideological threat to liberal democracies. Гэта меркаванне, Аднак, is based primarily on the analysis of texts, Ісламская палітычная тэорыя, and ad hoc studies of individual countries, якія не ўлічваюць іншыя фактары. It is my contention that the texts and traditions of Islam, як у іншых рэлігій, можа выкарыстоўвацца для падтрымкі розных палітычных сістэм і палітык. Country specific and descriptive studies do not help us to find patterns that will help us explain the varying relationships between Islam and politics across the countries of the Muslim world. такім чынам, новы падыход да вывучэння
патрабуецца сувязь паміж ісламам і палітыкай.
Прапаную, шляхам строгай ацэнкі адносін паміж ісламам, дэмакратыя, і правы чалавека на міждзяржаўным узроўні, that too much emphasis is being placed on the power of Islam as a political force. I first use comparative case studies, which focus on factors relating to the interplay between Islamic groups and regimes, эканамічныя ўплывы, этнічныя расколы, і развіццё грамадства, to explain the variance in the influence of Islam on politics across eight nations. I argue that much of the power
attributed to Islam as the driving force behind policies and political systems in Muslim nations can be better explained by the previously mentioned factors. I also find, contrary to common belief, that the increasing strength of Islamic political groups has often been associated with modest pluralization of political systems.
I have constructed an index of Islamic political culture, based on the extent to which Islamic law is utilized and whether and, if so, how,Western ideas, institutions, and technologies are implemented, to test the nature of the relationship between Islam and democracy and Islam and human rights. This indicator is used in statistical analysis, which includes a sample of twenty-three predominantly Muslim countries and a control group of twenty-three non-Muslim developing nations. In addition to comparing
Islamic nations to non-Islamic developing nations, statistical analysis allows me to control for the influence of other variables that have been found to affect levels of democracy and the protection of individual rights. The result should be a more realistic and accurate picture of the influence of Islam on politics and policies.


Sherifa Zuhur

Seven years after the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks, many experts believe al-Qa’ida has regained strength and that its copycats or affiliates are more lethal than before. The National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 asserted that al-Qa’ida is more dangerous now than before 9/11.1 Al-Qa’ida’s emulators continue to threaten Western, блізкаўсходні, and European nations, as in the plot foiled in September 2007 in Germany. Bruce Riedel states: Thanks largely to Washington’s eagerness to go into Iraq rather than hunting down al Qaeda’s leaders, the organization now has a solid base of operations in the badlands of Pakistan and an effective franchise in western Iraq. Its reach has spread throughout the Muslim world and in Europe . . . Osama bin Laden has mounted a successful propaganda campaign. . . . His ideas now attract more followers than ever.
It is true that various salafi-jihadist organizations are still emerging throughout the Islamic world. Why have heavily resourced responses to the Islamist terrorism that we are calling global jihad not proven extremely effective?
Moving to the tools of “soft power,” what about the efficacy of Western efforts to bolster Muslims in the Global War on Terror (квота)? Why has the United States won so few “hearts and minds” in the broader Islamic world? Why do American strategic messages on this issue play so badly in the region? Why, despite broad Muslim disapproval of extremism as shown in surveys and official utterances by key Muslim leaders, has support for bin Ladin actually increased in Jordan and in Pakistan?
This monograph will not revisit the origins of Islamist violence. It is instead concerned with a type of conceptual failure that wrongly constructs the GWOT and which discourages Muslims from supporting it. They are unable to identify with the proposed transformative countermeasures because they discern some of their core beliefs and institutions as targets in
this endeavor.
Several deeply problematic trends confound the American conceptualizations of the GWOT and the strategic messages crafted to fight that War. These evolve from (1) post-colonial political approaches to Muslims and Muslim majority nations that vary greatly and therefore produce conflicting and confusing impressions and effects; і (2) residual generalized ignorance of and prejudice toward Islam and subregional cultures. Add to this American anger, fear, and anxiety about the deadly events of 9/11, and certain elements that, despite the urgings of cooler heads, hold Muslims and their religion accountable for the misdeeds of their coreligionists, or who find it useful to do so for political reasons.


Ibtisam Ibrahim

What is Democracy?
Western scholars define democracy a method for protecting individuals’ civil and political rights. It provides for freedom of speech, press, вера, opinion, уласнасць, and assembly, as well as the right to vote, nominate and seek public office. Huntington (1984) argues that a political system is democratic to the extent that its most powerful collective decision makers are selected through
periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all adults are eligible to vote. Rothstein (1995) states that democracy is a form of government and a process of governance that changes and adapts in response to circumstances. He also adds that the Western definition of democracyin addition to accountability, competition, some degree of participationcontains a guarantee of important civil and political rights. Anderson (1995) argues that the term democracy means a system in which the most powerful collective decision makers are selected through periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote. Саад Эдзін Ібрагім (1995), an Egyptian scholar, sees democracy that might apply to the Arab world as a set of rules and institutions designed to enable governance through the peaceful
management of competing groups and/or conflicting interests. Аднак, Samir Amin (1991) based his definition of democracy on the social Marxist perspective. He divides democracy into two categories: bourgeois democracy which is based on individual rights and freedom for the individual, but without having social equality; and political democracy which entitles all people in society the right to vote and to elect their government and institutional representatives which will help to obtain their equal social rights.
To conclude this section, I would say that there is no one single definition of democracy that indicates precisely what it is or what is not. Аднак, as we noticed, most of the definitions mentioned above have essential similar elementsaccountability, competition, and some degree of participationwhich have become dominant in the Western world and internationally.

дэмакратыя, Elections and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

Israel Elad-Altman

The American-led Middle East reform and democratization campaign of the last two years has helped shape a new political reality in Egypt. Opportunities have opened up for dissent. With U.S. and European support, local opposition groups have been able to take initiative, advance their causes and extract concessions from the state. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement (мегабайт), which has been officially outlawed as a political organization, is now among the groups facing both new opportunities
and new risks.
Western governments, including the government of the United States, are considering the MB and other “moderate Islamist” groups as potential partners in helping to advance democracy in their countries, and perhaps also in eradicating Islamist terrorism. Could the Egyptian MB fill that role? Could it follow the track of the Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Indonesian Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), two Islamist parties that, according to some analysts, are successfully adapting to the rules of liberal democracy and leading their countries toward greater integration with, respectively, Europe and a “pagan” Asia?
This article examines how the MB has responded to the new reality, how it has handled the ideological and practical challenges and dilemmas that have arisen during the past two years. To what extent has the movement accommodated its outlook to new circumstances? What are its objectives and its vision of the political order? How has it reacted to U.S. overtures and to the reform and democratization campaign?
How has it navigated its relations with the Egyptian regime on one hand, and other opposition forces on the other, as the country headed toward two dramatic elections in autumn 2005? To what extent can the MB be considered a force that might lead Egypt
toward liberal democracy?



The Society of Muslim Brothers’ success in the November-December 2005 elections for the People’s Assembly sent shockwaves through Egypt’s political system. In response, the regime cracked down on the movement, harassed other potential rivals and reversed its fledging reform process. This is dangerously short-sighted. There is reason to be concerned about the Muslim Brothers’ political program, and they owe the people genuine clarifications about several of its aspects. But the ruling National Democratic
Party’s (NDP) refusal to loosen its grip risks exacerbating tensions at a time of both political uncertainty surrounding the presidential succession and serious socio-economic unrest. Though this likely will be a prolonged, gradual process, the regime should take preliminary steps to normalise the Muslim Brothers’ participation in political life. The Muslim Brothers, whose social activities have long been tolerated but whose role in formal politics is strictly limited, won an unprecedented 20 per cent of parliamentary seats in the 2005 выбары. They did so despite competing for only a third of available seats and notwithstanding considerable obstacles, including police repression and electoral fraud. This success confirmed their position as an extremely wellorganised and deeply rooted political force. At the same time, it underscored the weaknesses of both the legal opposition and ruling party. The regime might well have wagered that a modest increase in the Muslim Brothers’ parliamentary representation could be used to stoke fears of an Islamist takeover and thereby serve as a reason to stall reform. If so, the strategy is at heavy risk of backfiring.

Іслам і дэмакратыя: Text, Tradition, and History

Ахрара Ahmad

Popular stereotypes in the West tend to posit a progressive, rational, and free West against a backward, oppressive, and threatening Islam. Public opinion polls conducted in the United States during the 1990s revealed a consistent pattern of Americans labeling Muslims as “religious fanatics” and considering Islam’s ethos as fundamentally “anti-democratic.”1 These characterizations
and misgivings have, for obvious reasons, significantly worsened since the tragedy of 9/11. Аднак, these perceptions are not reflected merely in the popular consciousness or crude media representations. Respected scholars also have contributed to this climate of opinion by writing about the supposedly irreconcilable differences between Islam and the West, the famous “clash of civilizations” that is supposed to be imminent and inevitable, and about the seeming incompatibility between Islam and democracy. Напрыклад, Professor Peter Rodman worries that “we are challenged from the outside by a militant atavistic force driven by hatred of all Western political thought harking back to age-old grievances against Christendom.” Dr. Daniel Pipes proclaims that the Muslims challenge the West more profoundly than the communists ever did, for “while the Communists disagree with our policies, the fundamentalist Muslims despise our whole way of life.” Professor Bernard Lewis warns darkly about “the historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo–Christian heritage, our secular present, and the expansion of both.” Professor Amos Perlmutter asks: “Is Islam, fundamentalist or otherwise, compatible with human-rights oriented Western style representative democracy? The answer is an emphatic NO.” And Professor Samuel Huntington suggests with a flourish that “the problem is not Islamic fundamentalism, but Islam itself.” It would be intellectually lazy and simple-minded to dismiss their positions as based merely on spite or prejudice. На самай справе, if one ignores some rhetorical overkill, some of their charges, though awkward for Muslims, are relevant to a discussion of the relationship between Islam and democracy in the modern world. Напрыклад, the position of women or sometimes non-Muslims in some Muslim countries is problematic in terms of the supposed legal equality of all people in a democracy. Дакладна, the intolerance directed by some Muslims against writers (e.g., Salman Rushdie in the UK, Taslima Nasrin in Bangladesh, and Professor Nasr Abu Zaid in Egypt) ostensibly jeopardizes the principle of free speech, which is essential to a democracy.
It is also true that less than 10 of the more than 50 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have institutionalized democratic principles or processes as understood in the West, and that too, only tentatively. Нарэшце, the kind of internal stability and external peace that is almost a prerequisite for a democracy to function is vitiated by the turbulence of internal implosion or external aggression evident in many Muslim countries today (e.g., Самалі, Sudan, Інданезія, Пакістан, Ірак, Афганістан, Алжыр, and Bosnia).

Iraq and the Future of Political Islam

Джэймс Piscatori

Sixty-five years ago one of the greatest scholars of modern Islam asked the simple question, “whither Islam?”, where was the Islamic world going? It was a time of intense turmoil in both the Western and Muslim worlds – the demise of imperialism and crystallisation of a new state system outside Europe; the creation and testing of the neo- Wilsonian world order in the League of Nations; the emergence of European Fascism. Sir Hamilton Gibb recognised that Muslim societies, unable to avoid such world trends, were also faced with the equally inescapable penetration of nationalism, секулярызм, and Westernisation. While he prudently warned against making predictions – hazards for all of us interested in Middle Eastern and Islamic politics – he felt sure of two things:
(а) the Islamic world would move between the ideal of solidarity and the realities of division;
(b) the key to the future lay in leadership, or who speaks authoritatively for Islam.
Today Gibb’s prognostications may well have renewed relevance as we face a deepening crisis over Iraq, the unfolding of an expansive and controversial war on terror, and the continuing Palestinian problem. In this lecture I would like to look at the factors that may affect the course of Muslim politics in the present period and near-term future. Although the points I will raise are likely to have broader relevance, I will draw mainly on the case of the Arab world.
Assumptions about Political Islam There is no lack of predictions when it comes to a politicised Islam or Islamism. ‘Islamism’ is best understood as a sense that something has gone wrong with contemporary Muslim societies and that the solution must lie in a range of political action. Often used interchangeably with ‘fundamentalism’, Islamism is better equated with ‘political Islam’. Several commentators have proclaimed its demise and the advent of the post-Islamist era. They argue that the repressive apparatus of the state has proven more durable than the Islamic opposition and that the ideological incoherence of the Islamists has made them unsuitable to modern political competition. The events of September 11th seemed to contradict this prediction, yet, unshaken, they have argued that such spectacular, virtually anarchic acts only prove the bankruptcy of Islamist ideas and suggest that the radicals have abandoned any real hope of seizing power.

Іслам і дэмакратыя


Калі чытаць прэсу ці слухаць камэнтатараў па міжнародных справах, часта кажуць - і яшчэ часцей маюцца на ўвазе, але не кажуць - што іслам не сумяшчальны з дэмакратыяй. У дзевяностыя, Сэмюэл Хантынгтан выклікаў інтэлектуальную буру, апублікаваўшы «Сутыкненне цывілізацый і перабудову сусветнага парадку», у якім ён прадстаўляе свае прагнозы для свету - напісаць вялікі. У палітычнай сферы, ён адзначае, што ў той час як Турцыя і Пакістан могуць мець невялікія прэтэнзіі на «дэмакратычную легітымнасць», усе астатнія «... мусульманскія краіны былі ў пераважнай большасці недэмакратычнымі: манархіі, аднапартыйныя сістэмы, ваенныя рэжымы, асабістыя дыктатуры або нейкая іх камбінацыя, звычайна адпачывае ў абмежаванай сям'і, клана, або племянная база». Перадумова, на якой грунтуецца яго аргумент, заключаецца ў тым, што яны не толькі «не такія, як мы», яны насамрэч супрацьстаяць нашым сутнасным дэмакратычным каштоўнасцям. Ён верыць, як і іншыя, што ў той час як ідэі заходняй дэмакратызацыі супраціўляюцца ў іншых частках свету, канфрантацыя найбольш прыкметная ў тых рэгіёнах, дзе іслам з'яўляецца дамінуючай верай.
Аргумент быў прыведзены і з іншага боку. Іранскі рэлігіязнаўца, разважаючы пра канстытуцыйны крызіс пачатку ХХ стагоддзя ў сваёй краіне, абвясціў, што іслам і дэмакратыя несумяшчальныя, таму што людзі не роўныя, а заканадаўчы орган непатрэбны з-за інклюзіўнага характару ісламскага рэлігійнага права. Падобную пазіцыю зусім нядаўна заняў Алі Белхадж, настаўніца алжырскай сярэдняй школы, прапаведнік і (у гэтым кантэксце) лідэр FIS, калі ён заявіў, што «дэмакратыя не была ісламскай канцэпцыяй». Магчыма, самым драматычным выказваннем на гэты конт было выказванне Абу Мусаба аз-Заркаві, лідэр суніцкіх паўстанцаў у Іраку, які, калі сутыкаюцца з перспектывай выбараў, асудзіў дэмакратыю як «злы прынцып».
Але на думку некаторых мусульманскіх навукоўцаў, дэмакратыя застаецца важным ідэалам у ісламе, з агаворкай, што яна заўсёды падпарадкоўваецца рэлігійнаму закону. Акцэнт на першарадным месцы шарыяту з'яўляецца элементам амаль кожнага ісламскага каментара аб кіраванні, умераны або экстрэмісцкі. Толькі калі ўладар, які атрымлівае ўладу ад Бога, абмяжоўвае свае дзеянні «наглядам за адміністраваннем шарыяту», калі яму трэба падпарадкоўвацца. Калі ён робіць іншае, чым гэта, ён няверуючы, і адданыя мусульмане павінны паўстаць супраць яго. У гэтым ляжыць апраўданне большай часткі гвалту, які пераследваў мусульманскі свет у такой барацьбе, якая панавала ў Алжыры ў 90-я гады

Islam and Islamism in Afghanistan

Kristin Мендоса

The last half-century in particular has seen the recurrent use of religious Islam as

ідэалогія, often referred to as political Islam or Islamism, in groups espousing the

establishment of an Islamic state. Attention was drawn to Afghanistan when it became

the rallying point for Islamists in the 1980s. Аднак, the earlier appearance of an

Islamist movement in Afghanistan in the 1960s and its subsequent development offer an

instructive, unique lesson in understanding Islam and Islamism in Afghan society.

This overview of the Islamist movement in Afghanistan is divided into three

parts: It begins by defining the differing manifestations of Islam in Afghanistan,

indicating how Islamism differs from or draws upon each manifestation in constructing

its own vision. Тады, the broader context of Islamism elsewhere in the Muslim world is

discussed and analyzed. Although the theoretical basis for Islamism was constructed in

the 1960s by Abu ‘Ala Mawdudi in Pakistan and Sayyid Qutb in Egypt, this paper will

show that the Islamist movement in Afghanistan did not mirror those in either of these

countries. To this end, this paper reviews the thought of the above-mentioned

theoreticians of Islamism, and outlines historical and social conditions that colored the

implementation of their models in their respective countries. This leads back to a

discussion of the Afghan context, which makes up the final part of the paper. It is

necessary to review salient aspects of the traditional structure of Afghan society, and the

role Islam has historically played in Afghanistan to understand how the Islamist

experience was shaped and constrained by this structure, as well as how the Islamist

experience has altered it.
As Afghanistan is now faced with the monumental task of rebuilding a state and

legal system, Islamists are attempting to influence the reconstruction. This overview will

underscore for those observing and participating in this process the importance of

understanding the Afghan Islamist perspective, its historical underpinnings, and current



Haldun Gulalp

Political Islam has gained heightened visibility in recent decades in Turkey. Large numbers of female students have begun to demonstrate their commitment by wearing the banned Islamic headdress on university campuses, and influential pro-Islamist TV
channels have proliferated. This paper focuses on the Welfare (Refah) Party as the foremost institutional representative of political Islam in Turkey.
The Welfare Party’s brief tenure in power as the leading coalition partner from mid-1996 to mid-1997 was the culmination of a decade of steady growth that was aided by other Islamist organizations and institutions. These organizations and institutions
included newspapers and publishing houses that attracted Islamist writers, numerous Islamic foundations, an Islamist labor-union confederation, and an Islamist businessmen’s association. These institutions worked in tandem with, and in support of, Welfare as the undisputed leader and representative of political Islam in Turkey, even though they had their own particularistic goals and ideals, which often diverged from Welfare’s political projects. Focusing on the Welfare Party, then, allows for an analysis of the wider social base upon which the Islamist political movement rose in Turkey. Since Welfare’s ouster from power and its eventual closure, the Islamist movement has been in disarray. This paper will, Таму, be confined to the Welfare Party period.
Welfare’s predecessor, the National Salvation Party, was active in the 1970s but was closed down by the military regime in 1980. Welfare was founded in 1983 and gained great popularity in the 1990s. Starting with a 4.4 percent vote in the municipal elections of 1984, the Welfare Party steadily increased its showing and multiplied its vote nearly five times in twelve years. It alarmed Turkey’s secular establishment first in the municipal elections of 1994, з 19 percent of all votes nationwide and the mayor’s seats in both Istanbul and Ankara, then in the general elections of 1995 when it won a plurality with 21.4 percent of the national vote. Тым не менш, the Welfare Party was only briefly able to lead a coalition government in partnership with the right-wing True Path Party of Tansu C¸ iller.

Аспрэчванне аўтарытарызму, каланіялізм, і раз'яднанасць: Рухі ісламскай палітычнай рэформы Аль-Афгані і Рыды

Ахмед Алі Салем

Заняпад мусульманскага свету папярэднічаў еўрапейскай каланізацыі большасці

Мусульманскія землі ў апошняй чвэрці ХІХ стагоддзя і ў першай
чвэрць ХХ ст. У прыватнасці, Асманскай імперыі
магутнасць і сусветны статус пагаршаліся з XVII ст.
Але, больш важны для мусульманскіх навукоўцаў, яно перастала сустракацца

некаторыя асноўныя патрабаванні да яго становішчы халіфата, вярхоўны і
суверэнная палітычная адзінка, якой павінны быць лаяльнымі ўсе мусульмане.
Таму, заклікалі некаторыя мусульманскія навукоўцы і інтэлектуалы імперыі
за палітычную рэформу яшчэ да еўрапейскага замаху
Мусульманскія землі. Рэформы, якія яны прадугледжвалі, былі не толькі ісламскімі, але
таксама асманскі - унутры асманскіх рамак.

Гэтыя рэфарматары ўспрынялі заняпад мусульманскага свету ў цэлым,

і Асманскай імперыі ў прыватнасці, быць вынікам павелічэння

ігнараванне рэалізацыі шарыяту (Ісламскае права). Аднак, з часоў

канец ХVІІІ ст, усё большая колькасць рэфарматараў, часам падтрымліваецца

асманскімі султанамі, пачаў заклікаць да рэфармавання імперыі разам

сучасныя еўрапейскія лініі. Няздольнасць імперыі абараніць свае землі і да

паспяхова адказаць на выклікі Захаду, толькі падсілкоўваючы гэты заклік

за "мадэрнізацыю" рэформы, які дасягнуў свайго піку ў руху Танзімат

у другой палове ХІХ ст.

Іншыя мусульманскія рэфарматары выказаліся за сярэдні курс. З аднаго боку,

яны прызналі, што халіфат павінен быць змадэляваны ў адпаведнасці з ісламскім

крыніцы кіраўніцтва, асабліва Каран і прарока Мухамеда

вучэнні (Сунна), і што ўмма (сусветная мусульманская абшчына)

адзінства - адзін з палітычных слупоў ісламу. З другога боку, яны зразумелі

трэба амаладзіць імперыю альбо замяніць яе больш жыццяздольнай. Сапраўды,

уключаны іх творчыя ідэі адносна будучых мадэляў, але не абмяжоўваліся, the

наступныя: замена Асманскай імперыі на чале з Турцыяй на арабскую

халіфат, пабудова федэральнага альбо канфедэратыўнага мусульманскага халіфата, устанаўленне

садружнасць мусульманскіх ці ўсходніх нацый, і ўмацаванне салідарнасці

і супрацоўніцтва паміж незалежнымі мусульманскімі краінамі без стварэння

нерухомая структура. Гэтыя і падобныя ідэі пазней называліся

Мадэль мусульманскай лігі, што было галоўным тэзісам для розных прапаноў

звязаны з будучым халіфатам.

Два прыхільнікі такой рэформы былі Джамал ад-Дзін аль-Афгані і

Мухамад `Абдух, абодва яны адыгралі ключавую ролю ў сучасным

Ісламскі рух за палітычныя рэформы.1 Іх адказ на двайны выклік

перад мусульманскім светам у канцы XIX стагоддзя - еўрапейская каланізацыя

і мусульманскі заняпад - быў збалансаваны. Іх канчатковай мэтай было

адрадзіць уму, назіраючы за ісламскім адкрыццём і атрымліваючы карысць

з дасягненняў Еўропы. Аднак, яны разышліся па некаторых аспектах

і метады, а таксама непасрэдныя мэты і стратэгіі, рэформы.

У той час як аль-Афгані заклікаў і змагаўся ў асноўным за палітычныя рэформы,

`Абдух, калісьці адзін з яго блізкіх вучняў, распрацоўваў уласныя ідэі, якія

падкрэсліваў адукацыю і падрываў палітыку.

Egypt at the Tipping Point ?

David B. Ottaway
In the early 1980s, I lived in Cairo as bureau chief of The Washington Post covering such historic events as the withdrawal of the last
Israeli forces from Egyptian territory occupied during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the assassination of President
Anwar Sadat by Islamic fanatics in October 1981.
The latter national drama, which I witnessed personally, had proven to be a wrenching milestone. It forced Sadat’s successor, Хосні Мубарак, to turn inwards to deal with an Islamist challenge of unknown proportions and effectively ended Egypt’s leadership role in the Arab world.
Mubarak immediately showed himself to be a highly cautious, unimaginative leader, maddeningly reactive rather than pro-active in dealing with the social and economic problems overwhelming his nation like its explosive population growth (1.2 million more Egyptians a year) and economic decline.
In a four-part Washington Post series written as I was departing in early 1985, I noted the new Egyptian leader was still pretty much
a total enigma to his own people, offering no vision and commanding what seemed a rudderless ship of state. The socialist economy
inherited from the era of President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1952 каб 1970) was a mess. The country’s currency, the pound, was operating
on eight different exchange rates; its state-run factories were unproductive, uncompetitive and deep in debt; and the government was heading for bankruptcy partly because subsidies for food, electricity and gasoline were consuming one-third ($7 billion) of its budget. Cairo had sunk into a hopeless morass of gridlocked traffic and teeming humanity—12 million people squeezed into a narrow band of land bordering the Nile River, most living cheek by jowl in ramshackle tenements in the city’s ever-expanding slums.

Арганізацыйная пераемнасць у братоў-мусульман Егіпта

Тесс Лі Eisenhart

Як найстарэйшы і найбольш вядомы апазіцыйны рух у Егіпце, таварыства а

Браты-мусульмане ", аль-іхван аль-муслімен, ужо даўно ставіць выклік паслядоўным свецкім
рэжымаў, прапаноўваючы ўсебаковае бачанне ісламскай дзяржавы і шырокую сацыяльную
сацыяльныя паслугі. З моманту свайго заснавання ў в 1928, брацтва (Брат) квітнела ў
паралельны рэлігійны і сацыяльны сектар паслуг, як правіла, пазбягаючы прамой канфрантацыі з
кіруючыя рэжымы.1 Зусім нядаўна за апошнія два дзесяцігоддзі, Аднак, брацтва мае
сутыкнуўся з партыйнасцю ў фармальнай палітычнай сферы. Гэты эксперымент завяршыўся
выбары васьмідзесяці васьмі братоў у Народны сход у 2005 г. - самыя буйныя
апазіцыйны блок у сучаснай гісторыі Егіпта - і наступныя арышты амаль
1,000 Браты.2 Выбарчы прасоўванне ў асноўную палітыку забяспечвае дастаткова ежы
для навукоўцаў, каб праверыць тэорыі і зрабіць прагнозы пра будучыню егіпцяніна
рэжым: выпадзе гэта ісламісцкай апазіцыі ці застанецца маяком секулярызму ў
Арабскі свет?
Гэты тэзіс ухіляецца ад такіх шырокіх спекуляцый. Замест гэтага, яно даследуе

ступень адаптацыі "Братоў-мусульман" як арганізацыі ў мінулым


Доктар,Мухамад Бадзі

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate Praise be to Allah and Blessing on His messenger, companions and followers
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I greet you with the Islamic greeting; Peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings;
It is the will of Allah that I undertake this huge responsibility which Allah has chosen for me and a request from the MB Movement which I respond to with the support of Allah. With the support of my Muslim Brothers I look forward to achieving the great goals, we devoted ourselves to, solely for the sake of Allah.
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
At the outset of my speech I would like to address our teacher, older brother, and distinguished leader Mr. Mohamed Mahdy Akef, the seventh leader of the MB group a strong, dedicated and enthusiastic person who led the group’s journey amid storms and surpassed all its obstacles, thus providing this unique and outstanding model to all leaders and senior officials in the government, associations and other parties by fulfilling his promise and handing over the leadership after only one term, words are not enough to express our feelings to this great leader and guide and we can only sayMay Allah reward you all the best”.
We say to our beloved Muslim brothers who are spread around the globe, it is unfortunate for us to have this big event happening while you are not among us for reasons beyond our control, however we feel that your souls are with us sending honest and sincere smiles and vibes.
As for the beloved ones who are behind the bars of tyranny and oppression for no just reason other than reiterating Allah is our God, and for seeking the dignity, pride and development of their country, we sincerely applaud and salute them for their patience, steadfastness and sacrifices which we are sure will not be without gain. We pray that those tyrants and oppressors salvage their conscience and that we see you again in our midst supporting our cause, may Allah bless and protect you all.
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
As you are aware, the main goal of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement (мегабайт) is comprehensive modification, which deals with all kinds of corruption through reform and change. “I only desire (your) betterment to the best of my power; and my success (in my task) can only come from Allah.” (Hud-88) and through cooperation with all powers of the nation and those with high spirits who are sincere to their religion and nation.
The MB believes that Allah has placed all the foundations necessary for the development and welfare of nations in the great Islam; Таму, Islam is their reference towards reform, which starts from the disciplining and training of the souls of individuals, followed by regulating families and societies by strengthening them, preceded by bringing justice to it and the continuous jihad to liberate the nation from any foreign dominance or intellectual, spiritual, cultural hegemony and economic, political or military colonialism, as well as leading the nation to development, prosperity and assuming its appropriate place in the world.



The First Islamic State
On the foundation of this virtuous Qur’anic social order the first Islamic state arose, having unshakeable faith in гэта, meticulously applying it, and spreading it throughout the world, so that the first Khilafah used to say: ‘If I should lose a camel’s lead, I would find it in Allah’s Book.’. He fought those who refused to pay zakah, regarding them as apostates because they had overthrown one of the pillars of this order, saying: ‘By Allah, if they refused me a lead which they would hand over to the Apostle of Allah (ПБУХ), I would fight them as soon as I have a sword in my hand!’ For unity, in all its meanings and manifestations, pervaded this new forthcoming nation.
Complete social unity arose from making the Qur’anic order and it’s language universal, while complete political unity was under the shadow of the Amir Al-Mumineen and beneath the standard of the Khilafah in the capital.
The fact that the Islamic ideology was one of decentralisation of the armed forces, the state treasuries, і provincial governors proved to be no obstacle to this, since all acted according to a single creed and a unified and comprehensive control. The Qur’anic principles dispelled and laid to rest the superstitious idolatry prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula and Persia. They banished guileful Judaism and confined it to a narrow province, putting an end to its religious and political authority. They struggled with Christianity such that its influence was greatly diminished in the Asian and African continents, confined only to Europe under the guard of the Byzantine Empire in Constantinople. Thus the Islamic state became the centre of spiritual and political dominance within the two largest continents. This state persisted in its attacks against the third continent, assaulting Constantinople from the east and besieging it until the siege grew wearisome. Then it came at it from the west,
plunging into Spain, with its victorious soldiers reaching the heart of France and penetrating as far as northern and southern Italy. It established an imposing state in Western Europe, radiant with science and knowledge.
потым, it ended the conquest of Constantinople itself and the confined Christianity within the restricted area of Central Europe. Islamic fleets ventured into the depths of the Mediterranean and Red seas, both became Islamic lakes. And so the armed forces of the Islamic state assumed supremacy of the seas both in the East and West, enjoying absolute mastery over land and sea. These Islamic nations had already combined and incorporated many things from other civilisations, but they triumphed through the strength of their faith and the solidness of their system over others. They Arabised them, or succeeded in doing so to a degree, and were able to sway them and convert them to the splendour, beauty and vitality of their language and religion. The Muslims were free to adopt anything beneficial from other civilisations, insofar as it did not have adverse effects on their social and political unity.

Roots Of Nationalism In The Muslim World

Shabir Ahmed

The Muslim world has been characterised by failure, disunity, bloodshed, oppression and backwardness. At present, no Muslim country in the world can rightly claim to be a leader in any field of human activity. Сапраўды, the non-Muslims of the East and the West
now dictate the social, economic and political agenda for the Muslim Ummah.
Акрамя таго, the Muslims identify themselves as Turkish, араб, African and Pakistani. If this is not enough, Muslims are further sub-divided within each country or continent. Напрыклад, in Pakistan people are classed as Punjabis, Sindhis, Balauchis and
Pathans. The Muslim Ummah was never faced with such a dilemma in the past during Islamic rule. They never suffered from disunity, widespread oppression, stagnation in science and technology and certainly not from the internal conflicts that we have witnessed this century like the Iran-Iraq war. So what has gone wrong with the Muslims this century? Why are there so many feuds between them and why are they seen to be fighting each other? What has caused their weakness and how will they ever recover from the present stagnation?
There are many factors that contributed to the present state of affairs, but the main ones are the abandoning of the Arabic language as the language of understanding Islam correctly and performing ijtihad, the absorption of foreign cultures such as the philosophies of the Greeks, Persian and the Hindus, the gradual loss of central authority over some of the provinces, and the rise of nationalism since the 19th Century.
This book focuses on the origins of nationalism in the Muslim world. Nationalism did not arise in the Muslim world naturally, nor did it came about in response to any hardships faced by the people, nor due to the frustration they felt when Europe started to dominate the world after the industrial revolution. Дакладней, nationalism was implanted in the minds of the Muslims through a well thought out scheme by the European powers, after their failure to destroy the Islamic State by force. The book also presents the Islamic verdict on nationalism and practical steps that can be taken to eradicate the disease of nationalism from the Muslim Ummah so as to restore it back to its former glory.