RSSรายการทั้งหมดใน "ปาเลสไตน์" หมวด

การไม่เชื่อความจริงของศาสนา, Hermeneutics, และเอ็มไพร์: การปฏิรูปการเมืองของศาสนาอิสลาม

Saba Mahmood

Since the events of September 11, 2001, against the

backdrop of two decades of the ascendance of global religious politics, urgent
calls for the reinstatement of secularism have reached a crescendo that cannot
be ignored. The most obvious target of these strident calls is Islam, เฉพาะ
those practices and discourses within Islam that are suspected of fostering fundamentalism
and militancy. It has become de rigueur for leftists and liberals alike
to link the fate of democracy in the Muslim world with the institutionalization

of secularism — both as a political doctrine and as a political ethic. This coupling
is now broadly echoed within the discourse emanating from the U.S. State
Department, particularly in its programmatic efforts to reshape and transform
“Islam from within.” In this essay, I will examine both the particular conception
of secularism that underlies the current consensus that Islam needs to be
reformed — that its secularization is a necessary step in bringing “democracy” to
the Muslim world — and the strategic means by which this programmatic vision is
being instituted today. Insomuch as secularism is a historically shifting category
with a variegated genealogy, my aim is not to secure an authoritative definition of
secularism or to trace its historical transformation within the United States or the
Muslim world. My goal here is more limited: I want to sketch out the particular
understanding of secularism underlying contemporary American discourses on
ศาสนาอิสลาม, an understanding that is deeply shaped by U.S. security and foreign policy
concerns in the Muslim world.

Hizbollah ของแถลงการณ์ทางการเมือง 2009

หลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่สอง, สหรัฐอเมริกากลายเป็นศูนย์กลางของโพลาไรซ์และมีอำนาจในโลก; เป็นโครงการดังกล่าวเป็นสักขีพยานในการพัฒนาอย่างมากในระดับของการปกครองและการปราบปรามที่เป็นประวัติการณ์ในประวัติศาสตร์, making use and taking advantage of the multifaceted achievements on the several levels of knowledge, culture, technology, economy as well as the military level- that are supported by an economic-political system that only views the world as markets that have to abide by the American view.
The most dangerous aspect in the western hegemony-the American one precisely- is that they consider themselves as owners of the world and therefore, this expandin strategy along with the economic-capitalist project has become awestern expanding strategythat turned to be an international scheme of limitless greed. Savage capitalism forces- embodied mainly in international monopoly networks o fcompanies that cross the nations and continents, networks of various international establishments especially the financial ones backed by superior military force have led to more contradictions and conflicts of which not less important are the conflicts of identities, cultures, civilizations, in addition to the conflicts of poverty and wealth. These savage capitalism forces have turned into mechanisms of sowing dissension and destroying identities as well as imposing the most dangerous type of cultural,
national, economic as well as social theft .

วัฒนธรรมทางการเมืองของศาสนาอิสลาม, ประชาธิปไตย, และสิทธิมนุษยชน

Daniel E. ราคา

จะได้รับการเสนอว่าศาสนาอิสลามอำนวยความสะดวกในเผด็จการ, contradicts

ค่านิยมของสังคมตะวันตก, และส่งผลกระทบต่อผลอย่างมีนัยสำคัญทางการเมืองที่สำคัญ
ในประเทศมุสลิม. จึง, นักวิชาการ, แสดงความเห็น, รัฐบาลและ
เจ้าหน้าที่บ่อยชี้ไปที่การนับถือหลักเดิมของศาสนาอิสลาม '' '' เป็นต่อไป
ภัยคุกคามทางอุดมการณ์เพื่อประชาธิปไตยเสรีนิยม. มุมมองนี้, อย่างไรก็ตาม, เป็นไปตามหลัก
การวิเคราะห์ตัวบท, ทฤษฎีทางการเมืองของศาสนาอิสลาม, และการโฆษณาการศึกษาเฉพาะกิจ
ของแต่ละประเทศ, ซึ่งจะไม่พิจารณาปัจจัยอื่น ๆ. มันคือการต่อสู้ของฉัน
ที่ข้อความและประเพณีของศาสนาอิสลาม, เช่นผู้ที่นับถือศาสนาอื่น,
สามารถใช้ในการสนับสนุนความหลากหลายของระบบการเมืองและนโยบาย. ประเทศ
ประเทศในโลกมุสลิม. ด้วยเหตุนี้, วิธีการใหม่ในการศึกษาของ
ผมขอแนะนำ, ผ่านการประเมินอย่างเข้มข้นของความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างศาสนาอิสลาม,
ประชาธิปไตย, และสิทธิมนุษยชนในระดับข้ามชาติ, ที่มากเกินไป
เน้นจะถูกวางไว้ในอำนาจของศาสนาอิสลามเป็นผู้ทรงอิทธิพลทางการเมือง. ฉันแรก
การใช้กรณีศึกษาเปรียบเทียบ, ซึ่งมุ่งเน้นไปที่ปัจจัยที่เกี่ยวข้องกับการมีอิทธิพลซึ่งกันและกัน
ระหว่างกลุ่มอิสลามและระบอบการปกครอง, อิทธิพลทางเศรษฐกิจ, cleavages ชาติพันธุ์,

และการพัฒนาสังคม, เพื่ออธิบายความแปรปรวนในอิทธิพลของ


Islamist ภาคีฝ่ายค้านและศักยภาพในการหมั้นของสหภาพยุโรป

อาร์เชอร์ Toby

Huuhtanen Heidi

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

สิทธิมนุษยชน, 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, และ

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.


Are Knudsen


เรียกว่า"การเมืองอิสลาม". รายงานให้ความสำคัญเป็นพิเศษในตะวันออกกลาง, ใน

particular the Levantine countries, และการแสดงสองด้านของการเคลื่อนไหวที่อาจ Islamist

ได้รับการพิจารณาขั้วตรงกันข้าม: ประชาธิปไตยและความรุนแรงทางการเมือง. ในส่วนที่สามรายงาน


(รูป 1). โดยสังเขป, รายงานแสดงให้เห็นว่าศาสนาอิสลามไม่จำเป็นต้องเข้ากันไม่ได้กับระบอบประชาธิปไตยและ


ร่วมในการปราบปรามรุนแรงของการเคลื่อนไหวของมุสลิม, ทำให้พวกเขา, บางเถียง, เพื่อใช้เวลาถึง

แขนต่อรัฐ, และอื่น ๆ น้อยมาก, ต่างประเทศ. การใช้ความรุนแรงทางการเมืองคือ

อย่างแพร่หลายในตะวันออกกลาง, แต่ไม่ไร้เหตุผลหรือไม่มีเหตุผล. ในหลาย ๆ กรณีแม้กระทั่ง


บุคคลหรือกิจการที่ประสบความสำเร็จในการแข่งขันการเลือกตั้งเทศบาลและระดับชาติ. กระนั้น, Islamist


บัญชีสำหรับการเจริญเติบโตและเป็นที่นิยมของอุทธรณ์. โดยทั่วไป, ทฤษฎีส่วนใหญ่ที่ถือศาสนามุสลิมเป็น

ปฏิกิริยากับการกีดกันญาติ, โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งความไม่เท่าเทียมกันทางสังคมและการกดขี่ทางการเมือง. ทางเลือก

ทฤษฎีการแสวงหาคำตอบเพื่อการฟื้นฟู Islamist อยู่ในขอบเขตของศาสนาตัวเองและ

ที่มีประสิทธิภาพ, ที่อาจนำมาซึ่งการแสดงนัยทางศาสนา.


portrays ศาสนามุสลิมเป็นแสดงออกทางการเมืองที่ผิดกฎหมายและเป็นภัยคุกคามที่อาจเกิดขึ้นกับตะวันตก ("เก่า

ศาสนามุสลิม"), และความเข้าใจที่เหมาะสมยิ่งขึ้นของความเป็นประชาธิปไตยในปัจจุบันของมุสลิม

ขณะนี้การเคลื่อนไหวที่เกิดขึ้นทั่วทั้งภูมิภาคตะวันออกกลาง ("อิสลามใหม่"). นี้

ความสำคัญของความเข้าใจเกี่ยวกับความนึกคิดของราก"New อิสลาม"เป็น foregrounded


สมัครพรรคพวก. เป็นขบวนการเคลื่อนไหวทางสังคม, เป็นของมันได้เสนอว่าการเน้นมากขึ้นจะต้องมีการวางไว้ใน

ความเข้าใจวิธีการที่พวกเขาได้รับความสามารถในการการควบคุมแรงบันดาลใจไม่เพียง แต่

ส่วนด้อยของสังคม แต่ยังของชนชั้นกลาง.

ภาคี Islamist : ทำไมพวกเขาไม่สามารถเป็นประชาธิปไตย

Bassam Tibi

สังเกตการอุทธรณ์การเจริญเติบโตของศาสนาอิสลามและความแข็งแรงบนพื้นดิน, many

Western scholars and officials have been grasping for some way to take

an inclusionary approach toward it. ในการรักษาด้วยความปรารถนานี้, it has

become fashionable contemptuously to dismiss the idea of insisting on

clear and rigorous distinctions as “academic.” When it comes to Islam

and democracy, this deplorable fashion has been fraught with unfortunate


Intelligent discussion of Islamism, ประชาธิปไตย, and Islam requires

clear and accurate definitions. Without them, analysis will collapse into

confusion and policy making will suffer. My own view, formed after

thirty years of study and reflection regarding the matter, is that Islam and

democracy are indeed compatible, provided that certain necessary religious

reforms are made. The propensity to deliver on such reforms is what

I see as lacking in political Islam. My own avowed interest—as an Arab-

Muslim prodemocracy theorist and practitioner—is to promote the establishment

of secular democracy within the ambit of Islamic civilization.

In order to help clear away the confusion that all too often surrounds

this topic, I will lay out several basic points to bear in mind. The first is

that, so far, Western practices vis-`a-vis political Islam have been faulty

because they have lacked the underpinning of a well-founded assessment.

Unless blind luck intervenes, no policy can be better than the assessment

upon which it is based. Proper assessment is the beginning of

all practical wisdom.




การเมืองศาสนาอิสลามเป็นผู้ทรงอิทธิพลทางการเมืองเพียงครั้งเดียวใช้งานมากที่สุดในตะวันออกกลางในวันนี้. อนาคตขึ้นจะเชื่อมโยงอย่างใกล้ชิดกับที่ของพื้นที่. หากประเทศสหรัฐอเมริกาและสหภาพยุโรปมีความมุ่งมั่นที่จะสนับสนุนการปฏิรูปการเมืองในภูมิภาค, they will need to devise concrete, coherent strategies for engaging Islamist groups. ยัง, สหรัฐอเมริกา. has generally been unwilling to open a dialogue with these movements. เหมือนกับ, EU engagement with Islamists has been the exception, not the rule. Where low-level contacts exist, they mainly serve information-gathering purposes, not strategic objectives. The U.S. and EU have a number of programs that address economic and political development in the region – among them the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Union for the Mediterranean, and the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) – yet they have little to say about how the challenge of Islamist political opposition fits within broader regional objectives. สหรัฐอเมริกา. and EU democracy assistance and programming are directed almost entirely to either authoritarian governments themselves or secular civil society groups with minimal support in their own societies.
The time is ripe for a reassessment of current policies. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, supporting Middle East democracy has assumed a greater importance for Western policymakers, who see a link between lack of democracy and political violence. Greater attention has been devoted to understanding the variations within political Islam. The new American administration is more open to broadening communication with the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the vast majority of mainstream Islamist organizations – including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan’s Islamic Action Front (IAF), Morocco’s Justice and Development Party (PJD), the Islamic Constitutional Movement of Kuwait, and the Yemeni Islah Party – have increasingly made support for political reform and democracy a central component in their political platforms. นอกจากนี้, many have signaled strong interest in opening dialogue with U.S. and EU governments.
The future of relations between Western nations and the Middle East may be largely determined by the degree to which the former engage nonviolent Islamist parties in a broad dialogue about shared interests and objectives. There has been a recent proliferation of studies on engagement with Islamists, but few clearly address what it might entail in practice. As Zoé Nautré, visiting fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, puts it, “the EU is thinking about engagement but doesn’t really know how.”1 In the hope of clarifying the discussion, we distinguish between three levels of “engagement,” each with varying means and ends: low-level contacts, strategic dialogue, and partnership.

การเมืองศาสนาอิสลาม: พร้อมสำหรับการหมั้น?

Emad El - Din Shahin

The voluminous literature on reform and democratization in the Middle East region reveals a number of facts: a main obstacle to reform is the incumbent regimes that have been trying to resist and circumvent genuine democratic transformations; political reform cannot be credible without integrating moderate Islamists in the process; and external actors (mainly the US and the EU) have not yet formulated a coherent approach to reform that could simultaneously achieve stability and democracy in the region. This paper explores the possibilities and implications of a European engagement with moderate Islamists on democracy promotion in the region. It argues that the EU approach to political reform in the Middle East region needs to be enhanced and linked to realities on the ground. Political reform cannot be effective without the integration of non-violent Islamic groups in a gradual, multifaceted process. It should be highlighted that the process of engagement is a risky one for both the EU and the Islamists, yet both stand to gain from a systematic dialogue on democracy. To reduce the risks, the engagement with political Islam should come within a broader EU strategy for democracy promotion in the region. ในความเป็นจริง, what the Islamists would expect from Europe is to maintain a
consistent and assertive stand on political reforms that would allow for a genuine representation of the popular will through peaceful means.
In this regard, a number of questions seem pertinent. Does the EU really need to engage political Islam in democratic reforms? Is political Islam ready for engagement and will it be willing to engage? How can an engagement policy be formulated on the basis of plausible implementation with minimal risks to the interests of the parties involved?

Mismeasure ของศาสนาอิสลามทางการเมือง

Kramer มาร์ติน

Perhaps no development of the last decade of the twentieth century has caused as much confusion in the West as the emergence of political Islam. Just what does it portend? Is it against modernity, or is it an effect of modernity? Is it against nationalism, or is it a
form of nationalism? Is it a striving for freedom, or a revolt against freedom?
One would think that these are difficult questions to answer, and that they would inspire deep debates. Yet over the past few years, a surprisingly broad consensus has emerged within academe about the way political Islam should be measured. This consensus has
begun to spread into parts of government as well, especially in the U.S. and Europe. A paradigm has been built, and its builders claim that its reliability and validity are beyond question.
This now-dominant paradigm runs as follows. The Arab Middle East and North Africa are stirring. The peoples in these lands are still under varieties of authoritarian or despotic rule. But they are moved by the same universal yearning for democracy that transformed Eastern Europe and Latin America. True, there are no movements we would easily recognize as democracy movements. But for historical and cultural reasons, this universal yearning has taken the form of Islamist protest movements. If these do not look
like democracy movements, it is only a consequence of our own age-old bias against Islam. When the veil of prejudice is lifted, one will see Islamist movements for what they are: the functional equivalents of democratic reform movements. True, on the edges of these movements are groups that are atavistic and authoritarian. Some of their members are prone to violence. These are theextremists.” But the mainstream movements are essentially open, pluralistic, and nonviolent, led bymoderatesorreformists.” Thesemoderatescan be strengthened if they are made partners in the political process, and an initial step must be dialogue. But ultimately, the most effective way to domesticate the Islamists is to permit them to share or possess power. There is no threat here unless the West creates it, by supporting acts of state repression that would deny Islamists access to participation or power.

การเคลื่อนไหวของมุสลิมและกระบวนการประชาธิปไตยในโลกอาหรับ: การสำรวจเขตพื้นที่สีเทา

J Nathan. สีน้ำตาล, Hamzawy Amr,

Ottaway Marina

ในช่วงทศวรรษที่ผ่านมา, การเคลื่อนไหวของมุสลิมมีการจัดตั้งตัวเองเป็นผู้เล่นทางการเมืองที่สำคัญในตะวันออกกลาง. ด้วยความร่วมมือกับรัฐบาล, Islamist เคลื่อนไหว, ปานกลางรวมทั้งอนุมูลอิสระ, จะกำหนดวิธีการทางการเมืองของภูมิภาคเปิดตัวขึ้นในอนาคตอันใกล้. Th ey have shown the ability not only to craft messages with widespread popular appeal but also, and most importantly, to create organizations with genuine social bases and develop coherent political strategies. Other parties,
by and large, have failed on all accounts.
Th e public in the West and, in particular, the United States, has only become aware of the importance of Islamist movements after dramatic events, such as the revolution in Iran and the assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat in Egypt. Attention has been far more sustained since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As a result, Islamist movements are widely regarded as dangerous and hostile. While such a characterization is accurate regarding organizations at the radical end of the Islamist spectrum, which are dangerous because of their willingness to resort to indiscriminate violence in pursuing their goals, it is not an accurate characterization of the many groups that have renounced or avoided violence. Because terrorist organizations pose an immediate
threat, อย่างไรก็ตาม, policy makers in all countries have paid disproportionate attention to the violent organizations.
It is the mainstream Islamist organizations, not the radical ones, that will have the greatest impact on the future political evolution of the Middle East. Th e radicals’ grandiose goals of re-establishing a caliphate uniting the entire Arab world, or even of imposing on individual Arab countries laws and social customs inspired by a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam are simply too far removed from today’s reality to be realized. Th is does not mean that terrorist groups are not dangerous—they could cause great loss of life even in the pursuit of impossible goals—but that they are unlikely to change the face of the Middle East. Mainstream Islamist organizations are generally a diff erent matter. Th ey already have had a powerful impact on social customs in many countries, halting and reversing secularist trends and changing the way many Arabs dress and behave. And their immediate political goal, to become a powerful force by participating in the normal politics of their country, is not an impossible one. It is already being realized in countries such as Morocco, ประเทศจอร์แดน, and even Egypt, which still bans all Islamist political organizations but now has eighty-eight Muslim Brothers in the Parliament. การเมือง, not violence, is what gives mainstream Islamists their infl uence.



Issues relating to political Islam continue to present challenges to European foreign policies in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). As EU policy has sought to come to terms with such challenges during the last decade or so political Islam itself has evolved. Experts point to the growing complexity and variety of trends within political Islam. Some Islamist organisations have strengthened their commitment to democratic norms and engaged fully in peaceable, mainstream national politics. Others remain wedded to violent means. And still others have drifted towards a more quietist form of Islam, disengaged from political activity. Political Islam in the MENA region presents no uniform trend to European policymakers. Analytical debate has grown around the concept of ‘radicalisation’. This in turn has spawned research on the factors driving ‘de-radicalisation’, and conversely, ‘re-radicalisation’. Much of the complexity derives from the widely held view that all three of these phenomena are occurring at the same time. Even the terms themselves are contested. It has often been pointed out that the moderate–radical dichotomy fails fully to capture the nuances of trends within political Islam. Some analysts also complain that talk of ‘radicalism’ is ideologically loaded. At the level of terminology, we understand radicalisation to be associated with extremism, but views differ over the centrality of its religious–fundamentalist versus political content, and over whether the willingness to resort to violence is implied or not.

Such differences are reflected in the views held by the Islamists themselves, as well as in the perceptions of outsiders.

ศาสนาอิสลาม, Islamists, และหลักการเกี่ยวกับการเลือกตั้งในตะวันออกกลาง

Piscatori James

For an idea whose time has supposedly come, ÒdemocracyÓ masks an astonishing

number of unanswered questions and, ในโลกมุสลิม, has generated

a remarkable amount of heat. มันเป็นวัฒนธรรมเฉพาะระยะ, reflecting Western

European experiences over several centuries? Do non-Western societies possess

their own standards of participation and accountabilityÑand indeed their own

rhythms of developmentÑwhich command attention, if not respect? Does Islam,

with its emphasis on scriptural authority and the centrality of sacred law, allow

for flexible politics and participatory government?

The answers to these questions form part of a narrative and counter-narrative

that themselves are an integral part of a contested discourse. The larger story

concerns whether or not ÒIslamÓ constitutes a threat to the West, and the supplementary

story involves IslamÕs compatibility with democracy. The intellectual

baggage, to change the metaphor, is scarcely neutral. The discussion itself has

become acutely politicised, caught in the related controversies over Orientalism,

the exceptionalism of the Middle East in particular and the Muslim world in general,

and the modernism of religious ÒfundamentalistÓ movements.

ภาคี Islamist , พวกเขาอยู่พรรคประชาธิปัตย์? ไม่ได้เรื่อง ?

Masoud Tarek

ขับเคลื่อนโดยความรู้สึกว่า” อิสลามจะมา,” นักข่าวและผู้กำหนดนโยบายได้รับการว่าจ้างของสายในการเก็งกำไรไข้มากกว่าว่าฝ่ายอิสลามเช่นอียิปต์ภราดรภาพมุสลิม (MB) หรือปาเลสไตน์ฮามาจริงๆเชื่อมั่นในการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตย. While I attempt to outline the boundaries of the Islamist democratic commitment, I think that peering into the Islamist soul is a misuse of energies. The Islamists are not coming. ยิ่งไปกว่านั้น, as Adam Przeworski and others have argued, commitments to democracy are more often born of environmental constraints than of true belief. Instead of worrying whether Islamists are real democrats,
our goal should be to help fortify democratic and liberal institutions and actors so that no group—Islamist or otherwise—can subvert them.
But what is this movement over whose democratic bona fides we worry? Islamism is a slippery concept. เช่น, if we label as Islamist those parties that call for the application of shari‘a, we must exclude Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (which is widely considered Islamist) and include Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party (which actively represses Islamists). Instead of becoming mired in definitional issues, we would do better to focus on a set of political parties that have grown from the same historical roots, derive many of their goals and positions from the same body of ideas, and maintain organizational ties to one another—that is, those parties that spring from the international MB. These include the Egyptian mother organization (founded in 1928), but also Hamas, Jordan’s Islamic Action Front, Algeria’s Movement for a Peaceful Society, the Iraqi Islamic Party, Lebanon’s Islamic Group, and others.


Youssef H. Aboul - Enein
Zuhur Sherifa

สหรัฐอเมริกาไม่มีข้อสงสัยจะมีส่วนร่วมในตะวันออกกลางนานหลายสิบปี. เพื่อให้แน่ใจว่า, ยุติข้อพิพาทระหว่างอิสราเอลและปาเลสไตน์หรือบรรเทาความยากจนสามารถช่วยที่จะกั้นกระแสน้ำรุนแรงอิสลามและความรู้สึกต่อต้านอเมริกัน. แต่ในระดับอุดมการณ์, เราจะต้องเผชิญหน้ากับความหมายที่เฉพาะเจาะจงของกฎหมายอิสลาม, ประวัติศาสตร์,และคัมภีร์ที่เป็นอันตรายต่อทั้งในสหรัฐอเมริกาและพันธมิตร. To win that ideological war, we must understand the sources of both Islamic radicalism and liberalism. We need to comprehend more thoroughly the ways in which militants misinterpret and pervert Islamic scripture. Al-Qaeda has produced its own group of spokespersons who attempt to provide religious legitimacy to the nihilism they preach. Many frequently quote from the Quran and hadith (the Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and deeds) in a biased manner to draw justification for their cause. Lieutenant Commander Youssef Aboul-Enein and Dr. Sherifa Zuhur delve into the Quran and hadith to articulate a means by which Islamic militancy can be countered ideologically, drawing many of their insights from these and other classical Islamic texts. In so doing, they expose contradictions and alternative approaches in the core principles that groups like al-Qaeda espouse. The authors have found that proper use of Islamic scripture actually discredits the tactics of al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations. This monograph provides a basis for encouraging our Muslim allies to challenge the theology supported by Islamic militants. Seeds of doubt planted in the minds of suicide bombers might dissuade them from carrying out their missions. The Strategic Studies Institute is pleased to offer this study of Islamic rulings on warfare to the national defense community as an effort to contribute to the ongoing debate over how to defeat Islamic militancy.



J ยอห์น. DeGioia

The remarkable feeling of proximity between people and nations is the unmistakable reality of our globalized world. Encounters with other peoples’ ways oflife, current affairs, การเมือง, welfare and faithsare more frequent than ever. We are not onlyable to see other cultures more clearly, butalso to see our differences more sharply. The information intensity of modern life has madethis diversity of nations part of our every dayconsciousness and has led to the centrality ofculture in discerning our individual and collectiveviews of the world.Our challenges have also become global.The destinies of nations have become deeply interconnected. No matter where in the world we live, we are touched by the successes and failures of today’s global order. Yet our responses to global problems remain vastly different, not only as a result of rivalry and competing interests,but largely because our cultural difference is the lens through which we see these global challenges.Cultural diversity is not necessarily a source of clashes and conflict. ในความเป็นจริง, the proximity and cross-cultural encounters very often bring about creative change – a change that is made possible by well-organized social collaboration.Collaboration across borders is growing primarily in the area of business and economic activity. Collaborative networks for innovation,production and distribution are emerging as the single most powerful shaper of the global economy.

จะมีทำไมไม่มีประชาธิปไตยอาหรับ ?

Larry Diamond

During democratization’s “third wave,” democracy ceased being a mostly Western phenomenon and “went global.” When the third wave began in 1974, the world had only about 40 democracies, and only a few of them lay outside the West. By the time the Journal of Democracy began publishing in 1990, there were 76 electoral democracies (accounting for slightly less than half the world’s independent states). โดย 1995, that number had shot up to 117—three in every five states. By then, a critical mass of democracies existed in every major world region save one—the Middle East.1 Moreover, every one of the world’s major cultural realms had become host to a significant democratic presence, albeit again with a single exception—the Arab world.2 Fifteen years later, this exception still stands.
The continuing absence of even a single democratic regime in the Arab world is a striking anomaly—the principal exception to the globalization of democracy. Why is there no Arab democracy? จริง, why is it the case that among the sixteen independent Arab states of the Middle East and coastal North Africa, Lebanon is the only one to have ever been a democracy?
The most common assumption about the Arab democracy deficit is that it must have something to do with religion or culture. After all, the one thing that all Arab countries share is that they are Arab.