RSSSemua Penyertaan dalam "Tunisia" kategori

Orang Arab Esok

DAVID B. OTTAWAY

Oktober 6, 1981, dimaksudkan untuk menjadi hari perayaan di Mesir. Ia menandakan ulang tahun detik kemenangan terbesar Mesir dalam tiga konflik Arab-Israel, apabila tentera underdog negara itu melintasi Terusan Suez pada hari-hari pembukaan 1973 Perang Yom Kippur dan menyebabkan tentera Israel terkial-kial berundur. Dalam keadaan sejuk, pagi tanpa awan, stadium Kaherah penuh sesak dengan keluarga Mesir yang datang untuk melihat tentera memperkasakan perkakasannya. Di tempat peninjauan, Presiden Anwar el-Sadat,arkitek perang, memerhati dengan penuh kepuasan ketika lelaki dan mesin berarak di hadapannya. Saya berada berdekatan, seorang wartawan asing yang baru tiba.Tiba-tiba, salah satu trak tentera berhenti betul-betul di hadapan tempat peninjauan ketika enam jet Mirage menderu di atas kepala dalam persembahan akrobatik, melukis langit dengan denai merah yang panjang, kuning, ungu,dan asap hijau. Sadat berdiri, nampaknya sedang bersedia untuk bertukar tabik hormat dengan satu lagi kontinjen tentera Mesir. Dia menjadikan dirinya sasaran sempurna untuk empat pembunuh Islam yang melompat dari trak, menyerbu podium, dan memenuhi tubuhnya dengan peluru. Ketika pembunuh terus melakukan apa yang kelihatannya selama-lamanya untuk menyemburkan tembakan mematikan mereka, Saya mempertimbangkan untuk seketika sama ada untuk memukul tanah dan berisiko mati dipijak oleh penonton yang panik atau terus berjalan dan berisiko terkena peluru sesat. Naluri memberitahu saya untuk terus berdiri, dan rasa tugas kewartawanan saya mendorong saya untuk mengetahui sama ada Sadat masih hidup atau sudah mati.

Islam, Islam politik dan Amerika

Wawasan Arab

Adakah "Persaudaraan" dengan Amerika Mungkin?

khalil al-anani

“Tiada peluang untuk berkomunikasi dengan mana-mana A.S. pentadbiran selagi Amerika Syarikat mengekalkan pandangan lamanya tentang Islam sebagai bahaya sebenar, pandangan yang meletakkan Amerika Syarikat senasib dengan musuh Zionis. Kami tidak mempunyai tanggapan sedia ada mengenai rakyat Amerika atau A.S. masyarakat dan organisasi sivik dan badan pemikirnya. Kami tidak mempunyai masalah untuk berkomunikasi dengan rakyat Amerika tetapi tiada usaha yang mencukupi sedang dibuat untuk mendekatkan kami,” kata Dr. Issam al-Iryan, ketua jabatan politik Ikhwanul Muslimin dalam temu bual telefon.
Kata-kata Al-Iryan merumuskan pandangan Ikhwanul Muslimin terhadap rakyat Amerika dan A.S. kerajaan. Ahli Ikhwanul Muslimin yang lain akan bersetuju, begitu juga dengan almarhum Hassan al-Banna, yang mengasaskan kumpulan di 1928. Al- Banna melihat Barat kebanyakannya sebagai simbol keruntuhan moral. Salafi yang lain - sebuah mazhab Islam yang bergantung kepada nenek moyang sebagai model teladan - telah mengambil pandangan yang sama tentang Amerika Syarikat, tetapi tidak mempunyai fleksibiliti ideologi yang dianuti oleh Ikhwanul Muslimin. Sementara Ikhwanul Muslimin percaya dalam melibatkan Amerika dalam dialog sivil, kumpulan pelampau lain tidak melihat sebarang titik dalam dialog dan mengekalkan kuasa itu adalah satu-satunya cara untuk berurusan dengan Amerika Syarikat.

The Principle of Movement in the Structure of Islam

Dr. Muhammad Iqbal

As a cultural movement Islam rejects the old static view of the universe, and reaches a dynamic view. As an emotional system of unification it recognizes the worth of the individual as such, and rejects bloodrelationship as a basis of human unity. Blood-relationship is earthrootedness. Pencarian asas psikologi semata-mata perpaduan manusia menjadi mungkin hanya dengan persepsi bahawa semua kehidupan manusia adalah rohani pada asalnya.1 Persepsi sedemikian adalah kreatif terhadap kesetiaan segar tanpa sebarang upacara untuk memastikan mereka hidup., dan membolehkan manusia membebaskan dirinya dari bumi. Kekristianan yang pada asalnya muncul sebagai tarekat monastik telah dicuba oleh Constantine sebagai sistem penyatuan.2 Kegagalannya untuk berfungsi sebagai sistem sedemikian mendorong Maharaja Julian3 untuk kembali kepada tuhan-tuhan lama Rom di mana dia cuba meletakkan tafsiran falsafah.. Seorang ahli sejarah tamadun moden telah menggambarkan keadaan dunia bertamadun tentang masa ketika Islam muncul di pentas Sejarah: It seemed then that the great civilization that it had taken four thousand years to construct was on the verge of disintegration, and that mankind was likely to return to that condition of barbarism where every tribe and sect was against the next, and law and order were unknown . . . The
old tribal sanctions had lost their power. Hence the old imperial methods would no longer operate. The new sanctions created by
Christianity were working division and destruction instead of unity and order. It was a time fraught with tragedy. Civilization, like a gigantic tree whose foliage had overarched the world and whose branches had borne the golden fruits of art and science and literature, stood tottering, its trunk no longer alive with the flowing sap of devotion and reverence, but rotted to the core, riven by the storms of war, and held together only by the cords of ancient customs and laws, that might snap at any moment. Was there any emotional culture that could be brought in, to gather mankind once more into unity and to save civilization? This culture must be something of a new type, for the old sanctions and ceremonials were dead, and to build up others of the same kind would be the work
of centuries.’The writer then proceeds to tell us that the world stood in need of a new culture to take the place of the culture of the throne, and the systems of unification which were based on bloodrelationship.
It is amazing, he adds, that such a culture should have arisen from Arabia just at the time when it was most needed. There is, namun begitu, nothing amazing in the phenomenon. Kehidupan dunia secara intuitif melihat keperluannya sendiri, dan pada saat genting menentukan arahnya sendiri. Apakah ini, dalam bahasa agama, kita panggil wahyu kenabian. Adalah wajar bahawa Islam sepatutnya melintasi kesedaran orang-orang sederhana yang tidak disentuh oleh mana-mana budaya kuno., dan menduduki kedudukan geografi di mana tiga benua bertemu bersama. Budaya baru menemui asas perpaduan dunia dalam prinsip Tauhâd.’5 Islam, sebagai sebuah negara, hanyalah cara praktikal untuk menjadikan prinsip ini sebagai faktor hidup dalam kehidupan intelektual dan emosi manusia. Ia menuntut kesetiaan kepada Tuhan, bukan ke takhta. Dan kerana Tuhan adalah asas rohani yang muktamad bagi semua kehidupan, kesetiaan kepada Tuhan hampir sama dengan kesetiaan manusia kepada sifat idealnya sendiri. The ultimate spiritual basis of all life, as conceived by Islam, is eternal and reveals itself in variety and change. A society based on such a conception of Reality must reconcile, in its life, the categories of permanence and change. It must possess eternal principles to regulate its collective life, for the eternal gives us a foothold in the world of perpetual change.

ISLAM, DEMOKRASI & USA:

Yayasan Cordoba

Abdullah Faliq

Pengenalan ,


Walaupun ia menjadi perdebatan tahunan dan kompleks, Arches Quarterly dikaji semula dari landasan teologi dan praktikal, perdebatan penting mengenai hubungan dan keserasian antara Islam dan Demokrasi, seperti yang digemakan dalam agenda harapan dan perubahan Barack Obama. Walaupun banyak yang meraikan kenaikan Obama ke Oval Office sebagai katarsis nasional untuk AS, yang lain tetap kurang optimis terhadap perubahan ideologi dan pendekatan di arena antarabangsa. Walaupun banyak ketegangan dan ketidakpercayaan antara dunia Islam dan AS boleh dikaitkan dengan pendekatan mempromosikan demokrasi, biasanya menggemari pemerintahan diktator dan boneka yang memberi nilai-nilai demokratik dan hak asasi manusia, gempa susulan dari 9/11 telah benar-benar memperkuat keraguan melalui kedudukan Amerika mengenai Islam politik. Ini telah mewujudkan tembok negatif seperti yang dijumpai oleh worldpublicopinion.org, mengikut yang 67% orang Mesir percaya bahawa secara global Amerika memainkan peranan "terutamanya negatif".
Oleh itu, tindak balas Amerika begitu tepat. Dengan memilih Obama, banyak di seluruh dunia menaruh harapan mereka untuk membangun yang kurang berperang, tetapi dasar luar yang lebih adil terhadap dunia Islam. Ujian untuk Obama, seperti yang kita bincangkan, adalah bagaimana Amerika dan sekutunya mempromosikan demokrasi. Adakah ia akan memudahkan atau memaksakan?
Lebih-lebih lagi, bolehkah ia menjadi broker yang jujur ​​di zon konflik yang berpanjangan? Menyenaraikan kepakaran dan wawasan prolifi
c cendekiawan, ahli akademik, wartawan dan ahli politik berpengalaman, Arches Quarterly menyoroti hubungan antara Islam dan Demokrasi dan peranan Amerika - serta perubahan yang dibawa oleh Obama, dalam mencari jalan bersama. Anas Altikriti, Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif Th e Cordoba Foundation memberikan gambaran awal untuk perbincangan ini, di mana ia merefleksikan harapan dan cabaran yang ada di jalan Obama. Mengikuti Altikriti, bekas penasihat Presiden Nixon, Dr Robert Crane memberikan analisis menyeluruh mengenai prinsip Islam mengenai hak kebebasan. Anwar Ibrahim, bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri Malaysia, memperkayakan perbincangan dengan realiti praktikal melaksanakan demokrasi dalam masyarakat dominan Muslim, iaitu, di Indonesia dan Malaysia.
Kami juga mempunyai Dr Shireen Hunter, Universiti Georgetown, USA, yang meneroka negara-negara Islam yang ketinggalan dalam pendemokrasian dan pemodenan. Ini dilengkapkan oleh penulis keganasan, Penjelasan Dr Nafeez Ahmed mengenai krisis pasca-kemodenan dan
kematian demokrasi. Dr Daud Abdullah (Pengarah Pemantau Media Timur Tengah), Alan Hart (bekas wartawan ITN dan BBC Panorama; pengarang Zionisme: Musuh Yahudi Sebenar) dan Asem Sondos (Penyunting Sawt Al Omma Mesir setiap minggu) tumpukan perhatian kepada Obama dan peranannya dalam mempromosikan demokrasi di dunia Islam, serta hubungan AS dengan Israel dan Ikhwanul Muslimin.
Menteri Luar Negeri menyiarkan, Maldives, Ahmed شہید membuat spekulasi mengenai masa depan Islam dan Demokrasi; Cllr. Gerry Maclochlainn
– seorang anggota Sinn Féin yang menjalani hukuman penjara selama empat tahun kerana aktiviti Republik Ireland dan kempen untuk Guildford 4 dan Birmingham 6, mencerminkan perjalanannya ke Gaza baru-baru ini di mana dia menyaksikan kesan kekejaman dan ketidakadilan yang berlaku terhadap rakyat Palestin; Dr Marie Breen-Smyth, Pengarah Pusat Kajian Radikalisasi dan Kekerasan Politik Kontemporari membincangkan cabaran meneliti keganasan politik secara kritis; Dr Khalid al-Mubarak, penulis dan penulis drama, membincangkan prospek keamanan di Darfur; dan akhirnya wartawan dan aktivis hak asasi manusia Ashur Shamis memandang kritis terhadap pendemokrasian dan politikisasi umat Islam hari ini.
Kami berharap semua ini dapat membuat pembacaan yang komprehensif dan sumber untuk refleksi terhadap isu-isu yang mempengaruhi kita semua di awal harapan.
Terima kasih

US Hamas policy blocks Middle East peace

Henry Siegman


Failed bilateral talks over these past 16 years have shown that a Middle East peace accord can never be reached by the parties themselves. Israeli governments believe they can defy international condemnation of their illegal colonial project in the West Bank because they can count on the US to oppose international sanctions. Bilateral talks that are not framed by US-formulated parameters (based on Security Council resolutions, the Oslo accords, the Arab Peace Initiative, the “road map” and other previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements) cannot succeed. Israel’s government believes that the US Congress will not permit an American president to issue such parameters and demand their acceptance. What hope there is for the bilateral talks that resume in Washington DC on September 2 depends entirely on President Obama proving that belief to be wrong, and on whether the “bridging proposals” he has promised, should the talks reach an impasse, are a euphemism for the submission of American parameters. Such a US initiative must offer Israel iron-clad assurances for its security within its pre-1967 borders, but at the same time must make it clear these assurances are not available if Israel insists on denying Palestinians a viable and sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza. This paper focuses on the other major obstacle to a permanent status agreement: the absence of an effective Palestinian interlocutor. Addressing Hamas’ legitimate grievances – and as noted in a recent CENTCOM report, Hamas has legitimate grievances – could lead to its return to a Palestinian coalition government that would provide Israel with a credible peace partner. If that outreach fails because of Hamas’ rejectionism, the organization’s ability to prevent a reasonable accord negotiated by other Palestinian political parties will have been significantly impeded. If the Obama administration will not lead an international initiative to define the parameters of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement and actively promote Palestinian political reconciliation, Europe must do so, and hope America will follow. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet that can guarantee the goal of “two states living side by side in peace and security.”
But President Obama’s present course absolutely precludes it.

Islamism revisited

MAHA AZZAM

There is a political and security crisis surrounding what is referred to as Islamism, a crisis whose antecedents long precede 9/11. Over the past 25 tahun, there have been different emphases on how to explain and combat Islamism. Analysts and policymakers
in the 1980s and 1990s spoke of the root causes of Islamic militancy as being economic malaise and marginalization. More recently there has been a focus on political reform as a means of undermining the appeal of radicalism. Increasingly today, the ideological and religious aspects of Islamism need to be addressed because they have become features of a wider political and security debate. Whether in connection with Al-Qaeda terrorism, political reform in the Muslim world, the nuclear issue in Iran or areas of crisis such as Palestine or Lebanon, it has become commonplace to fi nd that ideology and religion are used by opposing parties as sources of legitimization, inspiration and enmity.
The situation is further complicated today by the growing antagonism towards and fear of Islam in the West because of terrorist attacks which in turn impinge on attitudes towards immigration, religion and culture. The boundaries of the umma or community of the faithful have stretched beyond Muslim states to European cities. The umma potentially exists wherever there are Muslim communities. The shared sense of belonging to a common faith increases in an environment where the sense of integration into the surrounding community is unclear and where discrimination may be apparent. The greater the rejection of the values of society,
whether in the West or even in a Muslim state, the greater the consolidation of the moral force of Islam as a cultural identity and value-system.
Following the bombings in London on 7 Julai 2005 it became more apparent that some young people were asserting religious commitment as a way of expressing ethnicity. The links between Muslims across the globe and their perception that Muslims are vulnerable have led many in very diff erent parts of the world to merge their own local predicaments into the wider Muslim one, having identifi ed culturally, either primarily or partially, with a broadly defi ned Islam.

Islamic Political Culture, Demokrasi, and Human Rights

Daniele. Harga

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes in Muslim nations. Consequently, scholars, commentators, and government officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, namun begitu, is based primarily on the analysis of texts, Islamic political theory, and ad hoc studies of individual countries, which do not consider other factors. It is my contention that the texts and traditions of Islam, like those of other religions, can be used to support a variety of political systems and policies. 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. Hence, a new approach to the study of the
connection between Islam and politics is called for.
I suggest, through rigorous evaluation of the relationship between Islam, demokrasi, and human rights at the cross-national level, 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, economic influences, ethnic cleavages, and societal development, 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.

Egypt at the Tipping Point ?

David B. Ottaway
Pada awal 1980-an, 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, Hosni Mubarak, 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 ke 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.

Roots Of Nationalism In The Muslim World

Shabir Ahmed

The Muslim world has been characterised by failure, disunity, bloodshed, oppression and backwardness. Pada masa ini, no Muslim country in the world can rightly claim to be a leader in any field of human activity. Sesungguhnya, the non-Muslims of the East and the West
now dictate the social, economic and political agenda for the Muslim Ummah.
Selanjutnya, the Muslims identify themselves as Turkish, Arab, African and Pakistani. If this is not enough, Muslims are further sub-divided within each country or continent. Sebagai contoh, 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. Sebaliknya, 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.

Democracy in Islamic Political Thought

Azzam S. Tamimi

Democracy has preoccupied Arab political thinkers since the dawn of the modern Arab renaissance about two centuries ago. Since then, the concept of democracy has changed and developed under the influence of a variety of social and political developments.The discussion of democracy in Arab Islamic literature can be traced back to Rifa’a Tahtawi, the father of Egyptian democracy according to Lewis Awad,[3] who shortly after his return to Cairo from Paris published his first book, Takhlis Al-Ibriz Ila Talkhis Bariz, dalam 1834. The book summarized his observations of the manners and customs of the modern French,[4] and praised the concept of democracy as he saw it in France and as he witnessed its defence and reassertion through the 1830 Revolution against King Charles X.[5] Tahtawi tried to show that the democratic concept he was explaining to his readers was compatible with the law of Islam. He compared political pluralism to forms of ideological and jurisprudential pluralism that existed in the Islamic experience:
Religious freedom is the freedom of belief, of opinion and of sect, provided it does not contradict the fundamentals of religion . . . The same would apply to the freedom of political practice and opinion by leading administrators, who endeavour to interpret and apply rules and provisions in accordance with the laws of their own countries. Kings and ministers are licensed in the realm of politics to pursue various routes that in the end serve one purpose: good administration and justice.[6] One important landmark in this regard was the contribution of Khairuddin At-Tunisi (1810- 99), leader of the 19th-century reform movement in Tunisia, WHO, dalam 1867, formulated a general plan for reform in a book entitled Aqwam Al-Masalik Fi Taqwim Al- Mamalik (The Straight Path to Reforming Governments). The main preoccupation of the book was in tackling the question of political reform in the Arab world. While appealing to politicians and scholars of his time to seek all possible means in order to improve the status of the
community and develop its civility, he warned the general Muslim public against shunning the experiences of other nations on the basis of the misconception that all the writings, inventions, experiences or attitudes of non-Muslims should be rejected or disregarded.
Khairuddin further called for an end to absolutist rule, which he blamed for the oppression of nations and the destruction of civilizations.

Sekularisme, Hermeneutik, and Empire: The Politics of Islamic Reformation

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, terutamanya
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
Islam, an understanding that is deeply shaped by U.S. security and foreign policy
concerns in the Muslim world.

Islamic Political Culture, Demokrasi, and Human Rights

Daniele. Harga

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the

values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes

in Muslim nations. Consequently, scholars, commentators, and government

officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next

ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, namun begitu, is based primarily

on the analysis of texts, Islamic political theory, and ad hoc studies

of individual countries, which do not consider other factors. It is my contention

that the texts and traditions of Islam, like those of other religions,

can be used to support a variety of political systems and policies. 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. Hence, a new approach to the study of the

connection between Islam and politics is called for.
I suggest, through rigorous evaluation of the relationship between Islam,

demokrasi, and human rights at the cross-national level, 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, economic influences, ethnic cleavages,

and societal development, to explain the variance in the influence of

Islam on politics across eight nations.

Islamic Political Culture, Demokrasi, and Human Rights

Daniele. Harga

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the

values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes
in Muslim nations. Consequently, scholars, commentators, and government
officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next
ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, namun begitu, is based primarily
on the analysis of texts, Islamic political theory, and ad hoc studies
of individual countries, which do not consider other factors. It is my contention
that the texts and traditions of Islam, like those of other religions,
can be used to support a variety of political systems and policies. 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. Hence, a new approach to the study of the
connection between Islam and politics is called for.
I suggest, through rigorous evaluation of the relationship between Islam,
demokrasi, and human rights at the cross-national level, 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, economic influences, ethnic cleavages,

and societal development, to explain the variance in the influence of

Islam on politics across eight nations.

STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING POLITICAL ISLAM

SHADI HAMID

AMANDA KADLEC

Political Islam is the single most active political force in the Middle East today. Its future is intimately tied to that of the region. If the United States and the European Union are committed to supporting political reform in the region, they will need to devise concrete, coherent strategies for engaging Islamist groups. Namun, the U.S. has generally been unwilling to open a dialogue with these movements. Similarly, 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. A.S.. 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. Sebagai tambahan, 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.

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

Shadi Hamid
A.S.. efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East have long been paralyzed by the “Islamist dilemma”: in theory, we want democracy, tetapi, 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 dan 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. Walau bagaimanapun, 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, dan, di sini, 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. Pada bulan Mac 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. Lebih-lebih lagi, they are seen as crucial to U.S. efforts to counter Iran, stabilize Iraq, and combat terrorism.

The Mismeasure of Political Islam

Martin Kramer

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 bymoderates” atau “reformists.” 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.