RSSTë gjitha Hyrje në "Tunizi" Kategori

The Arab Tomorrow

DAVID B. OTTAWAY

Tetor 6, 1981, was meant to be a day of celebration in Egypt. It marked the anniversary of Egypt’s grandest moment of victory in three Arab-Israeli conflicts, when the country’s underdog army thrust across the Suez Canal in the opening days ofthe 1973 Yom Kippur War and sent Israeli troops reeling in retreat. On a cool, cloudless morning, the Cairo stadium was packed with Egyptian families that had come to see the military strut its hardware.On the reviewing stand, President Anwar el-Sadat,the war’s architect, watched with satisfaction as men and machines paraded before him. I was nearby, a newly arrived foreign correspondent.Suddenly, one of the army trucks halted directly in front of the reviewing stand just as six Mirage jets roared overhead in an acrobatic performance, painting the sky with long trails of red, yellow, purple,and green smoke. Sadat stood up, apparently preparing to exchange salutes with yet another contingent of Egyptian troops. He made himself a perfect target for four Islamist assassins who jumped from the truck, stormed the podium, and riddled his body with bullets.As the killers continued for what seemed an eternity to spray the stand with their deadly fire, I considered for an instant whether to hit the ground and risk being trampled to death by panicked spectators or remain afoot and risk taking a stray bullet. Instinct told me to stay on my feet, and my sense of journalistic duty impelled me to go find out whether Sadat was alive or dead.

Islam, Islami politik dhe Amerikë

Arabe Insajt

Është "Vëllazëria" me Amerikën mundshme?

Khalil al-Anani

"Nuk ka mundësi për të komunikuar me çdo SHBA. administratës për sa kohë që Shtetet e Bashkuara mban qëndrimin e saj të gjatë në këmbë të Islamit si një rrezik real, një pamje që i vë në Shtetet e Bashkuara në të njëjtën barkë si armiku sionist. Ne nuk kemi nocione të para-konceptuar në lidhje popullin amerikan apo U.S. shoqëria dhe organizatat e saj qytetare dhe mendoj tanke. Ne nuk kemi asnjë problem komunikimin me popullin amerikan, por jo përpjekjet e duhura janë duke u bërë për të na sjellë më afër,"Tha Dr. Issam al-Iryan, Shefi i departamentit politik të Vëllazërisë Myslimane në një intervistë telefonike.
Fjalët al-Iryan të përmbledhur pikëpamjet e Vëllazërisë Myslimane së popullit amerikan dhe të U.S. qeveri. Anëtarët e tjerë të Vëllazërisë Myslimane do të pajtoheshin, siç do vonë Hassan al-Banna, i cili e themeloi grupin në 1928. Al- Banna shikuara Perëndimin kryesisht si një simbol i prishjes morale. Selefite tjera - një shkollë islame të mendimit që mbështetet në paraardhësit si modele shembullore - kanë marrë të njëjtin mendim e Shteteve të Bashkuara, por nuk kanë fleksibilitetin ideologjik përqafuar nga Vëllazëria Myslimane. Ndërsa Vëllazëria Myslimane beson në angazhuar amerikanët në dialog civil, grupe të tjera ekstremiste nuk shoh asnjë pikë në dialog dhe për të ruajtur se forca është e vetmja mënyrë për të që kanë të bëjnë me Shtetet e Bashkuara.

Parimi i Lëvizjes në strukturën e Islamit

Dr. Muhammad Iqbal

Si një lëvizje kulturore Islami e hedh poshtë pikëpamjen e vjetër statik të gjithësisë, dhe arrin një pamje dinamike. Si një sistem emocionale e bashkimit ajo e njeh vlerën e individit si i tillë, dhe refuzon bloodrelationship si një bazë e unitetit të njeriut. Blood-marrëdhënie është earthrootedness. Kërkimi për një themel thjesht psikologjike të unitetit njerëzor bëhet e mundur vetëm me perceptimin se e gjithë jeta e njeriut është shpirtërore në origin.1 saj një perceptim i tillë është krijues i lojalitetit të freskëta, pa asnjë ceremonial për t'i mbajtur ata gjallë, dhe bën të mundur që njeriu të emancipuar veten nga toka. Krishterimi i cili ishte shfaqur fillimisht si një urdhër manastirit u gjykua nga Kostandini si një sistem të dështimit unification.2 të saj për të punuar si një sistem të tillë çuan Perandorin Julian3 për t'u kthyer në perënditë e vjetra të Romës në të cilën ai u përpoq për të vënë interpretime filozofike. Një historian modern i qytetërimit e ka përshkruar në këtë mënyrë gjendjen e botës së qytetëruar në lidhje me kohën kur Islami u shfaq në skenën e historisë: Dukej pra se qytetërimi i madh se ai kishte marrë katër mijë vjet për të ndërtuar ishte në prag të shpërbërjes, dhe se njerëzimi kishte të ngjarë të kthehen në atë gjendje të barbarisë ku çdo fis dhe sekti ishte kundër ardhshme, dhe rendi dhe ligji ishin të panjohura . . . The
Sanksionet e vjetra fisnore kishin humbur fuqinë e tyre. Prandaj metodat e vjetra perandorake do të veprojë më. Sanksionet e reja të krijuara nga
Krishterimi u punuar ndarje dhe shkatërrim në vend të unitetit dhe të rendit. Kjo ishte një kohë e mbushur me tragjedi. qytetërim, si një pemë gjigande gjeth e të cilit e kishte harkuar botën dhe degët e së cilës kishte lindur frytet e artë e artit dhe shkencës dhe letërsisë, u lëkundur, trungu i tij nuk është më i gjallë me llogore rrjedh nga përkushtimi dhe nderimi, por rotted në thelbin, copëtuar nga stuhitë e luftës, dhe mbajtur së bashku vetëm nga litarët e zakoneve dhe ligjeve të lashta, që mund të parakohshme në çdo moment. A kishte ndonjë kulturë emocionale që mund të sjellë, për të mbledhur njerëzimin përsëri në unitet dhe për të shpëtuar qytetërimin? Kjo kulturë duhet të jetë diçka e një lloji të ri, për sanksionet dhe ceremonitë e vjetra ishin të vdekur, dhe për të ndërtuar të tjerët të të njëjtit lloj do të jetë puna
i shkrimtarit centuries.'The pastaj vazhdon të na tregoni se bota u ndal në nevojën e një kulture të re për të marrë vendin e kulturës së fronit, dhe sistemet e bashkimit të cilat janë të bazuara në bloodrelationship.
Eshte e mrekullueshme, ai shton, se një kulturë e tillë duhet të ketë lindur nga Arabia pikërisht në kohën kur ajo ishte më e nevojshme. ka, megjithatë, asgjë mahnitshme në fenomenin. Bota-jeta intuitivisht sheh nevojat e veta, dhe në momente kritike e përcakton drejtimin e vet. Kjo është ajo që, në gjuhën e fesë, ne e quajmë zbulesë profetike. Është e natyrshme se Islami duhet të kishte flashed nëpër vetëdijen e një populli të thjeshtë paprekur nga ndonjë prej kulturave të lashta, dhe zënë një pozicion gjeografik ku tre kontinente të takohen së bashku. Kultura e re e gjen themelin e botës-unitetit në parimin e Tauhâd.'5 Islamit, si një shtet, është vetëm një mjet praktik për të bërë këtë parim një faktor që jetojnë në jetën intelektuale dhe emocionale të njerëzimit. Ajo kërkon besnikëri ndaj Perëndisë, mos fronet. Dhe që All-llahu është baza kryesore shpirtërore e të gjithë jetës, besnikëria ndaj Perëndisë praktikisht shkon në besnikërinë e njeriut me natyrën e tij ideale. Baza kryesore shpirtërore e të gjithë jetës, si konceptuar nga Islami, është e përjetshme dhe zbulon veten në shumëllojshmëri dhe ndryshim. Një shoqëri e bazuar në një konceptim të tillë të realitetit duhet të pajtohen, në jetën e saj, kategoritë e përhershme dhe ndryshimit. Ajo duhet të ketë parime të përjetshme për të rregulluar jetën e saj kolektive, për përjetshme na jep një pikëmbështetje në botën e ndryshimeve të vazhdueshme.

ISLAM, DEMOKRACIA & USA:

Cordoba Foundation

Abdullah Faliq

Intro ,


In spite of it being both a perennial and a complex debate, Arches Quarterly reexamines from theological and practical grounds, the important debate about the relationship and compatibility between Islam and Democracy, as echoed in Barack Obama’s agenda of hope and change. Whilst many celebrate Obama’s ascendancy to the Oval Office as a national catharsis for the US, others remain less optimistic of a shift in ideology and approach in the international arena. While much of the tension and distrust between the Muslim world and the USA can be attributed to the approach of promoting democracy, typically favoring dictatorships and puppet regimes that pay lip-service to democratic values and human rights, the aftershock of 9/11 has truly cemented the misgivings further through America’s position on political Islam. It has created a wall of negativity as found by worldpublicopinion.org, according to which 67% of Egyptians believe that globally America is playing a “mainly negative” role.
America’s response has thus been apt. By electing Obama, many around the world are pinning their hopes for developing a less belligerent, but fairer foreign policy towards the Muslim world. Th e test for Obama, as we discuss, is how America and her allies promote democracy. Will it be facilitating or imposing?
Për më tepër, can it importantly be an honest broker in prolonged zones of confl icts? Enlisting the expertise and insight of prolifi
c scholars, academics, seasoned journalists and politicians, Arches Quarterly brings to light the relationship between Islam and Democracy and the role of America – as well as the changes brought about by Obama, in seeking the common ground. Anas Altikriti, the CEO of Th e Cordoba Foundation provides the opening gambit to this discussion, where he refl ects on the hopes and challenges that rests on Obama’s path. Following Altikriti, the former advisor to President Nixon, Dr Robert Crane off ers a thorough analysis of the Islamic principle of the right to freedom. Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, enriches the discussion with the practical realities of implementing democracy in Muslim dominant societies, domethënë, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, SHBA, who explores Muslim countries lagging in democratisation and modernisation. Th is is complemented by terrorism writer, Dr Nafeez Ahmed’s explanation of the crisis of post-modernity and the
demise of democracy. Dr Daud Abdullah (Director of Middle East Media Monitor), Alan Hart (former ITN and BBC Panorama correspondent; author of Zionism: Th e Real Enemy of the Jews) and Asem Sondos (Editor of Egypt’s Sawt Al Omma weekly) concentrate on Obama and his role vis-à-vis democracy-promotion in the Muslim world, as well as US relations with Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Minister of Foreign Aff airs, Maldives, Ahmed Shaheed speculates on the future of Islam and Democracy; Cllr. Gerry Maclochlainn
a Sinn Féin member who endured four years in prison for Irish Republican activities and a campaigner for the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6, refl ects on his recent trip to Gaza where he witnessed the impact of the brutality and injustice meted out against Palestinians; Dr Marie Breen-Smyth, Director of the Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Contemporary Political Violence discusses the challenges of critically researching political terror; Dr Khalid al-Mubarak, writer and playwright, discusses prospects of peace in Darfur; and fi nally journalist and human rights activist Ashur Shamis looks critically at the democratisation and politicisation of Muslims today.
We hope all this makes for a comprehensive reading and a source for refl ection on issues that aff ect us all in a new dawn of hope.
Thank you

SHBA Hamasi blloqe politike e paqes në Lindjen e Mesme

Henry Siegman


bisedimeve dypalëshe Gabim gjatë këtyre të fundit 16 vite kanë treguar se një marrëveshje paqeje në Lindjen e Mesme nuk mund të arrihet nga vetë palët. 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. Për fat të keq, 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.

islamizmi rishqyrtohet

Maha Azzam

Ka një krizë politike dhe të sigurisë përreth atë që është përmendur si islamizmit, një krizë paraardhes cilit gjatë paraprijë 9/11. Ne te shkuaren 25 vjet, ka pasur emphases të ndryshme se si për të shpjeguar dhe për të luftuar islamizmin. Analistët dhe politikëbërësit
në vitet 1980 dhe 1990 foli për shkaqet rrënjësore të militantizmit islamik si gjendje e sëmurë ekonomike dhe margjinalizimit. Kohët e fundit ka pasur një fokus në reformën politike, si një mjet për të minuar ankesën e radikalizmit. gjithnjë sot, aspektet ideologjike dhe fetare të islamizmit duhet të adresohen, sepse ata janë bërë tiparet e një debati më të gjerë politik dhe të sigurisë. Qoftë në lidhje me terrorizmin Al-Kaedës, reforma politike në botën myslimane, çështjen bërthamore në Iran apo zonat e krizës të tilla si Palestina apo Libani, ajo është bërë e zakonshme për të fi nd atë ideologji dhe fe janë përdorur nga palët kundërshtare si burime të legjitimim, frymëzim dhe armiqësia.
Situata është e komplikuar edhe më tej sot nga rritje antagonizmi ndaj dhe frika e Islamit në Perëndim për shkak të sulmeve terroriste e cila nga ana cenojë qëndrimet ndaj emigracionit, feja dhe kultura. Kufijtë e ummetit apo komunitetin e besimtarëve kanë shtrirë përtej vendeve myslimane në qytete evropiane. Ummeti potencialisht ekziston kudo që ka komunitete muslimane. Ndjenja e përbashkët e përkatësisë në një besim të përbashkët rrit në një mjedis ku ndjenja e integrimit në komunitetin përreth është e paqartë dhe ku diskriminimi mund të jenë të dukshme. Sa më e madhe refuzimi i vlerave të shoqërisë,
qoftë në Perëndim apo edhe në një shtet mysliman, më e madhe konsolidimin e forcës morale të Islamit si një identitet kulturor dhe të vlerës së sistemit.
Pas shpërthimeve në Londër 7 Korrik 2005 ajo u bë më e qartë se disa të rinj kanë pohuar përkushtimin fetar si një mënyrë për të shprehur përkatësinë etnike. Lidhjet mes myslimanëve në të gjithë globin dhe perceptimin e tyre se muslimanët janë të pambrojtur kanë çuar shumë në pjesë shumë të ndrysh erent të botës të bashkojë predicaments e tyre lokale në një më të gjerë myslimane, duke identifi ed kulturore, ose kryesisht ose pjesërisht, me një Islamin gjerësisht defi shkarko Pa.

Kulturës islame Politike, Demokraci, dhe të Drejtat e Njeriut

Daniel E. Çmimi

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes in Muslim nations. Si pasojë, scholars, commentators, and government officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, megjithatë, 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. Prandaj, 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, demokraci, 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.

Egjipti në 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, 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 te 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.

Rrënjët e nacionalizmit në botën myslimane

Shaban 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. Me të vërtetë, the non-Muslims of the East and the West
now dictate the social, economic and political agenda for the Muslim Ummah.
Veç kësaj, 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. Për shembull, 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. Më tepër, 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, në 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, në 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.

Kundërlaicizim, Hermeneutics, dhe Perandorisë: Politika e Reformacionit islame

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, veçanërisht
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.

Kulturës islame Politike, Demokraci, dhe të Drejtat e Njeriut

Daniel E. Çmimi

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the

values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes

in Muslim nations. Si pasojë, scholars, commentators, and government

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

ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, megjithatë, 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. Prandaj, 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,

demokraci, 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.

Kulturës islame Politike, Demokraci, dhe të Drejtat e Njeriut

Daniel E. Çmimi

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the

values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes
in Muslim nations. Si pasojë, scholars, commentators, and government
officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next
ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, megjithatë, 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. Prandaj, 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,
demokraci, 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.

STRATEGJITË PËR Angazhimi ISLAMI POLITIK

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. Akoma, the U.S. has generally been unwilling to open a dialogue with these movements. Në mënyrë të ngjashme, 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 (PPE) – yet they have little to say about how the challenge of Islamist political opposition fits within broader regional objectives. SHBA. 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. Ndërkohë, the vast majority of mainstream Islamist organizations – including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Fronti i Veprimit Islamik i Jordanisë (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. Veç, 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.

Dilema islamike Amerikës Zgjidhja e: Mësime nga Azia Jugore dhe Juglindore

Shadi Hamid
SHBA. përpjekjet për të promovuar demokracinë në Lindjen e Mesme kanë kohë që janë paralizuar nga "dilemë islamike": në teori, ne duam demokraci, por, në praktikë, frikë se partitë islamike do të jenë përfituesit kryesor të çdo hapjes politike. Manifestimi më tragjike e kësaj ishte përmbysje e algjerian i 1991 dhe 1992, kur Shtetet e Bashkuara qëndroi në heshtje, ndërsa me vendosmëri laik zgjedhjet e ushtarake anulua pas një parti islamike fitoi një shumicë parlamentare. Më shumë kohët e fundit, administrata e presidentit Bush mbështeti larg nga "agjendën e lirisë" e tij pasi islamistët e bëri çuditërisht edhe në zgjedhjet në të gjithë rajonin, përfshirë në Egjipt, Arabia Saudite, dhe territoret palestineze.
Por edhe frika jonë e partive islamiste-dhe refuzimi rezulton që të angazhohen me ta-ka qenë në kundërshtim vetë, mbajtjen e vërtetë për disa vende por jo të tjerët. Më shumë se një vend është parë si jetike për interesat e sigurisë kombëtare amerikane, më pak të gatshëm të Shteteve të Bashkuara ka qenë për të pranuar grupet islamike që ka një rol të rëndësishëm politik ka. Megjithatë, në vende të shihen si më pak të rëndësishme strategjike, dhe ku më pak është në rrezik, Shtetet e Bashkuara ka marrë herë pas here një qasje më të nuancuar. Por kjo është pikërisht aty ku më shumë është në rrezik që duke njohur një rol për islamistët jo të dhunshme është më e rëndësishme, dhe, këtu, Politika amerikane vazhdon të dështoj.
Në të gjithë rajonin, Shtetet e Bashkuara kanë mbështetur në mënyrë aktive dhe të regjimeve autokratike dhënë dritën e gjelbër për fushata e represionit kundër grupeve të tilla si Vëllazëria Muslimane egjiptian, lëvizjes më të vjetra dhe më me ndikim politik në rajon. Në mars 2008, gjatë asaj që shumë vëzhgues e konsiderojnë të jetë periudha më e keqe e anti-Vëllazëria represionit që nga viti 1960, Sekretarja e Shtetit Kondoliza Rajs hiqet dorë një $100 milion reduktim të mandatuar nga Kongresi i ndihmës ushtarake në Egjipt. 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. Për më tepër, 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 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.