RSSAll Entries in the "Štúdie & výskumy" Category

Arabský zajtrajšok

DAVID B. OTTAWAY

októbra 6, 1981, mal byť v Egypte dňom osláv. Pripomenulo to výročie najväčšieho víťazstva Egypta v troch arabsko-izraelských konfliktoch, keď sa v úvodných dňoch podguráženej armády krajiny prehnali cez Suezský prieplav 1973 Jomkipurská vojna a poslala izraelské jednotky na ústup. V pohode, bezoblačné ráno, Káhirský štadión bol preplnený egyptskými rodinami, ktoré si prišli pozrieť vojenskú výstuhu s jej hardvérom., Prezident Anwar el-Sadat,architekt vojny, s uspokojením sledoval, ako pred ním defilujú muži a stroje. Bol som nablízku, novoprišlého zahraničného spravodajcu.Zrazu, jedno z armádnych nákladných vozidiel sa zastavilo priamo pred hodnotiacim stánkom práve vo chvíli, keď nad hlavami zahučalo šesť prúdových lietadiel Mirage v akrobatickom predstavení., maľovanie oblohy dlhými červenými stopami, žltá, Fialová,a zelený dym. Sadat vstal, očividne sa pripravujú na výmenu pozdravov s ďalším kontingentom egyptských jednotiek. Urobil zo seba dokonalý cieľ pre štyroch islamistických vrahov, ktorí vyskočili z kamiónu, vtrhol na pódium, a prešpikovali jeho telo guľkami. Keď vrahovia pokračovali celú večnosť, aby postriekali stánok svojim smrtiacim ohňom, Chvíľu som zvažoval, či mám dopadnúť na zem a riskovať, že ma ušliapu na smrť panikári diváci, alebo zostanem na nohách a risknem zatúlanú guľku.. Inštinkt mi povedal, aby som zostal stáť na nohách, and my sense of journalistic duty impelled me to go find out whether Sadat was alive or dead.

Islam and the Making of State Power

seyyed vali reza nasr

In 1979 General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, the military ruler of Pakistan, declared that Pakistan would become an Islamic state. Islamic values and norms would serve as the foundation of national identity, law, economy, and social relations, and would inspire all policy making. In 1980 Mahathir Muhammad, the new prime minister of Malaysia, introduced a similar broad-based plan to anchor state policy making in Islamic values, and to bring his country’s laws and economic practices in line with the teachings of Islam. Why did these rulers choose the path of “Islamization” for their countries? A ako sa kedysi sekulárne postkoloniálne štáty stali agentmi islamizácie a predzvesťou „skutočného“ islamského štátu?
Malajzia a Pakistan sa od konca 70. do začiatku 80. rokov 20. storočia vydali jedinečnou cestou rozvoja, ktorá sa líši od skúseností iných štátov tretieho sveta.. V týchto dvoch krajinách bola náboženská identita integrovaná do štátnej ideológie, aby formovala cieľ a proces rozvoja s islamskými hodnotami.
Tento podnik tiež priniesol veľmi odlišný obraz o vzťahu medzi islamom a politikou v moslimských spoločnostiach. V Malajzii a Pakistane, boli to skôr štátne inštitúcie ako islamistickí aktivisti (tí, ktorí obhajujú politické čítanie islamu; tiež známy ako revivalisti alebo fundamentalisti) that have been the guardians of Islam and the defenders of its interests. This suggests a
very different dynamic in the ebbs and flow of Islamic politics—in the least pointing to the importance of the state in the vicissitudes of this phenomenon.
What to make of secular states that turn Islamic? What does such a transformation mean for the state as well as for Islamic politics?
This book grapples with these questions. This is not a comprehensive account of Malaysia’s or Pakistan’s politics, nor does it cover all aspects of Islam’s role in their societies and politics, although the analytical narrative dwells on these issues considerably. This book is rather a social scientific inquiry into the phenomenon of secular postcolonial states becoming agents of Islamization, and more broadly how culture and religion serve the needs of state power and development. The analysis here relies on theoretical discussions
in the social sciences of state behavior and the role of culture and religion therein. More important, it draws inferences from the cases under examination to make broader conclusions of interest to the disciplines.

IRANIAN WOMEN AFTER THE ISLAMIC REVOLUTION

Ansiia Khaz Allii


More than thirty years have passed since the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, yet there remain a number of questions and ambiguities about the way the Islamic Republic and its laws deal with contemporary problems and current circumstances, particularly with regard to women and women’s rights. This short paper will shed light on these issues and study the current position of women in various spheres, comparing this to the situation prior to the Islamic Revolution. Reliable and authenticated data has been used wherever possible. The introduction summarises a number of theoretical and legal studies which provide the basis for the subsequent more practical analysis and are the sources from where the data has been obtained.
The first section considers attitudes of the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards women and women’s rights, and then takes a comprehensive look at the laws promulgated since the Islamic Revolution concerning women and their position in society. The second section considers women’s cultural and educational developments since the Revolution and compares these to the pre-revolutionary situation. The third section looks at women’s political, social and economic participation and considers both quantative and qualitative aspects of their employment. The fourth section then examines questions of the family, the relationship between women and the family, and the family’s role in limiting or increasing women’s rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Women in Islam

Amira Burghul

Despite major consensus amongst a large number of philosophers and historians that the

principles and teachings of Islam caused a fundamental change in the position of women

compared to the prevailing situation in countries in both East and West at the time, and despite

the agreement of a large number of thinkers and legislators that women during the time of the

Prophet (PBUH) were granted rights and legal privileges not granted by man-made laws until

recently, propaganda campaigns by Westerners and people with a Westernised perspective

consistently accuse Islam of being unjust to women, of imposing restrictions on them, a

marginalising their role in society.

This situation has been made worse by the atmosphere and conditions prevalent across the

Muslim world, where ignorance and poverty have produced a limited understanding of religion

a rodinné a medziľudské vzťahy, ktoré bránia spravodlivosti a civilizovanému spôsobu života, obzvlášť

medzi mužmi a ženami. Malá skupina ľudí, ktorí dostali príležitosť

získať vzdelanie a schopnosti sa tiež dostali do pasce presvedčenia, že dosiahnutie spravodlivosti

pre ženy a využitie ich schopností závisí od odmietnutia náboženstva a zbožnosti a

osvojiť si západný spôsob života, ako výsledok ich povrchného štúdia islamu na jednej strane

a vplyv odklonov života na toho druhého.

Len veľmi malému počtu ľudí z týchto dvoch skupín sa podarilo utiecť a odvrhnúť sa

ich plášte nevedomosti a tradície. Títo ľudia študovali svoje dedičstvo do veľkej hĺbky

a detail, and have looked at the results of Western experiences with an open mind. They have

distinguished between the wheat and the chaff in both the past and the present, and have dealt

scientifically and objectively with the problems which have arisen. They have refuted the false

charges made against Islam with eloquent arguments, and have admitted to concealed flaws.

They have also re-examined the sayings and customs of the Infallible Ones in order to

distinguish between what is established and holy and what has been altered and distorted.

The responsible behaviour of this group has established new directions and new ways of dealing

with the question of women in Islamic societies. They have clearly not yet tackled all problems

and found final solutions for the many legislative gaps and deficiencies, but they have laid the

ground for the emergence of a new model for Muslim women, who are both strong and

committed to the legal and effective foundations of their society.

With the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the blessing of its leaders, which is the

main religious authority for the participation of women and their effective political and social

participation, the scope for strong debate over women in Islam has been significantly expanded.

The model of Muslim women in Iran has spread to Islamic resistance movements in Lebanon,

Palestine other Arab countries and even the Western world, and as a result, propaganda

campaigns against Islam have abated to some extent.

The emergence of Salafi Islamic movements such as the Taliban in Afghanistan and similar

Salafi hnutia v Saudskej Arábii a severnej Afrike, a ich fanatický spôsob zaobchádzania so ženami,

vyprovokovali nervóznych divákov, ktorí sa obávajú oživenia islamu, aby spustili novú propagandu

kampane obviňujúce islam z inšpirácie k terorizmu a z toho, že je voči nemu zaostalý a nespravodlivý

ženy.

podmazávanie: Ako islamofóbi šíria strach, bigotnosť a dezinformácie

FÉR

Júlia Hollarová

Jim Naureckas

Urobiť islamofóbiu mainstreamom:
Ako moslimovia vysielajú svoju bigotnosť
V National Book Critics Circle sa stala pozoruhodná vec (NBCC) nominácií vo februári 2007: Normálne namyslená a tolerantná skupina nominovaná na najlepšiu knihu v oblasti kritiky, kniha, ktorá je všeobecne vnímaná ako hanobenie celej náboženskej skupiny.
Nominácia filmu Brucea Bawera Kým Európa spala: Ako radikálny islam zvnútra ničí Západ sa nezaobišlo bez kontroverzií. Minulý kandidát Eliot Weinberger knihu odsúdil na výročnom stretnutí NBCC, nazývať to „rasizmus ako kritika“ (New York Times, 2/8/07). Prezident predstavenstva NBCC John Freeman napísal na blog skupiny (Kritické množstvo, 2/4/07): ''Nikdy som nebol
viac v rozpakoch z voľby, ako som bol s Bruceom Bawerom Kým Európa spala…. Jeho hyperventilovaná rétorika vychádza zo skutočnej kritiky do islamofóbie.
Aj keď cenu nakoniec nezískal, Kým Európa spala, uznanie v najvyšších literárnych kruhoch bolo symbolom presadzovania islamofóbie, nielen v americkom vydavateľstve, ale aj v širších médiách. This report takes a fresh look at Islamophobia in today’s media and its perpetratrators, outlining some of the behind-the-scenes connections that are rarely explored in media. The report also provides four snapshots, or “case studies,” describing how Islamophobes continue to manipulate media to in order to paint Muslims with a broad, hateful brush. Our aim is to document smearcasting: the public writings and appearances of Islamophobic activists and pundits who intentionally and regularly spread fear, bigotnosť a dezinformácie. The term “Islamophobia” refers to hostility toward Islam and Muslims that tends to dehumanize an entire faith, portraying it as fundamentally alien and attributing to it an inherent, essential set of negative traits such as irrationality, intolerance and violence. And not unlike the charges made in the classical document of anti-Semitism, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, some of Islamophobia’s more virulent expressionslike While Europe Sleptinclude evocations of Islamic designs to dominate the West.
Islamic institutions and Muslims, of course, should be subject to the same kind of scrutiny and criticism as anyone else. For instance, when a Norwegian Islamic Council debates whether gay men and lesbians should be executed, one may forcefully condemn individuals or groups sharing that opinion without pulling all European Muslims into it, as did Bawer’s Pajamas Media post (8/7/08),
“European Muslims Debate: Should Gays Be Executed?
Similarly, extremists who justify their violent actions by invoking some particular interpretation of Islam can be criticized without implicating the enormously diverse population of Muslims around the world. After all, reporters managed to cover the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeighan adherent of the racist Christian Identity sectwithout resorting to generalized statements about “Christian terrorism.” Likewise, media have covered acts of terrorism by fanatics who are Jewishfor instance the Hebron massacre carried out by Baruch Goldstein (Extra!, 5/6/94)–without implicating the entirety of Judaism.

The Totalitarianism of Jihadist Islamism and its Challenge to Europe and to Islam

BASS PRE VÁS

When reading the majority of texts that comprise the vast literature that has been published by self-proclaimed pundits on political Islam, it is easy to miss the fact that a new movement has arisen. Further, this literature fails to explain in a satisfactory manner the fact that the ideology which drives it is based on a particular interpretation of Islam, and that it is thus a politicised religious faith,
not a secular one. The only book in which political Islam is addressed as a form of totalitarianism is the one by Paul Berman, Terror and Liberalism (2003). The author is, však, not an expert, cannot read Islamic sources, and therefore relies on the selective use of one or two secondary sources, thus failing to grasp the phenomenon.
Jedným z dôvodov týchto nedostatkov je skutočnosť, že väčšina z tých, ktorí sa nás snažia informovať o „hrozbe džihádistov“ – a Berman je pre toto štipendium typický – nielenže nemajú jazykové znalosti na čítanie zdrojov vytvorených ideológmi politického islam, ale aj nedostatok vedomostí o kultúrnom rozmere hnutia. Toto nové totalitné hnutie je v mnohých smeroch novinkou
v dejinách politiky, pretože má svoje korene v dvoch paralelných a súvisiacich javoch: najprv, kulturalizácia politiky, ktorá vedie k tomu, že politika je konceptualizovaná ako kultúrny systém (pohľad, ktorý propagoval Clifford Geertz); a po druhé návrat posvätného, alebo „očarovanie“ sveta, as a reaction to its intensive secularisation resulting from globalisation.
The analysis of political ideologies that are based on religions, and that can exert appeal as a political religion as a consequence of this, involves a social science understanding of the role of religion played by world politics, especially after the bi-polar system of the Cold War has given way to a multi-polar world. In a project conducted at the Hannah Arendt Institute for the application of totalitarianism to the study of political religions, I proposed the distinction between secular ideologies that act as a substitute for religion, and religious ideologies based on genuine religious faith, which is the case in religious fundamentalism (see note
24). Another project on ‘Political Religion’, carried out at the University of Basel, has made clearer the point that new approaches to politics become necessary once a religious faith becomes clothed in a political garb.Drawing on the authoritative sources of political Islam, this article suggests that the great variety of organisations inspired by Islamist ideology are to be conceptualised both as political religions and as political movements. The unique quality of political Islam lies is the fact that it is based on a transnational religion (see note 26).

Liberal Democracy and Political Islam: the Search for Common Ground.

Mostapha Benhenda

This paper seeks to establish a dialogue between democratic and Islamic political theories.1 The interplay between them is puzzling: for example, in order to explain the relationship existing between democracy and their conception of the ideal Islamic political
regime, the Pakistani scholar Abu ‘Ala Maududi coined the neologism “theodemocracy” whereas the French scholar Louis Massignon suggested the oxymoron “secular theocracy”. These expressions suggest that some aspects of democracy are evaluated positively and others are judged negatively. For example, Muslim scholars and activists often endorse the principle of accountability of rulers, ktorý je charakteristickým znakom demokracie. Práve naopak, často odmietajú princíp oddelenia náboženstva a štátu, ktorý sa často považuje za súčasť demokracie (najmenej, demokracie, ako ju dnes v Spojených štátoch poznáme). Vzhľadom na toto zmiešané hodnotenie demokratických princípov, zdá sa zaujímavé určiť koncepciu demokracie, ktorá je základom islamských politických modelov. Inými slovami, mali by sme sa pokúsiť zistiť, čo je demokratické v „teodemokracii“. Za týmto účelom, medzi pôsobivú rozmanitosť a pluralitu islamských tradícií normatívneho politického myslenia, v podstate sa zameriavame na široký myšlienkový prúd siahajúci až k Abu ‘Ala Maududimu a egyptskému intelektuálovi Sayyedovi Qutbovi.8 Tento konkrétny myšlienkový trend je zaujímavý, pretože v moslimskom svete, je základom niektorých najnáročnejších opozícií voči šíreniu hodnôt pochádzajúcich zo Západu. Na základe náboženských hodnôt, tento trend vytvoril alternatívu politického modelu k liberálnej demokracii. Všeobecne povedané, Koncepcia demokracie obsiahnutá v tomto islamskom politickom modeli je procedurálna. S určitými rozdielmi, táto koncepcia je inšpirovaná demokratickými teóriami, ktoré presadzujú niektorí konštitucionalisti a politológovia.10 Je tenká a minimalistická, do určitého bodu. For example, nespolieha sa na žiadnu predstavu o suverenite ľudu a nevyžaduje žiadne oddelenie náboženstva a politiky. Prvým cieľom tohto príspevku je rozpracovať túto minimalistickú koncepciu. Robíme to podrobné preformulovanie, aby sme túto koncepciu izolovali od jej morálky (liberálny) foundations, which are controversial from the particular Islamic viewpoint considered here. Indeed, the democratic process is usually derived from a principle of personal autonomy, which is not endorsed by these Islamic theories.11 Here, we show that such principle is not necessary to justify a democratic process.

Islam and the New Political Landscape

Les Back, Michael Keith, Azra Khan,
Kalbir Shukra and John Solomos

IN THE wake of the attack on the World Trade Center on 11 septembra 2001, and the Madrid and London bombings of 2004 a 2005, a literature that addresses the forms and modalities of religious expression – particularly Islamic religious expression – has flourished in the penumbral regions that link mainstream social science to social policy design, think tanks and journalism. Much of the work has attempted to define attitudes or predispositions of a Muslim population in a particular site of tension such as London or the UK (Barnes, 2006; Ethnos Consultancy, 2005; GFK, 2006; GLA, 2006; Populus, 2006), or critiqued particular forms of social policy intervention (Bright, 2006a; Mirza et al., 2007). Studies of Islamism and Jihadism have created a particular focus on the syncretic and complex links between Islamic religious faith and forms of social movement and political mobilization (Husain, 2007; Kepel, 2004, 2006; McRoy, 2006; Neville-Jones et al., 2006, 2007; Phillips, 2006; Roy, 2004, 2006). Conventionally, the analytical focus has spotlighted the culture of Islam, the belief systems of the faithful, and the historical and geographical trajectories of Muslim populations across the world in general and in ‘the West’ in particular (Abbas, 2005; Ansari, 2002; Eade and Garbin, 2002; Hussein, 2006; Modood, 2005; Ramadan, 1999, 2005). In this article the emphasis is different. We argue that studies of Islamic political participation need to be contextualized carefully without recourse to grand generalities about culture and faith. This is because both culture and faith are structured by and in turn structure the cultural, institutional and deliberative landscapes through which they are articulated. In the case of the British experience, the hidden traces of Christianity in the formation of the welfare state in the last century, the rapidly changing cartography of spaces of the political and the role of ‘faith organizations’ in the restructuring of welfare provision generate the material social context determining the opportunities and the outlines of new forms of political participation.

ROOTS OF MISCONCEPTION

IBRAHIM KALIN

In the aftermath of September 11, the long and checkered relationship between Islam and the West entered a new phase. The attacks were interpreted as the fulfillment of a prophecy that had been in the consciousness of the West for a long time, i.e., the coming of Islam as a menacing power with a clear intent to destroy Western civilization. Representations of Islam as a violent, militant, and oppressive religious ideology extended from television programs and state offices to schools and the internet. It was even suggested that Makka, the holiest city of Islam, be “nuked” to give a lasting lesson to all Muslims. Although one can look at the widespread sense of anger, hostility, and revenge as a normal human reaction to the abominable loss of innocent lives, the demonization of Muslims is the result of deeper philosophical and historical issues.
In many subtle ways, the long history of Islam and the West, from the theological polemics of Baghdad in the eighth and ninth centuries to the experience of convivencia in Andalusia in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, informs the current perceptions and qualms of each civilization vis-à-vis the other. This paper will examine some of the salient features of this history and argue that the monolithic representations of Islam, created and sustained by a highly complex set of image-producers, think-tanks, academics, lobbyists, policy makers, and media, dominating the present Western conscience, have their roots in the West’s long history with the Islamic world. It will also be argued that the deep-rooted misgivings about Islam and Muslims have led and continue to lead to fundamentally flawed and erroneous policy decisions that have a direct impact on the current relations of Islam and the West. The almost unequivocal identification of Islam with terrorism and extremism in the minds of many Americans after September 11 is an outcome generated by both historical misperceptions, which will be analyzed in some detail below, and the political agenda of certain interest groups that see confrontation as the only way to deal with the Islamic world. It is hoped that the following analysis will provide a historical context in which we can make sense of these tendencies and their repercussions for both worlds.

Povolanie, kolonializmus, apartheidu?

The Human Sciences Research Council

The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa commissioned this study to test the hypothesis posed by Professor John Dugard in the report he presented to the UN Human Rights Council in January 2007, in his capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel (namely, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, a
Gaza, hereafter OPT). Professor Dugard posed the question: Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. Zároveň, elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the Occupying Power and third States?
In order to consider these consequences, this study set out to examine legally the premises of Professor Dugard’s question: is Israel the occupant of the OPT, a, if so, do elements of its occupation of these territories amount to colonialism or apartheid? South Africa has an obvious interest in these questions given its bitter history of apartheid, which entailed the denial of selfdetermination
to its majority population and, during its occupation of Namibia, the extension of apartheid to that territory which South Africa effectively sought to colonise. These unlawful practices must not be replicated elsewhere: other peoples must not suffer in the way the populations of South Africa and Namibia have suffered.
To explore these issues, an international team of scholars was assembled. The aim of this project was to scrutinise the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric. This study is the outcome of a fifteen-month collaborative process of intensive research, consultation, writing and review. It concludes and, it is to be hoped, persuasively argues and clearly demonstrates that Israel, since 1967, has been the belligerent Occupying Power in the OPT, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid. Belligerent occupation in itself is not an unlawful situation: it is accepted as a possible consequence of armed conflict. Zároveň, under the law of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law), occupation is intended to be only a temporary state of affairs. International law prohibits the unilateral annexation or permanent acquisition of territory as a result of the threat or use of force: should this occur, no State may recognise or support the resulting unlawful situation. In contrast to occupation, both colonialism and apartheid are always unlawful and indeed are considered to be particularly serious breaches of international law because they are fundamentally contrary to core values of the international legal order. Colonialism violates the principle of self-determination,
which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed as ‘one of the essential principles of contemporary international law’. All States have a duty to respect and promote self-determination. Apartheid is an aggravated case of racial discrimination, which is constituted according to the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973,
hereafter ‘Apartheid Convention’) by ‘inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them’. The practice of apartheid, moreover, is an international crime.
Professor Dugard in his report to the UN Human Rights Council in 2007 suggested that an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s conduct should be sought from the ICJ. This advisory opinion would undoubtedly complement the opinion that the ICJ delivered in 2004 on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territories (hereafter ‘the Wall advisory opinion’). This course of legal action does not exhaust the options open to the international community, nor indeed the duties of third States and international organisations when they are appraised that another State is engaged in the practices of colonialism or apartheid.

ISLAM, DEMOKRACIA & SPOJENÉ ŠTÁTY AMERICKÉ:

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?
Moreover, 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, namely, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, USA, 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

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. Bohužiaľ, 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.

ISLAM AND THE RULE OF LAW

Birgit Krawietzová
Helmut Reifeld

In our modern Western society, state-organised legal sys-tems normally draw a distinctive line that separates religion and the law. Conversely, there are a number of Islamic re-gional societies where religion and the laws are as closely interlinked and intertwined today as they were before the onset of the modern age. Zároveň, the proportion in which religious law (shariah in Arabic) and public law (qanun) are blended varies from one country to the next. What is more, the status of Islam and consequently that of Islamic law differs as well. According to information provided by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), there are currently 57 Islamic states worldwide, defined as countries in which Islam is the religion of (1) the state, (2) the majority of the population, or (3) a large minority. All this affects the development and the form of Islamic law.

Islamic Political Culture, demokracia, and Human Rights

Daniele. cena

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, však, 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, democracy, 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.

PRESNOSŤ V GLOBÁLNEJ VOJNE PROTI TERORU:

Sherifa zuhur

Sedem rokov po septembri 11, 2001 (9/11) útokov, Mnohí experti sa domnievajú, že al-Káida opäť nabrala na sile a že jej napodobňovatelia alebo pridružení členovia sú smrteľnejší ako predtým. Národný spravodajský odhad z 2007 tvrdil, že al-Káida je teraz nebezpečnejšia ako predtým 9/11.1 Emulátori al-Káidy naďalej ohrozujú Západ, Stredný východ, a európske národy, ako na pozemku zmarenej v septembri 2007 v Nemecku. uvádza Bruce Riedel: Predovšetkým vďaka horlivosti Washingtonu ísť do Iraku a nie loviť vodcov al-Kájdy, organizácia má teraz pevnú základňu operácií v Badlands v Pakistane a efektívnu franšízu v západnom Iraku. Jeho dosah sa rozšíril po celom moslimskom svete a v Európe . . . Usáma bin Ládin spustil úspešnú propagandistickú kampaň. . . . Jeho nápady teraz priťahujú viac nasledovníkov ako kedykoľvek predtým.
Je pravda, že v celom islamskom svete stále vznikajú rôzne salafi-džihádistické organizácie. Prečo sa reakcie na islamistický terorizmus, ktoré nazývame globálnym džihádom, neukázali mimoriadne efektívne?
Prechod k nástrojom „mäkkej sily,“A čo účinnosť úsilia Západu posilniť moslimov v globálnej vojne proti terorizmu? (GWOT)? Prečo si Spojené štáty získali tak málo „sŕdc a myslí“ v širšom islamskom svete? Prečo americké strategické posolstvá o tejto otázke hrajú v regióne tak zle? Prečo?, napriek širokému moslimskému nesúhlasu s extrémizmom, ako ukazujú prieskumy a oficiálne vyjadrenia kľúčových moslimských vodcov, V Jordánsku a Pakistane sa podpora pre bin Ládina skutočne zvýšila?
Táto monografia sa nebude zaoberať pôvodom islamistického násilia. Namiesto toho sa zaoberá typom koncepčného zlyhania, ktoré nesprávne vytvára GWOT a ktoré odrádza moslimov od jeho podpory.. Nie sú schopní stotožniť sa s navrhovanými transformačnými protiopatreniami, pretože vnímajú niektoré zo svojich základných presvedčení a inštitúcií ako ciele v
toto úsilie.
Niekoľko hlboko problematických trendov mätie americké konceptualizácie GWOT a strategické posolstvá vytvorené na boj proti tejto vojne.. Tieto sa vyvíjajú z (1) postkoloniálne politické prístupy k moslimom a moslimským väčšinovým národom, ktoré sa veľmi líšia, a preto vytvárajú protichodné a mätúce dojmy a účinky; a (2) zvyšková všeobecná nevedomosť a predsudky voči islamu a subregionálnym kultúram. Pridajte k tomu americký hnev, strach, a úzkosť zo smrteľných udalostí 9/11, a určité prvky, ktoré, napriek naliehaniu chladnejších hláv, brať moslimov a ich náboženstvo na zodpovednosť za zločiny ich koreligistov, alebo ktorí to považujú za užitočné z politických dôvodov.

demokracia, Elections and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

Israel Elad-Altman

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