RSSAll Entries in the "Студије & Истраживања" Category

Арапско сутра

ДАВИД Б. ОТТАВАИ

октобар 6, 1981, требало је да буде дан прославе у Египту. Обиљежена је годишњица највећег тренутка египатске побједе у три арапско-израелска сукоба, када је неуспешна војска земље прешла преко Суецког канала у првим данима 1973 Јом Кипурски рат и послао израелске трупе да се повлаче у повлачењу. На хладном, јутро без облака, стадион у Каиру био је препун египатских породица које су дошле да виде како војни стуб поставља свој хардвер. На трибини за смотре, председник Анвар ел Садат,ратни архитекта, са задовољством посматрао како људи и машине парадирају пред њим. Био сам у близини, новопридошли страни дописник.Одједном, 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, а осећај новинарске дужности ме је натерао да одем да сазнам да ли је Садат жив или мртав.

Ислам и стварање државне власти

сеииед вали реза наср

Ин 1979 Генерал Мухамед Зиа ул-Хак, војни владар Пакистана, прогласио да ће Пакистан постати исламска држава. Исламске вредности и норме послужиле би као темељ националног идентитета, закон, привреда, и друштвених односа, и инспирисало би све креирање политике. Ин 1980 Махатхир Мухаммад, нови премијер Малезије, увео сличан план широке основе да укочи креирање државне политике у исламске вредности, и да доведе законе и економске праксе своје земље у складу са учењем ислама. Зашто су ови владари изабрали пут „исламизације“ за своје земље? И како су својевремено секуларне постколонијалне државе постале агенти исламизације и претеча „праве“ исламске државе?
Малезија и Пакистан су од касних 1970-их до почетка 1980-их пратиле јединствен пут развоја који се разликује од искустава других држава Трећег света. У ове две земље верски идентитет је интегрисан у државну идеологију како би се циљ и процес развоја информисао са исламским вредностима.
Овај подухват је такође представио сасвим другачију слику односа између ислама и политике у муслиманским друштвима. У Малезији и Пакистану, то су биле државне институције, а не исламистички активисти (они који заговарају политичко читање ислама; познати и као ревивалисти или фундаменталисти) 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, и шире како култура и религија служе потребама државне моћи и развоја. Анализа се овде ослања на теоријске расправе
у друштвеним наукама о понашању државе и улози културе и религије у томе. Важније, извлачи закључке из случајева који се испитују да би донео шире закључке од интереса за дисциплине.

ИРАНКЕ ПОСЛЕ ИСЛАМСКЕ РЕВОЛУЦИЈЕ

Ансииа Кхаз Аллии


Прошло је више од тридесет година од тријумфа Исламске револуције у Ирану, ипак остају а број питања и нејасноћа о начину на који се Исламска Република и њени закони баве савремени проблеми и актуелне околности, посебно у погледу жена и женских права. Овај кратки рад ће расветлити ова питања и проучити тренутни положај жена у различитим сферама, поредећи ово са ситуацијом пре Исламске револуције. Коришћени су поуздани и проверени подаци где год је могуће. Увод сумира низ теоријских и правних студија које обезбеђују основа за накнадну практичнију анализу и извори су одакле су подаци добијени.
Први део разматра ставове руководства Исламске Републике Иран према женама и женска права, 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

Амира Бургхул

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

принципи и учења ислама изазвали су суштинску промену у положају жене

у поређењу са преовлађујућом ситуацијом у земљама и на Истоку и на Западу у то време, и упркос

сагласност великог броја мислилаца и законодаваца да жене током времена

пророк (ас) добили су права и законске привилегије које нису дате људским законима до

недавно, пропагандне кампање западњака и људи са западњачком перспективом

доследно оптужују ислам да је неправедан према женама, наметања ограничења за њих, и

маргинализовање њихове улоге у друштву.

Ова ситуација је погоршана атмосфером и условима који владају широм

муслимански свет, где су незнање и сиромаштво произвели ограничено разумевање религије

and family and human relations which occlude justice and a civilised way of life, particularly

between men and women. The small group of people who have been granted opportunities to

acquire an education and abilities have also fallen into the trap of believing that achieving justice

for women and capitalising on their abilities is dependent upon rejecting religion and piety and

adopting a Western way of life, as a result of their superficial studies of Islam on the one hand

and the effect of life’s diversions on the other.

Only a very small number of people from these two groups have managed to escape and cast off

their cloaks of ignorance and tradition. These people have studied their heritage in great depth

and detail, и отвореног ума посматрали резултате западних искустава. Они имају

разликовао пшеницу и кукољ и у прошлости и у садашњости, и бавили су се

научно и објективно са проблемима који су се појавили. Они су оповргли лаж

оптужбе против ислама са елоквентним аргументима, и признали су прикривене недостатке.

Они су такође преиспитали изреке и обичаје Непогрешивих да би

разликовати оно што је утврђено и свето и оно што је измењено и искривљено.

Одговорно понашање ове групе успоставило је нове правце и нове начине поступања

са питањем жена у исламским друштвима. Очигледно још увек нису решили све проблеме

и пронашао коначна решења за многе законске празнине и недостатке, али су положили

основа за појаву новог модела за муслиманке, који су и јаки и

посвећени легалним и делотворним основама свог друштва.

Уз тријумф Исламске револуције у Ирану и благослов њених вођа, који је

главни верски ауторитет за учешће жена и њихово делотворно политичко и друштвено

учешће, простор за јаку дебату о женама у исламу је значајно проширен.

Модел муслиманских жена у Ирану проширио се на исламске покрете отпора у Либану,

Палестина, друге арапске земље, па чак и западни свет, и као резултат тога, пропаганда

кампање против ислама су донекле јењале.

Појава салафијских исламских покрета као што су талибани у Авганистану и сл.

Салафијски покрети у Саудијској Арабији и северној Африци, и њихов фанатичан начин опхођења према женама,

изазвали су нервозне посматраче који се плаше оживљавања ислама и покренули нову пропаганду

кампање које оптужују ислам да инспирише тероризам и да је назадан и неправедан према

Жене.

размазивање: Како исламофоби шире страх, нетрпељивост и дезинформације

ФАИР

Јулие Холлар

Јим Наурецкас

Претварање исламофобије у мејнстрим:
Како муслимански башари емитују своју нетрпељивост
Невероватна ствар се догодила у Националном кругу критичара књиге (НБЦЦ) номинације у фебруару 2007: Обично високооштра и толерантна група номинована је за најбољу књигу у области критике, књига за коју се нашироко сматра да оцрњује читаву верску групу.
Номинација Бруцеа Бавера Док је Европа спавала: Како радикални ислам уништава Запад изнутра није прошло без контроверзи. Бивши кандидат Елиот Вајнбергер осудио је књигу на годишњем скупу НБЦЦ-а, називајући то „расизмом као критиком“ (Нев Иорк Тимес, 2/8/07). Председник одбора НБЦЦ-а Џон Фриман написао је на блогу групе (Критична маса, 2/4/07): ''Ја никада нисам био
више посрамљен избором него што сам био са филмом Док је Европа спавала Бруса Бавера…. Њена хипервентилирана реторика упућује од стварне критике до исламофобије.''
Иако на крају није освојио награду, Док је Европа спавала признање у највишим књижевним круговима било је амблематично за интеграцију исламофобије, не само у америчком издаваштву већ иу ширим медијима. 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, нетрпељивост и дезинформације. 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. И не за разлику од оптужби изнетих у класичном документу антисемитизма, Протоколи сионских мудраца, неки од најопаснијих израза исламофобије–као Док је Европа спавала–укључују евокације исламских дизајна да доминирају Западом.
Исламске институције и муслимани, наравно, треба да буде подвргнут истој врсти испитивања и критике као и било ко други. На пример, када Норвешки исламски савет расправља о томе да ли геј мушкарце и лезбејке треба погубити, неко може насилно осудити појединце или групе које деле то мишљење без увлачења свих европских муслимана у то, као што је објавила Баверова пиџама медија (8/7/08),
„Дебата о европским муслиманима: Треба ли погубити гејеве?”
Слично томе, екстремисти који своје насилне акције оправдавају позивањем на неку посебну интерпретацију ислама могу бити критиковани без имплицирања енормно разнолике популације муслимана широм света. После свега, Новинари су успели да прате бомбашки напад Тимотија Меквеја у Оклахома Ситију–присталица расистичке секте хришћанског идентитета–без прибегавања генерализованим изјавама о „хришћанском тероризму“. исто тако, медији су пратили терористичке акте фанатика који су Јевреји–на пример масакр у Хеброну који је извршио Барух Голдштајн (Ектра!, 5/6/94)–без имплицирања целине јудаизма.

Тоталитаризам џихадистичког исламизма и његов изазов Европи и исламу

Бассо тиби

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, however, 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.
Један од разлога за такве недостатке је чињеница да већина оних који желе да нас информишу о „џихадистичкој претњи“ – а Берман је типичан за ову стипендију – не само да немају језичке вештине да прочитају изворе које производе идеолози политичких Ислам, али и недостатак знања о културној димензији покрета. Овај нови тоталитарни покрет је по много чему новина
у историји политике будући да има своје корене у два паралелна и сродна феномена: први, културализација политике која води ка томе да се политика концептуализује као културни систем (поглед који је пионир Цлиффорд Геертз); а друго повратак светог, или 'поновно очаравање' света, као реакција на његову интензивну секуларизацију која је резултат глобализације.
Анализа политичких идеологија које се заснивају на религијама, а то може бити привлачно као политичка религија као последица овога, укључује друштвено-научно разумевање улоге религије коју игра светска политика, посебно након што је биполарни систем хладног рата уступио место мултиполарном свету. У пројекту спроведеном на Институту Хана Арент за примену тоталитаризма на проучавање политичких религија, Предложио сам разлику између секуларних идеологија које делују као замена за религију, и верске идеологије засноване на истинској верској вери, што је случај у верском фундаментализму (види напомену
24). Још један пројекат на тему „Политичка религија“, спроведена на Универзитету у Базелу, је јасније ставио до знања да нови приступи политици постају неопходни када се религиозна вера обуче у политичко рухо. Ослањајући се на ауторитативне изворе политичког ислама, овај чланак сугерише да велики број организација инспирисаних исламистичком идеологијом треба да се концептуализује и као политичке религије и као политички покрети. Јединствени квалитет политичког ислама лежи у чињеници да је заснован на транснационалној религији (види напомену 26).

Либерална демократија и политички ислам: потрага за заједничким основама.

Мостапха Бенхенда

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, which is a defining feature of democracy. On the contrary, they often reject the principle of separation between religion and the state, који се често сматра делом демократије (барем, демократије каква је данас позната у Сједињеним Државама). С обзиром на ову помешану оцену демократских принципа, чини се занимљивим утврдити концепцију демократије која лежи у основи исламских политичких модела. Другим речима, треба да покушамо да сазнамо шта је демократско у "теодемократији". У том циљу, међу импресивном разноликошћу и плуралношћу исламских традиција нормативне политичке мисли, ми се у суштини фокусирамо на широк ток мисли који сеже до Абу 'Ала Маудудија и египатског интелектуалца Сајједа Кутба.8 Овај посебан тренд мишљења је интересантан јер у муслиманском свету, лежи у основи неких од најизазовнијих опозиција ширењу вредности које потичу са Запада. Based on religious values, this trend elaborated a political model alternative to liberal democracy. Broadly speaking, the conception of democracy included in this Islamic political model is procedural. With some differences, this conception is inspired by democratic theories advocated by some constitutionalists and political scientists.10 It is thin and minimalist, up to a certain point. For example, it does not rely on any notion of popular sovereignty and it does not require any separation between religion and politics. The first aim of this paper is to elaborate this minimalist conception. We make a detailed restatement of it in order to isolate this conception from its moral (liberal) foundations, which are controversial from the particular Islamic viewpoint considered here. Заиста, демократски процес се обично изводи из принципа личне аутономије, што ове исламске теорије не подржавају.11 Овде, показујемо да такав принцип није неопходан да би се оправдао демократски процес.

Islam and the New Political Landscape

Лес Бацк, Мицхаел Кеитх, Азра Кхан,
Kalbir Shukra and John Solomos

IN THE wake of the attack on the World Trade Center on 11 септембар 2001, and the Madrid and London bombings of 2004 и 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, брзо променљива картографија простора политичког и улога „верских организација“ у реструктурирању пружања социјалне помоћи стварају материјални друштвени контекст који одређује могућности и обрисе нових облика политичког учешћа..

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.

Занимање, Колонијализам, Апартхеид?

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 (Наиме, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, и
Газа, hereafter OPT). Professor Dugard posed the question: Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. At the same time, 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, и, 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. At the same time, 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, DEMOCRACY & THE USA:

Cordoba Foundation

Абдуллах Фалик |

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?
Штавише, 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, Наиме, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, сад, 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

Хенри Сиегман


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.

ISLAM AND THE RULE OF LAW

Биргит Кравиетз
Хелмут Реифелд

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. At the same time, 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, Демократија, and Human Rights

Даниеле. Цена

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, however, 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.

PRECISION IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR:

Схерифа зухур

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

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