RSSAlle reacties Tagged With: "rechten van de mens"

Het principe van beweging in de structuur van de islam

Dr. Muhammad Iqbal

Als een culturele beweging islam verwerpt de oude statische opvatting van het heelal, en bereikt een dynamisch beeld. Als een emotionele systeem van de eenwording het erkent de waarde van het individu als zodanig, en rejects bloodrelationship als basis van menselijke eenheid. Bloedverwantschap is earthrootedness. De zoektocht naar een puur psychologisch fundament van de menselijke eenheid wordt alleen mogelijk met de perceptie dat alle menselijke leven is geestelijk in zijn origin.1 Een dergelijke perceptie is creatief verse loyaliteit zonder enig ceremonieel om hen in leven te houden, en maakt het mogelijk voor de mens om zichzelf te bevrijden van de aarde. Christendom, die oorspronkelijk was verschenen als een kloosterorde werd berecht door Constantijn als een systeem van unification.2 Het feit dat werk als een dergelijk systeem reed de keizer Julian3 om terug te keren naar de oude goden van Rome, waarop hij probeerde om filosofische interpretaties zetten. Een moderne historicus van de beschaving is dus afgeschilderd de toestand van de beschaafde wereld over de tijd waarin de islam verscheen op het podium van de geschiedenis: Het leek toen dat de grote beschaving dat het vierduizend jaar had genomen om construct was op de rand van desintegratie, en dat de mensheid was waarschijnlijk terugkeren naar die toestand van barbarij waar elke stam en sekte was tegen de volgende, en recht en orde waren onbekend . . . De
oude tribale sancties hadden hun macht verloren. Vandaar dat de oude keizerlijke methoden niet meer werken. De nieuwe sancties die door
Christendom werkten divisie en vernietiging in plaats van eenheid en orde. Het was een tijd vol met drama. Beschaving, als een reusachtige boom waarvan bladeren had de wereld overwelfd en waarvan de takken had de gouden vruchten van de kunst en wetenschap en literatuur gedragen, stond wankelende, zijn stam niet meer leven met de vloeiende sap van toewijding en eerbied, maar verrot tot de kern, verscheurd door de stormen van de oorlog, en bijeengehouden alleen door de koorden van de oude gewoonten en wetten, dat zou kunnen breken op elk moment. Was er een emotionele cultuur die konden worden gebracht, om de mensheid wederom verzamelen in de eenheid en de beschaving te redden? Deze cultuur moet iets van een nieuw type, voor de oude sancties en ceremoniën dood waren, en de opbouw van anderen van dezelfde soort zou het werk zijn
van centuries.'The schrijver gaat dan om ons te vertellen dat de wereld stond in de noodzaak van een nieuwe cultuur naar de plaats van de cultuur van de troon te nemen, en de systemen van de vereniging, die gebaseerd waren op bloodrelationship.
Het is geweldig, hij voegt toe, dat een dergelijke cultuur zou zijn ontstaan ​​uit Arabië juist op het moment dat het meest nodig was. Er is, echter, niets geweldig in het fenomeen. De wereld-leven ziet intuïtief zijn eigen behoeften, en op kritieke momenten bepaalt zijn eigen richting. Dit is wat, in de taal van de religie, wij noemen profetische openbaring. Het is logisch dat de islam over het bewustzijn van een eenvoudige mensen onaangeroerd moeten flitste door een van de oude culturen, en het bezetten van een geografische positie waar drie continenten samenkomen. De nieuwe cultuur vindt de grondlegging der wereld-eenheid in het principe van Tauhâd.'5 Islam, als polity, is slechts een praktisch middel van het maken van dit principe een levende factor in de intellectuele en emotionele leven van de mensheid. Het vraagt ​​trouw aan God, niet te tronen. En aangezien God is de ultieme geestelijke basis van alle leven, trouw aan God vrijwel neer op de loyaliteit van de mens om zijn eigen ideale natuur. De ultieme geestelijke basis van alle leven, zoals opgevat door de islam, is eeuwig en openbaart zich in verscheidenheid en verandering. Een samenleving die gebaseerd is op een dergelijke opvatting van de werkelijkheid moet verzoenen, in zijn leven, de categorieën van duurzaamheid en verandering. Het moet eeuwige beginselen bezitten om zijn collectieve leven te reguleren, voor de eeuwige geeft ons een positie in de wereld van de eeuwige verandering.

Islamistische oppositiepartijen en het potentieel voor de inzet van de EU

Toby Archer

Heidi Huuhtanen

In het licht van het toenemende belang van islamitische bewegingen in de moslimwereld en

de manier waarop radicalisering heeft beïnvloed gebeurtenissen in de wereld sinds het begin van de eeuw, het

is het belangrijk dat de EU haar beleid ten aanzien van actoren binnen wat los kunnen evalueren

aangeduid als de ‘islamitische wereld’. Het is vooral belangrijk om te vragen of en hoe deel te nemen

met de verschillende islamistische groeperingen.

Dit blijft controversieel zelfs binnen de EU. Sommigen vinden dat de islamitische waarden die

leugen achter islamistische partijen zijn gewoonweg onverenigbaar zijn met de westerse idealen van democratie en

rechten van de mens, terwijl anderen zien engagement als een realistische noodzaak te wijten aan de groeiende

binnenlands belang van islamistische partijen en hun toenemende betrokkenheid bij internationale

zaken. Een ander perspectief is dat de democratisering in de moslimwereld zou toenemen

Europese veiligheid. De geldigheid van deze en andere argumenten over de vraag of en hoe de

EU moet aangaan kan alleen worden getest door het bestuderen van de verschillende islamitische bewegingen en

hun politieke omstandigheden, per land.

Democratisering is een centraal thema van gemeenschappelijke acties buitenlands beleid van de EU, zoals vastgelegd

bedoeld in artikel 11 van het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie. Veel van de staten die in dit

rapport zijn niet democratisch, of niet volledig democratisch. In de meeste van deze landen, islamistische

partijen en bewegingen vormen een aanzienlijke weerstand tegen de heersende regimes, en

In sommige vormen ze de grootste oppositiepartij blok. Europese democratieën hebben lang moest

omgaan met betrekking tot regimes die autoritair zijn, maar het is een nieuw fenomeen in de pers

voor democratische hervormingen in staten waar de meest waarschijnlijke begunstigden zou kunnen hebben, van de

het oogpunt van de EU, verschillende en soms problematisch benaderingen van democratie en haar

verwante waarden, zoals de rechten van minderheden en vrouwen en de rechtsstaat. Deze kosten zijn

vaak gelegd tegen islamitische bewegingen, dus het is belangrijk voor de Europese beleidsmakers

hebben een nauwkeurig beeld van het beleid en de filosofieën van potentiële partners.

Ervaringen uit verschillende landen de neiging om te suggereren dat de meer vrijheid islamistische

partijen zijn toegestaan, de meer gematigde ze in hun acties en ideeën. In veel

cases islamistische partijen en groepen hebben allang verschoven van hun oorspronkelijke doel

van de oprichting van een islamitische staat beheerst door de islamitische wet, en zijn gekomen basic te accepteren

de democratische beginselen van electorale concurrentie om de macht, het bestaan ​​van andere politieke

concurrenten, en politiek pluralisme.

islamitische partijen : teruggaan naar de oorsprong

Husain Haqqani

Hillel Fradkin

How should we understand the emergence and the nature of Islamist parties? Can they reasonably be expected not just to participate in democratic politics but even to respect the norms of liberal democracy? These questions lie at the heart of the issues that we have been asked to address.
In our view, any response that is historically and thus practically relevant must begin with the following observation: Until very recently, even the idea of an Islamist party (let alone a democratic Islamist party) would have seemed, from the perspective of Islamism itself, a paradox if not a contradiction in terms. Islamism’s original conception of a healthy Islamic political life made no room for—indeed rejected—any role for parties of any sort. Islamist groups described themselves as the vanguard of Islamic revival, claiming that they represented the essence of Islam and reflected the aspiration of the global umma (community of believers) for an Islamic polity. Pluralism, which is a precondition for the operation of political parties, was rejected by most Islamist political
thinkers as a foreign idea.
As should be more or less obvious, the novelty not only of actually existing Islamist parties but of the very idea of such parties makes it exceptionally difficult to assess their democratic bona fides. But this difficulty merely adds another level of complication to a problem that stems from the very origins of Islamism and its conception of the true meaning of Islam and of Islam’s relationship to political life

De Syrische oppositie

Joshua Landis

Joe Pace


For decades, VS. policy toward Syria has been single-mindedly focused on Syria’s president, Hafiz al-Asad, from 1970 naar 2000, followed by his son Bashar. Because they perceived the Syrian opposition to be too weak and anti-American, VS. officials preferred to work with the Asad regime. Washington thus had no relations with the Syrian opposition until its invasion of Iraq in 2003. Zelfs dan, the Bush administration reached out only to Washington-based opponents of the Syrian regime. They were looking for a Syrian counterpart to Ahmad Chalabi, the pro-U.S. Iraqi opposition leader who helped build the case for invading Iraq.
Washington was not interested in engaging Islamists, whom it considered the only opposition with a demonstrated popular base in Syria. As for the secular opposition in Syria, VS. embassy officials in Damascus considered them to “have a weak back bench,” without a popular constituency or connection to Syrian youth.2 Moreover, contact between opposition members and embassy officials could be dangerous for opponents of the regime and leave them open to accusations of treason. For these reasons, the difficult terrain of opposition figures within Syria remained terra incognita.

Het maatschappelijk middenveld en democratisering in de Arabische wereld

Saad Eddin Ibrahim
Zelfs als de islam het antwoord is, Arabische moslims zijn het probleem

In mei 2008, de Arabische natie heeft een aantal branden meegemaakt, of liever:, gewapende conflicten—in

Libanon, Irak, Palestina, Jemen, en Somalië. In deze conflicten,

de strijdende partijen gebruikten de islam als instrument voor mobilisatie

en het vergaren van steun. collectief, moslims zijn

oorlog voeren tegen moslims.

Nadat sommige moslims de slogan “Islam is de oplossing”,”

het

werd duidelijk dat “hun islam het probleem is”. Nauwelijks hebben sommigen van hen wapens verworven,

dan dat ze het tegen de staat en zijn heersende regime inbrachten, ongeacht

of dat regime regeerde in naam van de islam of niet?.

Wij hebben

dit de afgelopen jaren gezien tussen de volgelingen van Osama bin Laden

en de Al-Qaeda-organisatie aan de ene kant, en de autoriteiten in

het Koninkrijk Saoedi-Arabië, op de andere. We hebben ook gezien een

explosief voorbeeld van dit fenomeen in Marokko, wiens koning regeert in naam van de islam en

wiens titel de 'Prins van de Gelovigen' is.’ Dus elke moslimfractie doodt andere moslims in de

naam van de islam.
Een snelle blik op de inhoud van de media bevestigt hoe de

term islam en de bijbehorende symbolen zijn slechts werktuigen geworden in de handen van deze moslims.

Prominente voorbeelden van deze islam-uitbuitende facties zijn::
De Moslim Broederschap, Egyptische Islamitische Jihad, en Jamiat al-Islamiyya, in Egypte

Hamas en de Islamitische Jihad-beweging, in Palestina Hezbollah, Fatah al-Islam,

en Jamiat al-Islammiyya, in Libanon De Houthi Zayadi-rebellen en de Islamitische Hervormingsgroepering

(Correctie), inJemen De islamitische rechtbanken, in Somalië Het Islamitisch Front ,

De Egyptische blogosfeer: huis van een nieuw feminisme

Laura Pitel

Has there been a time in your life when you experienced, felt or even heard about a story at the heart of which lay the oppression of a woman because she, a female, lives in a male society?1These were the first words of an email sent in 2006 to Egypt‟s female bloggers, calling upon them to speak out about the problems faced by women in their society. The authors of the invitation were a group of five female Egyptian bloggers who, weeks earlier, had begun We are all Laila – a blogging initiative set-up in order to shed light on the frustrations of being a woman in a patriarchal society. On 9th September, over 70 bloggers contributed to We are all Laila day, successfully creating a storm both in the world of blogging and beyond.The group formed at a time of enormous growth in Egypt‟s online sphere. The popularity of blogs – websites usually run by an individual, made public for anyone to read – took off in the three years up to 2007: pre-2005 there were around 40 Egyptian blogs,2 door 2005 there were about 400,3 and by September 2006 that number is estimated to have been 1800.4 This parallels the growth in the global blogosphere5 which was home to 70 million blogs by April 2007.

Politieke islam wint terrein

Michael Een. Lang

characteristics of the democratic order. Their newly-discovered acceptance of elections andparliamentary processes results not least from a gradual democratisation of the formerlyauthoritarian regimes these groups had fought by terrorist means even in their home countries.The prime example of this development is Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which started out as acharitable social movement and has now become the most powerful political opposition force inEgypt.Founded in the 1920s, the Muslim Brotherhood is the oldest Islamic organisation of the Arabworld today. Following the ideas of its founder Al-Banna, it intended to return to a state of ‘trueIslam’, i. to return to the way of life of the early Islamic congregation at the time of theProphet, and to establish a community of social justice. This vision was increasingly viewed as acounterweight to the Western social model that was marked by secularisation, moral decay, andgreed. During World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood even founded a secret military arm, whoseactivities, echter, were uncovered, leading to the execution of Mr Al-Banna by Egypt’s secretpolice

In de schaduw van de Broeders

Abdel-Latif Omayma

In September 2007, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt released its fi rst politicalparty platform draft. Among the heavily criticized clauses was one that deniedwomen (and Copts) the right to be head of state. “Duties and responsibilities assumed by the head of state, such as army commanding, are in contradictionwith the socially acceptable roles for women,” the draft stated. In previousBrotherhood documents there was no specifi c mention of the position of headof state; rather, they declared that women were allowed to occupy all postsexcept for al-imama al-kubra, the position of caliph, which is the equivalentof a head of state in modern times. Many were surprised that despite severalprogressive moves the Brotherhood had made in previous years to empowerwomen, it ruled out women’s right to the country’s top position.Although the platform was only a fi rst draft, the Muslim Brotherhood’s banon women in Egypt’s top offi ce revived old, but serious, questions regardingthe Islamist movement’s stand on the place and role of the “Sisters” inside themovement. The Brotherhood earlier had taken an advanced position concerningwomen, as refl ected in its naming of women candidates for parliamentaryand municipal elections in 2000, 2005, en 2007, as well as the growingnumbers of women involved in Brotherhood political activities, such as streetprotests and elections. Although the platform recognizes women as key politicalactors, it was considered a retreat from the movement’s advanced positionin some earlier electoral platforms.

Het ontwerppartijplatform van de Egyptische Moslimbroederschap

Nathan J. Bruin
Amr Hamzawy

In the late summer 2007, amid great anticipation from Egypt’s ruling elite and opposition movements, the Muslim Brotherhood distributed the first draft of a party platform to a group of intellectuals and analysts. The platform was not to serve as a document for an existing political party or even one about to be founded: the Brotherhood remains without legal recognition in Egypt and Egypt’s rulers and the laws they have enacted make the prospect of legal recognition for a Brotherhood-founded party seem distant. But the Brotherhood’s leadership clearly wished to signal what sort of party they would found if allowed to do so.

With the circulation of the draft document, the movement opened its doors to discussion and even contentious debate about the main ideas of the platform, the likely course of the Brotherhood’s political role, and the future of its relationship with other political forces in the country.1 In this paper, we seek to answer four questions concerning the Brotherhood’s

party platform:

1. What are the specific controversies and divisions generated by the platform?


2. Why and how has the platform proved so divisive?


3. Given the divisions it caused as well as the inauspicious political environment,

why was a platform drafted at this time?


4. How will these controversies likely be resolved?


We also offer some observations about the Brotherhood’s experience with

drafting a party platform and demonstrate how its goals have only been partly

met. Ultimately, the integration of the Muslim Brotherhood as a normal political

actor will depend not only on the movement’s words but also on the deeds

of a regime that seems increasingly hostile to the Brotherhood’s political role.

Een oproep tot gerechtigheid

Ibrahim El Houdaiby

It was over 12 years ago that I watched CNN to follow the trial of O J Simpson. Although being thousands of miles away, I was still able to see what was going on inside the court room, listen to
persecutor and defence arguments, and read transcripts of that in newspapers. I even remember arguing with family members and friends in Egypt on whether or not he was guilty.

Regardless of the verdict, I sincerely believe that this trial had all foundations and necessary guarantees and requirements of a fair trial. Most importantly: it was held publicly so that people all over the world could follow its procedures.

Vandaag, 12 years later, opposition leaders belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood are standing before asecretmilitary tribunal in Egypt. Sixteen sessions have been held so far, while all journalists, reporters, domestic or international human rights observers have
been denied access. Defendants belonging to the country’s largest opposition group, and the region’s largest Islamist movement with moderate orientation and peaceful approach, are standing before this tribunal despite civilian courts acquitting them four times of all charges brought by the notorious State Security Prosecutor, describing them asfabricated, groundless, and politically motivated.They are standing before the tribunal despite a court’s ruling that found the President’s decision to transfer them to a military tribunalunconstitutional,” as they are civilian opposition leaders who should be tried by civilian courts. The decision to transfer them to military tribunals disrespecting civilian courts’ verdicts was condemned by international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Bovendien, the case was brought to military tribunal even before charges were prepared. After the third acquittal of the detainees by civilian courts, the regime had no legal excuse to extend their detention, and therefore had to commence trial sessions within a couple of days so that it could keep them behind bars. The regime never attempted to justify that, and the judge (a military officer who has no option but to follow the orders of his seniors; the President and the Minister of Defence) only adjourned the session till charges were prepared in a clear violation of due legal processes.

Forty defendants, including the group’s Deputy Chairman Khayrat El Shater, are facing false accusations of money laundering and financing a ‘banned organisation’. The only witness in the case is the State Security officer who presided over investigations. In his testimony, he
failed to present any substantial evidence to support his claims.

He made some fatal mistakes that should undermine his testimony altogether. This included not knowing the names and professions of some of the defendants, refusing to respond to most of the defence questions and providing contradictory answers for the other questions. He failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would support the charges.
But all this took place behind closed doors. The only people granted access to the court room were the detaineesfamilies. The justification was rather silly; the sessions were being held in a military base which required a special permit to enter. This does not explain why families are allowed to enter without a permit, nor does it explain why civilian opposition leaders are being tried in a military base!! Strict procedures were imposed in order to guarantee that no account of what happens inside the court room would not reach the outside world except through families and lawyers who could be easily discredited.
The motives for all this are patently clear. Mubarak’s regime is suffering eroding popularity due to its political, social and economic failures both domestically and internationally at a time when there is a pressing need to speed up the devilish inheritance plan by which
Jamal Mubarak is expected to take over the presidency from his 80-years-old father despite the strong popular opposition. With mounting public discontent and unprecedented wave of strikes, most recent are raging protests by around 30,000 cotton factory workers protesting unimaginable living conditions resulting from a $27 per month salary, it was necessary that the regime attempts to silence its strong opposition groups by resorting to extralegal measures,and the list is endless.
Ayman Nour, a young articulate politician and a potential opponent for Jamal Mubarak in any upcoming elections was sentenced to 5 years in prison, MP Talaat El Sadat, nephew of late President Sadat and an outspoken parliamentarian was sentenced to one year in prison by a military tribunal, hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood activists have been detained and kept behind bars with no accusations, and now 40 influential leaders and members of the group are facing an unknown fate in military tribunal which lacks all basic guarantees of a fair trial. In the past few weeks, four independent newspaper editors were sentenced to prison term after being found guilty of ‘defaming ruling figures’.
Twelve years ago, American courts set O J Simson free, and yet later on had to pay restitution as he was foundliablefor the deaths by a civil suit. The underpinning idea was clear: you need to be certain to take away a person’s freedom, but maybe less certain to
take away some of his money. Today in Egypt, there is an oppressive regime imposing draconian measures against its people and depriving many of their freedom despite the ruling of court of justice, while the vast majority of Western governments, writers and civil society organisations remain silent. Only very few have spoken out and acted against this assault on human rights and democracy. It is high time for those interested in bringing justice and freedom to Egypt to manifest this interest through actions as well as words.

Dissidentie en hervorming in Egypte: Uitdagingen voor democratisering

Ayat M. Abul-Futouh

Over the last two years, Egypt has witnessed large demonstrations led by newdemocratic civil society movements, including Kefaya (Arabic for “enough”), the JudgesClub of Egypt, journalist advocacy groups, civil society coalitions, and other human rightsactivists.These groups have championed a number of causes including an independentjudiciary, contested presidential elections, presidential term limits, and the annulment ofemergency law. While most of these demands have yet to be met, some gains, asexemplified by the 2005 presidential and parliamentary elections, have been made.However, it remains to be seen whether or not this surge of democratic fervor willsucceed in pressuring President Hosni Mubarak’s regime to take meaningful steps towardopening the system and allowing for broader democratic participation. Egypt’s rulers havenot been seriously challenged by a domestic opposition for over five decades. Behind afortress of restrictive laws, the regime has managed to undermine nascent political partiesand keep them weak, fragmented, and unable to develop any constituency among thepeople. Civil society is likewise shackled by laws that have constrained their formation andactivities.Since the late 1970s, following Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, the Egyptiangovernment has received unwavering financial and moral support from Westerndemocracies—particularly the United States. Egypt is seen as a staunch ally in the region, apartner in managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Arab-Israeli relations, en, after the9/11 attacks, a valuable source of intelligence in the war on terror. The regime has usedthis support to maintain its suffocating grip on political activity.Then, starting in 2004, it seemed a new day had dawned for Egyptian reformers.Calls by the United States for Arab governments to democratize resonated strongly withincivil society, rapidly escalating domestic demands for radical political reforms. PresidentBush has often cited Egypt as an example of a developing democracy in the region. But theEgyptian regime is a hybrid of deeply rooted authoritarian elements and pluralistic andliberal aspects. There are strong state security forces, but also an outspoken oppositionpress and an active, albeit constrained, civil society. In short, Egypt is the perfect model of a“semi-authoritarian” state, rather than a “transitional democracy.”President Mubarak’s government continues to proclaim its commitment to liberaldemocracy, pointing to a vast array of formal democratic institutions. The reality, echter,is that these institutions are highly deficient. The ruling elite maintains an absolutemonopoly over political power. President Hosni Mubarak was elected last September for afifth six-year term in office. In order for democratic reforms to advance in Egypt,substantial institutional and legal changes must be made.