RSSAlle Einträge Tagged With: "Ikhwan"

Islamismus revisited

MAHA Azzam

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

Islamische Politische Kultur, Demokratie, und Menschenrechte

Daniel E. Preis

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

Democracy in Islamic Political Thought

Azzam S. Tamimi

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

Islamische Politische Kultur, Demokratie, und Menschenrechte

Daniel E. Preis

It has been argued that Islam facilitates authoritarianism, contradicts the

values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes

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

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

ideological threat to liberal democracies. This view, jedoch, 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,

Demokratie, 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.

Islamistische Oppositionsparteien und das Potenzial für EU-Engagement

Toby Archer

Heidi Huuhtanen

Angesichts der zunehmenden Bedeutung islamistischer Bewegungen in der muslimischen Welt und

die Art und Weise, wie die Radikalisierung die globalen Ereignisse seit der Jahrhundertwende beeinflusst hat, es

Für die EU ist es wichtig, ihre Politik gegenüber Akteuren innerhalb dessen zu bewerten, was locker sein kann

als "islamische Welt" bezeichnet. Es ist besonders wichtig zu fragen, ob und wie man sich engagiert

mit den verschiedenen islamistischen Gruppen.

Dies bleibt auch innerhalb der EU umstritten. Einige glauben, dass der Islam das schätzt

hinter islamistischen Parteien liegen einfach unvereinbar mit westlichen Idealen der Demokratie und

Menschenrechte, während andere Engagement aufgrund des Wachstums als realistische Notwendigkeit ansehen

innerstaatliche Bedeutung islamistischer Parteien und ihr zunehmendes Engagement im internationalen Bereich

Angelegenheiten. Eine andere Perspektive ist, dass die Demokratisierung in der muslimischen Welt zunehmen würde

Europäische Sicherheit. Die Gültigkeit dieser und anderer Argumente darüber, ob und wie die

EU sollte sich engagieren kann nur durch das Studium der verschiedenen islamistischen Bewegungen und getestet werden

ihre politischen Umstände, Land für Land.

Demokratisierung ist ein zentrales Thema der gemeinsamen außenpolitischen Maßnahmen der EU, wie gelegt

in Artikel 11 des Vertrags über die Europäische Union. Viele der Staaten haben dies berücksichtigt

Bericht sind nicht demokratisch, oder nicht vollständig demokratisch. In den meisten dieser Länder, Islamist

Parteien und Bewegungen stellen einen erheblichen Widerstand gegen die vorherrschenden Regime dar, und

in einigen bilden sie den größten Oppositionsblock. Europäische Demokratien mussten lange

sich mit autoritären Regimen befassen, aber es ist ein neues Phänomen zu drücken

für demokratische Reformen in Staaten, in denen die wahrscheinlichsten Nutznießer haben könnten, von dem

Standpunkt der EU, unterschiedliche und manchmal problematische Ansätze zur Demokratie und ihren

verwandte Werte, wie Minderheiten- und Frauenrechte und Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Diese Gebühren sind

oft gegen islamistische Bewegungen gelegt, Daher ist es für die europäischen politischen Entscheidungsträger wichtig, dies zu tun

ein genaues Bild der Richtlinien und Philosophien potenzieller Partner haben.

Erfahrungen aus verschiedenen Ländern deuten darauf hin, dass der Islamist mehr Freiheit hat

Parteien sind erlaubt, Je gemäßigter sie in ihren Handlungen und Ideen sind. In vielen

Fälle Islamistische Parteien und Gruppen haben sich längst von ihrem ursprünglichen Ziel entfernt

der Errichtung eines islamischen Staates, der dem islamischen Recht unterliegt, und sind gekommen, um grundlegende zu akzeptieren

demokratische Prinzipien des Wahlkampfs um die Macht, die Existenz anderer politischer

Wettbewerber, und politischer Pluralismus.

Im Schatten eines arabischen Caesar: Sayyid Qutb und die Radikalisierung der Moderne islamischen Fundamentalismus

Research

“We are the umma of the believers, living within a jahili society. As a community of believers we should see ourselves in a state of war with the state and the society. The territory we dwell in is the House of War.”1 These were the words of Sayyid Qutb in an Egyptian military court in April, 1966 before he and two of his companions were sentenced to death by hanging. The offense; conspiring against the government and plotting its overthrow, the evidence used by the state prosecutors in the trial, besides ‘confessions,’ a book, Qutb’s final piece of literature, Ma‘alim fi al-Turuq, Signposts.2 This study does not set out to be a thorough analysis of the political and religious ideology of Sayyid Qutb. Rather it is an attempt to identify the political and social climate in Egypt as the primary motivation which led to the development of Qutb’s radical interpretations of Islam. Notions of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism dominated the political discourse of Qutb’s Egypt and hearts and minds were enraptured by promises of its populist leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser. This chapter in Arab history from the early 1950’s until the late 1960’s is etched in historical memory as the era of pan-Arabism. Aber, it was also a vital period in the evolution of fundamentalist Islam into its more radical form which first expressed itself in the 1970’s and is until today at the base of radical fundamentalist Islamic thought worldwide. This piece will
demonstrate the principal role played by Sayyid Qutb in this transformation and reveal that radical interpretations of Islam were given impetus to develop in Egypt during this period due to the nature of Nasser’s regime

Political Islam in the Middle East

Sind Knudsen

This report provides an introduction to selected aspects of the phenomenon commonly

referred to as “political Islam”. The report gives special emphasis to the Middle East, in

particular the Levantine countries, and outlines two aspects of the Islamist movement that may

be considered polar opposites: democracy and political violence. In the third section the report

reviews some of the main theories used to explain the Islamic resurgence in the Middle East

(Figure 1). In brief, the report shows that Islam need not be incompatible with democracy and

that there is a tendency to neglect the fact that many Middle Eastern countries have been

engaged in a brutal suppression of Islamist movements, causing them, some argue, to take up

arms against the state, and more rarely, foreign countries. The use of political violence is

widespread in the Middle East, but is neither illogical nor irrational. In many cases even

Islamist groups known for their use of violence have been transformed into peaceful political

parties successfully contesting municipal and national elections. dennoch, the Islamist

revival in the Middle East remains in part unexplained despite a number of theories seeking to

account for its growth and popular appeal. In general, most theories hold that Islamism is a

reaction to relative deprivation, especially social inequality and political oppression. Alternative

theories seek the answer to the Islamist revival within the confines of religion itself and the

powerful, evocative potential of religious symbolism.

The conclusion argues in favour of moving beyond the “gloom and doom” approach that

portrays Islamism as an illegitimate political expression and a potential threat to the West (“Old

Islamism”), and of a more nuanced understanding of the current democratisation of the Islamist

movement that is now taking place throughout the Middle East (“New Islamism”). This

importance of understanding the ideological roots of the “New Islamism” is foregrounded

along with the need for thorough first-hand knowledge of Islamist movements and their

adherents. As social movements, its is argued that more emphasis needs to be placed on

understanding the ways in which they have been capable of harnessing the aspirations not only

of the poorer sections of society but also of the middle class.

Islamist Parties : why they can’t be democratic

Bassam Tibi

Noting Islamism’s growing appeal and strength on the ground, many

Western scholars and officials have been grasping for some way to take

an inclusionary approach toward it. In keeping with this desire, es hat

become fashionable contemptuously to dismiss the idea of insisting on

clear and rigorous distinctions as “academic.” When it comes to Islam

and democracy, this deplorable fashion has been fraught with unfortunate

consequences.

Intelligent discussion of Islamism, Demokratie, and Islam requires

clear and accurate definitions. Without them, analysis will collapse into

confusion and policy making will suffer. My own view, formed after

thirty years of study and reflection regarding the matter, is that Islam and

democracy are indeed compatible, provided that certain necessary religious

reforms are made. The propensity to deliver on such reforms is what

I see as lacking in political Islam. My own avowed interest—as an Arab-

Muslim prodemocracy theorist and practitioner—is to promote the establishment

of secular democracy within the ambit of Islamic civilization.

In order to help clear away the confusion that all too often surrounds

this topic, I will lay out several basic points to bear in mind. The first is

that, so far, Western practices vis-`a-vis political Islam have been faulty

because they have lacked the underpinning of a well-founded assessment.

Unless blind luck intervenes, no policy can be better than the assessment

upon which it is based. Proper assessment is the beginning of

all practical wisdom.

Die Muslimbruderschaft in Ägypten

William Thomasson

Ist der Islam eine Religion der Gewalt? Is the widely applied stereotype that all Muslims are violently opposed to “infidel” Western cultures accurate? Today’s world is confronted with two opposing faces of Islam; nämlich ein friedliches, adaptiv, modernisierten Islam, and the other strictly fundamentalist and against all things un-Islamic or that may corrupt Islamic culture. Both specimens, obwohl scheinbar gegensätzlichen, mischen und inter-Beziehung, and are the roots of the confusion over modern Islam’s true identity. Islam’s vastness makes it difficult to analyze, but one can focus on a particular Islamic region and learn much about Islam as a whole. Tatsächlich, Man kann dies mit Ägypten zu tun, particularly the relationship between the Fundamentalist society known as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian government and population. The two opposing faces of Islam are presented in Egypt in a manageable portion, offering a smaller model of the general multi-national struggle of today’s Islam. In an effort to exemplify the role of Islamic Fundamentalists, und ihre Beziehungen mit der islamischen Gesellschaft als Ganzes in der aktuellen Debatte über das, was der Islam ist, diesem Aufsatz wird eine Historie der Gesellschaft der Muslimbrüder, eine Beschreibung, wie die Organisation entstanden, funktioniert, und organisiert wurde, and a summary of the Brother’s activities and influences on Egyptian culture. Certainly, by doing so, kann man ein tieferes Verständnis darüber, wie islamische Fundamentalisten interpretieren Islam


Die politische Entwicklung der Muslimbruderschaft in Ägypten

Stephen Bennett

"Allah ist unser Ziel. Der Prophet ist unser Führer. Koran ist unser Gesetz. Jihad ist unser Weg. Dying in dem Wege Allahs ist unsere größte Hoffnung. "

Seit seinen Anfängen in Ägypten die Muslimbruderschaft hat viel Kontroverse erstellt, wie einige behaupten, dass die Organisation Gewalt plädiert im Namen des Islam. Laut Dr.. Mamoun Fandy der James A. Baker III Institute of Public Policy, "Dschihadismus und die Aktivierung der Blick auf die Welt des Haus des Islam und das Haus des Krieges sind die Ideen, die aus den Schriften entstanden und die Lehren der Muslim-Bruderschaft " (Livesy, 2005). Der primäre Beweise für diese Behauptung ist bemerkenswert, Mitglied der Bruderschaft, Sayeed Qutb, Wer ist mit der Entwicklung des revisionistischen und umstrittene Auslegung von gutgeschrieben Jihad vorausgesetzt, dass religiöse Rechtfertigungen für Gewalt von Organisationen Ableger der Bruderschaft, wie engagiert al-Jihad, al-Takfir wa al-Hijra, Hamas, und al-Qaida.

Doch das ist noch eine strittige Position, denn trotz der ideologischen Elternteil diese gewalttätigen Organisationen, der Muslimbruderschaft selbst hat immer eine offizielle Haltung gegen Gewalt und gepflegt hat statt islamischen zivilen und sozialen Handelns an der Basis gefördert Ebene. Innerhalb der ersten zwanzig Jahren ihres Bestehens hat die Muslimbruderschaft gewonnenen Status als der einflussreichste aller wichtigen Gruppen im Nahen Osten durch seine populäre Aktivismus. Auch aus Ägypten in anderen Nationen verteilt in der gesamten Region und diente als Katalysator für viele der erfolgreichen beliebten Befreiungsbewegungen gegen westlichen Kolonialismus im Nahen Osten.

Während es die meisten seiner Grundprinzipien von seinen Anfängen beibehalten, Die Muslimbruderschaft hat einen dramatischen Wandel in einigen wichtigen Aspekten seiner politischen Ideologie gemacht. Ehemals von vielen als eine terroristische Organisation verurteilt, ab Ende der Muslimbruderschaft wurde von den meisten aktuellen Stipendiaten des Nahen Ostens als politisch "moderate beschriftet worden", "Politisch zentristische", und "akkommodistischen" zur politischen und staatlichen Strukturen in Ägypten (Abed-Kotob, 1995, p. 321-322). Sana Abed-Kotob sagt uns auch, dass der derzeitige islamistische Oppositionsgruppen, die heute existieren: "Je mehr" radikalen "oder militante dieser Gruppen bestehen auf revolutionäre Veränderung, die auf die Massen und politischen System , der Erwägung, dass ... die neue Muslimbruderschaft in Ägypten, Aufruf zur schrittweisen Veränderung, die innerhalb des politischen Systems unternommen werden und mit der Eintragung der muslimischen Massen "

Beheben von America's islamistischen Dilemma

Shadi Hamid

US-. efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East have long been paralyzed by the “Islamist dilemma”: in theory, we want democracy, but, in practice, fear that Islamist parties will be the prime beneficiaries of any political opening. The most tragic manifestation of this was the Algerian debacle of 1991 und 1992, when the United States stood silently while the staunchly secular military canceled elections after an Islamist party won a parliamentary majority. More recently, the Bush administration backed away from its “freedom agenda” after Islamists did surprisingly well in elections throughout region, including in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories.
But even our fear of Islamist parties—and the resulting refusal to engage with them—has itself been inconsistent, holding true for some countries but not others. The more that a country is seen as vital to American national security interests, the less willing the United States has been to accept Islamist groups having a prominent political role there. Aber, in countries seen as less strategically relevant, and where less is at stake, the United States has occasionally taken a more nuanced approach. But it is precisely where more is at stake that recognizing a role for nonviolent Islamists is most important, und, here, American policy continues to fall short.
Throughout the region, the United States has actively supported autocratic regimes and given the green light for campaigns of repression against groups such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and most influential political movement in the region. In March 2008, during what many observers consider to be the worst period of anti-Brotherhood repression since the 1960s, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waived a $100 million congressionally mandated reduction of military aid to Egypt.

Internationale Konsultation muslimischer Intellektueller über den Islam & Politik

Stimson Center & Institute of Policy Studies

Dieser zweitägige Diskussion brachte Experten und Wissenschaftler aus Bangladesch, Ägypten, Indien,Indonesien, Kenia, Malaysia, Pakistan, auf den Philippinen, Sudan und Sri Lanka vertreten Hochschulen,Nichtregierungsorganisationen und Think-Tanks. Unter den Teilnehmern waren eine Reihe von ehemaligen Regierungsbeamten und einem sitzenden Gesetzgeber. The participants were also chosen to comprise abroad spectrum of ideologies, including the religious and the secular, cultural, political andeconomic conservatives, liberals and radicals.The following themes characterized the discussion:1. Western and US (Mis)Understanding There is a fundamental failure by the West to understand the rich variety of intellectual currents andcross-currents in the Muslim world and in Islamic thought. What is underway in the Muslim worldis not a simple opposition to the West based on grievance (though grievances there also are), but are newal of thought and culture and an aspiration to seek development and to modernize withoutlosing their identity. This takes diverse forms, and cannot be understood in simple terms. There is particular resentment towards Western attempts to define the parameters of legitimate Islamicdiscourse. There is a sense that Islam suffers from gross over generalization, from its champions asmuch as from its detractors. It is strongly urged that in order to understand the nature of the Muslim renaissance, the West should study all intellectual elements within Muslim societies, and not only professedly Islamic discourse.US policy in the aftermath of 9/11 has had several effects. It has led to a hardening andradicalization on both sides of the Western-Muslim encounter. It has led to mutual broad brush(mis)characterization of the other and its intentions. It has contributed to a sense of pan-Islamicsolidarity unprecedented since the end of the Khilafat after World War I. It has also produced adegeneration of US policy, and a diminution of US power, influence and credibility. Schließlich, theUS’ dualistic opposition of terror and its national interests has made the former an appealing instrument for those intent on resistance to the West.

Politische Transitions in der arabischen Welt

Dina Shehata

Das Jahr 2007 markierte das Ende einer kurzen Pause der politischen Liberalisierung in der arabischen Welt, die kurz nach der Besetzung des Irak und die resultierten vor allem aus externen Druck auf die arabischen Regime zu reformieren und zu demokratisieren begannen. Externe Drücke während der 2003-2006 Die Zeit schuf eine politische Öffnung, auf die Aktivisten in der gesamten Region drängten, um auf langjährige Forderungen nach politischen und konstitutionellen Reformen zu drängen. Angesichts einer Kombination aus wachsendem externen und internen Reformdruck, Arabische Regime waren gezwungen, ihren Herausforderern einige Zugeständnisse zu machen. In Ägypten, auf Antrag des Präsidenten, Das Parlament hat eine Verfassungsänderung verabschiedet, um direkte wettbewerbsfähige Präsidentschaftswahlen zu ermöglichen. Im September 2005, Ägypten erlebte seine ersten wettbewerbsorientierten Präsidentschaftswahlen überhaupt und wie erwartet wurde Mubarak mit 87% der Stimmen für eine fünfte Amtszeit gewählt. Außerdem,im November 2005 Parlamentswahlen,die waren freier als frühere Wahlen, die Muslimbruderschaft, die größte Oppositionsbewegung in Ägypten, gewonnen 88 Sitze. Dies war die größte Anzahl von Sitzen, die eine Oppositionsgruppe in Ägypten seit dem 1952 Revolution. Ähnlich, im Januar 2006 Palästinensische Parlamentswahlen, Die Hamas gewann die Mehrheit der Sitze. Hamas konnte damit die Kontrolle über den Palästinensischen Legislativrat erlangen, der seit der Gründung der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde in der Fatah dominiert worden war 1996. Im Libanon, nach der Ermordung von Rafiq Hariri am 14. Februar 2005, Eine Koalition von pro-Hariri-politischen Kräften war durch eine breit angelegte Massenmobilisierung und externe Unterstützung in der Lage, syrische Truppen zum Rückzug aus dem Libanon und die pro-syrische Regierung zum Rücktritt zu zwingen. Wahlen wurden abgehalten, und die Koalition vom 14. Februar konnte mehrere Stimmen gewinnen und eine neue Regierung bilden. In Marokko, König Mohamed VI. Beaufsichtigte die Einrichtung eines Komitees für Wahrheit und Versöhnung, das sich mit den Missständen derer befassen sollte, die unter der Herrschaft seines Vaters missbraucht worden waren. Die Länder des Golfkooperationsrates (GCC) auch unter nahm einige wichtige Reformen während der 2003-2006 Zeitraum. In 2003 Katar hat zum ersten Mal in seiner Geschichte eine schriftliche Verfassung verkündet. Im Jahr 2005 berief Saudi-Arabien zum ersten Mal seit fünf Jahrzehnten Kommunalwahlen ein. Und in 2006, Bahrain hielt parlamentarische Wahlen ab, bei denen die schiitische Gesellschaft von AlWefaqwon 40% der Sitze innehatte. Anschließend, Der erste schiitische Premierminister in Bahrain wurde ernannt, das wurde bekannt als "der arabische Frühling,Einige Optimisten glaubten, dass die arabische Welt am Rande eines demokratischen Wandels stehe, ähnlich wie in Lateinamerika sowie Ost- und Mitteleuropa in den 1980er und 1990er Jahren. Aber, in 2007, als die politische Liberalisierung einer verstärkten Polarisierung und einer erneuten Unterdrückung Platz machte,Diese Hoffnungen wurden zerstreut. Das Versagen der Öffnungen der 2003-2006 Zeit, um eine anhaltende Dynamik in Richtung Demokratisierung zu schaffen, kann auf eine Reihe von Faktoren zurückzuführen sein. Die sich verschlechternde Sicherheitslage im Irak und das Versagen der Vereinigten Staaten, ein stabiles und demokratisches Regime zu schaffen, dämpften die Unterstützung der Bemühungen zur Förderung der Demokratie innerhalb der amerikanischen Regierung und verstärkten die Ansichten derjenigen, die der Ansicht waren, dass Sicherheit und Stabilität vor der Demokratie stehen müssen. Außerdem, Die Wahlerfolge der Islamisten in Ägypten und in Palästina haben die westliche Unterstützung für die Bemühungen zur Förderung der Demokratie in der Region weiter gedämpft, da die Prinzipien dieser Bewegungen als im Widerspruch zu den Interessen des Westens stehend angesehen wurden.

Aktuelle Trends in der Ideologie der ägyptischen Muslimbruderschaft

Dr. Israel Elad Altman

Die US-geführte Middle East Reform-und Demokratisierungsprozess der letzten Kampagne hat dazu beigetragen, twoyears Form einer neuen politischen Realität in Ägypten. Opportunities have opened up fordissent. With U.S. and European support, local opposition groups have been able to takeinitiative, advance their causes and extract concessions from the state. The EgyptianMuslim Brotherhood movement (MB), which has been officially outlawed as a politicalorganization, is now among the groups facing both new opportunities and new risks.Western governments, including the government of the United States, are consideringthe MB and other “moderate Islamist” groups as potential partners in helping to advancedemocracy in their countries, and perhaps also in eradicating Islamist terrorism. Couldthe Egyptian MB fill that role? Could it follow the track of the Turkish Justice andDevelopment Party (AKP) and the Indonesian Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), twoIslamist parties that, according to some analysts, are successfully adapting to the rules ofliberal 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 handledthe ideological and practical challenges and dilemmas that have arisen during the pasttwo years. To what extent has the movement accommodated its outlook to newcircumstances? What are its objectives and its vision of the political order? How has itreacted to U.S. overtures and to the reform and democratization campaign? How has itnavigated its relations with the Egyptian regime on one hand, and other opposition forceson the other, as the country headed toward two dramatic elections in autumn 2005? Towhat extent can the MB be considered a force that might lead Egypt toward liberaldemocracy?

Die Ikhwan in Nordamerika: A Short History

Douglas Farah

Ron Sandee


Die aktuelle Bundesgericht Klage gegen die Holy Land Foundation for Relief und Entwicklung (HLF) in Dallas, Texas,1 offers an unprecedented inside look into the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, sowie seine Ziele und Struktur. The documents discuss recruitment, organization, ideology and the development of the organization in different phases in the United States. The prosecution in the case has presented many internal Muslim Brotherhood documents from the 1980’s and early 1990’s that give a first-ever, public view of the history and ideology behind the operations of the Muslim Brothers (known as the Ikhwan or The Group) in the U.S. over the past four decades. For researchers, the documents have the added weight of being written by the Ikhwan leaders themselves, rather than interpretations of secondary sources.

Brothers in Arms?

Joshua Stacher
Within and between western governments, a heated policy debate is raging over the question of whether or not to engage with the world’s oldest and most influential political Islamist group: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. In 2006, publication of a series of leaked memos in the New Statesman magazine revealed that political analysts within the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office recommended an enhancement of informal contacts with members of the Brotherhood.
The authors of these documents argued that the UK government should be seeking to influence this group, given the extent of its grassroots support in Egypt. The British analysts further suggested that engagement could provide a valuable opportunity for challenging the Brotherhood’s perceptions of the West, including the UK, and for detailed questioning of their prescriptions for solving the challenges facing Egypt and the wider region.
The Bush administration in the United States has been far less open to the idea of direct engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that it would be inappropriate to enter into formal ties with a group that is not legally recognised by the Egyptian government. Aber, there are indications that the US position may be starting to shift. In 2007, it emerged that the State Department had approved a policy that would enable US diplomats to meet and coordinate with elected Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, Irak, Syria and other Arab states.

Within and between western governments, a heated policy debate is raging over the question of whether or not to engage with the world’s oldest and most influential political Islamist group: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. In 2006, publication of a series of leaked memos in the New Statesman magazine revealed that political analysts within the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office recommended an enhancement of informal contacts with members of the Brotherhood.

The authors of these documents argued that the UK government should be seeking to influence this group, given the extent of its grassroots support in Egypt. The British analysts further suggested that engagement could provide a valuable opportunity for challenging the Brotherhood’s perceptions of the West, including the UK, and for detailed questioning of their prescriptions for solving the challenges facing Egypt and the wider region.

The Bush administration in the United States has been far less open to the idea of direct engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that it would be inappropriate to enter into formal ties with a group that is not legally recognised by the Egyptian government. Aber, there are indications that the US position may be starting to shift. In 2007, it emerged that the State Department had approved a policy that would enable US diplomats to meet and coordinate with elected Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, Irak, Syria and other Arab states.