RSSTous les articles taggés avec: "Mouvement islamique"

Démocratie libérale et l'islam politique: le Search for Common Ground.

Mostapha Benhenda

This paper seeks to establish a dialogue between democratic and Islamic political theories.1 The interplay between them is puzzling: for example, in order to explain the relationship existing between democracy and their conception of the ideal Islamic political
régime, 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. Par exemple, 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, which is often considered to be part of democracy (at least, of democracy as known in the United States today). Given this mixed assessment of democratic principles, it seems interesting to determine the conception of democracy underlying Islamic political models. In other words, we should try to find out what is democratic in “theodemocracy”. To that end, among the impressive diversity and plurality of Islamic traditions of normative political thought, we essentially focus on the broad current of thought going back to Abu ‘Ala Maududi and the Egyptian intellectual Sayyed Qutb.8 This particular trend of thought is interesting because in the Muslim world, it lies at the basis of some of the most challenging oppositions to the diffusion of the values originating from the West. 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. Par exemple, 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. En effet, the democratic process is usually derived from a principle of personal autonomy, which is not endorsed by these Islamic theories.11 Here, we show that such principle is not necessary to justify a democratic process.

ISLAM, DEMOCRACY & THE USA:

Cordoba Foundation

Abdullah Faliq

Intro ,


In spite of it being both a perennial and a complex debate, Arches Quarterly reexamines from theological and practical grounds, the important debate about the relationship and compatibility between Islam and Democracy, as echoed in Barack Obama’s agenda of hope and change. Whilst many celebrate Obama’s ascendancy to the Oval Office as a national catharsis for the US, others remain less optimistic of a shift in ideology and approach in the international arena. While much of the tension and distrust between the Muslim world and the USA can be attributed to the approach of promoting democracy, typically favoring dictatorships and puppet regimes that pay lip-service to democratic values and human rights, the aftershock of 9/11 has truly cemented the misgivings further through America’s position on political Islam. It has created a wall of negativity as found by worldpublicopinion.org, according to which 67% of Egyptians believe that globally America is playing a “mainly negative” role.
America’s response has thus been apt. By electing Obama, many around the world are pinning their hopes for developing a less belligerent, but fairer foreign policy towards the Muslim world. Th e test for Obama, as we discuss, is how America and her allies promote democracy. Will it be facilitating or imposing?
En outre, can it importantly be an honest broker in prolonged zones of confl icts? Enlisting the expertise and insight of prolifi
c scholars, academics, seasoned journalists and politicians, Arches Quarterly brings to light the relationship between Islam and Democracy and the role of America – as well as the changes brought about by Obama, in seeking the common ground. Anas Altikriti, the CEO of Th e Cordoba Foundation provides the opening gambit to this discussion, where he refl ects on the hopes and challenges that rests on Obama’s path. Following Altikriti, the former advisor to President Nixon, Dr Robert Crane off ers a thorough analysis of the Islamic principle of the right to freedom. Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, enriches the discussion with the practical realities of implementing democracy in Muslim dominant societies, namely, in Indonesia and Malaysia.
We also have Dr Shireen Hunter, of Georgetown University, Etats-Unis, 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

L'islamisme revisité

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 ans, 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 Juillet 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.

La culture islamique politiques, Démocratie, et droits de l'homme

Daniel E. Prix

Il a été avancé que l'islam facilite l'autoritarisme, contradicts the values of Western societies, and significantly affects important political outcomes in Muslim nations. par conséquent, savants, commentateurs, and government officials frequently point to ‘‘Islamic fundamentalism’’ as the next ideological threat to liberal democracies. Cette vue, cependant, is based primarily on the analysis of texts, Théorie politique islamique, and ad hoc studies of individual countries, qui ne tiennent pas compte d'autres facteurs. It is my contention that the texts and traditions of Islam, comme ceux des autres religions, peut être utilisé pour soutenir une variété de systèmes politiques et de politiques. 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. D'où, une nouvelle approche de l'étude des
un lien entre l'islam et la politique est nécessaire.
je suggère, par une évaluation rigoureuse de la relation entre l'Islam, la démocratie, et les droits de l'homme au niveau transnational, 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, influences économiques, clivages ethniques, et développement sociétal, 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:

Sherifa Zuhur

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 (Guerre contre le terrorisme)? 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; et (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.

Démocratie, Les élections et les Frères musulmans égyptiens

Israël Elad-Altman

La campagne de réforme et de démocratisation menée par les Américains au Moyen-Orient au cours des deux dernières années a contribué à façonner une nouvelle réalité politique en Égypte. Des opportunités se sont ouvertes à la dissidence. Avec nous. et soutien européen, les groupes d'opposition locaux ont pu prendre des initiatives, faire avancer leurs causes et arracher des concessions à l'État. Le mouvement des Frères musulmans égyptiens (MB), qui a été officiellement interdite en tant qu'organisation politique, fait désormais partie des groupes confrontés à ces deux nouvelles opportunités
et de nouveaux risques.
Gouvernements occidentaux, y compris le gouvernement des États-Unis, considèrent le MB et d'autres groupes «islamistes modérés» comme des partenaires potentiels pour aider à faire progresser la démocratie dans leur pays, et peut-être aussi pour éradiquer le terrorisme islamiste. Le MB égyptien pourrait-il remplir ce rôle? Pourrait-il suivre la voie du Parti turc de la justice et du développement (AKP) et le Parti indonésien de la justice prospère (MCC), deux partis islamistes qui, selon certains analystes, s'adaptent avec succès aux règles de la démocratie libérale et conduisent leurs pays vers une plus grande intégration avec, respectivement, L'Europe et une Asie «païenne»?
Cet article examine comment le MB a répondu à la nouvelle réalité, comment il a géré les défis et dilemmes idéologiques et pratiques qui se sont posés au cours des deux dernières années. Dans quelle mesure le mouvement a-t-il adapté ses perspectives aux nouvelles circonstances?? Quels sont ses objectifs et sa vision de l'ordre politique? Comment a-t-il réagi aux États-Unis. ouvertures et à la campagne de réforme et de démocratisation?
Comment a-t-il navigué dans ses relations avec le régime égyptien d'une part, et d'autres forces d'opposition de l'autre, alors que le pays se dirige vers deux élections dramatiques à l'automne 2005? Dans quelle mesure le MB peut-il être considéré comme une force qui pourrait conduire l'Égypte
vers la démocratie libérale?

FRÈRES MUSULMANS ÉGYPTE: CONFRONTATION OU INTÉGRATION?

Rechercher

Le succès de la Society of Muslim Brothers en novembre-décembre 2005 les élections à l’Assemblée du peuple ont provoqué une onde de choc dans le système politique égyptien. En réponse, le régime a réprimé le mouvement, harcelé d'autres rivaux potentiels et annulé son processus de réforme naissant. C'est dangereusement myope. Il y a lieu de s'inquiéter du programme politique des Frères musulmans, et ils doivent au peuple de véritables clarifications sur plusieurs de ses aspects. Mais le national démocrate au pouvoir
Fête (NPD) le refus de desserrer son emprise risque d'exacerber les tensions à la fois dans une période d'incertitude politique entourant la succession présidentielle et de graves troubles socio-économiques. Bien que ce soit probablement un, processus graduel, le régime devrait prendre des mesures préliminaires pour normaliser la participation des Frères musulmans à la vie politique. Les Frères musulmans, dont les activités sociales ont longtemps été tolérées mais dont le rôle dans la politique formelle est strictement limité, a remporté un sans précédent 20 pour cent des sièges parlementaires au 2005 élections. Ils l'ont fait malgré la compétition pour seulement un tiers des sièges disponibles et malgré des obstacles considérables, y compris la répression policière et la fraude électorale. Ce succès a confirmé leur position de force politique extrêmement bien organisée et profondément enracinée. À la fois, il a souligné les faiblesses de l'opposition légale et du parti au pouvoir. Le régime aurait bien pu parier qu’une augmentation modeste de la représentation parlementaire des Frères musulmans pourrait être utilisée pour attiser les craintes d’une prise de contrôle islamiste et servir ainsi de raison pour bloquer la réforme.. Le cas échéant, la stratégie risque fort de se retourner contre vous.

L'Égypte au point de basculement ?

David B. Ottaway
Au début des années 80, J'ai vécu au Caire en tant que chef de bureau du Washington Post couvrant des événements historiques tels que le retrait du dernier
Les forces israéliennes du territoire égyptien occupé pendant la 1973 Guerre israélo-arabe et assassinat du président
Anouar Sadate par des fanatiques islamiques en octobre 1981.
Le dernier drame national, dont j'ai été témoin personnellement, s'était avéré être une étape décisive. Il a forcé le successeur de Sadate, Hosni Moubarak, se tourner vers l’intérieur pour faire face à un défi islamiste aux proportions inconnues et mettre fin au rôle de leader de l’Égypte dans le monde arabe.
Moubarak s'est immédiatement montré très prudent, leader sans imagination, terriblement réactif plutôt que pro-actif pour faire face aux problèmes sociaux et économiques qui accablent sa nation comme sa croissance démographique explosive (1.2 millions d'Egyptiens de plus par an) et déclin économique.
Dans une série en quatre parties du Washington Post écrite alors que je partais tôt 1985, J'ai noté que le nouveau dirigeant égyptien était encore à peu près
une énigme totale pour son propre peuple, n'offrant aucune vision et commandant ce qui semblait être un navire d'État sans gouvernail. L'économie socialiste
hérité de l'époque du président Gamal Abdel Nasser (1952 à 1970) était un gâchis. La monnaie du pays, la livre, fonctionnait
sur huit taux de change différents; ses usines gérées par l'État étaient improductives, non compétitif et très endetté; et le gouvernement se dirigeait vers la faillite en partie parce que les subventions alimentaires, l'électricité et l'essence consommaient un tiers ($7 milliard) de son budget. Le Caire avait sombré dans un marais sans espoir de trafic embouteillé et d'humanité grouillante - 12 millions de personnes coincées dans une étroite bande de terre bordant le Nil, la plupart des vivants joue par bajoue dans des immeubles délabrés dans les bidonvilles en constante expansion de la ville.

ENTRE HIER ET AUJOURD'HUI

HASAN AL-BANNA

Le premier État islamique
Sur la base de cet ordre social coranique vertueux, le premier État islamique est né, avoir une foi inébranlable en il, l'appliquer méticuleusement, et le répandre dans le monde, de sorte que le premier Khilafah disait: 'Si je devrait perdre la tête d'un chameau, Je le trouverais dans le livre d’Allah. ». Il a combattu ceux qui refusaient de payer la zakah, En ce qui concerne eux comme apostats parce qu'ils avaient renversé l'un des piliers de cet ordre, en disant: «Par Allah, s'ils refusaient moi une piste qu'ils remettraient à l'apôtre d'Allah (PBUH), Je les combattrais dès que j'aurais un épée dans ma main!’Pour l’unité, dans toutes ses significations et manifestations, imprégné cette nouvelle nation à venir.
L’unité sociale complète est née de l’universalisation de l’ordre coranique et de son langage, tout en politique l'unité était sous l'ombre de l'Amir Al-Mumineen et sous l'étendard du Khilafah dans la capitale.
Le fait que l'idéologie islamique était celle de la décentralisation des forces armées, les trésors de l'État, et les gouverneurs de province ne se sont pas avérés être un obstacle à cette, puisque tous ont agi selon un seul credo et un et contrôle complet. Les principes coraniques ont dissipé et anéanti l'idolâtrie superstitieuse qui prévaut dans la péninsule arabique et en Perse. Ils ont banni le judaïsme trompeur et l'ont confiné à une province étroite, mettre fin à son autorité religieuse et politique. Ils ont lutté avec le christianisme de telle sorte que son influence était fortement diminué sur les continents asiatique et africain, confiné uniquement à l'Europe sous la garde des Byzantins Empire à Constantinople. Ainsi, l'État islamique est devenu le centre de la domination spirituelle et politique au sein les deux plus grands continents. Cet État a persisté dans ses attaques contre le troisième continent, agresser Constantinople depuis l'est et l'assiégeant jusqu'à ce que le siège devienne lassant. Puis il est venu de l'ouest,
plonger en Espagne, avec ses soldats victorieux atteignant le cœur de la France et pénétrant jusqu'au nord et sud de l'Italie. Il a établi un État imposant en Europe occidentale, rayonnant de science et de savoir.
Ensuite, il a mis fin à la conquête de Constantinople elle-même et au christianisme confiné dans la zone restreinte d'Europe centrale. Les flottes islamiques se sont aventurées dans les profondeurs de la Méditerranée et de la mer Rouge, les deux sont devenus Lacs islamiques. Et ainsi les forces armées de l'Etat islamique ont assumé la suprématie des mers à la fois à l'Est et l'Ouest, jouissant d'une maîtrise absolue sur terre et sur mer. Ces nations islamiques avaient déjà combiné et incorporé beaucoup de choses d'autres civilisations, mais ils ont triomphé par la force de leur foi et de la solidité de leur système par rapport aux autres. Ils les ont arabisés, ou réussi à le faire dans une certaine mesure, et étaient capable de les influencer et de les convertir à la splendeur, beauté et vitalité de leur langue et de leur religion. Le Les musulmans étaient libres d'adopter tout ce qui était bénéfique à d'autres civilisations, dans la mesure où il n'a pas eu d'effets indésirables sur leur unité sociale et politique.

La culture islamique politiques, Démocratie, et droits de l'homme

Daniel E. Prix

Il a été avancé que l'islam facilite l'autoritarisme, contredit le

valeurs des sociétés occidentales, et affecte de manière significative des résultats politiques importants
dans les pays musulmans. par conséquent, savants, commentateurs, et gouvernement
les responsables désignent fréquemment le «fondamentalisme islamique» comme le prochain
menace idéologique pour les démocraties libérales. Cette vue, cependant, est basé principalement
sur l'analyse des textes, Théorie politique islamique, et études ad hoc
de pays individuels, qui ne tiennent pas compte d'autres facteurs. C'est mon argument
que les textes et traditions de l'islam, comme ceux des autres religions,
peut être utilisé pour soutenir une variété de systèmes politiques et de politiques. De campagne
des études spécifiques et descriptives ne nous aident pas à trouver des modèles qui aideront
nous expliquons les relations variables entre l'islam et la politique à travers le
pays du monde musulman. D'où, une nouvelle approche de l'étude des
un lien entre l'islam et la politique est nécessaire.
je suggère, par une évaluation rigoureuse de la relation entre l'Islam,
la démocratie, et les droits de l'homme au niveau transnational, trop
l'accent est mis sur le pouvoir de l'islam en tant que force politique. Je l'ai fait en premier
utiliser des études de cas comparatives, qui se concentrent sur les facteurs liés à l'interaction
entre groupes et régimes islamiques, influences économiques, clivages ethniques,

et développement sociétal, pour expliquer la variance de l'influence de

L'Islam et la politique dans huit pays.

Islamist Opposition Parties and the Potential for EU Engagement

Toby Archer

Heidi Huuhtanen

In light of the increasing importance of Islamist movements in the Muslim world and

the way that radicalisation has influenced global events since the turn of the century, il

is important for the EU to evaluate its policies towards actors within what can be loosely

termed the ‘Islamic world’. It is particularly important to ask whether and how to engage

with the various Islamist groups.

This remains controversial even within the EU. Some feel that the Islamic values that

lie behind Islamist parties are simply incompatible with western ideals of democracy and

droits de l'homme, while others see engagement as a realistic necessity due to the growing

domestic importance of Islamist parties and their increasing involvement in international

affairs. Another perspective is that democratisation in the Muslim world would increase

European security. The validity of these and other arguments over whether and how the

EU should engage can only be tested by studying the different Islamist movements and

their political circumstances, country by country.

Democratisation is a central theme of the EU’s common foreign policy actions, as laid

out in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union. Many of the states considered in this

report are not democratic, or not fully democratic. In most of these countries, Islamist

parties and movements constitute a significant opposition to the prevailing regimes, et

in some they form the largest opposition bloc. European democracies have long had to

deal with governing regimes that are authoritarian, but it is a new phenomenon to press

for democratic reform in states where the most likely beneficiaries might have, from the

EU’s point of view, different and sometimes problematic approaches to democracy and its

related values, such as minority and women’s rights and the rule of law. These charges are

often laid against Islamist movements, so it is important for European policy-makers to

have an accurate picture of the policies and philosophies of potential partners.

Experiences from different countries tends to suggest that the more freedom Islamist

parties are allowed, the more moderate they are in their actions and ideas. In many

cases Islamist parties and groups have long since shifted away from their original aim

of establishing an Islamic state governed by Islamic law, and have come to accept basic

democratic principles of electoral competition for power, the existence of other political

competitors, and political pluralism.

Les partis islamistes : going back to the origins

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

STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING POLITICAL ISLAM

SHADI HAMID

AMANDA KADLEC

Political Islam is the single most active political force in the Middle East today. Its future is intimately tied to that of the region. If the United States and the European Union are committed to supporting political reform in the region, they will need to devise concrete, coherent strategies for engaging Islamist groups. Encore, the U.S. has generally been unwilling to open a dialogue with these movements. Similarly, EU engagement with Islamists has been the exception, not the rule. Where low-level contacts exist, they mainly serve information-gathering purposes, not strategic objectives. The U.S. and EU have a number of programs that address economic and political development in the region – among them the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Union for the Mediterranean, and the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) – yet they have little to say about how the challenge of Islamist political opposition fits within broader regional objectives. États-Unis. and EU democracy assistance and programming are directed almost entirely to either authoritarian governments themselves or secular civil society groups with minimal support in their own societies.
The time is ripe for a reassessment of current policies. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, supporting Middle East democracy has assumed a greater importance for Western policymakers, who see a link between lack of democracy and political violence. Greater attention has been devoted to understanding the variations within political Islam. The new American administration is more open to broadening communication with the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the vast majority of mainstream Islamist organizations – including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan’s Islamic Action Front (IAF), Morocco’s Justice and Development Party (PJD), the Islamic Constitutional Movement of Kuwait, and the Yemeni Islah Party – have increasingly made support for political reform and democracy a central component in their political platforms. In addition, many have signaled strong interest in opening dialogue with U.S. and EU governments.
The future of relations between Western nations and the Middle East may be largely determined by the degree to which the former engage nonviolent Islamist parties in a broad dialogue about shared interests and objectives. There has been a recent proliferation of studies on engagement with Islamists, but few clearly address what it might entail in practice. As Zoé Nautré, visiting fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, puts it, “the EU is thinking about engagement but doesn’t really know how.”1 In the hope of clarifying the discussion, we distinguish between three levels of “engagement,” each with varying means and ends: low-level contacts, strategic dialogue, and partnership.

Les partis islamistes : participation without power

Malika Zeghal

Over the last two decades, social and political movements grounding their ideologies in references to Islam have sought to become legal political parties in many countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Some of these Islamist movements have been authorized to take part lawfully in electoral competition. Among the best known is Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), which won a parliamentary majority in 2002 and has led the government ever since. Morocco’s own Party of Justice and Development (PJD) has been legal since the mid- 1990s and commands a significant bloc of seats in Parliament. In Egypt, les Frères musulmans (MB) has never been authorized to form a political party, but in spite of state repression it has successfully run candidates as nominal independents in both national and local elections.
Since the early 1990s, this trend has gone hand-in-hand with official policies of limited political liberalization. Together, the two trends have occasioned a debate about whether these movements are committed to “democracy.” A vast literature has sprung up to underline the paradoxes as well as the possible risks and benefits of including Islamist parties in the electoral process. The main paradigm found in this body of writing focuses on the consequences that might ensue when Islamists use democratic instruments, and seeks to divine the “true” intentions that Islamists will manifest if they come to power.

Islam and the West

Preface

John J. DeGioia

The remarkable feeling of proximity between people and nations is the unmistakable reality of our globalized world. Encounters with other peoples’ ways oflife, current affairs, la politique, welfare and faithsare more frequent than ever. We are not onlyable to see other cultures more clearly, butalso to see our differences more sharply. The information intensity of modern life has madethis diversity of nations part of our every dayconsciousness and has led to the centrality ofculture in discerning our individual and collectiveviews of the world.Our challenges have also become global.The destinies of nations have become deeply interconnected. No matter where in the world we live, we are touched by the successes and failures of today’s global order. Yet our responses to global problems remain vastly different, not only as a result of rivalry and competing interests,but largely because our cultural difference is the lens through which we see these global challenges.Cultural diversity is not necessarily a source of clashes and conflict. En réalité, the proximity and cross-cultural encounters very often bring about creative change – a change that is made possible by well-organized social collaboration.Collaboration across borders is growing primarily in the area of business and economic activity. Collaborative networks for innovation,production and distribution are emerging as the single most powerful shaper of the global economy.

Mouvement islamique: Liberté politique & Démocratie

Dr.Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Il est du devoir de l' (Islamique) Mouvement dans la phase à venir tostand ferme contre un régime totalitaire et dictatorial, le despotisme politique et de l'usurpation des droits des personnes. The Movement should always stand by political freedom, as represented by true,not false, la démocratie. It should flatly declare it refusal of tyrantsand steer clear of all dictators, even if some tyrant appears to havegood intentions towards it for some gain and for a time that is usually short, as has been shown by experience.The Prophet (SAWS) said, “ When you see my Nation fall victim to fear and does not say to a wrong –doer, “You are wrong”, thenyou may lose hope in them.” So how about a regime that forces people to say to a conceited wrongdoer, “How just, how great you are. O our hero, our savior and our liberator!”The Quran denounces tyrants such as Numrudh, Pharaoh, Haman and others, but it also dispraises those who follow tyrants andobey their orders. This is why Allah dispraises the people of Noahby saying, “ But they follow (m en) whose wealth and childrengive them no increase but only loss.” [Surat Nuh; 21]Allah also says of Ad, people of Hud, “ And followed thecommand of every powerful, obstinate transgressor”. [Surat Hud:59]See also what the Quran says about the people of Pharaoh, “ Butthey followed the command of Pharaoh, and the command ofPharaoh was not rightly guided.[Surat Hud: 97] “Thus he made fools of his people, and they obeyed him: truly they were a people rebellious (against Allah)." [Surat Az-Zukhruf: 54]A closer look at the history of the Muslim Nation and the IslamicMovement in modern times should show clearly that the Islamicidea, the Islamic Movement and the Islamic Awakening have never flourished or borne fruit unless in an atmosphere ofdemocracy and freedom, and have withered and become barren only at the times of oppression and tyranny that trod over the willof the peoples which clung to Islam. Such oppressive regimesimposed their secularism, socialism or communism on their peoples by force and coercion, using covert torture and publicexecutions, and employing those devilish tools that tore flesh,shed blood, crushed bone and destroyed the soul.We saw these practices in many Muslim countries, including Turkey, Egypte, Syrie, Irak, (the former) South Yemen, Somaliaand northern African States for varying periods of time, depending on the age or reign of the dictator in each country.On the other hand, we saw the Islamic Movement and the Islamic Awakening bear fruit and flourish at the times of freedom and democracy, and in the wake of the collapse of imperial regimes that ruled peoples with fear and oppression.Therefore, I would not imagine that the Islamic Movement could support anything other than political freedom and democracy.The tyrants allowed every voice to be raised, except the voice ofIslam, and let every trend express itself in the form of a politicalparty or body of some sort, except the Islamic current which is theonly trend that actually speaks for this Nation and expresses it screed, values, essence and very existence.