RSSسب کے ساتھ ٹیگ کردہ تحاریر درآمد کریں: "مشرق وسطی"

عرب کل

ڈیوڈ بی. اوٹا وے

اکتوبر 6, 1981, مصر میں جشن کا دن تھا۔. اس نے تین عرب اسرائیل تنازعات میں مصر کی فتح کے عظیم ترین لمحے کی سالگرہ منائی۔, جب ملک کی انڈر ڈاگ فوج نے شروع کے دنوں میں نہر سویز کے اس پار دھکیل دیا۔ 1973 یوم کپور جنگ اور پسپائی میں پیچھے ہٹتے ہوئے اسرائیلی فوجی بھیجے۔. ٹھنڈا ہونے پر, بادل کے بغیر صبح, قاہرہ کا اسٹیڈیم مصری خاندانوں سے کھچا کھچ بھرا ہوا تھا جو فوج کے ہارڈ ویئر کو دیکھنے آئے تھے۔, صدر انور السادات,جنگ کے معمار, اطمینان سے دیکھا کہ آدمی اور مشینیں اس کے سامنے پریڈ کر رہی ہیں۔. میں قریب ہی تھا۔, ایک نیا غیر ملکی نامہ نگار۔ اچانک, آرمی ٹرکوں میں سے ایک براہ راست جائزہ لینے والے اسٹینڈ کے سامنے رک گیا جیسے چھ میراج جیٹ ایکروبیٹک کارکردگی میں سر پر گرج رہے تھے۔, سرخ رنگ کی لمبی پگڈنڈیوں سے آسمان کو پینٹ کرنا, پیلا, جامنی,اور سبز دھواں. سادات اٹھ کھڑا ہوا۔, بظاہر مصری فوجیوں کے ایک اور دستے کے ساتھ سلامی کے تبادلے کی تیاری کر رہے ہیں۔. اس نے خود کو چار اسلام پسند قاتلوں کے لیے ایک بہترین ہدف بنایا جنہوں نے ٹرک سے چھلانگ لگا دی تھی۔, پوڈیم پر حملہ کیا, اور اس کے جسم کو گولیوں سے چھلنی کر دیا۔ جب قاتلوں نے اسٹینڈ کو اپنی جان لیوا آگ سے چھڑکنے کے لیے ہمیشہ کے لیے جاری رکھا۔, میں نے ایک لمحے کے لیے غور کیا کہ آیا زمین سے ٹکرانا ہے اور خوف زدہ تماشائیوں کے ہاتھوں موت کے منہ میں جانے کا خطرہ ہے یا پیدل ہی رہنا ہے اور آوارہ گولی کا خطرہ مول لینا ہے۔. جبلت نے مجھے اپنے پیروں پر قائم رہنے کو کہا, اور میرے صحافتی فرض کے احساس نے مجھے یہ معلوم کرنے پر مجبور کیا کہ سادات زندہ ہیں یا مر گئے ہیں۔.

| ستمبر 26, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

لبرل جمہوریت اور سیاسی اسلام: سرچ فار کامن گراؤنڈ.

Mostapha Benhenda

یہ مقالہ جمہوری اور اسلامی سیاسی نظریات کے درمیان مکالمہ قائم کرنے کی کوشش کرتا ہے۔: مثال کے طور پر, جمہوریت اور مثالی اسلامی سیاسی کے تصور کے درمیان موجودہ تعلق کی وضاحت کرنے کے لیے
حکومت, پاکستانی اسکالر ابو الاعلیٰ مودودی نے نیوولوجزم "تھیوڈیموکریسی" کو وضع کیا جب کہ فرانسیسی اسکالر لوئس میسائنن نے آکسیمورون "سیکولر تھیوکریسی" کا مشورہ دیا۔. These expressions suggest that some aspects of democracy are evaluated positively and others are judged negatively. مثال کے طور پر, مسلم علماء اور کارکن اکثر حکمرانوں کے احتساب کے اصول کی تائید کرتے ہیں۔, جو جمہوریت کی ایک نمایاں خصوصیت ہے۔. اس کے برعکس, وہ اکثر مذہب اور ریاست کے درمیان علیحدگی کے اصول کو مسترد کرتے ہیں۔, جسے اکثر جمہوریت کا حصہ سمجھا جاتا ہے۔ (کم از کم, جمہوریت کا جیسا کہ آج امریکہ میں جانا جاتا ہے۔). جمہوری اصولوں کے اس ملے جلے تجزیے کے پیش نظر, اسلامی سیاسی ماڈلز کے تحت جمہوریت کے تصور کا تعین کرنا دلچسپ معلوم ہوتا ہے۔. دوسرے الفاظ میں, ہمیں یہ جاننے کی کوشش کرنی چاہیے کہ "تھیو ڈیموکریسی" میں جمہوری کیا ہے. اس مقصد کے لئے, معیاری سیاسی فکر کی اسلامی روایات کے متاثر کن تنوع اور کثرت کے درمیان, 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, اس اسلامی سیاسی ماڈل میں شامل جمہوریت کا تصور طریقہ کار ہے۔. کچھ اختلافات کے ساتھ, یہ تصور جمہوری نظریات سے متاثر ہے جو کچھ آئین سازوں اور سیاسی سائنسدانوں کے ذریعہ پیش کیا گیا ہے۔, ایک خاص نقطہ تک. مثال کے طور پر, یہ عوامی حاکمیت کے کسی تصور پر بھروسہ نہیں کرتا اور اسے مذہب اور سیاست کے درمیان کسی علیحدگی کی ضرورت نہیں ہے۔. اس مقالے کا پہلا مقصد اس کم سے کم تصور کی وضاحت کرنا ہے۔. اس تصور کو اس کے اخلاق سے الگ کرنے کے لیے ہم اس کا تفصیلی تذکرہ کرتے ہیں۔ (آزاد خیال) بنیادیں, جو یہاں زیر غور اسلامی نقطہ نظر سے متنازعہ ہیں۔. بے شک, جمہوری عمل عام طور پر ذاتی خود مختاری کے اصول سے اخذ کیا جاتا ہے۔, جس کی ان اسلامی نظریات سے توثیق نہیں ہوتی, ہم ظاہر کرتے ہیں کہ جمہوری عمل کے جواز کے لیے اس طرح کے اصول کی ضرورت نہیں ہے۔.
| ستمبر 09, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

اسلامیت revisited

اعلی AZZAM

اس کا سیاسی اور سیکورٹی کے ارد گرد جو اسلام کے طور پر حوالہ دیا جاتا ہے کے بحران ہے, ایک بحران جس کا طویل پوروورت سے سبقت 9/11. ماضی سے زیادہ 25 سال, وہاں کس طرح اور اسلامیت سے نمٹنے کے لئے بیان پر مختلف emphases دیا گیا ہے. 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 جولائی 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.

| ستمبر 06, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

عراق اور سیاسی اسلام کا مستقبل

جیمز Piscator

ساٹھ سال پہلے جدید اسلام کی سب سے بڑی علماء کرام میں سے ایک سادہ سوال, جہاں "اسلام?", اسلامی دنیا کہاں جا رہے تھے? سامراج کا یورپ سے باہر کے انتقال اور ایک نئی ریاست کا نظام کی crystallisation -- یہ دونوں مغرب اور مسلم دنیا میں شدید طوفان سے ایک وقت تھا; پیدائش میں اور ان نو کی جانچ- متحدہ کی لیگ میں Wilsonian دنیا کا حکم; یورپی فاسیواد کی آمد. Sir Hamilton Gibb recognised that Muslim societies, unable to avoid such world trends, were also faced with the equally inescapable penetration of nationalism, secularism, and Westernisation. While he prudently warned against making predictions – hazards for all of us interested in Middle Eastern and Islamic politics – he felt sure of two things:
(ایک) the Islamic world would move between the ideal of solidarity and the realities of division;
(b) the key to the future lay in leadership, or who speaks authoritatively for Islam.
Today Gibb’s prognostications may well have renewed relevance as we face a deepening crisis over Iraq, the unfolding of an expansive and controversial war on terror, and the continuing Palestinian problem. In this lecture I would like to look at the factors that may affect the course of Muslim politics in the present period and near-term future. Although the points I will raise are likely to have broader relevance, I will draw mainly on the case of the Arab world.
Assumptions about Political Islam There is no lack of predictions when it comes to a politicised Islam or Islamism. ‘Islamism’ is best understood as a sense that something has gone wrong with contemporary Muslim societies and that the solution must lie in a range of political action. Often used interchangeably with ‘fundamentalism’, Islamism is better equated with ‘political Islam’. Several commentators have proclaimed its demise and the advent of the post-Islamist era. They argue that the repressive apparatus of the state has proven more durable than the Islamic opposition and that the ideological incoherence of the Islamists has made them unsuitable to modern political competition. The events of September 11th seemed to contradict this prediction, yet, unshaken, they have argued that such spectacular, virtually anarchic acts only prove the bankruptcy of Islamist ideas and suggest that the radicals have abandoned any real hope of seizing power.
| ستمبر 04, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

ٹپنگ پوائنٹ پر مصر ?

ڈیوڈ بی. Ottaway
1980 کی دہائی کے اوائل میں, I lived in Cairo as bureau chief of The Washington Post covering such historic events as the withdrawal of the last
Israeli forces from Egyptian territory occupied during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the assassination of President
Anwar Sadat by Islamic fanatics in October 1981.
The latter national drama, which I witnessed personally, had proven to be a wrenching milestone. It forced Sadat’s successor, حسنی مبارک, to turn inwards to deal with an Islamist challenge of unknown proportions and effectively ended Egypt’s leadership role in the Arab world.
Mubarak immediately showed himself to be a highly cautious, unimaginative leader, maddeningly reactive rather than pro-active in dealing with the social and economic problems overwhelming his nation like its explosive population growth (1.2 million more Egyptians a year) and economic decline.
In a four-part Washington Post series written as I was departing in early 1985, I noted the new Egyptian leader was still pretty much
a total enigma to his own people, offering no vision and commanding what seemed a rudderless ship of state. The socialist economy
inherited from the era of President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1952 کرنے کے لئے 1970) was a mess. The country’s currency, the pound, was operating
on eight different exchange rates; its state-run factories were unproductive, uncompetitive and deep in debt; and the government was heading for bankruptcy partly because subsidies for food, electricity and gasoline were consuming one-third ($7 billion) of its budget. Cairo had sunk into a hopeless morass of gridlocked traffic and teeming humanity—12 million people squeezed into a narrow band of land bordering the Nile River, most living cheek by jowl in ramshackle tenements in the city’s ever-expanding slums.

| ستمبر 02, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

مسلم دنیا میں قوم پرستی کی جڑیں

شبیر احمد

The Muslim world has been characterised by failure, disunity, bloodshed, oppression and backwardness. فی الحال, no Muslim country in the world can rightly claim to be a leader in any field of human activity. بے شک, the non-Muslims of the East and the West
now dictate the social, economic and political agenda for the Muslim Ummah.
مزید برآں, the Muslims identify themselves as Turkish, عرب, African and Pakistani. If this is not enough, Muslims are further sub-divided within each country or continent. مثال کے طور پر, in Pakistan people are classed as Punjabis, Sindhis, Balauchis and
Pathans. The Muslim Ummah was never faced with such a dilemma in the past during Islamic rule. They never suffered from disunity, widespread oppression, stagnation in science and technology and certainly not from the internal conflicts that we have witnessed this century like the Iran-Iraq war. So what has gone wrong with the Muslims this century? Why are there so many feuds between them and why are they seen to be fighting each other? What has caused their weakness and how will they ever recover from the present stagnation?
There are many factors that contributed to the present state of affairs, but the main ones are the abandoning of the Arabic language as the language of understanding Islam correctly and performing ijtihad, the absorption of foreign cultures such as the philosophies of the Greeks, Persian and the Hindus, the gradual loss of central authority over some of the provinces, and the rise of nationalism since the 19th Century.
This book focuses on the origins of nationalism in the Muslim world. Nationalism did not arise in the Muslim world naturally, nor did it came about in response to any hardships faced by the people, nor due to the frustration they felt when Europe started to dominate the world after the industrial revolution. بلکہ, nationalism was implanted in the minds of the Muslims through a well thought out scheme by the European powers, after their failure to destroy the Islamic State by force. The book also presents the Islamic verdict on nationalism and practical steps that can be taken to eradicate the disease of nationalism from the Muslim Ummah so as to restore it back to its former glory.

| اگست 28, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

اسلامی سیاسی ثقافت, جمہوریت, اور انسانی حقوق

ڈینیل ای. قیمت

یہ دلیل دی گئی کہ اسلام authoritarianism سہولت, سے متصادم ہے

مغربی معاشروں کی اقدار, اور اہم سیاسی نتائج کو نمایاں طور پر متاثر کرتی ہے
مسلم اقوام میں. اس کے نتیجے میں, علماء کرام, تفسیر, اور حکومت
عہدیدار اکثر آئندہ کی طرح ’’ اسلامی بنیاد پرستی ‘‘ کی طرف اشارہ کرتے ہیں
لبرل جمہوریتوں کے لئے نظریاتی خطرہ. یہ نظریہ, تاہم, بنیادی طور پر مبنی ہے
نصوص کے تجزیہ پر, اسلامی سیاسی نظریہ, اور ایڈہاک اسٹڈیز
انفرادی ممالک کی, جو دوسرے عوامل پر غور نہیں کرتے ہیں. یہ میرا تنازعہ ہے
کہ اسلام کی نصوص اور روایات, دوسرے مذاہب کے مانند,
متعدد سیاسی نظاموں اور پالیسیوں کی حمایت کے لئے استعمال کیا جاسکتا ہے. ملک
مخصوص اور وضاحتی مطالعات ہمیں ایسے نمونوں کو تلاش کرنے میں مدد نہیں کرتے جو مددگار ثابت ہوں
ہم اسلام اور سیاست کے مابین مختلف ممالک کے درمیان مختلف تعلقات کی وضاحت کرتے ہیں
مسلم دنیا کے ممالک. لہذا, کے مطالعہ کے لئے ایک نیا نقطہ نظر
اسلام اور سیاست کے مابین رابطے کی ضرورت ہے.
میرا مشورہ, اسلام کے مابین تعلقات کی کڑی تشخیص کے ذریعے,
جمہوریت, اور بین الاقوامی سطح پر انسانی حقوق, بہت زیادہ
ایک سیاسی قوت کے طور پر اسلام کی طاقت پر زور دیا جارہا ہے. پہلے میں
تقابلی کیس اسٹڈیز کا استعمال کریں, جو انٹرپلے سے متعلق عوامل پر توجہ مرکوز کرتے ہیں
اسلامی گروہوں اور حکومتوں کے مابین, معاشی اثرات, نسلی درار,

اور معاشرتی ترقی, کے اثر و رسوخ میں فرق کی وضاحت کرنے کے لئے

اسلام آٹھ ممالک میں سیاست پر.

| اگست 22, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

اسلامی حزب اختلاف کی جماعتوں اور یورپی یونین کے مشغولیت کے لئے متوقع

ٹوبی آرچر

Heidi Huuhtanen

مسلم دنیا میں اسلام پسند تحریکوں کی بڑھتی ہوئی اہمیت کی روشنی میں اور

صدی کی باری کے بعد سے جس طرح سے انتہا پسندی نے عالمی واقعات کو متاثر کیا ہے, یہ

یوروپی یونین کے لئے یہ ضروری ہے کہ وہ اداکاروں کے بارے میں اپنی پالیسیوں کا اندازہ کریں جو ان میں ڈھیلی ہوسکتی ہے

’اسلامی دنیا‘ کے نام سے موسوم. یہ پوچھنا خاص طور پر ضروری ہے کہ کیا اور کیسے مشغول ہوں

مختلف اسلامی گروہوں کے ساتھ.

یہ یورپی یونین کے اندر بھی متنازعہ ہے. کچھ لوگوں کا خیال ہے کہ اسلامی اقدار جو

اسلامی جماعتوں کے پیچھے جھوٹ جمہوریت کے مغربی نظریات سے بالکل موافق نہیں ہے

انسانی حقوق, جبکہ دوسرے بڑھتے ہوئے کی وجہ سے مصروفیت کو حقیقت پسندانہ ضرورت کے طور پر دیکھتے ہیں

اسلامی جماعتوں کی گھریلو اہمیت اور بین الاقوامی سطح پر ان کی بڑھتی ہوئی شمولیت

امور. دوسرا نقطہ نظر یہ ہے کہ مسلم دنیا میں جمہوری بنانے میں اضافہ ہوگا

یورپی سیکیورٹی. ان اور اس طرح کے دوسرے دلائل کی صداقت

یوروپی یونین کو صرف اسلام کی مختلف تحریکوں کا مطالعہ کرکے ہی ان کی جانچ کی جا سکتی ہے

ان کے سیاسی حالات, ملک بہ ملک.

ڈیمو کریٹائزیشن EU کی مشترکہ خارجہ پالیسی کی کارروائیوں کا مرکزی موضوع ہے, جیسا کہ رکھی گئی ہے

آرٹیکل میں باہر 11 یورپی یونین سے متعلق معاہدہ. اس میں بہت سے ریاستوں نے غور کیا

رپورٹ جمہوری نہیں ہے, یا مکمل جمہوری نہیں. ان میں سے بیشتر ممالک میں, اسلام پسند

جماعتیں اور تحریکیں موجودہ حکومتوں کی نمایاں مخالفت کرتی ہیں, اور

کچھ میں وہ اپوزیشن کا سب سے بڑا بلاک تشکیل دیتے ہیں. یورپی جمہوریوں کو طویل عرصے سے ہونا پڑا ہے

حکمرانی کرنے والی حکومتوں سے معاملات کریں جو آمرانہ ہیں, لیکن دبانے کے لئے یہ ایک نیا مظہر ہے

ریاستوں میں جمہوری اصلاح کے ل where جہاں زیادہ تر فائدہ اٹھانے والوں کو مل سکتا ہے, سے

EU کا نقطہ نظر, جمہوریت اور اس کے بارے میں مختلف اور بعض اوقات پریشان کن نقطہ نظر

متعلقہ اقدار, جیسے اقلیت اور خواتین کے حقوق اور قانون کی حکمرانی. یہ الزامات ہیں

اکثر اسلامی تحریکوں کے خلاف ڈالا جاتا ہے, لہذا یہ یورپی پالیسی سازوں کے لئے ضروری ہے

ممکنہ شراکت داروں کی پالیسیوں اور فلسفوں کی ایک درست تصویر ہے.

مختلف ممالک کے تجربات تجویز کرتے ہیں کہ زیادہ سے زیادہ آزادی پسند اسلام پسند ہو

پارٹیوں کی اجازت ہے, وہ جتنا اعتدال پسند ہیں وہ ان کے اعمال اور خیالات میں ہیں. بہت میں

مقدمات اسلام پسند جماعتیں اور گروپ طویل عرصے سے اپنے اصل مقصد سے ہٹ گئے ہیں

اسلامی قانون کے تحت اسلامی ریاست کے قیام کی, اور بنیادی کو قبول کرنے آئے ہیں

اقتدار کے لئے انتخابی مقابلہ کے جمہوری اصول, دیگر سیاسی کے وجود

حریف, اور سیاسی کثرتیت.

| اگست 21, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

جنگ کے بارے میں اسلامی احکام

Youssef ایچ. ابول Enein -
Sherifa Zuhur

The United States no doubt will be involved in the Middle East for many decades. To be sure, settling the Israeli–Palestinian dispute or alleviating poverty could help to stem the tides of Islamic radicalism and anti-American sentiment. But on an ideological level, we must confront a specific interpretation of Islamic law, تاریخ,and scripture that is a danger to both the United States and its allies. To win that ideological war, we must understand the sources of both Islamic radicalism and liberalism. We need to comprehend more thoroughly the ways in which militants misinterpret and pervert Islamic scripture. Al-Qaeda has produced its own group of spokespersons who attempt to provide religious legitimacy to the nihilism they preach. Many frequently quote from the Quran and hadith (the Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and deeds) in a biased manner to draw justification for their cause. Lieutenant Commander Youssef Aboul-Enein and Dr. Sherifa Zuhur delve into the Quran and hadith to articulate a means by which Islamic militancy can be countered ideologically, drawing many of their insights from these and other classical Islamic texts. In so doing, they expose contradictions and alternative approaches in the core principles that groups like al-Qaeda espouse. The authors have found that proper use of Islamic scripture actually discredits the tactics of al-Qaeda and other jihadist organizations. This monograph provides a basis for encouraging our Muslim allies to challenge the theology supported by Islamic militants. Seeds of doubt planted in the minds of suicide bombers might dissuade them from carrying out their missions. The Strategic Studies Institute is pleased to offer this study of Islamic rulings on warfare to the national defense community as an effort to contribute to the ongoing debate over how to defeat Islamic militancy.

| اگست 13, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

"مسلم جمہوریت کے عروج”

Vali نصر

ایک کالی چھایا مسلم دنیا بھوتیا ہے. یہ خاص طور پر کالی چھایا بنیاد پرست انتہا پسندی کے notthe ضرر رساں اور بہت کچھ پر تبادلہ خیال کیا روح ہے, نہ ہی ابھی تک پریت امید لبرل اسلام کے طور پر جانا. اس کے بجائے, the specter that I have in mind is a third force, a hopeful if still somewhat ambiguoustrend that I call—in a conscious evocation of the political tradition associated with the Christian Democratic parties of Europe—“Muslim Democracy.”The emergence and unfolding of Muslim Democracy as a “fact on the ground” over the last fifteen years has been impressive. This is so even though all its exponents have thus far eschewed that label1 and even though the lion’s share of scholarly and political attention has gone to the question of how to promote religious reform within Islam as a prelude to democratization.2 Since the early 1990s, political openings in anumber of Muslim-majority countries—all, admittedly, outside the Arabworld—have seen Islamic-oriented (but non-Islamist) parties vying successfullyfor votes in Bangladesh, انڈونیشیا, ملائیشیا, پاکستان (beforeits 1999 military coup), and Turkey.Unlike Islamists, with their visions of rule by shari‘a (اسلامی قانون) oreven a restored caliphate, Muslim Democrats view political life with apragmatic eye. They reject or at least discount the classic Islamist claim that Islam commands the pursuit of a shari‘a state, and their main goaltends to be the more mundane one of crafting viable electoral platform sand stable governing coalitions to serve individual and collective interests—Islamic as well as secular—within a democratic arena whosebounds they respect, win or lose. Islamists view democracy not as something deeply legitimate, but at best as a tool or tactic that may be useful in gaining the power to build an Islamic state.

| مارچ 29, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

حماس کے سیاسی اور میں اصلاحات کی مشرق وسطی

ڈیوڈ Mepham

The lesson of Palestine’s election is that the international community should become more serious and sophisticated about political reform in the middle east, says David Mepham of the Institute for Public Policy Research.
Hamas’s stunning victory in the 25 January elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council raises three critical questions for international policymakers:
• why did it happen – that an organisation labelled as “terrorist” by the Israelis, the European Union and the United States manages to win the support of a majority of Palestinian voters?
• how should the international community now respond?
• where does Hamas’s victory leave the cause of political reform and democratisation in the middle east?
The rise of Hamas
Much of the immediate international commentary on the election result has focused on the failings of Fatah during the decade in which the movement held power in the Palestinian Authority (PA) – including the rampant corruption of senior Fatah officials and the lack of meaningful democracy within the PA. There was also a sizeable positive vote for Hamas. The organisation is seen by many Palestinians as untainted by corruption, اور, unlike the PA, it has a good track record of providing health, education and other services.
The other part of the explanation for the Hamas victory – less discussed in the international media – has been the failure of the “peace process” and the radicalising and impoverishing effects of the Israeli occupation. Under the premiership of Ariel Sharon since 2001, Israel has all but destroyed the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority. Israel has also continued its policy of illegal settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem, and it is in the process of building a “separation barrier”.
Israel is not building the barrier on its pre-1967 occupation border (which it would be allowed to do under international law). Rather it plans to build 80% of the barrier inside Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory. This involves incorporating the main Israeli settlement blocs, as well as taking over Palestinian agricultural lands and water resources. This restricts Palestinian freedom of movement, and makes it much harder for Palestinians to access their schools, health facilities and jobs.
These policies are oppressive and humiliating; they also have disastrous economic consequences. The United Nations estimates that poverty levels have more than trebled in the last five years, کہ 60% of Palestinians are now living in poverty, and that unemployment is around 30%. These conditions have provided very fertile soil for the radicalisation of Palestinian opinion and for the rise of Hamas.
The short-term challenge
Hamas’s electoral victory presents the international community with a real conundrum.
On the one hand, the “Quartet” (ریاست ہائے متحدہ امریکہ, یورپی یونین, Russia and the United Nations) is right to say that full-scale peace negotiations with Hamas will require significant movement on Hamas’s part. Hamas does not recognise the state of Israel. It also supports violence, including attacks on Israeli civilians, as part of its strategy for Palestinian national liberation. Anyone expecting an immediate and formal shift in Hamas policy on these issues is likely to be disappointed.
But intelligent international diplomacy can still make a difference. While they are reluctant to formally proclaim it, there is evidence that some senior Hamas leaders accept the reality of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. اس کے علاوہ, on the question of violence Hamas has largely maintained a unilateral truce (tahdi’a) for the past year. Extending this truce, and working for a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire, should be the immediate focus of international diplomacy towards Hamas, if necessary through third-party intermediaries.
The other critical international objective should be to avoid the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. Fatah’s mismanagement and the disastrous consequences of Israeli occupation and closures have left the PA in a desperate state and entirely dependent on donor funding to stay afloat. میں 2005, the EU provided £338 million, while the US contributed £225 million. Cutting that assistance overnight would plunge tens of thousands of Palestinians into acute poverty, triggering social implosion and anarchy. But donors are rightly worried about transferring resources to a government dominated by Hamas.
One possibility would be to press for a government of Palestinian technocrats, without senior Hamas figures in key ministerial positions, and to rely on Mahmoud Abbas, the directly elected Palestinian president, as the main interlocutor for the international community. Something along these lines appears to command support amongst the Quartet. If the immediate economic situation can be stabilised, then there is at least a possibility of encouraging Hamas to move in a political direction through a policy of gradual, conditional engagement. Pressure on Israel to live up to its obligations under international law, for example by ending illegal settlement activity, would also help: persuading a sceptical Palestinian public that the world does care about their plight and is committed to a two-state solution.
The regional prospect
While Hamas’s victory has focused attention on the immediate crisis in the Palestinian territories, it raises wider questions about the process of political reform and democratisation in the broader middle east, a process advocated so publicly by the Bush administration. It is ironic, to say the least, that Hamas – a group with which the United States refuses to deal – should be the beneficiary of a free and fair election encouraged by US policy. Some will draw from this the conclusion that democratic reform in the middle east is a hopelessly misguided enterprise and one that should be abandoned forthwith. Small “c” conservatives, on all sides of the political spectrum, will feel vindicated in highlighting the risks of rapid political change and in pointing out the virtues of stability.
It is true that political change carries risks, including the risk that radical Islamists like Hamas will be the major beneficiaries of political liberalisation. While this is a reasonable concern, those who highlight it tend to overlook the diversity of political Islamists in the region, the special circumstances that account for the rise of Hamas, and the extent to which some Islamists have moderated their positions in recent years. Unlike Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Islamic Action Front in Jordan and the Justice & Development Party in Morocco all reject violence and have committed themselves to pluralistic politics.
Nor do the critics suggest a better alternative for addressing the phenomenon of political Islamism across the region than the attempted engagement of Islamists in the political process. Repression of Islamists and their systematic exclusion from political institutions has been a recipe for instability and extremism, not moderation.
There is obviously a strong critique to be made of the Bush administration’s attempts to promote political change in the middle east, not least the multiple failings of its policy in Iraq. More broadly, the US lacks credibility in the region as a force for democracy and human rights because of its largely uncritical support for Israel, and its military, diplomatic and often financial backing for many of the more authoritarian regimes in the region. Even when it is particularly outspoken on the need for greater democracy, for example in its recent dealings with President Mubarak of Egypt, the administration’s anti-terrorism agenda consistently trumps its political reform objectives.
But exposing the folly and ineffectiveness of US policy is one thing; ditching the commitment to political reform in the middle east is quite another. The international community needs to strengthen not weaken its commitment to accountable government and human rights in the region. In thinking about political change in the middle east – where the concept of a democratic culture is often very weak – international actors need to give as much emphasis to “constitutionalism” as to elections, important though elections are. In this context, constitutionalism means a balance of powers, including checks on the executive, a fair and independent legal process, a free press and media, and the protection of the rights of minorities.
It is important too for international actors to be realistic about what can be achieved in particular countries and over particular timescales. In some cases, support for political reform might involve pushing hard now for genuinely free elections. In other cases, a higher short-term priority for political reform might be encouraging an enlarged space in which opposition groups or civil society can function, greater freedom for the press, support for educational reforms and cultural exchanges, and promoting more inclusive economic development.
It is also vital to think more imaginatively about creating incentives for political reform in the middle east. There is a particular role for the European Union here. The experience of political change in other parts of the world suggests that countries can be persuaded to undertake very significant political and economic reforms if this is part of a process that yields real benefits to the ruling elite and the wider society. The way in which the prospect of EU membership has been used to bring about far-reaching change in eastern and central Europe is a good example of this. The process of Turkey’s accession to the EU can be seen in a similar vein.
A critical question is whether such a process might be used more broadly to stimulate political reform across the middle east, through initiatives like the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). The ENP will provide participating middle-eastern states with a stake in EU institutions, in particular the single market, providing a powerful incentive for reform. It also allows for the EU to reward countries that make faster progress against agreed benchmarks for political reform.
There are no simple answers to the current problems besetting the middle east. But the lesson to be drawn from the Hamas result is emphatically not that the international community should give up on the cause of political reform in the region. Rather it should become more serious and sophisticated about helping to support it.

| مارچ 28, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

مصر میں اخوان المسلمون

ولیم Thomasson

Is Islam a religion of violence? 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; one being a peaceful, adaptive, modernized Islam, and the other strictly fundamentalist and against all things un-Islamic or that may corrupt Islamic culture. Both specimens, though seemingly opposed, mingle and inter-relate, 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. بے شک, one may do this with Egypt, 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, and their relationship with Islamic society as a whole in the current debate over what Islam is, this essay will offer a history of the Society of Muslim Brothers, a description of how the organization originated, functioned, and was organized, and a summary of the Brother’s activities and influences on Egyptian culture. یقینا, by doing so, one may gain a deeper understanding of how Islamic Fundamentalists interpret Islam


| مارچ 27, 2010 | تبصرے 1
مزید پڑھیں

مصر میں اخوان المسلمون کے سیاسی ارتقاء

اسٹیفن بینےٹ

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Since its early days in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood has created much controversy, as some argue that the organization advocates violence in the name of Islam. ڈاکٹر کے مطابق. Mamoun Fandy of the James A. Baker III Institute of Public Policy, “jihadism and the activation of the views of the world of the house of Islam and the house of war are the ideas that emerged from the writings and the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood” (Livesy, 2005). The primary evidence for this argument is notable member of the Brotherhood, Sayeed Qutb, who is credited with developing the revisionist and controversial interpretation of jihad that provided religious justifications for violence committed by offshoot organizations of the Brotherhood like al-jihad, al-Takfir wa al-Hijra, حماس, اور al-Qaeda.

Yet that is still a debatable position, because despite being the ideological parent of these violent organizations, the Muslim Brotherhood itself has always maintained an official stance against violence and instead has promoted Islamic civil and social action at the grassroots level. Within the first twenty years of its existence the Muslim Brotherhood gained status as the most influential of all major groups in the Middle East through its popular activism. It also spread from Egypt into other nations throughout the region and served as the catalyst for many of the successful popular liberation movements against Western colonialism in the Middle East.

While it has retained most of its founding principles from its inception, the Muslim Brotherhood has made a dramatic transformation in some crucial aspects of its political ideology. Formerly denounced by many as a terrorist organization, as of late the Muslim Brotherhood has been labeled by most current scholars of the Middle East as politically “moderate”, “politically centrist”, and “accommodationist” to Egypt’s political and governmental structures (Abed-Kotob, 1995, پی. 321-322). Sana Abed-Kotob also tells us that of the current Islamist opposition groups that exist today “the more ‘radical’ or militant of these groups insist upon revolutionary change that is to be imposed on the masses and political system, whereas… the new Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, call for gradual change that is to be undertaken from within the political system and with the enlistment of the Muslim masses”

| مارچ 27, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

نقاب جدائی

shadi hamid

America’s post-September 11 project to promote democracy in the Middle East has proven a spectacular failure. آج,Arab autocrats are as emboldened as ever. مصر, اردن, تیونس, and others are backsliding on reform. Opposition forces are being crushed. Three of the most democratic polities in the region, لبنان, عراق, اور فلسطین کے علاقے,are being torn apart by violence and sectarian conflict.Not long ago, it seemed an entirely different outcome was in the offing. Asrecently as late 2005, observers were hailing the “Arab spring,” an “autumn forautocrats,” and other seasonal formulations. They had cause for such optimism.On January 31, 2005, the world stood in collective awe as Iraqis braved terroristthreats to cast their ballots for the first time. That February, Egyptian PresidentHosni Mubarak announced multi-candidate presidential elections, another first.And that same month, after former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri wasshadi hamid is director of research at the Project on Middle East Democracyand an associate of the Truman National Security Project.Parting the Veil Now is no time to give up supporting democracy in the Muslim world.But to do so, the United States must embrace Islamist moderates.shadi hamiddemocracyjournal.org 39killed, Lebanon erupted in grief and then anger as nearly one million Lebanesetook to the streets of their war-torn capital, demanding self-determination. Notlong afterward, 50,000 Bahrainis—one-eighth of the country’s population—ralliedfor constitutional reform. The opposition was finally coming alive.But when the Arab spring really did come, the American response provide dample evidence that while Arabs were ready for democracy, the United States most certainly was not. Looking back, the failure of the Bush Administration’s efforts should not have been so surprising. 1990 کی دہائی کے اوائل سے, U.S. policymakershave had two dueling and ultimately incompatible objectives in the Middle East: promoting Arab democracy on one hand, and curbing the power and appealof Islamist groups on the other. In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that in supporting Arab democracy, our “vital interests and our deepest beliefs” were now one. The reality was more complicated.When Islamist groups throughout the region began making impressive gains at the ballot box, particularly in Egypt and in the Palestinian territories, the Bush Administration stumbled. With Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza high on the agendaand a deteriorating situation in Iraq, American priorities began to shift. Friendly dictators once again became an invaluable resource for an administration that found itself increasingly embattled both at home and abroad.The reason for this divergence in policy revolves around a critical question:What should the United States do when Islamists come to power through free elections? In a region where Islamist parties represent the only viable oppositionto secular dictatorships, this is the crux of the matter. In the MiddleEastern context, the question of democracy and the question of political Islamare inseparable. Without a well-defined policy of engagement toward politicalIslam, the United States will fall victim to the same pitfalls of the past. In many ways, it already has.

| مارچ 07, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

مصر میں انسانی حقوق کو کس طرح فروغ دینے کے طریقے

انسانی حقوق کا سب سے پہلے

The United States’ relationship with Egypt is central toseveral policy challenges facing the new administration inthe Middle East. As the most populous Arab state, Egyptis a major regional power. Since signing a peace treatywith Israel in 1979, it has played a key role in negotiationsfor an Israeli-Palestinian and a broader Israeli-Arab peaceagreement. Egypt helped to mediate a tense ceasefirebetween Israel and Hamas that broke down with theoutbreak of conflict in the Gaza Strip at the end ofDecember 2008, and continues to serve as anintermediary between the warring parties in the Gazaconflict. Egypt is again at the center of renewed peacemaking efforts in the region launched by the Obamaadministration with the appointment of former SenatorGeorge Mitchell as Special Envoy in January 2009.In a part of the world where so many vital U.S. interestsare at stake, Egypt is a key partner for any U.S.administration. The Egyptian government can greatlyassist the United States in legitimizing and supporting thenew government in Iraq, مثال کے طور پر, اور, as the owner ofthe Suez Canal and as an oil producer, Egypt is vital tothe security of energy supplies from the region.Egypt is also a testing ground for U.S. human rightspromotion in the region, and was frequently the target ofexhortations to move forward with political reform anddemocratization during the Bush administration.Successive administrations have been encouraging theEgyptian government to reform for decades, but after the9/11 attacks, with the prominent involvement of Egyptianslike Mohamed Atta and Ayman al-Zawahiri, calls forreform took on greater centrality—and a new urgency—inU.S. policy. Human rights and democracy were no longerjust desirable; they became national security concernsand the subject of a new “Freedom Agenda.

| مارچ 06, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں

جمہوری اور اسلامی سیاست:

YOKOTA Takayuki�

The aim of this article is to explore the often contradictory correlation between democratizationand Islamic politics in Egypt, ایک نئی اسلامی سیاسی جماعت پر توجہ مرکوز کرنا, وسعت پارٹی (Ḥizbal-Wasaṭ).نظریاتی طور پر, democratization and Islamic politics are not incompatible if Islamic politicalorganizations can and do operate within a legal and democratic framework. دوسری طرف,اس کے لئے اسلامی سیاست کے لئے حکومتوں کو جمہوری رواداری کی ضرورت ہے, as long as they continueto act within a legal framework. مشرق وسطی میں, تاہم, Islamic political parties are oftensuspected of having undemocratic agendas, and governments have often used this suspicion as ajustification to curb democratization. مصری اخوان المسلمون کا بھی یہی حال ہے(جامعہ الاخوان المسلمین) آسن مبارک مبارک حکومت کے تحت. Although the Brotherhood is amainstream Islamic movement in Egypt, عوامی طور پر کام کرنا اور کافی مقبولیت سے لطف اندوز ہونا,نصف صدی سے زیادہ عرصے تک پے درپے حکومتوں نے اپنی غیر قانونی حیثیت کو کبھی نہیں بدلا. Someof the Brotherhood members decided to form the Wasat Party as its legal political organ in order tobreak this stalemate.There have been some studies on the Wasat Party. اسٹیکر [2002] analyzes the “Platformof the Egyptian Wasat Party” [اعزاب الواسعṭ الماری 1998] and explains the basic principlesof the Wasat Party as follows: جمہوریت, شارī (اسلامی قانون), خواتین کے حقوق, and Muslim-Christian relations. بیکر [2003] regards the Wasat Party as one of the new Islamist groups thathave appeared in contemporary Egypt, اور اسی کے مطابق اس کے نظریہ کا تجزیہ کرتا ہے. وکم [2004]discusses the moderation of Islamic movements in Egypt and the attempt to form the WasatParty from the perspective of comparative politics. نورٹن [2005] examines the ideology andactivities of the Wasat Party in connection with the Brotherhood’s political activities. As theseearlier studies are mainly concerned with the Wasat Party during the 1990s and the early 2000s,I will examine the ideology and activities of the Wasat Party till the rise of the democratizationmovement in Egypt in around 2005. میں وسعت پارٹی کے دستاویزات کی بنیاد پر یہ کروں گا, suchas the “Platform of the New Wasat Party” [ایزب الواسع الجداد 2004]1), and my interviews withits members.

| فروری 19, 2010 | تبصرے 0
مزید پڑھیں
پرانی تحاریر درآمد کریں
اگلا صفحہ »