RSSLahat ng Entries Na Naka-tag Sa: "muslim"

Ang Arabo Bukas

DAVID B. OTTAWAY

Oktubre 6, 1981, ay sinadya upang maging isang araw ng pagdiriwang sa Egypt. Minarkahan nito ang anibersaryo ng pinakadakilang sandali ng tagumpay ng Egypt sa tatlong salungatan ng Arab-Israeli, nang ang underdog na hukbo ng bansa ay tumawid sa Suez Canal sa mga pagbubukas ng araw ng 1973 Yom Kippur War at nagpadala ng mga tropang Israeli sa pag-urong. Sa isang cool, walang ulap na umaga, ang istadyum ng Cairo ay puno ng mga pamilyang Ehipsiyo na dumating upang makita ang militar na strut ang hardware nito. Sa reviewing stand, Pangulong Anwar el-Sadat,arkitekto ng digmaan, nanonood nang may kasiyahan habang nagpaparada ang mga lalaki at makina sa kanyang harapan. Nasa malapit ako, isang bagong dating na foreign correspondent.Bigla, isa sa mga trak ng hukbo ay direktang huminto sa harap ng reviewing stand habang anim na Mirage jet ang umuungal sa itaas sa isang akrobatikong pagtatanghal, pagpinta sa langit na may mahabang landas na pula, dilaw, lila,at berdeng usok. Tumayo si Sadat, tila naghahanda na makipagpalitan ng mga pagpupugay sa isa pang pangkat ng mga tropang Egyptian. Ginawa niyang perpektong target ang kanyang sarili para sa apat na Islamist assassin na tumalon mula sa trak, bumangga sa podium, at nilagyan ng mga bala ang kanyang katawan. Habang ang mga pumatay ay nagpatuloy para sa tila isang walang hanggan upang iwiwisik ang stand ng kanilang nakamamatay na apoy, Nag-isip ako saglit kung tatama sa lupa at nanganganib na matapakan hanggang mamatay ng mga natarantang manonood o mananatiling lakad at nanganganib na matamaan ng ligaw na bala. Instinct told me to stay on my feet, at ang aking pakiramdam ng tungkulin sa pamamahayag ay nagtulak sa akin na alamin kung si Sadat ay buhay o patay na.

Hinaharang ng patakaran ng US Hamas ang kapayapaan sa Gitnang Silangan

Henry Siegman


Nabigo ang bilateral talks nitong nakaraan 16 taon ay nagpakita na ang isang kasunduang pangkapayapaan sa Gitnang Silangan ay hindi kailanman makakamit ng mga partido mismo. Naniniwala ang mga gobyerno ng Israel na maaari nilang labanan ang internasyonal na pagkondena sa kanilang iligal na kolonyal na proyekto sa West Bank dahil maaasahan nila ang US na tutulan ang mga internasyonal na parusa. Bilateral talks na hindi naka-frame sa pamamagitan ng US-formulated parameters (batay sa mga resolusyon ng Security Council, ang mga kasunduan ng Oslo, ang Arab Peace Initiative, ang "mapa ng daan" at iba pang mga nakaraang kasunduan ng Israeli-Palestinian) hindi magtagumpay. Naniniwala ang gobyerno ng Israel na hindi papahintulutan ng US Congress ang isang Amerikanong presidente na mag-isyu ng mga naturang parameter at hingin ang kanilang pagtanggap. Ano ang pag-asa para sa bilateral talks na magpapatuloy sa Washington DC sa Setyembre 2 ganap na nakasalalay kay Pangulong Obama na nagpapatunay na mali ang paniniwalang iyon, at kung ang mga "bridging proposal" ba ay ipinangako niya, kung ang mga pag-uusap ay umabot sa isang hindi pagkakasundo, ay isang euphemism para sa pagsusumite ng mga parameter ng Amerikano. Ang ganitong inisyatiba ng US ay dapat mag-alok ng Israel ng mga katiyakan para sa seguridad nito sa loob ng mga hangganan nito bago ang 1967, ngunit sa parehong oras ay dapat linawin ang mga katiyakang ito ay hindi magagamit kung ang Israel ay igiit na ipagkait sa mga Palestinian ang isang mabubuhay at soberanong estado sa West Bank at Gaza. Nakatuon ang papel na ito sa iba pang malaking balakid sa isang permanenteng kasunduan sa katayuan: ang kawalan ng isang epektibong Palestinian interlocutor. Pagtugon sa mga lehitimong hinaing ng Hamas - at tulad ng nabanggit sa isang kamakailang ulat ng CENTCOM, Ang Hamas ay may mga lehitimong hinaing - maaaring humantong sa pagbabalik nito sa isang Palestinian coalition government na magbibigay sa Israel ng isang mapagkakatiwalaang partner sa kapayapaan. Kung nabigo ang outreach na iyon dahil sa pagtanggi ng Hamas, ang kakayahan ng organisasyon na pigilan ang isang makatwirang kasunduan na napag-usapan ng iba pang mga partidong pampulitika ng Palestinian ay lubhang nahadlangan. Kung ang administrasyong Obama ay hindi mamumuno sa isang internasyonal na inisyatiba upang tukuyin ang mga parameter ng isang Israeli-Palestinian na kasunduan at aktibong isulong ang Palestinian political reconciliation, Dapat gawin ito ng Europa, at sana sumunod ang America. Sa kasamaang palad, walang pilak na bala na magagarantiyahan ang layunin ng "dalawang estado na magkatabi sa kapayapaan at seguridad."
Ngunit ang kasalukuyang kurso ni Pangulong Obama ay ganap na humahadlang dito.

Muling binisita ang Islamismo

MAHA AZZAM

Mayroong krisis pampulitika at seguridad na nakapalibot sa tinukoy na Islamismo, isang krisis na ang mga antecedents ay matagal nang nauna 9/11. Sa nakaraan 25 taon, nagkaroon ng iba't ibang pagbibigay diin sa kung paano ipaliwanag at labanan ang Islamismo. Mga analista at gumagawa ng patakaran
noong 1980s at 1990s ay pinag-uusapan ang mga ugat na sanhi ng militanteng Islam bilang pagiging malaise sa ekonomiya at marginalisasyon. Kamakailan lamang ay nagkaroon ng pagtuon sa repormang pampulitika bilang isang paraan ng pagpapahina ng apela ng radicalism. Dumarami ngayon, ang ideolohiyang at relihiyosong mga aspeto ng Islamismo ay kailangang tugunan sapagkat sila ay naging mga tampok ng isang mas malawak na debate sa politika at seguridad. May kaugnayan man sa terorismo ng Al-Qaeda, repormang pampulitika sa mundong Muslim, ang isyu sa nukleyar sa Iran o mga lugar ng krisis tulad ng Palestine o Lebanon, naging pangkaraniwan upang makita na ang ideolohiya at relihiyon ay ginagamit ng mga magkasalungat na partido bilang mapagkukunan ng pagiging lehitimo, inspirasyon at poot.
Ang sitwasyon ay mas kumplikado ngayon sa pamamagitan ng lumalaking pagkontra tungo sa at takot sa Islam sa Kanluran dahil sa mga pag-atake ng terorista na kung saan ay nakakaapekto sa mga saloobin patungo sa imigrasyon, relihiyon at kultura. Ang mga hangganan ng umma o pamayanan ng mga tapat ay umaabot sa kabila ng mga estado ng Muslim sa mga lunsod sa Europa. Ang umma ay potensyal na umiiral saanman may mga pamayanang Muslim. Ang ibinahaging pakiramdam ng pagiging kabilang sa isang karaniwang pananampalataya ay nagdaragdag sa isang kapaligiran kung saan ang kahulugan ng pagsasama sa nakapalibot na komunidad ay hindi malinaw at kung saan maaaring maging maliwanag ang diskriminasyon. Mas malaki ang pagtanggi sa mga halaga ng lipunan,
maging sa Kanluran man o maging sa estado ng Muslim, mas malaki ang pagsasama-sama ng moral na puwersa ng Islam bilang isang kultural na pagkakakilanlan at halaga-system.
Kasunod sa mga pambobomba sa London noong 7 Hulyo 2005 naging mas maliwanag na ang ilang mga kabataan ay nagpapatunay ng relihiyosong pangako bilang isang paraan ng pagpapahayag ng etniko. Ang mga ugnayan sa pagitan ng mga Muslim sa buong mundo at ang kanilang pang-unawa na mahina ang mga Muslim ay humantong sa maraming magkakaibang mga bahagi ng mundo upang pagsamahin ang kanilang sariling mga lokal na kalagayan sa mas malawak na Muslim., pagkakaroon ng identifi ed sa kultura, alinman sa pangunahin o bahagyang, na may isang malawak na defi ned Islam.

Iraq and the Future of Political Islam

James Piscatori

Sixty-five years ago one of the greatest scholars of modern Islam asked the simple question, “whither Islam?", where was the Islamic world going? It was a time of intense turmoil in both the Western and Muslim worlds – the demise of imperialism and crystallisation of a new state system outside Europe; the creation and testing of the neo- Wilsonian world order in the League of Nations; the emergence of European Fascism. 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:
(a) 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.

Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime

JONATHAN GITHENS-MAZER

ROBERT LAMBERT MBE

The perils of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime threaten to undermine basic human rights, fundamental aspects of citizenship and co-existing partnerships for Muslims and non- Muslims alike in contemporary Europe. Routine portrayals of Islam as a religion of hatred, violence and inherent intolerance have become key planks for the emergence of extremist nationalist, anti-immigration politics in Europe – planks which seek to exploit populist fears and which have the potential to lead to Muslim disempowerment in Europe. Sections of the media have created a situation where the one serves to heighten the unfounded claims and anxieties of the other – such that politicians from Austria to the Britain, and the Netherlands to Spain, feel comfortable in using terms like “Tsunamis of Muslim immigration”, and accuse Islam of being a fundamental threat to a “European way of life”. While in many cases, the traction of this populist approach reflects an ignorance of Islamic faith, practice and belief, there are many think-tanks which are currently engaged in promoting erroneous depictions of Islam and Muslim political beliefs through unsubstantiated and academically baseless studies, and a reliance on techniques such as ‘junk-polling’. Prior to researching Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crime in London, we worked with Muslim Londoners to research the contested notion of what is widely termed by academics and policy makers as “violent radicalisation” (Githens-Mazer, 2010, Lambert 2010). To a large extent it was that prior research experience that persuaded us to embark on this new project. That is to say, there is an important link between the two areas
of work which we should explain at the outset. Mula noon 9/11 Muslim Londoners, no less than Muslims in towns and cities across Europe, have often been unfairly stigmatised as subversive threats to state security and social cohesion, sometimes characterised as a fifth column (Cox and Marks 2006, Gove 2006, Mayer and Frampton 2009). We do not suggest that this stigmatisation did not exist before 9/11, still less do we argue that it revolves solely around the issues of security and social cohesion, but we do claim that the response to 9/11 – ‘the war on terror’ – and much of the rhetoric that has surrounded it has played a significant part in increasing the public perception of European Muslims as potential enemies rather than potential partners and neighbours.

Mga Ugat Ng Nasyonalismo Sa Mundong Muslim

Shabir Ahmed

Ang mundo ng Muslim ay nailalarawan sa pamamagitan ng kabiguan, pagkakawatak-watak, pagdanak ng dugo, pang-aapi at atrasado. Sa kasalukuyan, walang Muslim na bansa sa mundo ang makatuwirang mag-angkin na sila ay pinuno sa anumang larangan ng aktibidad ng tao. Sa totoo lang, ang mga di-Muslim sa Silangan at Kanluran
ngayon ay idikta ang panlipunan, pang-ekonomiya at pampulitikang agenda para sa Muslim Ummah.
Higit pa rito, kinikilala ng mga Muslim ang kanilang sarili bilang Turkish, Arabo, African at Pakistani. Kung ito ay hindi sapat, Ang mga Muslim ay higit na nahahati sa loob ng bawat bansa o kontinente. Halimbawa, sa Pakistan ang mga tao ay inuuri bilang mga Punjabi, Sindhis, Balauchis at
Pathans. Ang Muslim Ummah ay hindi kailanman nahaharap sa gayong suliranin noong nakaraan sa panahon ng pamamahala ng Islam. Hindi sila kailanman nagdusa mula sa kawalan ng pagkakaisa, malawakang pang-aapi, pagwawalang-kilos sa agham at teknolohiya at tiyak na hindi mula sa panloob na mga salungatan na nasaksihan natin ngayong siglo tulad ng digmaang Iran-Iraq. Kaya kung ano ang naging mali sa mga Muslim sa siglong ito? Bakit ang daming alitan sa pagitan nila at bakit nakikita silang nag-aaway? Ano ang naging sanhi ng kanilang kahinaan at kung paano sila makakabangon mula sa kasalukuyang pagwawalang-kilos?
Maraming mga kadahilanan na nag-ambag sa kasalukuyang estado ng mga gawain, ngunit ang mga pangunahing ay ang pag-abandona sa wikang Arabe bilang wika ng pag-unawa sa Islam ng tama at pagsasagawa ng ijtihad, ang pagsipsip ng mga dayuhang kultura tulad ng mga pilosopiya ng mga Griyego, Persian at ang mga Hindu, ang unti-unting pagkawala ng sentral na awtoridad sa ilang mga lalawigan, at ang pag-usbong ng nasyonalismo mula noong ika-19 na Siglo.
Nakatuon ang aklat na ito sa pinagmulan ng nasyonalismo sa mundo ng mga Muslim. Ang nasyonalismo ay hindi natural na lumitaw sa mundo ng mga Muslim, hindi rin ito nangyari bilang tugon sa anumang paghihirap na kinakaharap ng mga tao, hindi rin dahil sa pagkabigo na kanilang naramdaman nang magsimulang mangibabaw ang Europa sa mundo pagkatapos ng rebolusyong industriyal. Sa halip, Ang nasyonalismo ay itinanim sa isipan ng mga Muslim sa pamamagitan ng isang pinag-isipang pamamaraan ng mga kapangyarihang Europeo, matapos ang kanilang kabiguan na wasakin ang Islamic State sa pamamagitan ng puwersa. Inilalahad din ng aklat ang hatol ng Islam sa nasyonalismo at mga praktikal na hakbang na maaaring gawin upang maalis ang sakit ng nasyonalismo mula sa Muslim Ummah upang maibalik ito sa dating kaluwalhatian..

Demokrasya sa Kaisipang Pampulitika ng Islam

Azzam S. Tamimi

Ang demokrasya ay pinagkakaabalahan ng mga Arabong nag-iisip sa pulitika simula pa noong simula ng modernong Arab renaissance mga dalawang siglo na ang nakararaan.. Simula noon, ang konsepto ng demokrasya ay nagbago at umunlad sa ilalim ng impluwensya ng iba't ibang panlipunan at pampulitika na pag-unlad.Ang talakayan ng demokrasya sa Arab Islamic literatura ay maaaring traced pabalik sa Rifa'a Tahtawi, ang ama ng Egyptian democracy ayon kay Lewis Awad,[3] na ilang sandali matapos ang kanyang pagbabalik sa Cairo mula sa Paris ay naglathala ng kanyang unang libro, Takhlis Al-Ibriz Ila Talkhis Bariz, sa 1834. Binubuod ng aklat ang kanyang mga obserbasyon sa mga asal at kaugalian ng modernong Pranses,[4] at pinuri ang konsepto ng demokrasya tulad ng nakita niya ito sa France at habang nasaksihan niya ang pagtatanggol at muling paninindigan nito sa pamamagitan ng 1830 Rebolusyon laban kay Haring Charles X.[5] Sinubukan ni Tahtawi na ipakita na ang demokratikong konsepto na ipinapaliwanag niya sa kanyang mga mambabasa ay tugma sa batas ng Islam. Inihambing niya ang political pluralism sa mga anyo ng ideological at jurisprudential pluralism na umiral sa karanasang Islamiko.:
Ang kalayaan sa relihiyon ay ang kalayaan ng paniniwala, ng opinyon at ng sekta, basta't hindi ito sumasalungat sa mga batayan ng relihiyon . . . Ang parehong ay naaangkop sa kalayaan ng pampulitikang kasanayan at opinyon ng mga nangungunang administrador, na nagsisikap na bigyang-kahulugan at ilapat ang mga tuntunin at probisyon alinsunod sa mga batas ng kanilang sariling mga bansa. Ang mga hari at mga ministro ay may lisensya sa larangan ng pulitika upang ituloy ang iba't ibang ruta na sa huli ay nagsisilbing isang layunin: mabuting administrasyon at hustisya.[6] Isang mahalagang palatandaan sa bagay na ito ay ang kontribusyon ni Khairuddin At-Tunisi (1810- 99), pinuno ng kilusang reporma noong ika-19 na siglo sa Tunisia, WHO, sa 1867, bumuo ng pangkalahatang plano para sa reporma sa isang aklat na pinamagatang Aqwam Al-Masalik Fi Taqwim Al- bumalik (Ang Tuwid na Daan sa Pagrereporma ng mga Pamahalaan). Ang pangunahing pinagkakaabalahan ng aklat ay sa pagharap sa usapin ng repormang pampulitika sa mundo ng Arabo. Habang sumasamo sa mga pulitiko at iskolar sa kanyang panahon na hanapin ang lahat ng posibleng paraan upang mapabuti ang katayuan ng
pamayanan at paunlarin ang pagkamagalang nito, binalaan niya ang pangkalahatang publikong Muslim laban sa pag-iwas sa mga karanasan ng ibang mga bansa batay sa maling kuru-kuro na ang lahat ng mga akda, mga imbensyon, ang mga karanasan o saloobin ng mga di-Muslim ay dapat tanggihan o balewalain.
Nanawagan pa si Khairuddin na wakasan ang absolutist rule, na sinisi niya sa pang-aapi ng mga bansa at pagkasira ng mga sibilisasyon.

Kulturang Pampulitika ng Islam, Demokrasya, at Karapatang Pantao

Si Daniele. Presyo

Pinagtatalunan na pinapadali ng Islam ang authoritarianism, sumasalungat sa

pagpapahalaga ng mga lipunang Kanluranin, at makabuluhang nakakaapekto sa mahahalagang resulta ng pulitika
sa mga bansang Muslim. Dahil dito, mga iskolar, mga komentarista, at pamahalaan
ang mga opisyal ay madalas na tumuturo sa '' Islamic fundamentalism '' bilang ang susunod
banta ng ideolohiya sa mga liberal na demokrasya. Ang view na ito, gayunpaman, ay pangunahing nakabatay
sa pagsusuri ng mga teksto, teoryang pampulitika ng Islam, at ad hoc na pag-aaral
ng mga indibidwal na bansa, na hindi isinasaalang-alang ang iba pang mga kadahilanan. Ito ay aking pagtatalo
na ang mga teksto at tradisyon ng Islam, tulad ng sa ibang relihiyon,
maaaring gamitin upang suportahan ang iba't ibang sistema at patakarang pampulitika. Bansa
ang mga tiyak at deskriptibong pag-aaral ay hindi nakakatulong sa atin na makahanap ng mga pattern na makakatulong
ipinapaliwanag namin ang iba't ibang ugnayan sa pagitan ng Islam at pulitika sa buong
mga bansa sa mundo ng Muslim. Kaya naman, isang bagong diskarte sa pag-aaral ng
Ang koneksyon sa pagitan ng Islam at pulitika ay tinatawag.
I suggest, sa pamamagitan ng mahigpit na pagsusuri ng ugnayan sa pagitan ng Islam,
demokrasya, at karapatang pantao sa cross-national level, sobra na yan
binibigyang-diin ang kapangyarihan ng Islam bilang puwersang pampulitika. ako muna
gumamit ng comparative case study, na nakatutok sa mga salik na may kaugnayan sa interplay
sa pagitan ng mga grupo at rehimeng Islam, mga impluwensyang pang-ekonomiya, pagkakahati ng etniko,

at pag-unlad ng lipunan, upang ipaliwanag ang pagkakaiba sa impluwensya ng

Islam sa pulitika sa walong bansa.

ISLAMIC FAITH in AMERICA

JAMES A. BEVERLEY

AMERICA BEGINS A NEW MILLENNIUM AS ONE OF THE MOST RELIGIOUSLY diverse nations of all time. Nowhere else in the world do so many people—offered a choice free from government influence—identify with such a wide range of religious and spiritual communities. Nowhere else has the human search for meaning been so varied. In America today, there are communities and centers for worship representing all of the world’s religions.
The American landscape is dotted with churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques. Zen Buddhist zendos sit next to Pentecostal tabernacles. Hasidic Jews walk the streets with Hindu swamis. Most amazing of all, relatively little conflict has occurred among religions in America. This fact, combined with a high level of tolerance of each other’s beliefs and practices, has let America produce people of goodwill ready to try to resolve any tensions that might emerge. The Faith in America series celebrates America’s diverse religious heritage.
People of faith and ideals who longed for a better world have created a unique society where freedom of religious expression is a keynote of culture. The freedom that America offers to people of faith means that not only have ancient religions found a home
dito, but that newer ways of expressing spirituality have also taken root. From huge churches in large cities to small spiritual communities in towns and villages, faith in America has never been stronger. The paths that different religions have taken through
American history is just one of the stories readers will find in this series. Like anything people create, religion is far from perfect. Gayunpaman, its contribution to the culture and its ability to help people are impressive, and these accomplishments will be found in all the books in the series. Samantala, awareness and tolerance of the different paths our neighbors take to the spiritual life has become an increasingly important part of citizenship in America.
Today, more than ever, America as a whole puts its faith in freedom—the freedom to believe.

Mga Partido ng Islamista : 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

German Converts to Islam and Their Ambivalent Relations with Immigrant Muslims

Esra Ozyurek

“I would never have become a Muslim if I had met Muslims before I met Islam.” I heard these words over and over again during my yearlong ethnographic research among ethnic German converts to Islam in Berlin.1 The first time, it was uttered by a self-declared German imam who had converted to Islam while trying to convert Arabs and Turks to Christianity. The second time, the speaker was a twenty-five-year-old former East German woman who came to Islam through her Bosnian boyfriend, whose family never accepted her. The third time, the comment was made by a fifty-year-old man who converted to Islam about thirty years ago after meeting Iranians who came to Europe to collect money and organize for the Iranian revolution. After that I stopped counting. Although all of the several dozen German converts I talked to (and the dozens of converts whose narratives I read on the internet) claim that they embraced Islam in a context of significant personal relationships with Muslims,2 a substantial portion of German Muslims are quite discontented with born Muslims, especially those of immigrant backgrounds. This paper is an attempt to comprehend the paradoxical feelings of love and hate for Islam and Muslims that many German Muslims experience. My aim in exploring this issue is to understand what it takes to be a (supposed) Islamophile in a political and social context that is highly Islamophobic.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ON ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY

Saliba Sarsar

Alexander Keller

Democracy is highly promoted and sought these days but its principles are hard to practice and protect. Once secured, gayunpaman, it generates real life in human communities. Its sunrises provide energy to freedom and growth to civil society and culture, while its sunsets store energy to sustain deliberative citizenship and liberty and bridge past accomplishments to future aspirations.
Gayunpaman, what do we mean by democracy? Are there perfect democratic societies around the world? Are democracy’s rays likely to shine on all landscapes? Is Muslim culture hospitable to deepening democracy’s impact? Do Muslims have a different understanding of democracy? If democracy is the preferred goal, how can democracy’s supporters move democratization forward in Muslim countries?
What we know is that no “one model fits all environments” exists. The journey of democracy is a “generational initiative” that must carefully consider internal and external dynamics. If Muslims, like others, wish to promote democracy, then they can detect their country’s place on the democratic terrain and determine how best to improve their practices and standing at home and abroad given their culture, historical experiences, resources, and vision for the future.
This select bibliography is designed to help all those interested in understanding the link between Islam and Muslims on the one hand and democracy on the other. It consists of over 100 entries, divided among books, articles, presentations, and reports; government sources; and institutes and organizations.

Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan

The Islamic movement in Jordan came to international attention in thewake of the April 1989 disturbances and the subsequent November 1989 parliamentary elections. These developments highlighted the movement’s political clout and raised the spectre in the West of an Iranian-style Islamic revolution in Jordan, fuelled by radical Islamic movements such as those of Egypt and the Maghrib. While various political trends competed for influence during the months prior to the elections, the Muslim Brotherhood had a clear advantage; its infrastructure in the mosques, the Qur’anicschools and the universities gave it a ready-made political base. The leftistand pro-regime groups, on the other hand, had to create de facto politicalparties—still legally banned—and to build their organizational base almostex nihilo, or to transform a clandestine infrastructure into an overt politicalone. There should have been very little surprise, therefore, when the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist candidates won a windfall of 32 of the 80seats in Parliament.Politicization of Islam is not new in Jordan.1 Since the foundation of the Emirate of Trans jordan by ‘Abdallah, Islam has served as one of the building blocks of regime legitimacy and of nation-building. The genealogy of the Hashemite family as scions of the Prophet’s tribe was an important source of legitimacy for its rule in Syria, Iraq and Jordan, as it had been inthe Hijaz. The ideology of the “Great Arab Revolt” was no less Islamic than it was Arab, and the control of Jerusalem after 1948 was interpretedby the regime as an Islamic responsibility and not only an Arab one.2King ‘Abdallah and his grandson Hussein, took care to present themselvesas believing Muslims, appearing at rituals and prayers, performing the pilgrimage to Mecca and embellishing their speeches with Islamic motifs.3The status of Islam in the Kingdom was also formalized in the Jordanian constitution (1952) by stipulating that Islam is the religion of the kingdom and that the king must be a Muslim and of Muslim parents. Batas Islam(Shari‘a) is defined in the constitution as one of the pillars of legislation in the kingdom, while family law is in the exclusive hands of the Shari‘a courts.

Claiming the Center: Political Islam in Transition

John L. Esposito

In the 1990s political Islam, what some callIslamic fundamentalism,” remains a major presence in government and in oppositional politics from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Political Islam in power and in politics has raised many issues and questions: “Is Islam antithetical to modernization?,” “Are Islam and democracy incompatible?,” “What are the implications of an Islamic government for pluralism, minority and women’s rights,” “How representative are Islamists,” “Are there Islamic moderates?,” “Should the West fear a transnational Islamic threat or clash of civilizations?” Contemporary Islamic Revivalism The landscape of the Muslim world today reveals the emergence of new Islamic republics (Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan), the proliferation of Islamic movements that function as major political and social actors within existing systems, and the confrontational politics of radical violent extremists._ In contrast to the 1980s when political Islam was simply equated with revolutionary Iran or clandestine groups with names like Islamic jihad or the Army of God, the Muslim world in the 1990s is one in which Islamists have participated in the electoral process and are visible as prime ministers, cabinet officers, speakers of national assemblies, parliamentarians, and mayors in countries as diverse as Egypt, Sudan, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Israel/Palestine. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, political Islam continues to be a major force for order and disorder in global politics, one that participates in the political process but also in acts of terrorism, a challenge to the Muslim world and to the West. Understanding the nature of political Islam today, and in particular the issues and questions that have emerged from the experience of the recent past, remains critical for governments, policymakers, and students of international politics alike.

THE RISE OF “MUSLIM DEMOCRACY

Vali Nasr

A specter is haunting the Muslim world. This particular specter is notthe malign and much-discussed spirit of fundamentalist extremism, nor yet the phantom hope known as liberal Islam. Instead, 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, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan (beforeits 1999 military coup), and Turkey.Unlike Islamists, with their visions of rule by shari‘a (Batas Islam) 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.

MUSLIM INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL MOBILIZATION

SARA SILVESTRI

In Europe, and most of the Western world, Muslim presence in the publicsphere is a recent phenomenon that characterised the last decade of the 20thcentury and has deeply marked the beginning of the 21st. This visiblepresence, which amounts to something between 15 at 20 millionindividuals, can best be analysed if dissected into a number of components.The first part of this chapter illustrates where, when and why organisedMuslim voices and institutions have emerged in Europe, and which actorshave been involved. The second part is more schematic and analytical, inthat it seeks to identify from these dynamics the process through whichMuslims become political actors and how they relate to other, often incompeting political forces and priorities. It does so by observing theobjectives and the variety of strategies that Muslims have adopted in orderto articulate their concerns vis-à-vis different contexts and interlocutors.The conclusions offer an initial evaluation of the impact and of theconsequences of Muslim mobilisation and institution-formation forEuropean society and policy-making.