RSSTodas las entradas con etiquetas con: "Palestina"

FEMINISMO ENTRE SECULARISMO E ISLAMISMO: EL CASO DE PALESTINA

Dr., islah jad

Elecciones legislativas celebradas en Cisjordania y la Franja de Gaza en 2006 llevó al poder al movimiento islamista Hamas, que pasó a formar la mayoría del Consejo Legislativo Palestino y también el primer gobierno mayoritario de Hamas. Estas elecciones dieron como resultado el nombramiento de la primera mujer ministra de Hamás, quien se convirtió en la Ministra de Asuntos de la Mujer. entre marzo 2006 y junio 2007, dos ministras diferentes de Hamás asumieron este cargo, pero a ambos les resultó difícil administrar el Ministerio ya que la mayoría de sus empleados no eran miembros de Hamas sino que pertenecían a otros partidos políticos., y la mayoría eran miembros de Fatah, el movimiento dominante que controla la mayoría de las instituciones de la Autoridad Palestina. Un tenso período de lucha entre las mujeres de Hamás en el Ministerio de Asuntos de la Mujer y las mujeres miembros de Fatah llegó a su fin tras la toma del poder por parte de Hamás en la Franja de Gaza y la consiguiente caída de su gobierno en Cisjordania: una lucha que a veces tomó un giro violento. Una razón citada más tarde para explicar esta lucha fue la diferencia entre el discurso feminista secular y el discurso islamista sobre los problemas de las mujeres.. En el contexto palestino, este desacuerdo adquirió un carácter peligroso, ya que se utilizó para justificar la perpetuación de la sangrienta lucha política., la destitución de las mujeres de Hamás de sus cargos o cargos, y las divisiones políticas y geográficas que prevalecían en ese momento tanto en Cisjordania como en la Franja de Gaza ocupada.
Esta lucha plantea una serie de cuestiones importantes: ¿Deberíamos castigar al movimiento islamista que ha llegado al poder?, o debemos considerar las razones que llevaron al fracaso de Fateh en la arena política? ¿Puede el feminismo ofrecer un marco integral para las mujeres?, independientemente de sus afiliaciones sociales e ideológicas? ¿Puede un discurso de un terreno común compartido para las mujeres ayudarlas a realizar y acordar sus objetivos comunes?? ¿El paternalismo solo está presente en la ideología islamista?, y no en nacionalismo y patriotismo? ¿Qué entendemos por feminismo?? ¿Hay un solo feminismo?, o varios feminismos? ¿Qué entendemos por Islam? – ¿Es el movimiento conocido con este nombre o la religión, la filosofía, o el sistema legal? Necesitamos ir al fondo de estos temas y considerarlos cuidadosamente., y debemos consensuarlos para luego decidir, como feministas, si nuestra crítica al paternalismo debe dirigirse a la religión (fe), que debe limitarse al corazón del creyente y no se le debe permitir tomar el control del mundo en general, o la jurisprudencia, que se relaciona con diferentes escuelas de fe que explican el sistema legal contenido en el Corán y los dichos del Profeta – la Sunnah.

EL ACTIVISMO DE LAS MUJERES ISLAMISTAS EN LA PALESTINA OCUPADA

Entrevistas de Khaled Amayreh

Entrevista con Sameera Al-Halayka

Sameera Al-Halayka es miembro electo del Consejo Legislativo Palestino. Ella estaba

nacido en el pueblo de Shoyoukh cerca de Hebron en 1964. Ella tiene un BA en Sharia (Islámica

Jurisprudencia) de la Universidad de Hebrón. Trabajó como periodista de 1996 a 2006 cuando

ingresó al Consejo Legislativo Palestino como miembro electo en el 2006 elecciones.

Está casada y tiene siete hijos..

q: Existe la impresión general en algunos países occidentales de que las mujeres reciben

trato inferior dentro de los grupos de resistencia islámica, como Hamás. Es esto cierto?

¿Cómo son tratadas las mujeres activistas en Hamas??
Los derechos y deberes de las mujeres musulmanas emanan ante todo de la sharia o ley islámica.

No son actos o gestos voluntarios o caritativos que recibimos de Hamas o de cualquier persona.

más. Por lo tanto, en lo que respecta a la participación política y el activismo, las mujeres generalmente tienen

los mismos derechos y deberes que los hombres. Después de todo, las mujeres se maquillan al menos 50 por ciento de

sociedad. En cierto sentido, son toda la sociedad porque dan a luz, y subir,

La nueva generación.

Por lo tanto, Puedo decir que el estatus de la mujer dentro de Hamas está en plena conformidad con su

estado en el Islam mismo. Esto significa que ella es una socia de pleno derecho en todos los niveles.. En efecto, podría ser

injusto e injusto para un islámico (o islamista si lo prefieres) mujer para ser compañera en el sufrimiento

mientras que ella está excluida del proceso de toma de decisiones. Por eso el papel de la mujer en

Hamás siempre ha sido pionero.

q: ¿Cree que el surgimiento del activismo político de las mujeres dentro de Hamas es

un desarrollo natural que es compatible con los conceptos islámicos clásicos

sobre la condición y el papel de la mujer, o es simplemente una respuesta necesaria a

presiones de la modernidad y exigencias de la acción política y de la continuidad

ocupación israelí?

No hay texto en la jurisprudencia islámica ni en la carta de Hamás que impida a las mujeres

participacion politica. Yo creo que lo contrario es cierto — hay numerosos versos coránicos

y dichos del profeta Mahoma instando a las mujeres a ser activas en la política y en la vida pública.

problemas que afectan a los musulmanes. Pero también es cierto que para las mujeres, como lo es para los hombres, activismo politico

no es obligatorio sino voluntario, y se decide en gran medida a la luz de las habilidades de cada mujer,

calificaciones y circunstancias individuales. Sin embargo, mostrando preocupación por el público

asuntos es obligatorio para todos y cada uno de los hombres y mujeres musulmanes. El profeta

Mahoma dijo: “Quien no muestra preocupación por los asuntos de los musulmanes no es musulmán”.

Es más, Las mujeres islamistas palestinas tienen que tener en cuenta todos los factores objetivos sobre el terreno.

cuenta a la hora de decidir si unirse a la política o involucrarse en el activismo político.


Ocupación, Colonialismo, Apartheid?

The Human Sciences Research Council

The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa commissioned this study to test the hypothesis posed by Professor John Dugard in the report he presented to the UN Human Rights Council in January 2007, in his capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel (a saber,, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, y
Gas, hereafter OPT). Professor Dugard posed the question: Israel is clearly in military occupation of the OPT. Al mismo tiempo, elements of the occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. What are the legal consequences of a regime of prolonged occupation with features of colonialism and apartheid for the occupied people, the Occupying Power and third States?
In order to consider these consequences, this study set out to examine legally the premises of Professor Dugard’s question: is Israel the occupant of the OPT, y, si es así, do elements of its occupation of these territories amount to colonialism or apartheid? South Africa has an obvious interest in these questions given its bitter history of apartheid, which entailed the denial of selfdetermination
to its majority population and, during its occupation of Namibia, the extension of apartheid to that territory which South Africa effectively sought to colonise. These unlawful practices must not be replicated elsewhere: other peoples must not suffer in the way the populations of South Africa and Namibia have suffered.
To explore these issues, an international team of scholars was assembled. The aim of this project was to scrutinise the situation from the nonpartisan perspective of international law, rather than engage in political discourse and rhetoric. This study is the outcome of a fifteen-month collaborative process of intensive research, consulta, writing and review. It concludes and, it is to be hoped, persuasively argues and clearly demonstrates that Israel, since 1967, has been the belligerent Occupying Power in the OPT, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid. Belligerent occupation in itself is not an unlawful situation: it is accepted as a possible consequence of armed conflict. Al mismo tiempo, under the law of armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law), occupation is intended to be only a temporary state of affairs. International law prohibits the unilateral annexation or permanent acquisition of territory as a result of the threat or use of force: should this occur, no State may recognise or support the resulting unlawful situation. In contrast to occupation, both colonialism and apartheid are always unlawful and indeed are considered to be particularly serious breaches of international law because they are fundamentally contrary to core values of the international legal order. Colonialism violates the principle of self-determination,
which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed as ‘one of the essential principles of contemporary international law’. All States have a duty to respect and promote self-determination. Apartheid is an aggravated case of racial discrimination, which is constituted according to the International Convention for the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973,
hereafter ‘Apartheid Convention’) by ‘inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them’. The practice of apartheid, moreover, is an international crime.
Professor Dugard in his report to the UN Human Rights Council in 2007 suggested that an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s conduct should be sought from the ICJ. This advisory opinion would undoubtedly complement the opinion that the ICJ delivered in 2004 on the Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territories (hereafter ‘the Wall advisory opinion’). This course of legal action does not exhaust the options open to the international community, nor indeed the duties of third States and international organisations when they are appraised that another State is engaged in the practices of colonialism or apartheid.

ISLAM, LA DEMOCRACIA & EE.UU:

Fundación Córdoba

Abdullah Faliq

Introducción ,


A pesar de ser un debate perenne y complejo, Arches Quarterly reexamina desde bases teológicas y prácticas, el importante debate sobre la relación y compatibilidad entre Islam y Democracia, como se refleja en la agenda de esperanza y cambio de Barack Obama. Mientras que muchos celebran el ascenso de Obama a la Oficina Oval como una catarsis nacional para EE. UU., otros siguen siendo menos optimistas sobre un cambio de ideología y enfoque en el ámbito internacional. Si bien gran parte de la tensión y la desconfianza entre el mundo musulmán y los EE. UU. puede atribuirse al enfoque de promover la democracia, favoreciendo típicamente las dictaduras y los regímenes títeres que hablan de boquilla de los valores democráticos y los derechos humanos, la réplica de 9/11 realmente ha cimentado aún más las dudas a través de la posición de Estados Unidos sobre el Islam político. Ha creado un muro de negatividad según lo encontrado por worldpublicopinion.org, según la cual 67% de los egipcios cree que, globalmente, Estados Unidos está jugando un papel “principalmente negativo”.
Por lo tanto, la respuesta de Estados Unidos ha sido apta. Al elegir a Obama, muchos en todo el mundo están poniendo sus esperanzas en el desarrollo de una menos beligerante, pero una política exterior más justa hacia el mundo musulmán. La prueba para Obama, mientras discutimos, es cómo Estados Unidos y sus aliados promueven la democracia. ¿Estará facilitando o imponiendo?
Es más, ¿Puede ser un intermediario honesto en zonas prolongadas de confl ictos?? Aprovechar la experiencia y el conocimiento de prolifi
c eruditos, académica, periodistas y políticos experimentados, Arches Quarterly saca a la luz la relación entre el Islam y la democracia y el papel de Estados Unidos, así como los cambios provocados por Obama, en la búsqueda del terreno común. Anas Altikriti, el director general de la Fundación Córdoba ofrece el gambito de apertura de esta discusión, donde reflexiona sobre las esperanzas y los desafíos que quedan en el camino de Obama. Siguiendo a Altikriti, el ex asesor del presidente Nixon, El Dr. Robert Crane ofrece un análisis exhaustivo del principio islámico del derecho a la libertad. Anwar Abraham, ex viceprimer ministro de Malasia, enriquece la discusión con las realidades prácticas de la implementación de la democracia en las sociedades musulmanas dominantes, a saber,, en Indonesia y Malasia.
También contamos con la Dra Shireen Hunter, de la Universidad de Georgetown, EE.UU., que explora los países musulmanes rezagados en democratización y modernización. Esto se complementa con el escritor de terrorismo., La explicación del Dr. Nafeez Ahmed sobre la crisis de la posmodernidad y la
desaparición de la democracia. Dr. Daud Abdalá (Director de Monitor de Medios de Oriente Medio), alan hart (ex corresponsal de ITN y BBC Panorama; autor del sionismo: El verdadero enemigo de los judíos) y Asem Sondos (Editor del semanario Sawt Al Omma de Egipto) concentrarse en Obama y su papel frente a la promoción de la democracia en el mundo musulmán, así como las relaciones de Estados Unidos con Israel y la Hermandad Musulmana.
Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Maldivas, Ahmed Shaheed especula sobre el futuro del Islam y la democracia; Cllr. Gerry Maclochlain
– un miembro del Sinn Féin que soportó cuatro años de prisión por actividades republicanas irlandesas y un activista de Guildford 4 y Birmingham 6, reflexiona sobre su reciente viaje a Gaza, donde fue testigo del impacto de la brutalidad y la injusticia cometida contra los palestinos; Dra. Marie Breen-Smyth, Director del Centro para el Estudio de la Radicalización y la Violencia Política Contemporánea analiza los desafíos de la investigación crítica del terror político; Dr. Khalid al-Mubarak, escritor y dramaturgo, analiza las perspectivas de paz en Darfur; y, finalmente, el periodista y activista de derechos humanos Ashur Shamis analiza críticamente la democratización y politización de los musulmanes en la actualidad..
Esperamos que todo esto sea una lectura comprensiva y una fuente de reflexión sobre temas que nos afectan a todos en un nuevo amanecer de esperanza..
Gracias

La política estadounidense de Hamas bloquea la paz en Medio Oriente

Henry Siegman


Conversaciones bilaterales fallidas en estos últimos 16 años han demostrado que un acuerdo de paz en Oriente Medio nunca puede ser alcanzado por las propias partes. Los gobiernos israelíes creen que pueden desafiar la condena internacional de su proyecto colonial ilegal en Cisjordania porque pueden contar con Estados Unidos para oponerse a las sanciones internacionales.. Conversaciones bilaterales que no se enmarcan en los parámetros formulados por EE.UU. (sobre la base de las resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad, los acuerdos de oslo, la Iniciativa de Paz Árabe, la “hoja de ruta” y otros acuerdos previos entre israelíes y palestinos) no puede tener éxito. El gobierno de Israel cree que el Congreso de los Estados Unidos no permitirá que un presidente estadounidense emita tales parámetros y exija su aceptación.. Qué esperanza hay para las conversaciones bilaterales que se reanudan en Washington DC en septiembre 2 depende completamente de que el presidente Obama demuestre que esa creencia es incorrecta, y sobre si las “propuestas puente” que ha prometido, si las conversaciones llegan a un punto muerto, son un eufemismo para la sumisión de los parámetros americanos. Tal iniciativa estadounidense debe ofrecer a Israel garantías férreas de su seguridad dentro de sus fronteras anteriores a 1967., pero al mismo tiempo debe dejar en claro que estas garantías no están disponibles si Israel insiste en negar a los palestinos un estado viable y soberano en Cisjordania y Gaza.. Este documento se centra en el otro gran obstáculo para un acuerdo de estatus permanente: la ausencia de un interlocutor palestino efectivo. Abordar las quejas legítimas de Hamas, y como se señaló en un informe reciente de CENTCOM, Hamas tiene quejas legítimas: podría conducir a su regreso a un gobierno de coalición palestino que proporcionaría a Israel un socio de paz creíble.. Si ese alcance falla debido al rechazo de Hamás, la capacidad de la organización para impedir un acuerdo razonable negociado por otros partidos políticos palestinos se habrá visto significativamente obstaculizada. Si la administración Obama no lidera una iniciativa internacional para definir los parámetros de un acuerdo israelí-palestino y promover activamente la reconciliación política palestina, Europa debe hacerlo, y espero que Estados Unidos siga. Desafortunadamente, no existe una bala de plata que pueda garantizar el objetivo de “dos estados que vivan uno al lado del otro en paz y seguridad”.
Pero el rumbo actual del presidente Obama lo impide absolutamente..

LOS HERMANOS MUSULMANES DE EGIPTO: CONFRONTACIÓN O INTEGRACIÓN?

Research

The Society of Muslim Brothers’ success in the November-December 2005 elections for the People’s Assembly sent shockwaves through Egypt’s political system. In response, the regime cracked down on the movement, harassed other potential rivals and reversed its fledging reform process. This is dangerously short-sighted. There is reason to be concerned about the Muslim Brothers’ political program, and they owe the people genuine clarifications about several of its aspects. But the ruling National Democratic
Party’s (nombra y destituye a los gobernadores) la negativa a aflojar el control corre el riesgo de exacerbar las tensiones en un momento de incertidumbre política en torno a la sucesión presidencial y de graves disturbios socioeconómicos. Aunque es probable que esto sea un período prolongado, proceso gradual, el régimen debe tomar medidas preliminares para normalizar la participación de los Hermanos Musulmanes en la vida política. los hermanos musulmanes, cuyas actividades sociales han sido toleradas durante mucho tiempo pero cuyo papel en la política formal está estrictamente limitado, ganó un sin precedentes 20 por ciento de los escaños parlamentarios en el 2005 elecciones. Lo hicieron a pesar de competir por solo un tercio de los asientos disponibles y a pesar de los obstáculos considerables., incluyendo la represión policial y el fraude electoral. Este éxito confirmó su posición como una fuerza política extremadamente bien organizada y profundamente arraigada.. Al mismo tiempo, subrayó las debilidades tanto de la oposición legal como del partido gobernante. El régimen bien podría haber apostado a que un modesto aumento en la representación parlamentaria de los Hermanos Musulmanes podría usarse para avivar los temores de una toma de poder islamista y, por lo tanto, servir como una razón para detener la reforma.. Si es así, la estrategia corre un gran riesgo de fracasar.

Islam y Democracia

ITAC

If one reads the press or listens to commentators on international affairs, it is often said – and even more often implied but not said – that Islam is not compatible with democracy. In the nineties, Samuel Huntington set off an intellectual firestorm when he published The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, in which he presents his forecasts for the world – writ large. In the political realm, he notes that while Turkey and Pakistan might have some small claim to “democratic legitimacy” all other “… Muslim countries were overwhelmingly non-democratic: monarchies, one-party systems, military regimes, personal dictatorships or some combination of these, usually resting on a limited family, clan, or tribal base”. The premise on which his argument is founded is that they are not only ‘not like us’, they are actually opposed to our essential democratic values. He believes, as do others, that while the idea of Western democratization is being resisted in other parts of the world, the confrontation is most notable in those regions where Islam is the dominant faith.
The argument has also been made from the other side as well. An Iranian religious scholar, reflecting on an early twentieth-century constitutional crisis in his country, declared that Islam and democracy are not compatible because people are not equal and a legislative body is unnecessary because of the inclusive nature of Islamic religious law. A similar position was taken more recently by Ali Belhadj, an Algerian high school teacher, preacher and (in this context) leader of the FIS, when he declared “democracy was not an Islamic concept”. Perhaps the most dramatic statement to this effect was that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq who, when faced with the prospect of an election, denounced democracy as “an evil principle”.
But according to some Muslim scholars, democracy remains an important ideal in Islam, with the caveat that it is always subject to the religious law. The emphasis on the paramount place of the shari’a is an element of almost every Islamic comment on governance, moderate or extremist. Only if the ruler, who receives his authority from God, limits his actions to the “supervision of the administration of the shari’a” is he to be obeyed. If he does other than this, he is a non-believer and committed Muslims are to rebel against him. Herein lies the justification for much of the violence that has plagued the Muslim world in such struggles as that prevailing in Algeria during the 90s

Continuidad organizacional en la Hermandad Musulmana de Egipto

Tess Eisenhart Lee

As Egypt’s oldest and most prominent opposition movement, the Society of

Hermanos Musulmanes, al-ikhwan al-muslimeen, has long posed a challenge to successive secular
regimes by offering a comprehensive vision of an Islamic state and extensive social
welfare services. Desde su fundación en 1928, the Brotherhood (Ikhwan) has thrived in a
parallel religious and social services sector, generally avoiding direct confrontation with
ruling regimes.1 More recently over the past two decades, sin embargo,, the Brotherhood has
dabbled with partisanship in the formal political realm. This experiment culminated in
the election of the eighty-eight Brothers to the People’s Assembly in 2005—the largest
oppositional bloc in modern Egyptian history—and the subsequent arrests of nearly
1,000 Brothers.2 The electoral advance into mainstream politics provides ample fodder
for scholars to test theories and make predictions about the future of the Egyptian
regime: will it fall to the Islamist opposition or remain a beacon of secularism in the
Arab world?
This thesis shies away from making such broad speculations. Instead, it explores

the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood has adapted as an organization in the past
decade.

ENTRE AYER Y HOY

HASAN AL-BANNA

The First Islamic State
On the foundation of this virtuous Qur’anic social order the first Islamic state arose, having unshakeable faith in eso, meticulously applying it, and spreading it throughout the world, so that the first Khilafah used to say: ‘If I should lose a camel’s lead, I would find it in Allah’s Book.’. He fought those who refused to pay zakah, regarding them as apostates because they had overthrown one of the pillars of this order, saying: ‘By Allah, if they refused me a lead which they would hand over to the Apostle of Allah (PBUH), I would fight them as soon as I have a sword in my hand!’ For unity, in all its meanings and manifestations, pervaded this new forthcoming nation.
Complete social unity arose from making the Qur’anic order and it’s language universal, while complete political unity was under the shadow of the Amir Al-Mumineen and beneath the standard of the Khilafah in the capital.
The fact that the Islamic ideology was one of decentralisation of the armed forces, the state treasuries, y provincial governors proved to be no obstacle to this, since all acted according to a single creed and a unified and comprehensive control. The Qur’anic principles dispelled and laid to rest the superstitious idolatry prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula and Persia. They banished guileful Judaism and confined it to a narrow province, putting an end to its religious and political authority. They struggled with Christianity such that its influence was greatly diminished in the Asian and African continents, confined only to Europe under the guard of the Byzantine Empire in Constantinople. Thus the Islamic state became the centre of spiritual and political dominance within the two largest continents. This state persisted in its attacks against the third continent, assaulting Constantinople from the east and besieging it until the siege grew wearisome. Then it came at it from the west,
plunging into Spain, with its victorious soldiers reaching the heart of France and penetrating as far as northern and southern Italy. It established an imposing state in Western Europe, radiant with science and knowledge.
Afterwards, it ended the conquest of Constantinople itself and the confined Christianity within the restricted area of Central Europe. Islamic fleets ventured into the depths of the Mediterranean and Red seas, both became Islamic lakes. And so the armed forces of the Islamic state assumed supremacy of the seas both in the East and West, enjoying absolute mastery over land and sea. These Islamic nations had already combined and incorporated many things from other civilisations, but they triumphed through the strength of their faith and the solidness of their system over others. They Arabised them, or succeeded in doing so to a degree, and were able to sway them and convert them to the splendour, beauty and vitality of their language and religion. El Muslims were free to adopt anything beneficial from other civilisations, insofar as it did not have adverse effects on their social and political unity.

La democracia en el pensamiento político islámico

Azzam S. Tamimi

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

Partes islamistas : ¿Por qué no pueden ser democráticos?

Bassam Tibi

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

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

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

become fashionable contemptuously to dismiss the idea of insisting on

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

and democracy, this deplorable fashion has been fraught with unfortunate

consequences.

Intelligent discussion of Islamism, la democracia, and Islam requires

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

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

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

democracy are indeed compatible, provided that certain necessary religious

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

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

Muslim prodemocracy theorist and practitioner—is to promote the establishment

of secular democracy within the ambit of Islamic civilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

all practical wisdom.

partidos islamistas : Tres clases de movimientos

Tamara Cofman

Between 1991 y 2001, the world of political Islam became significantly more diverse. Este Dia, the term “Islamist”—used to describe a political perspective centrally informed by a set of religious interpretations and commitments—can be applied to such a wide array of groups as to be almost meaningless. It encompasses everyone from the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center to peacefully elected legislators in Kuwait who have voted in favor of women’s suffrage.
Nonetheless, the prominence of Islamist movements—legal and illegal, violent and peaceful—in the ranks of political oppositions across the Arab world makes the necessity of drawing relevant distinctions obvious. The religious discourse of the Islamists is now unavoidably central to Arab politics. Conventional policy discussions label Islamists either “moderate” or “radical,” generally categorizing them according to two rather loose and unhelpful criteria. The first is violence: Radicals use it and moderates do not. This begs the question of how to classify groups that do not themselves engage in violence but who condone, justify, or even actively support the violence of others. A second, only somewhat more restrictive criterion is whether the groups or individuals in question
accept the rules of the democratic electoral game. Popular sovereignty is no small concession for traditional Islamists, many of whom reject democratically elected governments as usurpers of God’s sovereignty.
Yet commitment to the procedural rules of democratic elections is not the same as commitment to democratic politics or governance.

Islam político: Listo para el compromiso?

Emad El-Din Shahin

The voluminous literature on reform and democratization in the Middle East region reveals a number of facts: a main obstacle to reform is the incumbent regimes that have been trying to resist and circumvent genuine democratic transformations; political reform cannot be credible without integrating moderate Islamists in the process; and external actors (mainly the US and the EU) have not yet formulated a coherent approach to reform that could simultaneously achieve stability and democracy in the region. This paper explores the possibilities and implications of a European engagement with moderate Islamists on democracy promotion in the region. It argues that the EU approach to political reform in the Middle East region needs to be enhanced and linked to realities on the ground. Political reform cannot be effective without the integration of non-violent Islamic groups in a gradual, multifaceted process. It should be highlighted that the process of engagement is a risky one for both the EU and the Islamists, yet both stand to gain from a systematic dialogue on democracy. To reduce the risks, the engagement with political Islam should come within a broader EU strategy for democracy promotion in the region. De hecho, what the Islamists would expect from Europe is to maintain a
consistent and assertive stand on political reforms that would allow for a genuine representation of the popular will through peaceful means.
In this regard, a number of questions seem pertinent. Does the EU really need to engage political Islam in democratic reforms? Is political Islam ready for engagement and will it be willing to engage? How can an engagement policy be formulated on the basis of plausible implementation with minimal risks to the interests of the parties involved?

La mala medida del islam político

Martin Kramer

Perhaps no development of the last decade of the twentieth century has caused as much confusion in the West as the emergence of political Islam. Just what does it portend? Is it against modernity, or is it an effect of modernity? Is it against nationalism, or is it a
form of nationalism? Is it a striving for freedom, or a revolt against freedom?
One would think that these are difficult questions to answer, and that they would inspire deep debates. Yet over the past few years, a surprisingly broad consensus has emerged within academe about the way political Islam should be measured. This consensus has
begun to spread into parts of government as well, especially in the U.S. and Europe. A paradigm has been built, and its builders claim that its reliability and validity are beyond question.
This now-dominant paradigm runs as follows. The Arab Middle East and North Africa are stirring. The peoples in these lands are still under varieties of authoritarian or despotic rule. But they are moved by the same universal yearning for democracy that transformed Eastern Europe and Latin America. True, there are no movements we would easily recognize as democracy movements. But for historical and cultural reasons, this universal yearning has taken the form of Islamist protest movements. If these do not look
like democracy movements, it is only a consequence of our own age-old bias against Islam. When the veil of prejudice is lifted, one will see Islamist movements for what they are: the functional equivalents of democratic reform movements. True, on the edges of these movements are groups that are atavistic and authoritarian. Some of their members are prone to violence. These are theextremists.” But the mainstream movements are essentially open, pluralistic, and nonviolent, led bymoderatesorreformists.” Thesemoderatescan be strengthened if they are made partners in the political process, and an initial step must be dialogue. But ultimately, the most effective way to domesticate the Islamists is to permit them to share or possess power. There is no threat here unless the West creates it, by supporting acts of state repression that would deny Islamists access to participation or power.

Partes islamistas , SON DEMÓCRATAS? ¿Importa ?

Tarek Masoud

Driven by a sense that “the Islamists are coming,” journalists and policy makers have been engaged of late in fevered speculation over whether Islamist parties such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) or Palestine’s Hamas really believe in democracy. While I attempt to outline the boundaries of the Islamist democratic commitment, I think that peering into the Islamist soul is a misuse of energies. The Islamists are not coming. Es más, as Adam Przeworski and others have argued, commitments to democracy are more often born of environmental constraints than of true belief. Instead of worrying whether Islamists are real democrats,
our goal should be to help fortify democratic and liberal institutions and actors so that no group—Islamist or otherwise—can subvert them.
But what is this movement over whose democratic bona fides we worry? Islamism is a slippery concept. Por ejemplo, if we label as Islamist those parties that call for the application of shari‘a, we must exclude Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (which is widely considered Islamist) and include Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party (which actively represses Islamists). Instead of becoming mired in definitional issues, we would do better to focus on a set of political parties that have grown from the same historical roots, derive many of their goals and positions from the same body of ideas, and maintain organizational ties to one another—that is, those parties that spring from the international MB. These include the Egyptian mother organization (founded in 1928), but also Hamas, Jordan’s Islamic Action Front, Algeria’s Movement for a Peaceful Society, the Iraqi Islamic Party, Lebanon’s Islamic Group, and others.

Sociedad civil musulmana en espacios públicos urbanos: globalización, Cambios discursivos, y Movimientos Sociales

Pablo M. Lubeck
Bryana Britt
Cities are processes, not products. The three Islamic elements that set in motion the processes that give rise to Islamic cities were: a distinction between the members of the Umma and the outsiders, which led to juridical and spatial distinction by neighborhoods; the segregation of the sexes which gave rise to a particular solution to the question of spatial organization; and a legal system which, rather than imposing general regulations over land uses of various types in various places, left to the litigation of the neighbors the detailed adjudication of mutual rights over space and use. (Janet Abu Lughod 1987: 173)
Framing: Muslim Movements in Urban Situations We live in an intellectual moment when the complexity of the global Islamic
revival renders it difficult to generalize about Muslim institutions, social movements, and discursive practices. While diversity and locality remain paramount features of Muslim cities, globalization has inadvertently nurtured transnational Muslim networks from the homeland of Islam and extended them into the web of interconnected world cities. Quite opportunistically, urban-based
Muslim networks and insurrectionist movements now thrive in the interstitial spaces created by the new global communication and transportation infrastructures. What, después, are the long-term patterns for Muslims in cities? Since the last millennium, as Janet Abu-Lughod reminds us, “the Islamic cityhas been the primary site for: defining power relations between ruler and subject, specifying the rights and identities of spatial communities, and regulating urban social relations between genders. Today’s Muslim city remains the epicenter of a burgeoning public sphere in which informed publics debate highly contested Islamic discourses regarding social justice,