Middle East Politics

Md Shafiqul Islam

Department of Political Science

University of Barisal.

E-Mail:shafiqulislamsabuj7@gmail.com

Contact:01751108793

Topics:

1. The Making of Middle East Politics.

2. Statistical Snapshot and Civil and Political Rights in Middle East.

3. European Imperialism in the Middle East.

4. Pathways from European Colonialism.

5. From Generation to Generation: The Succession Problem in Saudi Arabia.

6. Tawhid or Jihad: What Wahhabism Is and Is Not.

7. The Neo Reformists: A New Democratic Islamic Discourse.

8. Reforming The Judiciary in Saudi Arabia.

9. Conflict Between Israel- Palestine and Its Origin.

10. Islamic Revivalism: A Global Perspective.

11. An Introduction to Islamophobia and Anti- Arabism.

12. Clash of Civilizations and Remaking the World Order.

13. The Arab Spring.

14. Pan- Arabism

15. The United States and the Arab Pro-Democracy Insurrection.

16. The Social Pillar Of the Arab Authoritarian Regime.

THE MAKING OF THE MIDDLE EAST POLITICS

ABSTRACT :

The regional uprising that came to be known as the “Arab spring “began unfolding just four month after the first edition of this text appeared . The volume describe and analyzed the predominance of authoritarian forms of rule in the middle east and speculated not easily optimistically about prospects for change in the direction of freer and more plural.

INTRODUCTION :

The middle east encompasses twenty countries that are home to approximately 460 million people. Most of these countries are Arab meaning that their citizens speaks the Arabic language and perceive that they have a shared historical ,cultural and social experience as Arabs .Three of these twenty countries are not Arab, however . Iran and Turkey are not Arab countries and their primary languages are Farsi and Turkish respectively .Turkey sometimes considered part of the Middle East and sometimes part of Europe.

MAKING OF THE MIDDEL EAST:

These are given below in details:

Arab world demanding more accountable and more responsible governance: As demonstrator confronted dictators across the Arab world ,demanding more accountable, more responsible , mo0re participator and less corrupt governance. It seemed every thing was changing.

President fell from power :After a decades in office ,president fell from power in Tunisia then Egypt then Libya and Yemen . Nationalist movement of these country moved against authoritarian government.

Mobilization coordination and dissemination political dissent: Serious political turbulence struck monarchies as well as citizens in Bahrain , Morocco and Jordan called for through going changes to the rules o0f the political game . These development were broadcast on Al Jazeera and other satellite channels ,while social media vehicles like Twitter and Facebook played a role .

Political calculus has been changed : Everywhere the political calculus of these who rule and those who ruled has been changed by dramatically wave of demonstration and their aftermath.

Arab spring and dramatic alteration of political system: Middle east five countries among twenty countries . prospect for more competitive and free politics in just two or perhaps three of those five cases .If they success of this movement ,then they success of this object .the freer politics came to all people from the group of people .

Contemporary comparative politics of the middle east countries :Internal political dynamics of countries rather then relations between or among countries which is international politics .

For example: Instead of exploring when and why countries in the region go to war with one another ,we will explore how middle eastern government and why ,how, opposition work to bring about change and so faith.

Political ,social , economics and other factors in the middle east countries :Political, social, economics and other factors help us to understand both the similarities and the differences of the comparative politics

Terming to defining of the middle east :The term middle east was bestowed on the region by outside powers. According to their own particular ,political strategic and geographical perspective middle east has not indigenous culture .Its culture derived from western culture power.

Conclusion :

At last we can say that, this overview is just an introductory taste contemporary political dynamics in the region .Government opposition relations , the impact of internal politics ,economics, civil society, religion, identity, and gender and by country . The essential provides historical knowledge regarding the crucial historical legacies that bear on middle east politics and society today.

Statistical snapshot and Political and Civil rights in Middle East

Abstract:

The Middle East encompasses twenty countries that are home to approximately 460 million people. Most of these countries are Arab, meaning that their citizens speak the Arabic language and perceive that they have shared historical, cultural and social experience as Arab. Three of twenty countries are not Arab.

Introduction:

In terms of sheer size, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran are the largest Middle East countries; Bahrain and Palestine, by contrast, occupy tiny pieces of territory. In terms of population Egypt, Turkey and Iran are the region’s power house, with population upward to 70 million, while tiny Bahrain has a population of just over 1 million.

On a per capita basis, the economies of Qatar, Kuwait, The UAE and Israel produce the most. Lists the ranking given to Middle East countries for political and civil rights and civil rights and civil liberties in 2008 and 2011 by “ Freedom House”.

Table-1, Statistical Snapshot of Middle East countries.

Country	Land Area (sq. km)	Population 2011	Urban population (% of total ) 2011	Fertility rate (birth per woman) 2010	GDP per Capita (constant 2000 US$) 2009	Literacy rate, adult Female (% of females Ages 15-19 and above) 2005-2009
Algeria	2,381,740	35,980,193	73	2	2,193	64
Bahrain	760	1,323,535	89	3	11,601	90
Egypt	995,450	82,536,770	44	3	1,912	58
Iran	1,628,550	74,798,599	69	2	2,162	81
Iraq	434,320	32,961,959	67	5	752	70
Israel	21,640	7,765,700	92	3	21,602	-
Jordan	88,780	6,181,000	83	4	2,577	89
Kuwait	17,820	2,818,042	98	2	23,116	92
Lebanon	10,230	4,259,405	87	2	6,350	86
Libya	1,759,540	6,422,772	78	3	7,885	82
Morocco	446,300	32,272,974	57	2	1,797	44
Oman	309,500	2,846,145	73	2	11,192	81
Palestine	6,020	4,019,433	74	4	1,056	92
Qatar	11,590	1,870,041	99	2	30,547	93
Saudi Arabia	2,149,690	28,082,541	82	3	9,294	81
Syria	183,630	20,820,311	56	3	1,509	78
Tunisia	155,360	10,673,800	66	2	3,084	71
Turkey	769,630	73,639,596	71	2	4,969	85
UAE	83,600	7,890,924	84	2	22,507	91
Yemen	527,970	24,799,880	32	5	583	45

Source: world Bank, World Development Indicators(Washington, DC).

Table-2 Political and Civil Rights in the Middle East.

Country	Political Rights		Civil Rights
Country	2008	2011	2008	2011
Algeria	6	6	5	5
Bahrain	5	6	5	6
Egypt	6	6	5	5
Iran	6	6	6	6
Iraq	6	5	6	6
Israel	1	1	2	2
Jordan	5	6	4	5
Kuwait	4	4	4	5
Lebanon	5	5	4	4
Libya	7	7	7	6
Morocco	5	5	4	4
Oman	6	6	5	5
Palestine	5	6	6	6
Qatar	6	6	5	5
Saudi Arabia	7	7	6	7
Syria	7	7	6	7
Tunisia	7	3	5	4
Turkey	3	3	3	3
UAE	6	6	5	6
Yemen	5	6	5	6

Source: Freedom House.

Notes: Scale is 1-7, with denoting “most free” and 7 denoting “least free”. 6 is for Gaza Strip; 5 is for the West Bank.

Conclusion:

This overview is just an introductory taste of contemporary political dynamics in the region. The topic that follow go into much more detail, both by them government-opposition relations, the impact of international politics, economics, civil society, religion, identity and gender. The remainder of this chapter provides essential historical knowledge regarding the cultural and social historical legacies that bear on Middle East politics and society to day.

European Imperialism in Middle East

Abstract:

Imperialism is generally defined as a phenomenon that began with the overseas expansion of Europe ib the fifteenth century. That expansion did not seriously affect the Maghreb or Egypt, however, until the nineteenth century, and except economically, it did not affect the most populous areas of southwest Asia until the early twentieth century. The major reason for this delay was the power and durability of the ottoman Empire.

Introduction:

The ottomans painful experience of decline vis a vis an increasingly powerful set of European countries was only the first of a serious of conflicts between the Middle East and Europe. The second was an era of direct rule by various European countries over territories in the middle East.

European imperialism in the middle East:

1) Direct ruling of various European countries over the middle East:

From the very beginning of the 19th century and continuing through the end of the world war1;Britain, France and Italy took control of the vast majority of the region.

2) Geo strategic affairs motivated the colonizers:

a) Britain foot pritain in the middle East on two main concerns:

i) security access to regional oil supplies

ii) protecting key access route to India easy communication from middle East to India

France was also motivated for two concerns

i) developing relations with the Christianity community

ii) Expansion of Christianity

iii) minimizing commercial interest

3) European imperialism in the middle East country:

Country	European Power	Type of Author
Algeria	France	Colonial
Bahrain	Britain	Treaty
Egypt	Britain	Colonial
Iran	n.a.	n.a.
Iraq	Britain	Mandate
Israel	Britain	Mandate
Jordan	Britain	Mandate
Kuwait	Britain	Treaty
Lebanon	France	Mandate
Libya	Italy	Colonial
Morocco	France	Colonial
Oman	n.a.	n.a.
Palestine	Britain	Mandate
Qatar	Britain	Treaty
Lebanon	France	Mandate
Saudi Arabia	n.a.	n.a.
Tunisia	France	Colonial
Turkey	n.a.	n.a.
united states Emirates	Britain	Treaty
Yemen	Britain	Colonial

4) Type of intervention :

i) European powers exploited the middle East for their own purposes.

ii) Establish their direct influence over that entire areas.

iii) For the purpose of global great peer competition

5) European had an obligation to protect neighbors welfare and independence:

★Establishment of the league of nation after the world war

★Mandate system of the League of nation favorable only for the western power

★restricted international norms

★European control over distant lands

6) A series of treaty relationship:

In the Persian gulf; British imperialism took the form of series of relationship negotiated with the ruling families of the small states that lined the coast

conclusion:

several countries in the region escaped the yoke of direct European rule. Turkey as the successor state of the ottoman empire in its core Anatolian peninsula territory.

Pathways from European Colonialism

Abstract:

over their Middle East holdings was going to be an increasingly difficult endeavor—and that the costs of staying outweighed the benefits. In all of these cases, the approaches seemed to work. France and Britain came to the negotiating table and granted independence to these countries—all with little to no violence.

Nationalist movements in Tunisia and South Yemen faced comparatively stiffer resistance from France and Britain, respectively. In those cases, nationalist contests dragged on longer and involved more violent methods, including bombings and assassinations.

In 20^th century all countries of Middle East became independent from the European colonialism.

Introduction:

There is now a growing number of exceptions to authoritarian rule in the Middle East. The region comprises a number of countries with political systems wherein outsiders or opposition parties can successfully oust incumbent chief executives in elections—something that is simply not possible in the monarchies and authoritarian republics. Israel boasts free, fair, competitive, multiparty elections for seats in its parliament; for the past several decades, the prime ministerial position has changed hands regularly, alternating among two or three leading political parties. Turkey too can be labeled democratic: since 1950, free, fair, competitive, multiparty elections have determined which parties sit in the Turkish parliament and make up the cabinet; the prime ministerial office has rotated among several political parties on the left and the right of the political spectrum, and of late there has been alternation at the level of the presidency as well. Lebanon and Iraq hold competitive elections to determine the composition of parliaments and cabinets, which then set policy in those countries. And during the Arab Spring, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya held multiparty elections to select parliaments, constituent assemblies, and/or presidents—though only time will tell if this method of leadership selection will continue to be the norm in those countries.

However, on the basic matter of whether or not incumbent chief executives are able to be removed and replaced through elections, these countries can be considereddemocratic—or at least “protodemocratic.”

Path Ways From Colonialism:

Israel was becoming a reality in the Middle East at about the same time that Middle Eastern populations were preparing to throw off the yoke of European domination. Egypt and Iraq achieved independence relatively early, in the 1930s. A wave of independence achievements then came during and after World War II, with Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia becoming independent—in that orderbetween 1943 and 1956. Kuwait, Algeria, and (South) Yemen became independent in the 1960s, and Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE followed in 1971.

Forcing the French and the British to take their leave was a task that varied in difficulty depending on the setting. Kuwait and the UAE had it relatively easy, as British domestic political discontent with the costs of imperialism prompted a more or less unilateral withdrawal. More often, independence was the product of nationalist movements that arose across the region, called on France and Britain to depart, and put pressure on them to do so. These movements tended to take the form of political parties—for example, the Wafd in Egypt, the Neo-Destour in Tunisia, and Istiqlal in Morocco. In Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, nationalist movements used a variety of approaches to get their point across. These ranged from simple entreaties and signature-gathering campaigns, on the one hand, to demonstrations, protests, strikes, boycotts, and sometimes even riots, on the other.

The goal was to show France and Britain that attempting to retain control over their Middle East holdings was going to be an increasingly difficultendeavor—and that the costs of staying outweighed the benefits. In all of these cases, the approaches seemed to work. France and Britain came to the negotiating table and granted independence to these countries—all with little to no violence. In other instances, leaders maintained those ties more voluntarily, understanding that they could benefit from ongoing political-military support from and trade relations with their former masters. The postindependence Iraqi regime, for example, received significant British military aid, equipment, and assistance, and allowed Britain to retain basing rights in the country. In Jordan, aBritish officer, Sir John Bagot Glubb, remained commander of the Jordanian army until 1957.

In many cases, these postindependence ties to European powers either endure to the present day or have been redrawn to the United States, which, with France and Britain exhausted at the end of World War II, rose to become the preeminent Western power and a pivotal external player in Middle East politics. Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria maintained close political, economic, and cultural ties with France, for example. Jordan maintained close ties to Britain, but also cultivated increasingly strong links with the United States over time. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi made Iran a key US political andmilitary ally in the region. And in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf states came to depend on the United States for security in the wake of the British departure.

In Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, however, lingering ties to European powers after independence did not survive the powerful domestic dissent they generated. In those societies a power struggle emerged that pitted conservative, established elites who had served France or Britain and presided over enduring ties to their former masters against a younger, “challenger” generation (often civil servants, workers, students, and peasants) who disagreed with conservative elites on a variety of issues. For example, while conservative elites were content with the economic status quo, challenger forces— often organized into socialist and communist parties—typically were pushing for land reforms, the nationalization of industry, and other redistributive policies designed to remedy what they felt was an intolerably skewed distribution of wealth in their societies. There were sympathetic to challenger views and wielded the coercive power to overthrow the existing regime. Military coups unfolded in Syria in 1949, in Egypt in 1952, and in Iraq in 1958. The political systems established in their wake cut ties to the West, established ties with the West’s Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, and pursued redistributive economic policies.

Conclusion:

By the overall discussion we can realize that, by the hard struggle of Middle East countries they got Freedom from European colonialism. Though independence of each country is debatable. But now they are free nation. Still now they maintain a good relation with their master power.

If the Middle East stand together they can act as a power in international politics but they are divided, they don’t like each other which is a problem in the Middle East. Outer influence is the prime reason behind this.

THE SUCCESSION PROBLEM IN SAUDI ARBIA

ABSTRACT:

The question of succession is the core issue of contention among the members of the Saudi royal family . This mode of succession is prone to making periods of generational transition a time of crisis, where specific lineages try to monopolize power, which often leads to confrontations .conflict also take places within the triumphant lineage itself . Repeated periods of crisis engender weakness inside the dominant groups, which in turn weakness the political structures as a whole ,facilitating foreign meddling and undermining the edifice of the state . the patrimonial state is a state whose coherence and very existence are brought into question with each generation . so ,the question of succession remains problematic ,and the fratricidal struggles threaten to escalate when the moment of generational transition comes.

Introduction:

Ever since its advent in the second half of the 18^th century ,the dynasty has been suffering from this problem and been trying to overcome it, succeeding as often as failing .This problem is due to the power structure inspired by the local system of kinship. According to the horizontal mode of bequeathing power, only the most powerful member succeeds to the throne .Thus , all of the lineages dominant figures are peers between whom only ability and luck can decide.

The institution aimed at perpetuating the mode of succession: If the first Saudi state (1744-1818)was characterized by a lineal –agnatic mode of succession ,which favored i9ts stability and dynamism support by the Hanbali Wahhabi doctrine ,the second state (1823-1891),which was founded on a more tribal base, adopted the adelphic mode of succession ,which is very common in the region .The history of the second Saudi state reflects the troubles to which this adelphic mode of succession and patrimonial of the state can lead . Assassinations (murder of the prince and Mushari ),fratricidal struggles (wars between Princes Faysal and his relatives, then between his sons after his death )as well as foreign interventions (the Ottomans and the al Rashid )all characterize this period .Indeed, succession crisis was the principal cause of the demise of the second Saudi 1889.

KING ABD-AL AZIZ:

If the king Abd al aziz was able to restore his family to the throne in 1902, he did nothing installed a system of succession capable of protecting the kingdom from fratricidal struggles during times of succession. Indeed ,he was concerned with eliminating others clans from competing with his sons ,notably his brothers and cousin. Even though he named his sons Saud as his crown prince, Abd al aziz has installed a system that we can call “multi domination” – investing several of his sons with power .Every one of them controls a sector of political ,economic ,or military activity in the kingdom .In the medium term , this division of power would bring about a multiplication of centers of power. Furthermore ,maintaining the adelphic system of succession has complicated intra –family power struggles ,making all descendants of Ibn Saud powerful contenders for the throne, which would produce a political crisis when the moment of generational transition came at his death ,king Abd al Aziz left 34 sons .

Al SAUD:

The first years of the region of Saud (1953 -64)were marked by sharing power with different members of the family .Yet ,he did not hesitate to resuscitate the old tradition of his family :excluding other branches of the royal family from power, replacing them with his own sons and clients .However, a coalition led by his prime Minister and half brother ,Prince Faysal ,supported by the “ulama”, succeeded in overthrowing king Saud in 1964.

KING FAYSAL:

The region of Foysal (1964-75)was marked by consecration of the multi domination . Since then, each prince Minister ,Prince –Governor ,as well as Prince CEO has possessed an unlimited power over his domain. Besides the dysfunctionality on the highest levels of the state and the pursuit of parallel and contradictory policies, multi dominations has favored the emergence of family factions as political power centers, as well as paving the way for the council of the royal family to become a centers for decision –making . As a consequences, for the king to have a large margin of maneuver ability, he needs to rely on a coalition of Princes controlling dig different sectors.

KING FAHD:

He support his policies ,king Faysal relied mainly on the Sudayris faction ,consisting of the seven full brothers Fahd ,Sultan, Nayif, Salman, Abd al Rahman ,Ahmad and Turky. The influence of this faction has grown without interruption , especially after the succession of its major figure of Fahd to the post of Crown Prince in 1975 , then to the throne in 1982 till 2005. Although it appeared that the Sudayris were going to monopolize power and eliminate other branches , the second Gulf war initiated by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait , upset this plan . In the course of this period of turbulence , king Fahd took a certain number of stabilization measures , one of which Basic Law of Governance (1992). This law was the first official document to provide a legal framework for the question of succession although in laconic term.

Section B of the fifth article states that “power is transmitted to the sons of the founder king Abd al aziz Abd al Rahman AL Saud and his grandsons . The most capable amongst them is named “king”. This passage poses more problems than it solve . While the competition for power had ever since the death of Abd al Aziz been limited to the 34 persons (the son still alive)which was very costly both politically and economically - king Fahd opened it to numerous contenders . Thus , that first attempt , though timid , to codify the modalities of succession integrated the generation of the grandsons. This dispensation would exacerbate the tensions and augment and the risks of conflicts in the long term by creating a congestion of the collateral branches of the family .

ABDULLAH :

Without into question the preponderance of the Sudayris clan, the ten years of semi –regency of prince Abdullah (1995-2005)permitted other clans to reenter the competition . Several factions would rally around the crown prince , aiming at thwart the hegemonic enterprise of Sudayris . This being said , the period was marked by a status quo power balance between the different factions. Abdullah succession is the throne in 2005 has put an end automatically to the modus vivendi , which eventually revived struggles . First of all, these struggle crystallized around the nomination of a second deputy prime minister . According to th political tradition established in 1967, the holder of this considered second to the throne in the order of succession _that is to say ,the future crown prince.

The success of this initial maneuver encouraged king Abdullah and his allies to go further in their pursuit to destroy the monopoly of the Sudayris in order to preserve the multi-domination system. Without entering a confrontation with the adversary camp , which would achieve the preservation of the status quo .The king installed the commission of Allegiance in 2006 , responsible for naming according to more or less precise modalities , the future sovereign of Saudi Arabia. If the long run of this commission is targeted at establishing an institutional framework to the problem of succession ,its main functions in the short term is to name a crown prince , making it complicated for the Sudayris to claim the position as well as ensuring a generational transition while maintaining the multi-domination system. While king Abdullah was determined to put an end to monopoly of the Sudayris institutionally, he has continued to reinforce his position as well as those of his allies. In that regard , Abdullah benefited from the deteriorating health conditions of his crown prince Sultan, who was considered by all observes to be on the verge of death in November 2008, as well as profiting from the disarray provoked by his event in the adversary camp to fortify his position.

The minister reshuffle and changes in the religious institution of, the council of minister and the consultative council last February , follow a power struggle, rather than a reform ,dynamic ,as described by certain observers, Many examples support of this hypothesis ,such as the appointment of his son-in-law to the ministry of education ,of the chief doctor of the National Guard ,presided over by King Abdullah for almost 40 years, to the Ministry of Health among other example.

Yet ,Abdullah and his partisans have underestimated the capacity of the Sudayris ,who control the most important institution in the country and have to cope with an unexpected situation .Against all expectation, crown prince Sultan has survived and is recovering , at least according to official statement . His full brothers led by Nayif and Salman have gone on the offensive . Spreading their propaganda (in the parts of the media that take their side),increasing political pressure (pointing to the spectrum of terrorism )as , the well as negotiating with the royal family , the Sudayris have gained a considerable landmark : Nayif was named second deputy prime minister . That is to say , he is the future crown Prince.

Conclusion:

Whatever the scenario , the question of succession remains problematic and the fratricidal struggle threaten to escalate when the moment of generational transition comes. The commission of Allegiance seems to be a tool put in place to channel these struggle and preserve the multi domination system as well as to facilitate the transition to the second generation. That being said all measures taken by king Abdullah and his allies to perpetuate and multi domination are unlikely to prevent the emergence in the medium term of a dominant lineage, probably a Sudayris lineage that would little by little monopolize power.

Tawhid or Jihad: The Wahabism Is and Is Not

Abstract:

The Wahhabi movement was a revivalist movement which tried to purify Islam by eliminating all the un-Islamic practices which had crept into Muslim society through the ages.It offered the most serious and well-planned challenge to British supremacy in India from 1830's to 1860's.In addition, over the years Wahhabism has acquired a political dimension that has been threatening to a broad spectrum of people.Wahhabism is about the revival of the fundamental doctrines of Islam as set forth in the Qur’an and Sunna, and about the rejection of heretical innovations that had crept into Islam since the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

Introduction:

Wahhabism was first introduced in the central Arabian region of Najd in the mid-18th century by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (c. 1703-c. 1792). Since then, it has been one of the most maligned of any religious reform movement in modern history. That in itself is not so extraordinary. Wahhabism is essentially a puritanical, fundamentalist Islamic reform movement calling for renewal of the faith as originally laid out in the Qur’an and the Sunna, the inspired traditions of the Prophet Muhammad and his early converts. Reform movements advocating major doctrinal changes are always likely to be threatening to those who resist any change of the existing status quo.

In order to understand what Wahhabism is and is not, therefore, one must look both at what it actually advocates as a religious reform movement and what political implications have evolved since its founding. Saudi Wahhabism was viewed as an ideological ally against Communism or else ignored it entirely.

Origin:

The origin of nearly all of the 20th century's Islamic extremist movements lie in a new Islamic theology and ideology developed in the 18th and 19th century's in tribal areas of the eastern Arabian peninsula. It is the named after an eighteenth century preacher and activist Muhammad Ibn Abdal-Wahab.

What is Wahabism?

For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith.It is an austere from Islam that insist on a literal interpretation of the Quran.Strict Wahabbist believe that all those who don't practice their from of Islam are heathens and enemies.

Wahhabism as a Religious Reform Movement:

Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab was a scholar of the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence — the most conservative of the Sunni schools, particularly on family law — and was greatly influenced by the fundamentalist works of an earlier Hanbali scholar, Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya (b. 1263). Ibn Taymiyya preached unwavering adherence to the Hanbali view that the only true Islamic doctrine was based on two of the recognized sources of Islamic law, the Qur’an and the Sunna.A major precept of Wahhabism, therefore, was rejection of any religious belief or practice not based on those two sources, which he considered a heretical “innovation” (bid’a) .

For example, he condemned intercessional prayers (tawassul) to Muslim saints and viewed pilgrimages to their tombs as heresy. He preached that the only valid intercession was to the one true God. The doctrine of Tawhid , or monotheism, is the basic tenet of Islam, expressed in the Shahada , or profession of faith: “There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God.” It is thus the basic focus of Wahhabism. The term Tawhid is derived from the Arabic word wahid , meaning “one.”

The centrality of Tawhid in Wahhabism led its followers to call themselves “Muwahhidin,” or Unitarians. They rejected the term Wahhabism, coined by the movement’s adversaries, as a derogatory reference to his founders. Muwahhidin, on the other hand, considered the term to be heretical as a sign of deifying Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab and thus denigrating the omnipotence of God.

Wahhabism as Political Ideology:

Although its religious content has not changed since its inception, political implications of Wahhabism were present from the start. In the 18th century Najdi, many political leaders found Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s vision appealing as a means of uniting the constantly warring Najdi tribes into a single Muslim community (umma) .

For the Najdi tribesmen who engaged in tribal warfare as a way of life, Wahhabism gave traditional warfare a higher moral purpose and justification.The initial catalyst in adopting Wahhabism as a political ideology was an early follower of the reform movement, Muhammad ibn Saud, the amir of the small, isolated Najdi principality of Dir‘iyyah and the founder of the Al Saud (House of Saud), still the ruling house of Saudi Arabia. Under him, Wahhabism became the vehicle for legitimizing the Al Saud regime. From that day to this, it has been the political ideology of the Saudi state. The descendents of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab became known as Al al-Shaykh (House of the Shaykh) and remain the most prominent family in the Saudi religious establishment. The relationship between these two families has been in effect a pact joining the secular and spiritual aspects of Saudi governance.

By the early 19th century, the Al Saud had expanded their rule over much of Arabia. But the regime was overthrown in 1818, regained power, and in 1891 was again overthrown and went into exile in Kuwait. In 1901, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz bin ‘Abd al-Rahman Al Saud set out to regain the Al Saud patrimony under the banner of Wahhabism. Gathering loyal Wahhabi tribal warriors along the way, he retook Riyadh in 1902. It took two decades for him to defeat the Al Rashid, however; in 1921 the Ikhwan, as he called his Wahhabi tribal warriors, finally captured the Rashidi capital, al-Ha’il.

‘Abd al-‘Aziz went on to reconquer the Hijaz, and after formally annexing it in 1926, he took the title of King. He then demobilized the Ikhwan, settling them in agricultural communes. Many of the tribal warriors were not willing to accept civilian life, however, and rebelled against him. They were defeated at the battle of Sibila in 1929, the last Bedouin battle in history.In 1932, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz renamed the country the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Since then its history has been one of evolution from the former small Najdi principality to a modern nation-state and leading oil power. The era of Saudi tribal warfare had come to an end. But Wahhabism remained the political ideology of the Al Saud regime.

Linking Wahhabism and Contemporary Jihadist Terrorism:

As noted, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a religious reformer, not a political ideologue. The most influential apologist of modern Jihadist terrorism was an Egyptian intellectual and member of the militant Muslim Brotherhood, Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966). Qutb’s advocacy of global holy war against all presumed enemies of Islam has had a far greater influence on present day Jihadist terrorists, including Usama bin Ladin, than have the writings of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.Even the writings of Qutb, however, do not adequately answer the question of why people are motivated to commit terrorist acts. The degree of hostility required to predispose someone to want to engage in lethal violence cannot be taught or learned from the spoken or written word.

Conclusion:

There are certainly firebrand Wahhabis who adhere to and encourage contemporary jihadist terrorism, but their hostility does not emanate from the doctrines of the fundamentalist religious reform movement of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab. Moreover, most contemporary jihadist terrorists are not adherents of Wahhabism. For the welfare of the Muslim world, the Saudi regime has allocated a significant amount of its oil revenues to building Islamic schools and mosques throughout the Muslim world. During the Cold War, few objections were made to these Islamic foreign aid projects.

The two categories, Wahhabism and contemporary jihadism, are not synonymous.

The Neo Reformists: A New Democratic Islamic Discourse

Abstract:

In the Muslim countries specially in Middle East the Sharia law is going on. It is divine laws. In this present world , it is called the democratic era though a few countries are communist. Islamists have viewed democracy as a pagan creed because it promotes governance through man made laws and not those of God. Thus, they have regarded parliaments as institutions of arbitrary rule and places in which kufr and shrik dominate because the laws that are proposed and enacted are not rooted in God’s revelation.

Despite the unanimous agreement among Saudi religious scholars that legislation is an exclusive rights of God’s and challenging this right by participatring in parliament constitutes kufr, some Saudi scholars provided the Islamists in neighboring countries with famous allowing them to join parliament on certain conditions. On the other hands, other scholars maintained their positions that parliamentary participation is prohibited.

Introduction:

Shari‘a law has been a point of contention between various Islamists throughout the Muslim world but, despite the different intellectual and political orientations and affiliations in the country, it has never been problematic among those in Saudi Arabia. Islamists in Saudi Arabia have uniformly considered democracy a form of paganism, not a legitimate political system or regime. They have moved democracy from the political arena to the sphere of religious belief by condemning it through an uncompromising and purist religious discourse.

In the late 1970s, two Muslim figures attempted to make their ideas of the True Islamic State a reality. Imam Ruhollah Khomeini succeeded forming the “Islamic Republic of Iran” under the ideology of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist (wilayat al-faqih) . In contrast, Juhayman al-‘Utaybi failed with his friends in “al-Jama‘a al-Salafiyya al-Muhtasiba ” to establish the apocalyptic “Rightly Caliphate” (al-Khilafa al-Rashida) under the Mahdi’s rule in Mecca. Despite these differences, Khomeini and Juhayman agreed on one thing: the “Islamic Government” must be ruled by God’s rules, not human law. Both Khomeini and Juhayman rejected democracy because it promoted governance through man-made laws and not those of God .

Democracy is No Longer Paganism:

Some scholars provided a fatwa which conditioned the Islamists’ participation in Parliament on making the government adopt Islamic law and to use Parliament as a means to overthrowing the ruling regime. A further condition disallowed those who were running for Parliament from accepting a government office that was in contradiction with Islamic law.[6] They also pointed out that an oath of loyalty to the constitution is prohibited because one should be loyal only to God. They offered a way out of this bind by requiring the newly elected member of Parliament to maintain in his heart the intention to plead allegiance to the constitution as long as it is not contrary to Shari‘a . This is on the basis of the accepted principle that deeds are based on intentions.

Within the Saudi Islamist camp there have been a number of attempts to re-consider Islamic political theory and to make democracy compatible with Shari‘a .[8] The only attempt that has truly succeeded in generating a debate among Islamists about this question resulted from a collection of published articles by Dr. Muhammad Hamid al-Ahmari, who has written extensively to prove that there is no clash between Islam and democracy and states that the latter is to be considered the best type of regime available today despite its flaws, which he believes can be corrected.

Al-Ahmari describes theological analysts as “narrow-minded, limited in [their] range of thinking and interpretation, [and] who win the approval of those [like them who are] limited in their thinking and cannot tolerate a diversity of views.” He adds: “A one-sided narrow-minded way of thinking that does not allow any room for diversity of thought and may work well for mob leaders and military officials in the battlefield, but it does not work well on people of a higher level or in controlling a state because it will fail due to its narrow, limited and weak ideological foundation. The political process will fail even though such school of thought succeeds with the mob.”

Al-Ahmari wrote another article in celebration of the victory of Barak Obama in the 2008 US presidential election which generated many reactions. Entitled “The Victory of Democracy over Paganism in the US elections, [12] Al-Ahmari describes this election as a victory for the democracy of numbers the will of the majority.

Al-Ahmari saw in Obama’s victory a triumph for minorities, which further confirms the value of freedom in the US. He adds a sharp comment on the state of the Arab world saying: “It is part of this world’s fate that freedom and the respect for it are firmly rooted in a government [US government] that is superior to us, which brings the hope that freedom will seep through to the societies of backwardness and slavery.

Al-Ahmari responded powerfully to all those who criticized him. One of the most important issues he pointed out in his response is the role of the media in influencing election results. He uncovered the hypocrisy of the religious scholars who employed money and the media in their municipal election campaigns in Saudi Arabia in 2005 and parliamentary ones in Kuwait.

Al-Ahmari fought vociferously for his opinions, and the Islamists similarly responded, which enriched the Islamic-political discourse and the understanding of Saudi Islamists of the meaning of democracy and freedom. Al-Ahmari was not alone in defending his ideas, as many adopted his views, which prompted his opponents to call them the “neo-reformists.” [20] The details of this struggle deserve further examination, which will not be possible due to the space constraints here.

Conclusion:

The importance of al-Ahmari’s opinions lies, first of all, in his ability to recapture politics from the sphere of religious debate to that of worldly affairs by exposing theological analysis to criticism and questioning its credibility. He was able to bring the Islamists to discuss the value of democracy instead of being content with prohibiting it and projecting it as a form of blasphemy. This includes getting them to acknowledge, both implicitly and explicitly, its value to the here and now. al-Ahmari managed to stir a strong debate amongst the Islamists in Saudi Arabia, which no other writer has managed to achieve. One reason for this is al-Ahmari’s “past,” having been one of the prominent ideologues of the “Islamic awakening” (Sahwa) in the 1990s.

Al-Ahmari succeeded in restoring a degree of respect for such ideals as freedom and democracy among some of the Islamists, albeit to a limited degree. Al-Ahmari is presently leading a new reformist Islamic trend in the Kingdom.

REFORMING JUDICIARY IN SAUDI ARABIA

Abstract:

The judiciary of Saudi Arabia is a branch of the government of Saudi Arabia that interprets and applies the laws of Saudi Arabia. The legal system is based on the Islamic code of sharia, with its judges and lawyers forming part of the country’s religious leadership or ulama. There are also non sharia government tribunals. The Saudi system of justice has been criticized for being slow, arcane, lacking in some of the safeguards.

Introduction:

King Abdullah has ordered a number of reforms of the judiciary since ascending the throne. In 2007, king Abdullah issued royal decrees with the aim of reforming the judiciary and creating a new court system. The reforms have yet to be implemented in full but, once their include the creation of a supreme court and the transfer of the Board of Grievances commercial and criminal jurisdiction to a restructured general court system.

Sharia courts:

The Sharia courts have general jurisdiction over most civil and criminal cases. At present, there are two types of courts of first instances: general courts and summery courts dealing with lesser cases, Cases are adjudicated by single judges, except criminal cases if the potential sentence is death, stoning when there is a panel of three judges.

Non-Sharia tribunals:

There are also non sharia courts covering specialized areas of law, including the Board of Grievances, the specialized criminal court, created in 2008, and the supreme Court. Board of Grievances was originally created to deal with complaints against the government, but also gained jurisdiction over commercial and some criminal cases, such as bribery and forgery and acts as a court of appeal for a number of non sharia government tribunals.

Judges:

The judicial establishment in the broadest sense, is composed of qadis, who give binding judgments in specific court cades, and muftis and other members of the ulama, who issue generalized but highly influential legal opinions. The Grand Mufti is the most senior member of the judicial establishment as well as being the higher religious authority in the country, his opinions are highly influential among the Saudi judiciary.

Reforming of judiciary:

In 2007 king Abdullah issued royal decrees with the aim of reforming the judiciary and creating a new court system. The Sharia Courts will therefore lose their general jurisdiction to hear all cases and the eork load of the government administrative tribunals will be transferred to the new courts.

Another important change is the establishment of appeal courts for each province.

It has been claimed that the reforming will establish a system for codifying Sharia and incorporating the principle of judicial precedent into court practice.

In 2008,the specialized criminal court was created. The court tries suspected terrorists and human rights activists.

In the same year the court held trial sessions of human rights activists, including Mohammed Saleh al Bejadi co-founder of the Saudi civil and political Rights associations and Mubatak zuair, a lawyer for long term prisoners. The court convicted 16 of the human rights activists to sentences of 5-30 years on 22 November 2011.

In 2009, the king made a number of significant changes to judiciary personnel at the most senior level by bringing in a younger generation. For example, as well as appointing a new minister of justice, a new chairman of the supreme judicial council was appointed. The outgoing chairman was known to oppose the codification of Sharia. The king also appointed a new head of the Board of Grievances and Abdulrahman Al kelya as the first chief of justice of the new supreme court.

Conclusion:

Because all legal questions are interpreted through religious rulings in Saudi Arabia, the very idea of reforms even if putative, will strike secularists as imaginary at best. Naturally, throwing money at a problem will not necessarily delve any of its intrinsic short comings, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia seems nevertheless to have embarked on one of its most sweeping legal changes in generations.

Israel- Palestine Conflict

Abstract:

The Israel-Palestine conflict will continue to escalate throughout both the short term and long term world future. The current and future animosity between both ethnic groups can be attributed to history based accounts and religious tension, polarizing ideologies held by both sides and middle eastern resentment toward the Jewish state of Israel.

Introduction:

The history of the Israel- Palestine conflict began with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

This conflict came from the inter-communal violence in mandatory Palestine between Israel and Arabs from 1920 and erupted into full-scale hostilities in the 1947-48 civil war. The conflict continuous to the present day on various levels. Behind this conflict many international influences are connected. US, Britain, France, Japan and other west allies countries supported to establish the Jews countries in territory of Palestine and then to conflict began with full-scale.

A Brief History of the Conflict:

Following World War One, the British are unable to continue their mandate over Palestine, and in 1947 it is handed over to the United Nations. The UN General Assembly recommended partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states with Jerusalem as an internationalized city. The Arab reject the partition plans. There are numerous acts of violence committed in the next several months. The Arab created riots in Jerusalem, blockading the city.

A major political episode occurs on May 14, 1948 when the state of Israel is declared. Immediately afterwards British troops left Palestine and Israel was attacked its neighboring Arab nations. Israel maintains control of a major portion of the territory. The Palestine do not farewell: over 750,000 flee to Jordan, Lebanon, West- Bank and Gaza strip.

The UN on December 11, 1948 states that Palestinians may return to their home. In another landmark move, The Arab League of Arab states founded the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. 1967 brought with the six days war. In response to the growing number of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories the Palestinians “Infifada” or uprising, begins and Israel is unable to suppress it , the following years are marked by political turbulence.

Historical Background:

During the first world war, the Ottoman Empire which ruled Palestine and most of the Middle East, side with the Germans. In December of 1917, the British captured Jerusalem and by 1918 all of Palestine fell under British rule. In 1917 British Foreign Minister, Arthur Balfour issued the “Balfour Declaration of 1917”, promising to establish a Jewish state in the land of Palestine.

During the period from 1917-1947, hundreds of thousands of Jews arrived and settled in Palestine. This caused a huge change in the demographics of Palestine. For this the Arab Muslim population led several revolts against the British occupation and against the policy of demographic change that they were overseeing in Palestine. In 1947 Britain handed over the question of Palestine to the UN, which proceeded to devise a plan to Partition the Palestine into two nations, one Jewish and other Arab.

The Arabs of Palestine and other Arab nations rejected the creation of the state of the Israel for this time conflict has continued till now.

Origin of Israel-Palestine Conflict:

•As in India, Ireland and Cyprus, British colonial ‘divide and rule’ tactics culminated in November 1947 in the partition of Palestine into two newly independent states – one Palestine Arab and other Jewish.

• UN resolution 181 allotted Jews, who were less than one –third population and owned 8% of the land and 55% of the territory of Palestine. Palestinians saw the partition plan as a grave injustice, especially since most Jews in Palestine were recent arrivals. Fighting broke out between Jewish and local Palestine militants.

• In May 1948, the British evaluated Palestine and Israel declared independence. Several adjacent Arab countries declared war against the new state.

• In 1948, 70% of all Palestinians had been made refugees. In December 1948, the UN passed resolution 194, stating that, the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors. But this resolution has never been implemented.

Conclusion:

In the long run, only by admitting their culpability and making amends can Israelis live with their neighbors in peace. Only they can the centuries old Jewish tradition of being a people of high moral character be restored. And only in this way can real security, peace and justice come to this ancient land.

Islamic Revivalism: A Global Perspective

Abstract:

This study aims to understand the fundamental characteristics of Islamic Revivalism. Islamic revivalism is a movement which has been actively spread all over the world. Samuel Huntington has mentioned that it is one of the historical movement in which can be compared to American revolution, French Revolution and Russian Revolution.

The views explain Islamic Revivalism is not the enemy of the West. It is not even an entirely religious movement, nor it is as some fear, monolithic and expansive. Muslim as a people , have not reversed the decline in their global status. The Japanese, the Chinese and thew European have all regained their world influence Islamic revivalist are seeking to restore an old civilization, not to create a new empire. The present case of Islamic revival sheds light on issues facing humanity as a whole. We are being challenged to resolve intercultural conflicts by respecting demands for cultural authenticity and human dignity.

Introduction:

The Islamic revival is one of the most important social movement of the twentieth century, a phenomenon vast in geographical scope, affecting every single Muslim country from North Africa to South-East Asia.

Islamic revival is such a defensive social and political movement, a broad based reaction to westernization, foreign manipulation and internal malaise. Although its manifestations are remarkably widespread , Islamic revival is not a monolithic movement, nor it is reducible to the militant fundamentalism that captures the attention of the media. Among the world’s historical powers, only the Muslims, as a people have not reversed the decline in their global status. The Islamic people are trying to preserve their culture and identity and Islamic revival is a way of defining who they are.

What is Islamic Revivalism:

On the verge of twenty-first century, we find ourselves in the midst of a global tectonic shift. The old order of industrial capitalism and monolithic nation state is undergoing a transformation, and we do not yet know if the emergent post-industrial order will be a boon or burden for humanity.

Economic globalization is showing itself to be an unbalanced process. A “global growing gap” defines relation between North and the Global South. Cultural institutions and traditional structures of meaning are eroding in non-western as well as Western context.

Islamic Revivalism is such a defensive social and political movement, a broad-based reactions to Westernization , foreign manipulation and internal malaise. Although its manifestations are remarkably widespread , Islamic revival is not a monolithic movement, nor it is reducible to the militant fundamentalism that captures the attention of the media.

The issues that motivate the Islamic Revivalism are similar to those which provide impetus to revival in other religious and communal contexts. In fact, the tension between nationalism and religious in the Islamic world bears a similarity to a split in Israel.

The Roots of Rivalry and Revival:

Beginning with the Treaty of Karlofca in 1699 and Treaty of Kuchuk Kaynarca in 1774, the Ottomans reacted from Europe and Muslims were reduced to passivity in world politics. They were excluded from history.

Cultural contact in this context of unequal political and cultural relations has blemished the exchange between Islam and the West. It has left the latter arrogant and insensitive and the former defensive insecure.

Independent Islamic states emerged following World War One and World War two, the West expected that they would becomes its imitations; so did the Muslims. The first modern Islamic state, Ataturk’s Turkey, embarked on a relentless campaign after World War One to sever that country’s Islamic roots.

The establishment of modern Turkey and other nation- states in the Islamic world accompanied and accelerated intellectual and political discontinuity with basic values of Islam. In fact, it is possible that Islamic rules has never been realized since the Prophet Muhammad’s death. Two and possibly three of the Khalifah of Islam were assassinated and this history leaves no unanimity among the faithful about the nature of Islamic laws.

Today is a period of rapid social changes in the world of Islam. The present experience of Muslims with Western cultural supremacy complicates the task of transition, because Western attitudes reinforce an alien system of values.

The Present Islamic Awakening:

Contemporary Islamic revival is based on a long history of responses to the challenges encountered by Islam. Traditionally, Islam has provided two channels of responses to challenges: tajdid and islah.

In the 19^th and 20^th centuries , the Islamic world had to respond to Western institutions and culture. Beginning in the late nineteenth century, Islamic reformers such as Muhammad Abduh and Jamal al-din al- Afghani, impressed by European scientific and social advances, began an agonizing appraisal of the declining conditions in the Islamic world.

Islamic Revivalism is a powerful and multifaceted movement that touches upon every aspect of life for Muslims. There is Great diversity within and among the various Islamic groups, reflecting locasl, national, cultural, and economic realities.

There is a growing tendency in the West to lump all Islamic movements together, thus narrowing Western understanding of the full range of Islamic forces at work. Whwn American attack fundamentalism or Islamically oriented governments, they are assaulting, among others, allies of the United States such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Common to advocates of Islamic revival, or Islamicists, is the affirmation of an Islamic ideological alternative to secular nationalism. Western Capitalism, and socialism. In the Middle East , the failures of pan-Turanism, pan-Arabism, Arab nationalism and socialism , and Iranian nationalism have left an ideological vacuum.

Islamicists hold in common a set of ideological beliefs. They view Islam as a total way of life, for personal contact and conduct and for the conduct of the society. Westernization is regarded as the primary cause of the political, economic, and social ills of Muslims societies.

Islamicists in a Islamic group. Al-jihad , Hezbollah, the Armed Islamic Group, militant factions of Hamas and an array of small radical organizations go beyond the above principles to see Islam and the West as involved in a historical power struggle of considerable duration.

Islamic ideology and movements, or Islamism, have become an integral part of Islamic society and will inform future Islamic domestic and international politics. Islamists are found among the western educated as well as the untraveled, among literates and illiterates, transcending all classes, professions, and gender and age groups.

Islamic Revivalism has developed into a broadly based social movements, functioning today in virtually every Islamic state and in communities around the world. The goal of the Revivalism is to transform the society through the transformation of individuals. Organization Da’wah exist at all levels of education, in all forms of communication, in banks and investment houses, in every type of social services, and in the police and military.

Conclusion:

Islamic revivalism is not the enemy of the west. It is not even an entirely religious movement, nor is it, as same fear, monolithic and expansive.

In addition to its social functions , religion serves an important, practical role in politics by offering recourse to a transcendental order- an order to which the Pharaoh can be held accountable. The oppressed can defend their rights by appealing to religious standards, to the divine will as it is understood. When the ruling regime persists in corruptions and repressions, Islam offers a vocabulary of resistance.

An Introduction to Islamophobia and Anti-Arabism

Abstract:

Islamophobia is not a new term but it has become commonly used in the United States following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This entry provides an overview of the demographics of the Muslim population in the United States. The historical context in which the use of the term first emerged is then identified, followed by a discussion of the two major approaches to defining Islamophobia.

The term connotes either outright anti-Muslim bigotry due to religious intolerance or racism and xenophobia toward people from the Middle East, North Africa and south Asia who are Muslim or who have a “Muslim like” appearance.

Introduction

Islamophobia is a form of bigotry and hostility targeted at Muslims, and more generally at those perceived as “Arab”. Like all Stereotypes, this one is made up of gross over generalizations. Further, within the context of the social stratification system in the US, both Islamophobia and “Arab” have been racialized. This means that the underlying assumption is that both arabs and Muslims are a single racial group.

Who is Muslim?

Anyone who follows the faith of Islam is a Muslim. Just as anyone who follows the faith of Christianity is a Christian. Muslims are spread across the world. Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity.

Major Religions of the World:

There are estimated 7 million Muslims are in the United States. The demographics of the population by race and ethnicity is:

African American- 24%

Arab Americans- 26%

South Asian Americans- 26%

Other – 24%

Present across 74% of these Muslim are “whites” as a racial group. As we can see, the Muslims are racially and ethnically diverse both across the World and within the US.

Who is Arab?

Like the Muslim population the “Arab” population is tremendously diverse racially and ethnically. The term “Arab” is a linguistic term that refers to the people who speak in “Arabic”. There are approximately 300 million people in 22 Arabic speaking countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Those countries are: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, The UAE, Yemen. The primary language of Iran and Turkey is Farsi and Turkish.

Islamophobia:

As succinctly discussed by the Council on American- Islamic Relations, Islamophobia consists of the following Beliefs:

-Islam is monolithic and can not adapt to new realities

-Islam does not share its common value with others.

-Islam is a religion inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric and irrational.

-Islam is a religion of violence and supported terrorism.

-Islam is a violent political ideology.

Anti-Arabism is alive in the United States:

The prejudice on Muslim have played out within the recent history of the US. For example, on April 19,1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahama was bombed by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. However, the early news have spread that the “Arab terrorist” has bombed the building. They attacked the Afghanistan in 2011, launching mission “War on terrorism”.

Cultural belief and institutional policies are different from Arab, so they can’t tolerate the Islam and Arab. Their ‘Entertainment industry’ also biased and always spread propaganda against Arab. Their media and political campaigns also fuel these stereotypes. ‘Industrialized discrimination’ exists everywhere in the west to the Muslims and Arab.

Conclusion:

Islamophobia and Anti-Arabism are interlinking forms of prejudice and discrimination that are prevalent within the US. These prejudices are like other forms of stereotypes that employ broad cultural and radical generalizations that target a part of the population for disparate treatment on both a personal and collective level.

Clash of Civilizations

Abstract:

In this modern world we are watching clashes among the civilizations. It may be for ideological reasons or geographical reasons or cultural reasons. The whole world is involved in clashes one with other. Why this civilizations are divided ? Why the civilizations are growing as rivals one to another? Why they can’t tolerate one another?

The Political Scientist Samuel Paul Huntington has said on this matter and named “Clash of Civilizations” in 1996. He divided the civilizations according to the geographical locations and cultural basis. He also shown the reasons behind the clashes of the civilizations.

Introduction:

The Clash of Civilizations is a hypothesis that peoples cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of the conflict. It was proposed by S.P. Huntington in a lecture at American Enterprise Institute, which was developed as a Foreign affair article titled ”The Clash of Civilizations”. Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book ‘The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order’.

Latterly a few political thinkers has published their articles on the clash of civilizations and tried to review the thesis of S.P. Huntington. Mainly this expression derives from clash of culture .

Major Civilizations according to Huntington:

S.P. Huntington has described and divided civilizations in his famous book. Such as:

• Western civilization, comprising the US and Canada, Western and Central Europe, Austria and Oceania. Whether Latin America and former member states of Soviet Union.

• Latin American includes Central America, South America , Cuba, Dominican Republic and Mexico are considered as the part of Western civilization.

• The Orthodox world of the former Soviet Union; the former Yogoslavia, Bulgeria, Cyprus, Greece and Romania.

• The Eastern world is mixed of the Buddhist, Chinese, Hindu and Japonic civilizations.

- The Buddhist areas are Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmer, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

- The Confucian civilization of China, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam.

- Hindu civilization areas of India, Nepal and Bhutan.

- Japan considered as a unique society and civilization.

• The Muslim world of the Grater Middle east, northern western Africa, Albenia, Bangladesh, Brunei, Comoros, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Maldives.

• The civilization of sub Saharan Africa located in southern Africa, Middle Africa, East Africa and a few countries. Huntington considered as the 8^th civilizations.

• Ethiopia and Haiti considered as “Lone countries”. Israel is separated for its unique culture.

Huntington’s thesis on clash of civilizations:

Huntington argues that civilizational conflicts are “particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims,” identifying the bloody borders between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations. This conflict dates back as far as the initial thrust of Islam in Europe. Huntington also believes that some of the factors are contributing to this conflict. Such as:

• Missionary religions, seeking conversion of others.

• Universal, “all-or-nothing” religions, in the sense that it is believed by the both sides that only there is correct one.

• Religious that perceive irreligious people who violent the basic principles of those religions to be furthering their own point less aims.

More recent factors contributing to a Western – Islamic clash, Islamic resurgences and demographic explosion in Islam, coupled with the values of Western Universalism, that is all civilizations will adopt their principles and Islam will leave fundamentalism.

Why Civilizations will Clash:

Hungtington offers six explanations for why civilizations will clash.

1. Differences among civilizations are too basic in that civilizations are differed from each other by history, culture, language, tradition and most important religion.

2. The world is becoming a smaller place. As a result, interactions across the world are increasing, which increasing “ civilization awareness” among the people.

3. Due to economic modernization and social change, people are separated from longstanding local identities. Instead, religion has replaced this gap, which provides a basis for identity and commitment that restrict the peoples thoughts.

4. The growth of civilization consciousness is increasing for the dual role of West. West is at the peak of power, at the same time is occurring phenomenon in the non- Western countries.

5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.

6. Economic regionalism is increasing. Successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization consciousness among people. It mat occurs clash between civilizations.

Opposing Concept:

In recent years the theory of Dialogue between Civilizations, a response to Huntington’s COC theory’s , has become the center of international politics. The concept was originated by Austrian Philosopher Hans kochler in an essay on cultural identity. In a letter to UNESCO, Kochler had earlier proposed that the cultural organization of the Un should take up the issue of a “ dialogue between different civilizations”. In 2001, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami introduced the concept at the global level. In 2001, as his initiatives “dialogue among civilizations” was the basis for Un’s resolutions to name the year 2001 as the year of “dialogue among the civilization”.

In 2005, in the General Assembly of the UN the Spanish Prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and co sponsored by Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan they also asked for the dialogue among civilizations to solve the conflict among civilizations.

Conclusion:

The clash of civilizations mainly responsible for breaking down the world peace. If we want to restore the world peace we need to resolve the conflict of culture, tradition, history, language and religious factors. Just we need to work together to reestablish the world peace.

We need to talk on this to restore peace through the conference on the civilization problem. The whole world may be become a peaceful place to live together.

The Arab Spring

Abstract:

The Arab spring has affected interests of the western democracies in the Middle and near European nations, and the instability will compel changes in American policies for the region. There have been political revision and in some cases nontraditional modification in moribund, autocracies and dictatorships across the Arab world, reaching to the Arab and Persian Gulfs.

The awakening has been enervated by violent responses from more cohesive and profound dictatorship in Syria and Libya.

Introduction:

The event that began in Tunisia in January 2011 and spread to Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, Syria and beyond, shook the political, social and intellectual foundations of the Middle East. The tremors can still be felt and no one is quite certain when the aftershocks will end or when another shock wave of popular unrest might occur.

Unfortunately, the united states does not have the luxury of waiting to make sense has ebbed, many of the miseries that gave rise to it persist and remain compelling motives for many people across the region. The storm of unrest that spread from Atlantic to the Persian Gulf may have subsided, at least in most parts of the region, but its story has just begun.

Causes of Arab Spring:

Like all great social upheavals, the Arab Spring was long in the making, and born of many intertwined at any time over the past two or three decades, but each passing year brought new development that made it that much more like. Economic problems, social problems, political problems, juridical problems and diplomatic problems all contributed to a furious sense of grievances across the Arab world that finally boiled over in the Winter and Spring of 2011.

While other countries in the world evolved from agrarian economics to information economies, the Arab world lagged behind. In particular, the educational system of the Arab world remained stuck in a modern era. For the lack of educational facilities, the young generation started revolt against the autocratic government which was not able to maintain employment problem.

Social Media and Arab Spring:

In the wake of the Arab Spring protests a considerable amount of attention has been focused on the role of social media and digital technologies in allowing citizens within areas affected by the Arab uprising’s as a means for collective activism to circumvent state operated media channels. The influence of social media on political activism and during the Arab Spring has however, been much debated. Protests took place both it states with a very high level of internet usage(such as 88% of population of Bahrain were online in 2011) and in states with some of the lowest internet penetration.

Arab Spring in Tunisia:

The Tunisian revolution was an intensive campaign of civil resistance, including a series of street demonstrations taking place in Tunisia, and led to the ousting of longtime President Zine Ei Abedine Ben Ali in January 2011. In February 2011, the President fell down from power.

Arab Spring in Egypt:

The Egyptian revolution of 2011, locally known as the January revolution. It has began on 25 January 2011 and took place across the whole Egypt. The date was set to by various youth groups to coincide with annual Egyptian “policy day” as a statement against increasing police brutality during the last few years of Mubarak’s presidency. In the end in 2011 Mubarak also fell from the power and Muslim Brotherhood form the government.

Arab Spring in Libya:

The Libyan revolution was an armed conflict in 2011, in the north African country of Libya to Colonel Muammar Qadhafi and these seeking to oust his government. Protests in Libya began on 15 February, 2011, in front of Benghazi’s Police headquarters following the unrest of some people. In August Qadhafi was arrested and executed. Then new government set up.

Arab Spring in Bahrain:

Here Arab Spring started in February 2011. The President called curfew in March and brought troops from The UAE and Saudi Arabia. The protestors ended their demonstration. The president remained in power.

Conclusion:

IN the end, the Arab Spring was a major events that lead to positive changes in the Arabic culture. The youth protested about their unequal access to job, about their will to live under a hostile society , from separating the state on the religion and about their wishes to form a national identity. Some countries have started to separate religious institutions from the state but had no impact on the Arab identity.

PAN-ARABISM

ABSTRACT:

Throughout the history of the Middle East there has been a contention that the Arab Middle East countries have not been able to unite behind a common idea or cause. It is quite clear that during the last nineteenth century and for the majority of the twentieth century the countries and populations were able to unite behind the ideology of pan –Arabism . The other purpose of this idea was to give an understanding that there is no consensus on the definition and the origin of pan Arabism . The ideology of pan Arabism did promote the cooperation and unity of all Arab people and that it was in response to continued Western influence in the region. Pan Arabism was the Arab populations way of uniting against the west and ultimately forcing them out of the region.

Introduction:

The importance of pan –Arabism to the countries in the Middle East can been seen by examining it was viewed by the leaders of those countries and their respective populations. To the population of the Middle East , pan- Arabism represented an expression of society . The ideology of pan –Arabism combined all aspects of the Arab culture . This included language, religion, art, and politics . Arab nationalism represented both a revival of old traditions and loyalties and a creation of new myths based on them.

This caused of literature and language of Arabs to take on a new and heightened importance , which resulted in a sense of pride for Arab population.

Definitions of Pan Arabism:

Pan –Arabism is also referred to as Arab Nationalism and Arabism . The term pan-Arabism may lead people to believe that Arabism was spread out over a vast area or region or it may be viewed as a derogatory , by analogy to with similar term(pan –Germanism) whose connotations were explicit fascist.

Dawlish points out the prominent theoretician of Arab Nationalism ,Sato”al Husri,stated “people who speak a unitary language have a one heart and a common soul. As such they constitute one nation ,and so they have to have a unified state.”

As Lewis states “a nation denotes a group of people held together by a common language ,belief in descent ,and in a shared history and destiny.

Pan Arabism connects all Arabs regardless of where they are geographically . What makes pan Arabism transnational is its ability to connect Arab culture to the political structure of the vast Arab countries.

Origin of pan Arabism:

As with the definition of pan Arabism ,there is no consensus as to the origin of this ideology .Two main factors are at the root of this lack of consensus, when and where the ideology of pan Arabism begun . There are three main schools of thought which assign the origins of Pan Arabism respectively:

a.to the later years of the Ottoman Empire

b.to the Interwar period

c.to the years following second World War.

Scholar George Antonius traces the origins of pan Arabism to the Wahhabi movement and Muhammad Ali .Both the movement as and the rule of Muhammad Ali begun during the Ottoman Empire .Because the Ottoman Empire was so diverse and vast there was no common cause with which to unite society .The rulers of this Empire wanted a unite society , so they implemented reforms that would allow people to gain a sense of who and what they were. These reforms occurred during the time period commonly referred to as the tanzimat . During the tanzimat ,the rulers of the Ottoman Empire sought to create a Turkish identity through nationalism and force that identity on to the Arab populations of the Empire . This was unsuccessful as the Arab turned to their history .and culture for their own Arab identity. This resulted in the initial stages of pan Arabism .

As scholar C. Ernest Dawn states ,”Arab nationalism arose as an opposition movement in the Ottoman Empire.”

During this period in the time the Arab populations of the Ottoman Empire were able to unite behind the religion of Islam and further identified with one another as Arabs. There was heavily reliance on religion and Arab culture to stimulate an Arab identity . It can be concluded that this heavily reliance is connected to the Islamic modernization occur during this period time .Islamic modernization came about in response to a desire by Arab population to curtail the increasing Western influence in the region.

The lack identity is further argued by Mahmoud Haddad ,who states that ”there was a culture crisis of self –view in relations to the power of Western influence .”

Understanding the cultural crisis , Scholar George Antonius further argues that the Egyptian ha Muhammad Ali and his son Ibrahim Pasha ,although ,ironically of Macedonian descent had a clear view of an Arab identity. They used this view during the cultural crisis to be able to define a common Arab identity resulting in the furtherance of the ideology of pan Arabism . As he states that “Ibrahim stated that he is not a Turk and the sun of Egypt changed his blood to Arab’’

Importance of pan Arabism in the Middle East:

This concept was extremely important to the populations during the mid –twentieth century. As Rashid Khalid stated ,”pan Arabism has had a powerful impact on the intellectual and popular currents in the Arab world.” He further goes on to argue that there was a vacuum created by the de –colonization of the region that resulted in a weakening of the population . He claims that much of this weakness was caused by the fragmentation of the Arab world by the European imperialist powers and their policies of portioning off countries in the region to serve their own interest .

Khalid goes on to explain that the cultural aspects of pan Arabism made it so appealing to Arabs in the Middle East .As he writes “Arab Nationalism represented both a revival of old traditions loyalties and a creation of new myths based on them .”This caused the literature and language of Arabs to take on a new and heightened importance which resulted in a sense of pride for Arab populations .For the first time ,they were able to understand what it meant to be Arab .This new found sense of pride and importance force leaders of Arab countries to rethink how they would govern their countries .

Dawisha places this new way of governing in context . He argues that leaders in the Middle East must work or at least appear to the populations to be working , to achieve the goals of the new value system of Pan –Arabism. Furthermore Dawisha sees four main goals that a leaders in the Arab world must meet in this new way of governing :

A. proper observance of Islam

B. pursuit of Arab unity

C. expulsion of foreign influence

D. progress and justice .

Conclusion:

At last we can say that , the Arab world spoke the same language and shared the same culture ties they were united as one and the Arab world because of its struggle against Western Imperialism as well as the achievement of a complete Arab unity that included all free Arabs.

The United States and the Arab Pro-Democracy Insurrections

Introduction:

On August 21, 2011, rebel forces in Libya rolled into the capital Tripoli, seemingly finishing off months of armed combat and foreign intervention and bringing down yet another Arab head of state. At the same time, sporadic but violent repression of protests in Syria continues, while other states calm or have seen their protests movement fizzle.

United States and Arab democracy:

Us diplomatic history is replete with examples of strategic analysts, State Department officers, and other Washington officials engaging in detailed policy planning dealing with almost any conceivable contingency-except for ordinary people mobilizing to crate change. This certainly appears to have been the case regarding the pro-democracy insuutections in the Middle East over the past several months, which have caught Washington completely off guard. Further more, the Us response to these popular uprising has largely not endeared many in these largely youthful movements who will likely eventually find themselves in positions of power to the United States.

Much has been written as to how the uprisings of the “Arab Spring” have discredited the radical Islamist narrative that pro-Western dictatorships could only be toppled by subscribing to their reactionary interpretations of Islam and supporting violence and even terror. Indeed, Salafi extremists and allied groups have never come close to threatening US-backed autocratic regimes and, if anything, have strengthened them by providing a justification for further militarization and repression.

The United States has been only somewhat more open to the pro-democracy forces in Yemen. Between the time when Obama came to office in January 2009 and when aid was suspended earlier this year, US security assistance to the Yemeni regime went up five-fold. Despite diplomatic cables going back as far as 2005 indicating that Yemeni’s autocratic President ‘Ali ‘Abdullah Salih could potentially face a popular pro-democracy uprising, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged that Washington had not planned for an era without him. As one former ambassador to Yemen put it in March 2011, “For right now, he’s our guy.”

Since then, the Obama administration has belatedly joined its European allies in encouraging Salih to step aside. At the same time, the United States has not been very supportive of the pro-democracy protests, either. For example, following government attacks on peaceful pro-democracy protesters in April, which killed a dozen protesters and injured hundreds of others, the US embassy called on the Yemenis to cooperate with the Saudi-led initiatives for a transition of power — which Salih ultimately rejected — by “avoiding all provocative demonstrations, marches and speeches.”

During the first weeks of the Tunisian protests, for example, rather than praise the largely nonviolent pro-democracy movement and condemn the countries repressive regime, US secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead expressed her concern over the impact of the unrest and instability" on the very positive aspects of our relationship with Tunisia, insisting that the US was not yakking side sand that she would wait and see before even communicating directly with Tunisian dictator Zine Ei Abeidine Ben Ali.

Some US Embassy staffers had had sporadic contacts with pro-democracy activists and, through such Congressionally-funded foundations as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), there was limited financial assistance to a number of civil society organizations. This small amount of US “democracy assistance” did not include any support for training in strategic nonviolent action or other kinds of grassroots mobilization that proved decisive in the anti-Mubarak struggle, however, and the key groups that organized the protests refused US funding on principle. In any case, the amount of US funding for NED and related programs in Egypt paled in comparison with the billions of dollars worth of military and economic assistance to the Mubarak regime and the close and regular interaction among US officials and leading Egyptian political and military leaders. In addition, most of this limited “pro-democracy” funding was eliminated altogether in early 2009 following Obama’s inauguration.

Similarly, during the first week of the Egyptian revolution, Clinton insisted that the country was stable and that the government of president Hosni Mubarak was looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people, despite the miserable failure of the regime in its nearly 30 years in power to do so, Asked whether the United States still supported, Mubarak, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Egypt remained a close and important ally.

Even when Clinton finally issued a statement urging Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications including on social media sites, the administration simply called for the regime to reform from within rather than supporting pro-democracy protesters demand that the dictator step down.

In the aftermath of the nonviolent overthrow of Mubarak, President Obama warned other Middle Eastern leaders that they should “ get out ahead of change” by quickly moving toward democracy. Even though the February 15 press conference in which he made this statement took place during some of the worst repression in Bahrain, he chose not to mention the country by name. In the face of Bahraini security forces unleashing violence on peaceful protesters, Obama insisted that “each country is different, each country has its own traditions; America can’t dictate how they run their societies.”

conclusion:

The Social Pillars of Arab Authoritarian Regimes

Abstract:

What accounts of variations in the durability of authoritarian regimes in the post-colonial Middle East? This working paper presents a new explanation that underscores how the geopolitical environment mediated outcomes of domestic conflicts pitting early rulers against social opposition. Comparative analysis of six historical cases (Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria) reveal that at the post-colonial dawn, foreign patrons empowered and constrained autocratic elites facing social opposition in distinctive way. To understand this revolution Ibn Khaldun and his modern interpreter, the French Sociologist Michel Seurat, places the current revolutions in a broader perspective.

The purpose of his study is to closely examine whether the formal ties to state institutions are the building blocs of loyalty in the Middle East. He hypothesizes that minority groups bound by “Asabiyya” take power and transform the state into their own fiefdoms.

Introduction:

Since the political upheavals that have gripped the Arab world, Middle East scholars have struggled to understand the revolutions transpiring there. Regimes in Egypt and Tunisia fell swiftly while Libya was able to withstand a NATO bombing campaign for months. Others such as Syria have endured the political turmoil, sacrificing little to protesters. Examining the ideas of the 14^th century Islamic thinker ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Muhammad Ibn Khaldun’ and his modern interpreter, the French Sociologist Michel Seurat, places the current revolutions in a broader perspective.

Ibn Khaldun explained the rise and fall of civilizations by focusing on the social aspects of the groups established them. He argued that desert tribes, bound by an esprit de corps he termed ‘asabiyya, banded together to overthrow sedentary empires. The ties between them, and the solidarity they engendered, created strong social bonds, which led to powerful armies that toppled civilizations that were past their prime. However, as they acclimated themselves to their urban environment, the strength of their social ties deteriorated, allowing new groups with a stronger ‘asabiyya to overthrow them’.

IRAQ:

A classic example illustrating Seurat’s ideas is the Iraqi regime of President Saddam Husayn. Washington analysts expected the embattled leader to fall after the country was decimated by two wars and devastated by UN sanctions. But Saddam was in power strongly and ruled. The Iraqi President’s security apparatus drew heavily on his own ‘Abd al- Majid clan and his larger Al-Bu Nasir tribe to staff senior positions. When forced to go outside this circle of support, he relied on two additional groups The Republican guard, and Dulaymi clan, which comprised another third. These four tightly- linked groups effectively ensured the survival of Husayn’s in ruling apparatus of Iraq.

EGYPT:

In the Middle East only Egypt can claim to be a true nation-state. Its uniform geography, insignificant tribes, historic civilization and homogenous population has endowed as strong nationalism.

When unrest took over the Mubarak’s regime, he quickly discovered that he presided over was not his fiefdom. His security services were unable to control the unrest. Then his ‘asabiyya’ of military personnel were not with him. Specially, he did not build any special clan for his regime. He did not employ ‘divide and rule’ tactics over the people and did not select any specific region for development. As a result he left the Presidency in 2011.

YEMEN:

Yemen provides an example of Ibn Khaldun’s model, but with out the desert exodus. The northern area was ruled by Zaydi tribe.

The President Abdullah Salih did not strengthen the state apparatus but only strengthened the tribe to rule over the country. At the same time Egypt was developed rapidly. Then, President formed a clan named Sanhan. Salih placed his son and family members in key military and political positions. His brothers and son controlled the important Army units. As a result he could control the ruling power of Yemen.

LIBYA:

Much like Yemen, Libya lacks strong state institutions. When Muammar Qadhafi came into power he tried to reform the state and form a new state. But he stopped it and divided the country and dictated over all the tribes.

President formed a few tribes to serve him such as Qadhadhfa, Warfalla and Magheaha largely staffed the senior and middle ranks of his military and intelligence services. He cultivated personal social ties – an asabiyya _ that bound these three tribes to him. He favored areas where these tribes were residing by allocating state resources for their development. In doing so, Qadhafi further marginalized the state and other societal groups that could mobilize against him.

During the seventh month of Libyan revolution, Qadhafi faced the wrath of the international community NATO fighters bombed on his forces and destroyed his command and control centers. Last times he was helped a lot by tribes that was memorable.

SYRIA:

Seurat based theories of asabiyya on the Syrian state created by former Hafiz. He also belonged to an obscure Islamic sect known as the, Alawis which comprised only 12% of Syrian people.

Unlike Iraq, Libya, Yemen Syria’s leader did not have to establish ties with the other groups to ensure his rules. The Asad relied on exclusively their own sect. When Asad seized power he gradually transformed Syria into an Alawis bastion.

The Asad family never created parliamentary units like those Husayn and Qadhafi because the loyalty of senior officer were never in doubt. The loyalty of Alawi military commanders lies with their sect, and thus with Asad, not the Syrian state.

Conclusion:

The lkeaders of Iraq, Libya and Yemen, and Syria clung to power long after they lost support of their population. Weak states with even weaker state institutions, they were faced to look outside traditional state structure to buttress their regime. They did so by fostering tribal support and an asabiyya that link clans to the leader, rather than cultivating loyalty to the state and its President as in the West.

References:

1. Politics an Society in the Contemporary Middle East (second edition) - Michele Penner Angrist

2. Tawhid or Jihad: What Wahhabism Is and Is Not – David E. Long

3. The Neo Reformists: A New Democratic Islamic Discourse – Saud al-Sarhan

4. Reforming the Judiciary in Saudi Arabia – Joseph A. kechichian

5. From Generation to Generation: The Succession Problem in Saudi Arabia – Nabil Mouline

6. Backfire in the Arab Spring – Erica Chenoweth

7. The United States and the Arab Pro-Democracy Insurrections – Stephen Zunes

8. Ties that Bind: The Social Pillars of Arab Authoritarian Regime – Barak Barfi

9. Islamic Revivalism: A Global Perspective – Dr. Abdul Aziz Said and Nathan C. Funk

10. The Clash of Civilizations and the remaking of World Order – Samuel P. Huntington

11. Palestine, Israel and the Arab- Israeli Conflict A Primer – Joel Beinin and Lisa Hajjar

12. An Introduction to Islamophobia and Anti-Arabism – Dr. Rowan Wolf

এই ব্লগটি সন্ধান করুন

Shafiqul Islam

Middle East Politics

মন্তব্যসমূহ

একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন

এই ব্লগটি থেকে জনপ্রিয় পোস্টগুলি

ফিচার কী? একটি সুন্দর ফিচার কিভাবে লিখবেন? উপাদান, বৈশিষ্ট্য, বিষয়বস্তু ।

চার কৌশলে সর্বোচ্চ সিজিপিএ, পেলেন প্রধানমন্ত্রী স্বর্ণপদক

কবে জুতা মুক্ত হবে বরিশাল বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের শহীদ মিনার?