{"title":"DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIZATION IN THE MUSLIM WORLD: AN EVALUATION OF SOME IMPORTANT WORKS ON DEMOCRATIZATION IN SOUTH/SOUTHEAST ASIA","authors":"Tauseef Ahmad Parray","doi":"10.18784/ANALISA.V2I01.415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Is Islam compatible with democratization in the context of Asian cultures? To address this important issue, a series of books have been published in the English language from 1990s (and especially from 2000s). Most of these books deal with the relationship between Islam, Muslims, and democratization with a sub-region in Asia: South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia. While others deal with same issues with a focus on the future, very few deal with the relationship between Islam, Muslims, and democratization in the context of Asian cultures from the perspectives of theory and empirical country studies from all three Asian regions. In this backdrop, this essay—by making an assessment and review of the literature, produced in the last decade, on this theme—focuses on the compatibility paradigm in South and South East Asian Muslim societies at the empirical level, with a focus on Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia. To achieve this objective, the essay follows the analytical and comparative methodology, and evaluates these four important books: Zoya Hasan (2007); Shiping Hua (2009); Mirjam Kunkler and Alfred Stepan (2013); and John Esposito, Tamara Sonn, and John Voll (2016). A due support is taken from other related works (books and journal articles) as well in substantiating, supporting, and strengthening the argument(s) put forth in this essay.","PeriodicalId":102671,"journal":{"name":"Analisa: Journal of Social Science and Religion","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analisa: Journal of Social Science and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18784/ANALISA.V2I01.415","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Is Islam compatible with democratization in the context of Asian cultures? To address this important issue, a series of books have been published in the English language from 1990s (and especially from 2000s). Most of these books deal with the relationship between Islam, Muslims, and democratization with a sub-region in Asia: South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia. While others deal with same issues with a focus on the future, very few deal with the relationship between Islam, Muslims, and democratization in the context of Asian cultures from the perspectives of theory and empirical country studies from all three Asian regions. In this backdrop, this essay—by making an assessment and review of the literature, produced in the last decade, on this theme—focuses on the compatibility paradigm in South and South East Asian Muslim societies at the empirical level, with a focus on Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia. To achieve this objective, the essay follows the analytical and comparative methodology, and evaluates these four important books: Zoya Hasan (2007); Shiping Hua (2009); Mirjam Kunkler and Alfred Stepan (2013); and John Esposito, Tamara Sonn, and John Voll (2016). A due support is taken from other related works (books and journal articles) as well in substantiating, supporting, and strengthening the argument(s) put forth in this essay.
在亚洲文化背景下,伊斯兰教与民主化兼容吗?为了解决这个重要的问题,从20世纪90年代(尤其是2000年代)开始,一系列的英语书籍已经出版。这些书大多讨论的是伊斯兰教、穆斯林和民主化与亚洲南亚、东南亚和中亚地区的关系。虽然其他人以关注未来的方式处理同样的问题,但很少有人从三个亚洲地区的理论和实证国家研究的角度来处理亚洲文化背景下伊斯兰教,穆斯林和民主化之间的关系。在此背景下,本文通过对近十年来有关这一主题的文献进行评估和回顾,从经验层面关注南亚和东南亚穆斯林社会的兼容性范式,重点关注巴基斯坦、孟加拉国、马来西亚和印度尼西亚。为了实现这一目标,本文遵循分析和比较的方法,并评估这四本重要的书:Zoya Hasan (2007);华世平(2009);米里亚姆·昆克勒与阿尔弗雷德·斯捷潘(2013);以及约翰·埃斯波西托、塔玛拉·索恩和约翰·沃尔(2016)。从其他相关著作(书籍和期刊文章)中获得了应有的支持,并证实,支持和加强了本文中提出的论点。