From: ziad@eng.umd.edu (Ziad K. Cheiban)
Subject: Re: ARAB UNITY
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 22:58:11 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: world 

I write (speaking about Islamic unity):

>" That would also include Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bosnia
>" A number of ex-Soviet republics, etc...
>" Is this the way to A R A B unity?

nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Bulbul a.k.a Nabeel Ghuzlan a.k.a other stuff) responds:


>  It could be a way to a better thing, do you mind? Which is better to base
>unity upon beliefs or upon race(ism)? And how about us (decent people) who 
>don't give a damn about Arabism especially after its huge success in the
>Gulf crisis? If you have a problem to wake up, you may use an alarm clock.

  The currently accepted meaning of Arab is not defined racially but
linguisticaly. The Arabs are the inhabitants of the Middle-East and
North Africa that speak Arabic. One can hardly say that ,for example, the
Sudanese and the Palestinians are of the same race but both are Arabs.
To its credit Arab nationalism (i.e. pan-Arabism) is one of the very few 
nationalisms that isn't racist.
  I respect the right of other people (decent and indecent) to have their
own opinions. As for the Gulf crisis it doesn't prove a thing except that
as long as we are disunited and as long as there are some natural resources
in the area we are subject to predatory interests from Arabs and non-Arabs
alike. The fact that a bunch of ruthless dictators have seized power in
Arab countries and are claiming at the top of their lungs that they are
the sole and unique and true representatives of pan-Arabism, while 
they are only interested in preserving their own power and that of their
clan doesn't mean that pan-Arabism is not a valid ideology.
To buttress that point let's look at similar claims that are made
by people who pretend to represent Islam :
1- Saudi Arabia: accredited defensors of Holy shrines and guardians
of the real variant of Islam (Wahhabi Islam)
2- Iran: No comment
3- Hafez El-Assad wants to have it both ways he tries to portray himself
as a devout Moslem (especially since Hama) yet he is supposed to be a Ba'athist.
4- Saddam Hussein El-Tikriti does very much the same.
Do these people and countries represent Islam as advertised?
I don't think so. Same goes for those who claim to represent pan-Arabism.

>" The sad thing is that a lot of people will agree with the original poster.
>" There does not seem to be an Arab indentity, when we want to look for the
>" roots of Arab nationalism we always seem to go back to the golden age of 
>" I S L A M. 
>
>   We can, if you wish, go back to the golden days of Imiri Ilqais, Antarah,
>Tarafah ibn Il'abd, Al'a'sha and others, why don't you do it?

  I am all for reaching the top again be it artistically, or scientifically,
and more importantly  on providing a decent quality of life to our people, 
we just disagree on how to get there.

>" I don't believe there will be any kind of unity until the Arabs
>" themselves decide whether they want to be in a nation for all Arabs
>" or in a nation for all Moslems. If you choose the latter, don't forget
>" the Chinese provinces that are Moslems. We have a lot in common with
>" them and we certainly wouldn't mind getting in a war with China to get
>" those people to join us. (Hey it's just a simple H-Bomb nothing to worry
>" about.)
>
>   And if we choose the former, we have to go through a lot of trouble solving
>political problems, changing the map of the world, changing currencies, 
>rearranging UN, lobying for getting a veto right, etc. It is just not worth it.

Uniting all Arabs is no easy task, (as history has shown) but uniting all
Moslems is even harder as they are more numerous and more diverse and have
fewer gepolitical interests in common than Arabs.

[... rest deleted...]