From: abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad)
Subject: Re: Arab U N I T Y
Summary: If voluntary, unity is not possible.
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 03:13:53 GMT

In article <nabeel.722208312@oracle.sce.carleton.ca> nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Nabeel Ghuzlaan) writes in reference to the president of a hypothetical Islamic
state:
>
>   The power of a Pres is similar to that of Abu Bakr, Omar, etc. (raa). It
>is not the same power of the current secretary general of the AL. I don't
>think Lybians and others will scream louder than they already are doing.
>

But Abu Bakr, Omar and other 'kholafaa' had immense power over the growing
Islamic empire:  If my memory doesn't fail me, they had the power to 
*appoint* governors to the various regions, and while there was 'shura',
I believe the ultimate decision on matters of state was in their hands.
They certainly had the power to wage war, they controlled the treasury
'beit elmal' and so on.  Maybe we would trust Abu Bakr and Omar (raa) with
that kind of power, but I *certainly* would not trust anyone alive with
that kind of power today.

>" This is not why a union based on equality is out of the question.  It is
>" out of the question because the countries entering into that union *are*
>" unequal (in the Economic, not the monkey/donkey sense).  No sane Saudi
>" citizen would want a union with Egypt that would allow Egyptians free 
>" access
>
>   Believe me, it is the donkey/monkey sense. Did the Saudis gain anything
>by their intellect, hardwork or power? Remember that Muslims in Medina
>(raa) shared what they _earned_.
>

It's not a matter of fairness.  My argument rests on the assumption that
entering into an Islamic union would be *voluntary*.  If that is the case,
all I'm saying is that a typical Saudi citizen, *regardless* of how Saudi
Arabia obtained its wealth, would not want to have his standard of living
lowered by allowing Muslims from other countries free access to Saudi Arabia.

As far as Muslims in Medina, I think you're being a little unrealistic.  You
are comparing temporary emergency relief of a few hundred (maybe a few
thousand) immigrants done under the eyes of the Messenger of God himself, to
the wholesale economic merging of countries with very uneven wealth.

>" to Saudi labor markets.  Remember Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound"?
>" The Europeans can do it because they are mostly in similar stages of 
>" development and enjoy similar standards of living (the situation in
>" Europe is exactly the reverse: the rich countries, like Germany, England
>" France, Italy,..etc. are the *large* economies, and they can afford to
>" accomodate the smaller poorer economies)
>
>   Instead of Saudi and other money running America, Europe, Israel,
>and every enemy of Islam, it is more right to run other Arab/Muslim 
>countries.
>

Again, It's a free world.  If the Saudis perceive that it is safer to 
invest in democracies, rather than the mostly politically unstable and
unpredictable Arab/Muslim countries, who can blame them.  I don't think
Islam advocates stupidity in doing business/trade.

>   We are discussing the practical feasibility of such a union. If we
>are Muslims, it is not up to us to chose a union or not. Koran, Hadith
>and Islam mandate such a unity. If there are some/many differences they
>must be worked out.
>

Where does the Koran specifically 'mandate' a unity of the sort you're
advocating?  And what exactly does the Koran say about the critical 
proportion of a certain population that would have to be Muslim for that
population to be included in the mandated unity?  You treat the Koran
as if it had no room for conflicting interpretations.  If that were true
we wouldn't have Shi'aa and Sunni Muslims, and ElAzhar would be superfluous.

Tamer Abdelgawad