From: mmokhtar@attmail.com (Mazen Mokhtar)
Subject: Re: Let's stay within the facts (was RE: UNION BETWEEN IRAQ AND SYRIA))
Originator: mmdh@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:22:10 GMT


  I hope Mr. Sterling will allow me to answer the questions he posed to M. G.

In article <1992Aug14.145030.24982@wam.umd.edu> buffalo@wam.umd.edu (Duncan D. Sterling) writes:

>It sounds like you are throwing alot of rumors around.. Where are the facts and
>sources to back up your claims?  Are you discounting the legitimacy of the
>ideas of Pan-Arabism/Arab Nationalism, and if so, on what FACTUAL basis?

  I _am_ discounting the ligitimacy of Arabism. My bases are:

  - What is their legitimacy? There is no source for it. The legitimacy
    of Arabism needs to be established before it can be discounted.
  - There was never in history an Arab state or an Arab civilization.
  - Arabism is divisive. It divides Muslim people.
  - It is akin to racism. It advocates Arab superiority. Pan-Islamism takes
    Muslims way out of their way to protect the rights and interests of
    non-Muslims; Arabism does not recognize the equal rights of non-Arabs.
  - It has a long history of creating failure and injustice.
  - It violates the aims and tenents of Islam.

  Need more?

> Also, on what FACTUAL basis can you condemn Pan-Arabism/Arab Nationalism?

  - Failure.
  - Injustice.
  - Discouraging free flow of ideas or information.
  - Oppression.
  - Encouraging ignorance.
  - Stifling freedoms.
  - Creating unnecessary tension, even wars, with non-Arabs.

  Need more?

>  Gamel Nasser didn't see Pan-Arabism as "rubbish", and HE was not a stupid
>man.

  Stupid or not, he was a failure by any standard. If you go to Egypt today
the vast majority will say: "We don't support the king, but he was better
than what the 1952 revolution brought." I am not exagerating, the vast majority
_do_ agree with the statement above.

  Nasser made everybody poor, he eliminated any opposing opinions litterally,
he failed in war, he failed in technological advancement, he failed in
providing jobs, he failed in generating income for Egypt, he falied in
avoiding or decreasing the debt, he failed in making Egyptians happy, he
falied in implementing justice, he failed in avoiding the mistakes of the King.

  Need more?

>If "a true Islamic Union" is the "only way for Islamic countries to become
>powerful", then how about explaining this in detail--will all Shiites have to
>convert to Sunni, or visa versa?

  No.

>  Who will run this "union"?

  Qualified people, whoever they are; without violating the standards of
Justice and Freedom that God granted to _all_ people in Islam.

> Clerics?

  There are no formal clerics in Islam. Every Muslim is responsible for acting
in an Islamic manner. Those who are qualified to perform a job should be
in positions to do so. Economists should have an economics background, a
Qur'an teacher probably cannot plan economic policy, but an economist
probably can. Neither is more of a cleric in Islam. In Islam, every individual
is the equivalent of the Christian minister.

> What ability does the clergy have to run a government?

  There is no clergy. If you mean scholars of Islam, they should be entrusted
to contribute in their fields of expertise.


Regards,

Mazen Mokhtar