From: abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Arab U N I T Y
Summary: Coordination/cooperation is better than unity.
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:52:10 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <nabeel.722302079@oracle.sce.carleton.ca> nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Bulbul) writes:
>In <1992Nov20.031353.11773@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad) writes:
>
>" 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.
>
>  You are implicitly declaring decent people nonexistant! iLi .ktasho mAtO?
>I believe that still there are some decent people albeit very rare. Also
>those high positions can be monitored by e.g. a council which in itself
>monitored by a public council elected by people. Sort of like in the States
>but much better.
>

I am declaring no such thing!  You proposed the early Islamic structure of
government as a model to follow, and I was simply pointing out that it is
not realistic in this day and age.

As for the rest of your statement, the question is always going to be: How
much power do you give this centralized government?  You can refer to my
earlier posts to see the reason why we wouldn't expect this proposed 
government to be much different than the current Arab League.  

>" 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.
>
>   I think my comparison holds. the differences are:
>   * Muslims were decent people.
>   * The Medinites had _earned_ the money.
>   * The sacrifice was extremely higher than today's unity.
>   * Much money is being lost by corruption and elite tourism.
>
>   I am not asking Saudis to make such a sacrifice, you don't collect grapes
>from thorns. Also, the economic impact is less than what you say, also it
>will stimulate productivity rather than using Asians to do the jobs and
>stay in London or wharever. It is not an economical damper, it is also a
>revolution in all aspects of life.
>

You miss my point.  I wasn't referring to the overall economic impact of
unity (this will always be positive in the long run, ECON 101).  I was 
referring to the redistribution of wealth involved in any kind of union 
you propose.  (Note that almost all Americans will tell you that they are
pro free trade with Mexico, but hardly anyone advocates even Economic unity
with Mexico.)

>" 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.
>
>   Islam does not advocate stupidy in business, but I do not think giving
>the Sudanese separatist money has anything to do with business. Why can't
>this money be invested in SA itself? Wasting money is hardly considered
>business or a legitimate one at that. I do not blame a pig for rolling in
>merde neither do I blame dogs for panting.
>

Fine!  I will always agree that under-handed interference in other countries'
affairs is reprehensible.  And that goes for Iran, Syria, and Egypt as well.

>" Where does the Koran specifically 'mandate' a unity of the sort you're
>" advocating?  And what exactly does the Koran say about the critical
>
>   I leave this as an excercise for the reader.
>
>" proportion of a certain population that would have to be Muslim for that
>
>   That ratio that can maintain a Muslim country. If only one person can make
>a Muslim country in his country, that is enough. Why don't you read the
>history of establishing the State in Medina?
>
>" 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.
>
>   ElAzhar is superfluous already. "shay.ka al'azhari aYoha .SiDIqo aftinA fI
>birmIlayni naf.tiYayni, atayA min .kAdimi l.haramayni, 'anaqifo ma^a boSHin 'am
>ma^a .saDAmi .hosayni?" But can any interpretation of Koran be that we must be 
>enemies? Be groups and factions? Please enlighten me.
>

Being against the kind of unity you're proposing in no way implies that we 
must be enemies!  I'm as big a fan of international cooperation as you'll
find, be it on an Arab or Islamic level. IMHO, we would do a lot better as
a group of countries who recognize their similarities and differences, and
coordinate accordingly, than as one huge entity, that will probably waste
most of its energy resolving needlessly 'internal' squabbles.


Tamer Abdelgawad