Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!aabiyaba
From: aabiyaba@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Muslim View on Middle East Conflict
Message-ID: <11282@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 24 Aug 90 19:46:49 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Lines: 74
Approved: naim@eecs.nwu.edu (Naim Abdullah)


In article <1990Aug24.050736.14887@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>,
posted by bes@tybalt.caltech.edu, zix@cs.nott.ac.uk (Zafer Iqbal)
boldly states:
"According to Islam, what Sadam has done is correct. Borders between 2 Muslim
countries should not exist!!! Islam requires unification of Muslim countries
that the Uthmaniyah state was divided into so many smaller states that we know 
today!

"Secondly it is haram to have to rely on kufr for the defence of Muslims!!!
The Saudi puppet regime should have been overthrown long ago as should most of
the existing puppet regimes (including Sadam!). "

Let us consider Saddam Hussein:
	Saddam Hussein is the dictatorial generalissimo of the
	avowedly socialist (Iraqi) Baathists whose philosophy is 
	incompatible with Islam.

	Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran and Kuwait, his involvement
	in Lebanon and of course his national policies are not 
	guided by Islam, not by pan-Arabism (another myopic
	philosohpy), not by Iraqi nationalism, but by the principle
	of self-aggrandizement.  These points are self evident to
	anyone who seriously studies the situation.

Let us consider the unification of modern muslim states:
	By definition, Muslims strive to be one ummah (people or body).
	That body must be guided by Islam and not some other
		philosophy that seeks to justify itself through Islam.
	To do so requires that individuals first aspire to live by Islam.
	In the present historical frame work, the post colonial muslim
		states must first tackle their own unique problems
		of education and participatory government.
	When representative muslim leaders emerge, their states will
		be in a position to reach consensus on diverse issues
		which will be conducive to the formation of a single
		social, political and economic unit.
	Dissent and other conflicts will have to be resolved through
		the Islamic authority - there is none today but the
		OIC is a candidate.	
		
Let us consider Zafer Iqbal's statement about kafirs and puppets:
	The events in the Persian Gulf serve to underscore just how
		"independent" muslim states are.
	It seems that this state of "independence" will last for
		quite a while - instead of griping and striking at
		the air, concerned muslims could at least propose
		and act upon constructive ideas.
	If, as Zafer says, Saddam is just another puppet, then why
		support him?  He is a far greater evil than others
		in the region.
	If puppets are to be done away with, who will replace them?
		Propose a solution instead of emotional slogans.
	I would be interested in your reaction to the presence of
		"kafir" military advisors, arms, materiel ... in 
		muslim countries.

My assessment:
	Gradually replace western troops with OIC peace keepers.
		The OIC has never really done much but this is an
		excellent occasion to give it some bite.
	Even in a monarchy as far removed as Morocco, taking a
		pan-Islamic stance (however diluted) may be the only 
		way to quell the simultaneous popular disquiet at the 
		western intervention and at Saddam Hussein's terror.
	The invasion of Kuwait probably sounds the death knell of
		Arab nationalism (and the PLO) as well as exposing
		the nature of dictatorship elsewhere in the muslim
		lands.  This presents an enormous opportunity for 
		alternate world views to emerge.

Ahmed Biyabani
aabiyaba@athena.mit.edu