What hinders the establishment of Islamic unity?

[Kambojaric]

The country of Lebanon i suppose is the epitome of this "artificial construct", torn off from Syria to create a country for Arab Christians, ironic now though that muslims in the shape of Palestinian refugees have turned around the intial intention for the creation of this country. As more and more rights are given to these "refugees" (something inevitable), the religious demographics will inch even more towards muslim majority. An example of allied plans backfiring. As for divide and rule, no blame can be put on the British, French, each country only seeks its own goals. The blame lies with the Arab elite who manipulated the masses to rebel against their co religionists.

However going back to topic, if we are to presume that in the future we are to have islamic unity (something roughly equivilant to the EU), then it is my personal opinion that it has to start in Arabia because no other muslim populations have so much in common with each other as the countries of the Arabian Peninsula do.

 

[Saleem]

While most of us might think of the chinese as monolithic han people there are significant potential divisive factors among them - many imperials tried to exploit them - germans, british and others - the decline of the Qing dynasty began this process which was given final form by the Japanese Empire when it tried to set up puppet states and "autonomous regions". A study, using chinese sources gives a very captivating discussion about this wrt the 'boxer revolution" (more like our "war of independence 1273 AH /1857 CE perhaps): origins of the boxer uprising by jw esherick ISBN 0 520 06459 3.
shangai, manchukuo, hong kong, macau etc were all attempts to fragment the chinese nation. it took the discipline and a decade plus of difficult struggle for the chinese to achieve real independence in 1949. perhaps a muslim struggle along these lines will achieve freedom for the muslim nation. what is required is a society of people with similar values and goals. it cannot be achieved by propaganda or force. we need to understand that the first muslim state in yathrib / medina was formed by invitation by a people that were already practicing muslims i.e. they had a common set of values and goals which they willingly adhered to - no one "established" or imposed these laws. what was defined was the rules for interacting as a community among themselves and with others i.e civic laws etc. on a personal level they were already practicing the morals and mores of muslims. incidently one can benefit from reading the three rules etc. dealing with how officals are supposed to deal with the populace as set out by chairman Mao and the party- they can be googled on wikipedia etc.

 

[tomp]

So what is the real reasons that hinder the establishment of Islamic unity?

Who bears responsibility for that, Muslim peoples or governments of Islamic countries?

It is my impression (from far away) that muslim leaders tend to be even more egocentric than western leaders, are less restrained in their drive for self-enrichment by their population, and generally care only for their little corner.

Then there is the radicalism issue, which forces the west to harass and play divide and conquer on the muslims.
The taliban is not wise to practice "foreign policy" that threatens france with attack over the full-veighl laws in france. Nor are they wise when they socially oppress the people they rule in the name of Allah.
Both invite foreign harassment, which is at least a distraction from good governance.

Pakistan's ISI is in the sense of establishing a larger islamic unity not wise when they support (elements of) the taliban. There may be some military wisdom in supporting the taliban to get influence over a neighboring country, but only to the ISI and their bosses. It's another example of muslim leaders tending their own garden at the expense of others.

In my view, if muslims want global unity, they'll have to address both issues before progress can be made.

You need leaders who will really spread the wealth to the population, and leaders who actively fight against the use of terrorism and social opression.

A country in (partial) (civil) war makes a lousy partner for a larger economic/political entity.
A free people, well informed and free from war, _can_ be part of a viable larger entity.
First take care of local quality, then a larger entity has a much better survival chance.

You, the activist, need to find those better leaders and keep them alive and as comfy as possible at all cost. You'll need to find replacements for them in advance, for when they grow old or tired or are killed.
You'll also need to find a lot of presidential staff, bureaucrats and military leaders and personell, who believe in spreading the wealth to the public and fighting terrorists.
It'll be a lifetime job for a relatively large team.

Severely punish corruption and the use of terrorism in your own circles, then the rest is a matter of a few decades of persistent negotiations with the rest of the world.

 

[Nishan]

YouTube - InsyaAllah - a Song of Hope for Us Muslims To Persevere Towards Unification of Islam