Mahathir, you have not' triumphed’

CT Ali

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad may have been aiming 'a tad too high' when he likened himself with 'dictators' such as Mubarak, Hitler, Marcos and Gaddafi.

“Saya ingin tahu daripada pelawat ke blog saya tentang apakah yang saya telah lakukan semasa saya menjadi Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang menjadi bukti bahawa saya adalah seorang Diktator.” – Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Mahathir in his posting ‘Diktator’ recently asked readers of his blog Che Det, (of which this writer is one) for reasons why he has been unceremoniously dubbed a dictator.

He mentions Mubarak, Hitler, Marcos, Ceausescu, Mussolini, Gaddaffi and Saddam Hussein – all dictators of ill repute, notorious and certainly of dubious prominence but may I humbly suggest to Tun Mahathir that maybe he might be aiming a tad too high when linking himself to these dictators.

Any one of them would easily rate a mention in the top 20 dictators in our lifetime.

Unfortunately Mahathir may, at most, be mentioned as a dictator by the DAP Rocket and few other bloggers.

He flatters himself by thinking that he is in their company. These days he does seem bothered about what people write about him…visions of mortality perhaps.

Let’s start from the beginning – from the time when he was a doctor and had to have the biggest car around and a Chinese driver!

Right from that time in his life Mahathir was already into making it known that he could afford a big car and a Chinese driver!

But then as now, who really cares?

His next memorable work was the writing of his book the Malay Dilemma – and we know what that was all about.

Insecure Mahathir

Then as Minister of Education, the changes he made to our education system has had adverse ramifications until today for the Malays and for all Malaysians.

My first memory of Mahathir’s time as Prime Minister was his insistence that all government servants use a name tag.

Who can forget that Lat cartoon about that civil servant with a name tag right across his chest!

I mention all this because it gives us an idea of what kind of person this Mahathir is.

A very insecure little man who seeks attention and recognition from others with grand empty supercilious gesture that falls short of any real substance.

There are always a few of these ‘Walter Mitty’ types in our midst.

A Walter Mitty is “an ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams of personal triumphs”

Our tragedy is that this ordinary, ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams of personal triumphs became our Prime Minister!

He had grand designs.

This ‘almost a Malay’ used the most fundamental tools – education and all government machinery under his control – to try and establish ‘his’ Malay race as the first amongst equals in our nation.

Ustaz Reduan Tee said even as a Chinese, he stills champions the Malay!

Mahathir, an ‘almost Malay’

The irony of it all must have not been lost on Mahathir because we have this ‘almost a Malay’ not championing his people from Kerala but the Malays because he now becomes part of the ‘Tuans’ in Malaysia.

This daydream of his never became a reality as evident in the situation the Malays find themselves in today – never an equal among the other races and always the ‘Johnny-come-lately’ behind the Chinese.

But it did okay for Mahathir, his family and his cronies. They are rich beyond their dreams – at our expense.

For Mahathir,  his family and his cronies are the proof that his grand design for Ketuanan Melayu has been achieved!  Yes it has Tun Mahathir but at whose expense?

This 13th GE will be a defining moment in our nation but it has a historical before and after.

Umno is now facing the real possibility of defeat at the polls and this is because of the historical before!

The ‘historical before’ of what 22 years of Mahathir rule has turned Umno and Barisan Nasional into – a corrupt, arrogant and isolated political entity that is unable to understand the aspiration of its own people.

The ‘historical after’ is what we are trying to achieve with Pakatan Rakyat – change for the better.

Mahathir still clueless

Even in his heroic daydreams, Mitty does not triumph, several fantasies being interrupted before the final one sees Mitty dying bravely in front of a firing squad.

And all of them have faced their personal firing squad in one form or another. None of them died bravely!

You are in the midst of being blind folded and about to be taken to meet your firing squad – though like your Diktator article indicated, you are NOT going bravely – still protesting your innocence, still clueless of what and why you are about to be sentenced for.

And you’re obviously still wanting assurance from the people that you have indeed triumphed in your personal daydreams. Tun Mahathir you have not triumphed.

Mahathir, while you see Putrajaya, Twin Towers, the North South Highway, KLIA, Petronas Twin Towers as massive business opportunities given to the Malaysian businessmen and it is your legacies to our nation – we see waste, costs overruns, massive debts and mismanagement of our resources and wealth to benefit your family, your cronies and Barisan Nasional.

While you see 22 years of political stability, we see the misuse and abuse of every imaginable public and government apparatus for the benefit of your political agenda to keep you in power for that 22 years.

And we all, together with Umno, now have to live with the consequences of that selfish 22 years that kept you in power.

It will take a long time before our society deals with these failures. Because your government failed, we the people have had to take the initiative of making these changes ourselves.

You used race and religion to divide and rule our people.

CT Ali is a reformist who believes in Pakatan Rakyat’s ideologies. He is a FMT columnist.

Arguing for a secular state

By Ahmad Farouk Musa

To many Muslims and especially the Islamists, the term secular is a very repugnant term and this abhorrence to anything secular stems mainly from the previously bitter experience of secularism in Turkey that had led to the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate; the last Caliphate in the Muslim world.

The fall of Ottoman Caliphate led to some Muslim scholars to push for a new entity known as an Islamic State. The concept of an Islamic State was not known in the Islamic world before that. The main proponent for an Islamic State was none other than Muhammad Rashid Redha, a great Muslim reformer in the early twentieth century. The main intention of Redha was to stem the onslaught of Western Imperialism.
History has shown that while secularism was born in the West, its values spread across the world in many different continents and societies. According to Louay Safi, a scholar at the International Institute of Islamic Thought, secularism denotes a set of notions and values whose aim is to ensure that the state is neither engaged in promoting specific religious beliefs and values, nor uses its powers and offices to persecute religion.
To prevent state officials from using their political authority to impose a narrow set of religious attitudes and values on the larger society, and to foreclose the possibility of using religious symbols to agitate one religious community against another; a separation must be made between political authorities from religious affiliation.
The Islamic State conundrum
It is an unshakeable belief among many Islamists that the establishment of an Islamic State must be the first and foremost agenda in any political struggle. It is only when an Islamic State is established that Hudud Penal Code could be implemented.
Since the issue of Islamic State and Hudud is intertwined and will become more prominent every time the General Election is around the corner, it would be pertinent for us to revisit this issue. To many proponents of Islamic State, in particular those in the Islamic Party PAS, the concept of Islamic State is basically a replica of the medieval ideas promoted by al-Mawardi in al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (The Ordinances of Government).
Barring the Erdoganists in PAS, the Ulama wing has been preaching this medieval concept that has been ingrained even in the younger generations especially among the religious educated. It basically fails to tackle some fundamental issues in the twenty first century. It fails to discuss the concept of constitutionalism, human rights and citizenship as an integrated framework that is very fundamental in modern states. It is of note that it is constitutionalism that provides a legal and political framework for the preservation of human rights, freedom and equality among its citizens.
However in an Islamic State as envisioned by many Islamists — the religious educated especially — citizenship is classified between Muslim and dhimmis, namely non-Muslims who pledged submission to Muslim authority and therefore granted protection in exchange for a payment of a special tax known as jizyah. Dhimmis are basically the opposite of harbis that generally mean non-Muslims who are hostile to Islam.
In classical texts of Islamic State like Mawardi’s al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, the dhimmis are prevented from riding horses or donkeys within the city limits. In modern days, this may be equivalent to driving cars in the city. And that they wear distinctive clothing in public and bells around their necks when visiting pubic bathing facilities. The question is would such discriminatory policies be acceptable in the modern era.
It must also be acknowledged that an Islamic State will surely be based on Islamic values. This would entail to banning all forbidden things in the Quran. Many Muslim ideologues like Mawdudi for example believe that it is impossible for such a state to limit its framework because it is a totalitarian state encompassing the whole human life and moral theory. So nobody has the right to stand up against the state and thwart any encroachment of the state in personal matters. Obviously this is very similar to a fascist state.
Going by the current discourse in Malaysia, one gets the impression that the priority of an Islamic State is then to impose a set of rules known as hudud. This obsession with hudud stems from the understanding that hudud is divine law in the Quran that is imposed upon believers. Many people believe that hudud is a set of codified law that can be imposed without resorting to human agency at all. This is an obvious fallacy since the Quran only lays down some basic texts that require human agency to interpret them.
The formulation, adoption and implementation of legislation are always matters of human judgment and reasoning. Therefore their intended implementation is subject to human error and fallibility and can always be challenged and questioned. The problem will arise when such laws are deemed sacred and of God’s divine will and any sort of criticism will be deemed as heresy.
On this matter, Prof Hashim Kamali has argued that hudud Allah in the Quran is a broad concept that is neither confined to punishments nor to a legal framework. It provides a comprehensive set of guidelines on moral, legal and religious themes. Whenever the Quran specified punishments for the offences, it also made provisions for repentance and reformation. Whereas juristic doctrine has either left this totally out or reduced it to a mechanical formality that can hardly be said to be reflective of the original teachings of the Quran.
On another note, not only is hudud in direct conflict with the Federal Constitution but in the context of a multiracial and multi-religious society, such a proposition also raises the issue of whether the nation should be governed by two sets of laws: one for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims.
The real problem of having laws such as hudud is that it is presented as mandated by the divine will of God. This make such laws immune to any criticisms whereas in actual fact they was merely the product of some literal interpretations of a certain group of scholars that failed to see the maqasid or higher intentions of such laws in attaining the ideals of justice. Criticisms against such laws have been made by many Muslim intellectuals such as Prof Hashim Kamali and until today, have not received any rebuttals from the proponents of hudud.
Sharia must neither be privileged nor enforced as a source of state law and policy simply because they are believed to be the will of God. Prof Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim argued in “Islam and the Secular State” that the belief of even the vast majority of citizens that these principles are binding as a matter of Islamic religious obligation should remain the basis of individual and collective observance among believers. But that cannot be accepted as sufficient reason for the enforcement by the state because they would then apply to citizens who may not share that belief.
Why a Secular State
Secularism does not mean the exclusion of religion from the public life of a society. The misconception that it does, is one of the reasons many Muslims tend to be hostile towards the concept.
Calling for a state to be secular is not similar in any ways to the call for secularising the society. A state should be secular in the sense that it is neutral to all the differing religious doctrines. As Abdullahi An-Naim argued that the state neutrality is necessary for true conviction to be the driving force of religious and social practice, without fear of those who control the state.
A secular state must embrace democracy. And democracy cannot be based on Sharia law, as that on the contrary would denote a theocracy. A secular state would allow every living Muslim a true freedom. Freedom to pray and fast as he or she ought to, freedom to follow the footsteps of the Prophet as he or she sees fit and freedom to submit to the will of God as he or she understands it.
Mustafa Akyol in his book “Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty” wrote a chapter on Freedom to Sin. In it he argued that Muslims should rethink the meaning of the phrase “amar ma’ruf nahi munkar” or simply “commanding the good, forbidding the wrong”. They need to make a clear distinction between “crime” and “sin”.  While combating crime can be made via legal means, sins should only be through civil means like preaching.
The argument does not arise from an antagonistic attitude against piety but from a true appreciation of what piety is all about: a sincere belief free from coercion. Any regime that imposes piety because of the belief that it is part of the doctrine “commanding the good and preventing the wrong” like Saudi Arabia for instance, is basically creating a community of hypocrites than genuine piety.
Genuine piety only arises through personal choice. And that choice only becomes possible when there is freedom. In other words freedom to sin is a necessary medium to be sincerely pious. The erudite Muhammad Asad made it very clear when making his commentary in his magnum opus “The Message of the Quran” regarding verse 25 of al-A’raf or Faculty of Discernment where he commented on the story about Adam and Eve temptation when he said:
“The growth of his consciousness — symbolised by the wilful act of disobedience to God’s command — changed all this. It transformed him from a purely instinctive being into a full-fledged human entity as we know it — a human being capable of discerning between right and wrong and thus of choosing his way of life. In this deeper sense, the allegory of the Fall does not describe a retrogressive happening but rather, a new stage of human development: an opening of doors to moral consideration. By forbidding him to “approach the tree”, God made it possible for man to act wrongly, and therefore, to act rightly as well. And so man became endowed with that moral free will which will distinguish him from all other sentinel beings.”
The way forward
The arguments regarding this topic could go ad infinitum. However the main intention is just to stir a debate among the protagonists of Islamic State to that of a Secular State. One thing which is very clear and succinct, there is no mention about an Islamic State in the Quran. With that in mind, we have to work on the best form of government that will be tenable to all the different races and religions in our country.
If we still want to continue fighting for an Islamic State, we have to agree on one basic fact. Not a single particular Muslim whether the Grand Syeikh of al-Azhar or Saudi Mufti could claim to have a theocratic authority. Considering that Muslims have been divided into different sects, ideas and views, the only system that would be fair for all would be the one that would include all of them in the political process. Taking also into consideration the significant non-Muslim community in our country who should never be considered as second-class citizens, then a secular state that embraces democracy is the most logical option.
We have to agree that secularism, as the separation of state from religion is probably the minimum requirement for participation in the sphere of civic reason. Secularism needs religion to provide a moral guidance for the community and in turn, religion needs secularism to mediate the relations between the different communities that share the same political space and space of civic reason.
Secularism is able to unite diverse communities of belief and practice into one political community simply because the moral claims it makes are minimal. And secularism is able to tolerate differing view in a religiously diverse community while maintaining its political stability. Whereas such a situation is probably just a dream in an autocratic Islamic state envisioned by many Islamists.

* Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa is a director of the Islamic Renaissance Front.

Why are Jews so powerful and Muslims so powerless?

by Dr. Farrukh Saleem

There are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven million in the Americas, five million in Asia, two million in Europe and 100,000 in Africa. For every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims. Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together. Ever wondered why?

Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish. Albert Einstein, the most influential scientist of all time and TIME magazine's 'Person of the Century', was a Jew. Sigmund Freud - ego, superego - the father of psychoanalysis was a Jew. So were Karl Marx, Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.

 

 Here are a few other Jews whose intellectual output has enriched the whole of humanity: Benjamin Rubin gave humanity the vaccinating needle. Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine. Alert Sabin developed the improved live polio vaccine. Gertrude Elion gave us a leukemia-fighting drug. Baruch Blumberg developed the vaccination for Hepatitis B. Paul Ehrlich discovered a treatment for syphilis (a sexually transmitted disease). Elie Metchnikoff won a Nobel Prize in infectious diseases.

Bernard Katz won a Nobel Prize in neuromuscular transmission. Andrew Schally won a Nobel in endocrinology (disorders of the endocrine system; diabetes, hyperthyroidism). Aaron Beck founded Cognitive Therapy (psychotherapy to treat mental disorders, depression and phobias). Gregory Pincus developed the first oral contraceptive pill. George Wald won a Nobel for furthering our understanding of the human eye. Stanley Cohen won a Nobel in embryology (study of embryos and their development). Willem Kolff came up with the kidney dialysis machine.

Over the past 105 years, 14 million Jews have won 180 Nobel Prizes while only 3 Nobel Prizes have been won by 1.4 billion Muslims (other than Peace Prizes).

Why are Jews so powerful? Stanley Mezor invented the first micro-processing chip. Leo Szilard developed the first nuclear chain reactor; Peter Schultz, the optical fibre cable; Charles Adler - traffic lights; Benno Strauss - stainless steel; Isador Kisee - sound movies; Emile Berliner - the telephone microphone and Charles Ginsburg - the videotape recorder.

Famous financiers in the business world who belong to the Jewish faith include Ralph Lauren (Polo), Levis Strauss (Levi's Jeans), Howard Schultz (Starbuck's) , Sergey Brin (Google), Michael Dell (Dell Computers), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Donna Karan (DKNY), Irv Robbins (Baskins & Robbins) and Bill Rosenberg (Dunkin Donuts).

Richard Levin, President of Yale University, is a Jew. So are Henry Kissinger (American secretary of state), Alan Greenspan (Federal Chairman of Banking under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, Jr.), Joseph Lieberman, Senator, Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of State), Maxim Litvinov (USSR Foreign Minister), David Marshal (Singapore's first Chief Minister), Issac Isaacs (Governor-General of Australia), Benjamin Disraeli (British statesman and author), Yevgeny Primakov (Russian Prime Minister), Jorge Sampaio (President of Portugal), Herb Gray (Canadian Deputy Prime Minister), Pierre Mendes (French Prime Minister), Michael Howard (British Home Secretary), Bruno Kreisky (Chancellor of Austria) and Robert Rubin (former Secretary of the Treasury).

In the media, famous Jews include Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Barbara Walters (ABC News), Eugene Meyer (Washington Post), Henry Grunwald (Editor-in-Chief of Time Magazine), Katherine Graham (publisher of The Washington Post), Joseph Lelyyeld (Executive Editor, The New York Times), and Max Frankel (New York Times).

Can you name the most beneficent philanthropist in the history of the world? The name is George Soros, a Jew, who has so far donated a colossal $4 billion; most of which has gone as aid to scientists and universities around the world. Second to George Soros is Walter Annenberg, another Jew, who has built a hundred libraries by donating an estimated $2 billion.

At the Olympics, Mark Spitz set a record of sorts by wining seven gold medals. Lenny Krayzelburg is a three-time Olympic gold medalist. Spitz, Krayzelburg and Boris Becker (Tennis) are all Jewish.

Did you know that Harrison Ford, George Burns, Tony Curtis, Charles Bronson, Sandra Bullock, Barbra Streisand, Billy Crystal, Woody Allen, Paul Newman, Peter Sellers, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Ben Kingsley, Kirk Douglas, William Shatner, Jerry Lewis and Peter Falk are all Jewish?

As a matter of fact, Hollywood itself was founded by a Jew. Among directors and producers, Steven Spielberg, Mel Brooks, Oliver Stone, Aaron Spelling (Beverly Hills 90210), Neil Simon (The Odd Couple), Andrew Vaina (Rambo's 1, 2 and 3), Michael Mann (Starsky and Hutch), Milos Forman (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), Douglas Fairbanks (The Thief of Baghdad) and Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters) are all Jewish.

To be certain, Washington is the capital that matters and in Washington the lobby that matters is The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Washington knows that if PM Ehud Olmert were to discover that the earth is flat, AIPAC will make the 109th Congress pass a resolution congratulating Olmert on his discovery.

William James Sidis, with an IQ of 250-300, is the brightest human who ever existed. Guess what faith did he belong to?

So, why are Jews so powerful?

Answer: Education!

Why are Muslims so powerless?

There are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet: one billion in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas. Every fifth human being is a Muslim. For every single Hindu there are two Muslims, for every Buddhist there are two Muslims and for every Jew there are one hundred Muslims. Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?

Here is why: There are 57 member-countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), and all of them put together have around 500 universities; one university for every three million Muslims. The United States has 5,758 universities (1 for every 57,000 Americans) and India has 8,407. In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities', and intriguingly, not one university from Muslim-majority states was in the top 500.

As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent. A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent. Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same. Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.

Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The U.S. has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million. In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million). Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.

Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge.

Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society. In Pakistan, there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360. In the UK, the number of book titles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.

Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.

Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application. Pakistan's exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at one per cent. The same for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait , Morocco , and Algeria (are all at 0.3 per cent) while Singapore is at 58 per cent.

Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to apply knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?

Because we aren't producing knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?
Because we aren't diffusing knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?
Because we aren't applying knowledge.

And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.

Interestingly, the combined annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is under $2 trillion. America, just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 trillion; China - $8 trillion, Japan - $3.8 trillion and Germany - $2.4 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).

Oil rich Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 billion; Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1 trillion; Catholic Poland - $489 billion and Buddhist Thailand - $545 billion. Muslim GDP, as a percentage of worlds GDP, is fast declining.

So, why are Muslims so powerless?

Answer: Lack of education!

All we do is shouting to Allah the whole day and blame everyone else for our multiple failures.