Alan,
I had a few minutes to scan through his speech.
I think that the man has completely lost the plot.
He calls for war, he calls for peace. He wants to fight the Jews, he wants to negotiate with the Jews.

For a man, who has run a succesful Country, tolerant and prosperous, he really appears to want to bow out on a tidal wave of stupid comments.

Hopefully the good he did will outlive this rather bizzare display.

they should stop blowing up buses because it is WRONG

Well,that's "moderate" Islam for you.And Hamid Karzai thinks Mahathir's rant was an "eye-opener".Yikes.

Imagine what their saying in private.

Hmm... OK, I'm going to "post against type" here and give Mahathir the benefit of the doubt. For the next two paragraphs, anyway.

Mayalasia is facing an investment crisis, due to at least a couple factors:
1) they are a prisoner to their own success, in that their wages and standard of living are substantially above that of the Chinese who are increasingly siphoning off the foreign investments.
2) the potential instability due to radical Islam.
This is a shame; my new laptop was made in Malaysia and it rocks.

So, if I were Mahathir and wanted to a) give a speech with the effect of countering the influence of the madrasssas by casting math and science education in a positive light vs pure Koranic study, b) diffusing the terrorist threat by arguing persuasively against violence and b) actually being heard by your target audience and not written off as a western crony, what would my speech sound like? Pretty much what the excerpt quotes.

Of course, even given this benefit of the doubt, the speech is morally bankrupt in it's Judenhass and really doesn't address the divide between radical Islam and civilization, but just tries to co-opt some of its energy. Maybe Mahathir hopes that the youth of his country will adopt a patient stance and educate themselves, and after a few years will lose their appetite for jihad.

Or my conjecture is totally wrong, and Mahathir means what he says and his problem is not with jihad but that the Arabs suck at it and the Malay will show them how it's done. In that case, all the prosperity generated by his halfway clueful stewardship of the country to date was just a means to the only end that matters, killin' Joos and their useful idiots, the Crusaders.

Dude, where's my Armegeddon futures market?

Time to start whittling down that 1.3 billion to a more reasonable number

BH,

Many of the "differently oriented" political types here complain when over the top comments go unanswered. So here goes.

I'll stipulate that we have some implacably violent enemies among the people in Islamic societies and that sadly we are in a situation where it is arguably us or them.

That said, to suggest that simply fewer Muslims is better and we should just start killing them is as miserably sick and twisted as anything Bin Laden could come up with.

Lewy,

You and BH are both correct. He should have qualified his statement. There are supposedly good muslims, and there are irrefutably bad muslims. We just need to figure out the best way to tell which is which and dispatch the bad guys. Indiscriminate killing is not the way, but drawing a bead on those that show themselves to be evil is not a bad concept. Start with Airofart.

lewy14,

I'll join you in bucking the general board wisdom and type on this. While I feel the wording tended toward the trapings of anti-Semitism, when you read it in context the whole gist seems to be "the Jews have had a hard time and found ways to overcome and protect themselves through non-violent means (e.g. the statements concerning Jews creating human rights and democracy to protect themselves) and Islam should do the same". There was a bit too much of the victory-at-the-expense-of-the-Jews talk, but still looks like the general tone is that Muslims need to "fight" for their cause in the same way Jews have.

Also, couldn't agree more re BH (butt hole?)

OK, after reading the source material, I have to say the piece in the Australian is a bit of a hatchet job, cutting and pasting together bits and pieces of the speach, rearranging the order of statements and creating apparent connections between phrases that were never associated. As I read the translation of the speach, I was repeatedly reminded of what a scathing indictment is was of Islamic fundamentalism.

I'll cite just two examples, as I have neither time nor inclination to Fisk the whole thing:

Australian:
"The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them," Mahathir said, adding, "1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews."

Mahathir:
"33. But is it true that we should do and can do nothing for ourselves? Is it true that 1.3 billion people can exert no power to save themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a much smaller enemy? Can they only lash back blindly in anger? Is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?
34. It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews.
.....
39. We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."

The comment about "guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships" was taken from para 25, provided in full below:

25. We are enjoined by our religion to prepare for the defence of the ummah. Unfortunately we stress not defence but the weapons of the time of the Prophet. Those weapons and horses cannot help to defend us any more. We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence. But because we discouraged the learning of science and mathematics etc. as giving no merit for the akhirat, today we have no capacity to produce our own weapons for our defence. We have to buy our weapons from our detractors and enemies. This is what comes from the superficial interpretation of the Quran, stressing not the substance of the Prophet's sunnah and the Quran's injunctions but rather the form, the manner and the means used in the 1st Century of the Hijrah. And it is the same with the other teachings of Islam. We are more concerned with the forms rather than the substance of the words of Allah and adhering only to the literal interpretation of the traditions of the Prophet.

Once again, the example of not being able to build their own defensive weapons is used in the context of blaming fundamentalism and Islamic isolationism for the poor conditions generally found in Muslim countries.

Admitedly, he overly uses military metaphor (enemies, counter-attack, defeat, etc.), but how many times does he have to clearly repeat that violence is not the path to their goal to gain the admission that he "appeared to suggest that it was time for an end to violence against the Israelis" from the reporter? Given the violent nature of Islamofascism the generous use of military metaphor only serves to make the speach ripe for misinterpretation.

Overall, my biggest complaints concerning the speech are that it is very set in a WIN-LOOSE paradigm and that is is heavy on the assumption of Jewish hegemony. Even with that assumption, though, Mahathir continually emphasizes that it nobody's fault but the Muslims for the condition they find themselves in.

What is really needed is to shift Islam to a WIN-WIN thought process. This, however, is never an easy thing, especially when the past 500 years have so deeply engrained an "us and them" mentality.

submandave,

Sincere thanks for your excellent post.

I was particularly impressed with one excerpt you identified: "And it is the same with the other teachings of Islam. We are more concerned with the forms rather than the substance of the words of Allah and adhering only to the literal interpretation of the traditions of the Prophet." All I have to say is - wow! This is some flat out heresy to the radical Islamists. Mahathir really hit the nail on the head with that one and it took genuine courage to get up in front of that audience and say such a thing.

In my post I criticised Mahathir because he "doesn't address the divide between radical Islam and civilization..." and it appears from your excerpts that I would have to retract that criticism. To deny the primacy of a strict literal approach to the Koran and Islam is to completely undermine the Islamist approach and to rejoin the rest of civilization - the price of admission is the acknowledgment of a secular space within civil society, which the Islamists expressly forbid.

However I just add that to say Mahathir "tends toward the trappings of antisemetism" is an understatement at best. The "Jews rule the world" canard is hateful and oppressive. I don't know if Mahathir really believes this lie but it is an indictment of Islamic culture that he felt he had to say it in order to establish his credibility.

I think the conparison with the Nazis is wrong. But this does bear conparison to a predicessor group the PanGermans. At that point the goal was to unite the various German nationalist groups into a single super group that could influence events. NonGerman groups where all on the target list by that point but it was played down. It was unity unity unity until they had unity. Then the goal was power. After that the death lists were brought out. This may not be a call for moderation. It seeks to increase unity and calls for long term planning to support a future response. But there also the suggestion of taking steps in the near future to derail the war on terror. Using their heads to influence the economies and elections of key countries. In other words using your head is hitting their weakness with your strenght. Their strength is oil and cash. Our weakness is the political infighting and the weak economy.

Many thanks to all the readers who pointed me to the whole text of the speech.

It's schizoid.

About 2/3 of it is sane, sensible, rational, and what I've been hoping someone in the Muslim world would get up on their hind legs and say.

The other 1/3 is dangerous lunacy.

The question is, is that 1/3 a thin venir to make the rest more palatable, or actual belief? To determine that, have a look at Mahatir's past record. And it's full of the same Judenhass.

He wants the Islamic world to abandon the 7th century mentality towards Science and Technology. All well and good, so do I. But on the balance of probabilities, he wants it so that they will be able to destroy the Jews, the Crusaders, and the West, turning our own strengths against us. Instead of Islamofascism being enlisted to help modernise the Muslim world, modern technology is being enlisted to further Islamofascism.

But he's spot-on regarding the weaknesses shown by the curren Islamic society, Mahatir is not unintelligent, but then again, neither was another great Anti-Semite, AH.

Having posted thrice now (OK one post was off topic) I did what I should have done in the first place, which was read the effin' speech in its entirety. And having done that, I'd have to say I am mighty discouraged. I'd refer people to Dan Drezner's blog for a more thorough discussion.

I find much evidence in the speech for the idea that Mahathir proposes to eradicate Israel: e.g, Divided, the Muslims could do nothing effective to stop the Balfour and Zionist transgression. Recall that the Balfour declaration was the original "two state solution", it recognized that the Jewish emigrants to the holy land had a right to form their own state. Mahathir explicitly denies Israel's right to exist. Peace, negotiation, education, an end to literal interpretation of the Koran, yes, but all as a means to an end, which is the destruction of Israel.

Now this could all just be a kind of "bait and switch" as I posited initially. But I'm far from convinced. If Mahathir really agreed with Bin Laden's goal of a global Caliphate and just thought he could do a better job, if he believed the Caliph ought not to be a religious scholar like OBL but a philosopher king like... well, like himself, what speech would Mahathir give? Pretty much the one he gave.

Lewy,

I have come to respect your comments on CP, and in most cases I agree with your take on things. I just question taking anything this guy says at face value. He has been a source of puzzlement for quite some time. Did you read his statements about the Euro/Anglos? What a nut case. I don't disagree with your assessment, so much as I wonder where this guy's head is and how much is just playing to the audience.

He is supposed to be stepping down next month, I believe, and who knows what kind of legacy he is trying to leave. Nobody should lead a country for as long as he has. His grip on reality is questionable.

Elvis, thanks for the kind comments. I agree Mahathir's grip on reality is questionable.

Along with the well deserved contempt for the Jew hatred on display, a few other people have noted the positive aspect of the speech (at least on commenter on Drezner's blog, as well as Andrew Sullivan) with regards to modernization.

As to what Mahathir's end goal is, coexistence or conquest, I have no idea. The biggest unknowns perhaps are the consequences of modernization itself. I believe Mahathir's program of modernization will continue to be pursued in Malaysia, taking it forward into the 21st century and not back to the 8th. However, will education and prosperity bring a desire to coexist with the world? I hope so, much depends on this.

Perhaps I'm giving too much benefit of doubt, but believe that Mahathir's anti-Jewish statements are based mainly upon the (false) assumption of Isreali agression against Islam rather than a position of agression against the Jews. He repeatedly stresses the need to "defend" Islam, and how the Muslims have been unable to do so. Likewise, the real problem I see in the "Jews rule the world" statement is not in the words, but in the fact that even if it does not derive from harmful stereotypes it at least feeds them. (This is similar to the recent "Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else" comment of Gregg Easterbrook recently). In a non Arab-Isreali charged venue, for example, one could make the charge "the Christians rule the world" and neither be reviled for it nor would the comments be cast aside as blantantly discriminatory.

The one thing that I keep seeing in both this speach and the reactions is that much of the Arab-Isreali and Jewish-Moslem dialog, on both sides, is ruled by emotion rather than reason. While this is in many cases understandable, my hope is that sincere, cooler heads from both sides of the issue will come together to understand what is being meant rather than complain about what is being said. For example, it has been my observation that Arab and Islamic culture is resplendent with hyperbole (anyone remember the "Mother of all battles" where the desert will "run red with the blood of our enemies"?), yet so many are too eager to jump at every use of the word "enemy" as an implicit agreement in wiping the earth of all Jews.

While I am not as knowledgable about Mahathir's past performance as his neighbors, such as Alan, I think the meaning of his speach should be viewed in relation to from where it came. Malaysia is a modern, prosperous and peaceful Islamic country. During a brief travel through Malaysia (taking the train from Singapore to Bangkok) I found the country to be rather religiously diverse and the people to be genuinely open and accepting. I have a hard time, from my relatively unemotional position, to see these remarks coming from that place as a tacit approval of genocide. I am, rather, more inclined to feel Lewy's second oppinion to be more accurate as to the content and basis.

This diatribe against a people who have shunned the worlds game for 2000 years is helpful. It reveals the truth about the majority of muslims jealosy of the tribes. Homocidal hate for a people who in 40 years plays the world game better than most if not all. Great military, scientists, agriculturalists. Need I continue. All this in 50 years,
so when they kick your ass yet again dont cry to the world to stop the evil jews again. Look grow up and contribute to global advancment, it took them 50 years to do it better than most surely you can attempt another golden era cause right now you guys have no moral authority of any kind. FRANKLY YOU DESERVE THE BACKWARD GOVTS YOU GET, GROW THE FUCK UP.

Of course Syria, Egypt, and Jordan were claiming to be 'defending Islam' every time they launched wars against Israel in the bad old days. Even though until '67 they even controlled the West Bank and Gaza strip. Every conquorer or wannabe conquorer frames his aggression as a defence. There is no question in my mind that the majority of mainstream muslims, and particularly arabs, view every centimeter of Israel as occupied territory. Not all, but most. Since it has become politically incorrect to say this outloud, we get doublespeak and code like this Mahathir clown. Thats the 'root cause' of both the Palistinian problem and the current war on terror. Until the mainstream muslims of the world start living in the real world, we will continue down this path. Israel is going to exist, but a seperate Palestinian state is possible. Islam is not going to conquer the world, but neither is the West going to assault it or restrain its free worship. And most importantly, Arabs especially will never be respected world powers until they reform their cultures and governments via capitalism and democracy. This is not some requirement we are imposing on them. It is the requirement of how the world works. Until the rank and file Muslims embrace these truths, this war will continue and Muslims will suffer for it.
Fortunately it looks like Bush has the cajones to say this to some peoples faces:http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/361635|top|10-20-2003::10:27|reuters.html
How many leaders have we had willing to ignore diplomatic niceties and get down to brass tacks like that? Can you imagine Wes Clark telling Mahathir he was in the wrong to his face? The guy that has no problem rubbing elbows and paling around with ethnic clensers??

submandave, you write:

"my hope is that sincere, cooler heads from both sides of the issue will come together to understand what is being meant rather than complain about what is being said"

I'd like nothing more than to believe that Mahathir is one of those cooler heads but sadly he gives me no real evidence. The problem is not that we don't understand "what is being meant" but that we do: the disparaging reference to Balfour, and to the "fifty years" of struggle, quite explicitly denies Israel a right to exist. The entire history of armed struggle of Islam against the world is portrayed as "defense" when the medieval Christians of Europe (as well as the Hindus of India) will tell you it was anything but.

Make no mistake, Mahathir's call to end literalism in Koranic interpretation is courageous - such talk will literally get you your head handed to you in Saudi Arabia. But more courage will be required. Here are some things I'd like to hear from a leader like Mahathir:
- Israel has a right to exist.
- Islam should return to being the culture in which the Jews feel the most comfortable, as it was (claimed) in the Arab renaissance, not the least.
- "Jihad" should be waged via economic and cultural means, not military.

Mahathir pretty explicitly disavows all these points.

lewy14 Is this man a politician extraordinaire or what?

I am an Indonesian currently in Chicago.

In Mahatir's case, take a look at what he have done and achieved for Malaysia and the context of his speech.

He has led Malaysia from a backwater agricultural country to become a progressive modern Muslim country. That is by no means a small feat (no, Malaysia is not perfect)

His country was one of a few countries in the region that recovered quickly from the Asia financial crisis. They did it by imposing foreign capital outflow ban that were CONDEMNED by many Western economist (and he did say pretty outrageous thing at that time as well). But his approach in the crisis worked.

He's a better leader than majority of those sat down and listened to his speech by far.

His remarks about the Jewish is vile and abhorrent. I condemn it.

But he doesn't say anything new. Take a look at his audience. He is speaking to his audience which are dominated by Middle East countries or countries close to the region.

His remarks have been said and repeated in the Arab streets for years.

Arab street by no means a 'Global Muslim' street.

The Jewish + Israel/Palestinian issue was never in the forefront of Muslim in South East Asia (which comprise about 25% of total Muslim in the world). Our Mosque do not end prayers with Death to Jews or America.

Muslim by no means are unified block.

Read his speech and see it in the context of Islam and Middle East, which widest audience in the room and the most destructive ones. The speech is critical of Islam in the Middle East and minority hardliner in Malaysia and Indonesia.

The Jewish bashing is more than unfortunate, but his real message was good and important. It doesn't really matter if it riles up the Western world. It is not us that he talks to and need please.

If you were to educate the young guys on the hard street in the US about AIDS and safe sex, you'd said "Use the fucking condom when you nail your whore otherwise she'll give you fucking diseases, man". The lack of respect for women in that language is despicable, but that's just using the same lingo on the street and it gets understood there. The lack of respect and the AIDS issue will need to be tackle and sometime it cannot be tackled at the same time.

Same here with Mahatir's Jewish bashing in his speech. It's ugly but that's his audience learning curve.

His critic was aimed at the state of Islamic Society around the world, more than the 'Enemy'.

So hold your quick judgement and give him the benefit of the doubt.

I will not give the man the benefit of the doubt. In my experience, there is no such thing as a basically good man that 'misguidedly' stirs up hatred, bigotry, and perhaps violence in others. One is generally an honorable person, or not. Pedling lies and hate is not an honorable act, no matter what other good the man may have done. Hitler, after all, made the trains run on time as well. In 1936, there were many who argued that Hitlers words were just empty rhetoric made to control his supporters, and look at all the good he had done for Germany. You are making an identical argument. I'm not saying a man isnt allowed to make a mistake, everyone does. But this is not an isolated incident, quite the opposite. Nor has he disavowed it. He is suspect in my eyes.

Many of the Arab countries use jihad and anti-semitism in order to keep people occupied and distract their attention away from their problems. Corruption, oppression, starvation, and destitution are not as obvious when you are being relentlessly pushed to blow up a busload of children.

Seriously, they need to stop blaming the Jews for all of their problems. Oddly enough, his anti-semitic statements are working... Chirac refused to criticize his speech, mainly because France (and most of Europe) is famously anti-semitic, and Chirac will never come to Israel's defense, even if they were overrun and the Palestinians slaughtered all of their citizens. I honestly think he would sit by and twiddle his thumbs.

Dody, you write, "His remarks about the Jewish is vile and abhorrent. I condemn it." Respectfully noted, and much appreciated. Please understand I'm not offering "quick judgement" on Mahathir; as I said I'd like nothing more than to believe he made these Jew hating comments for the consumption of his audience, and not from the conviction of his heart. (Note this would still be vile, but materially different).

The question is what comes from his modernization efforts. Do the Malay pursue peace and prosperity? Or do they take their technical development and pursue Jihad? As Mark alluded to, in the thirties, the Germans under Hitler hit the books, got their economy growing, worked hard - and pretty enthusiastically threw themselves into war less than a decade later. So Dody please don't say it couldn't happen, it could. (I'm not saying it will, I'm saying it could.) The difference between then and now is that Mahathir is 77, he is stepping down, and what becomes of the Malaysian program of modernization is up to his political heirs.

So we may never know what Mahathir "really" meant, and it may not matter, except that he will be remembered for chosing to end his career with a coda of hatred.

Mark Buehner, have you ever tried looking at the speech from a different cultural point of view?

Asians are brought up to compete and compare their achievements (or lack thereof) with other people.

An example would be, "Oh, look at your classmate Anne, she's got perfect scores for her exams. Why can't you do as well as her? Study harder for the next test!" It's a sign of an honour-shame culture.

That's probably different from how western kids are brought up, where they're told to strive for self-motivation and to compete with oneself.

To Western ears, Mahathir's words did have antisemitist connotations. And I understand that his comments ruffled feathers with the implications.

But, accept that there are other viewpoints to his comments. At some points, Mahathir's speech was taken out of context, and that's a shame.

I take it that he meant asking a wide Muslim audience to COMPARE their achievements with a tiny once-oppressed race. He bid them to look at what they, the Muslims have done (and not done) so far, look at their competitors (the Jews), and try some other means to better their standing.

Intellectuals, I admire your analysis and intellectual smarts. Nevertheless, I also wonder how many of you volunteer and do other things to better the world... apart from commenting and sounding oh-so-tiredly-self-righteous... do you go out of your comfort zone in your real non-internet life - which i regard as a good quality of life - or do you just liek to argue and shoot one another down only in the confines of the internet?

Stephanie! I'm a Fisherman! I volunteer for the 4-H program as a Leader. I donate blood every 6 weeks. I do other things outside this little forum, but I don't often admit to those things, and none of us should have to admit to them. I won't hide my candle under a bushel.

BUT - Mahathir Mohamad must be taken at his word, and he sounds nothing different than any other Muslim cleric with a few minor changes in tone. The escape from the dual edge scimitar of Islam (religious AND civil law) is narrow indeed. Moderate Muslims cannot deny the literal, whilst demanding Sharia. You, of all people (being a woman) must recognize you have NO rights under Islamic Law! NONE. Is that something you would like your sisters to endure? For how long? At what price? There are NO other viewpoints to this man's speech. What comes from his lips is what's in his heart. They are the wrong words at the wrong time.

Stephanie, it is one thing to accept another cultures unique point of view. It is quite another to use multiculturalism as a 'get out of jail free card' for spewing all sorts of divisive lies.

"To Western ears, Mahathir's words did have antisemitist connotations. And I understand that his comments ruffled feathers with the implications."
To Western ears? Are our ear somehow different in the West? Do statements like ' today the Jews rule this world by proxy' mean one thing in Malasia and something else here? For too long, the multiculturalism is all crowd have bullied the West into accepting silliness like this. As I said in my last post, I take people at their words and by their deeds. I dont feel the need to apologize for others, and to ignore what they are saying outright. When Arabs talk of pushing Israel into the sea, I dont assume its rhetoric. To do so would be supremely foolish.
Now, since of course you have so astutely assumed that I know nothing about Asian culture, I will forego mentioning the shame that Mahathir is incurring by propigating lies to diminish the successes of his self proclaimed enemies in order that his own peoples failures should seem less. But I dont know anything about that.
And one more thing, the best people that I know speak the least about how they serve others. And some of the worst shout it from the rooftops.

Mark, Lewy,

For the vast majority of Muslim population in the world, their concern are mundane, just like the rest of us. Jobs, good education, good family etc.

No, like everybody else, the Muslim is also in the pursuit of happiness. So here, the Malaysian modernize because that's how they can improve their standard of living.

To be frank, unlike the modern Western history, we in the Far East do not relate with the Holocaust. It's one of the most horrible crime against humanity, but it's not the only one. In Asia we have the Khmer Rouge, Rape of Nanking, etc. How much do you guys relate to those atrocities? Not as much. Your history is not shaped by them. Ours is. But ours is not shaped by the Holocaust or the prosecution of the Jewish. Ours is hundreds of years of colonialism, etc, which yours is not.

In South East Asia, the Palestine-Israel issue is viewed from the prism of Colonialism, which is our collective experience in the region.

Jewish people gets its bad name from whatever state of Israel did something stupid in the conflict. In the same way the Muslim here get a bad name from Palestinian terrorism.

And Jewish is a race as well as a religion. Islam is simply a religion. And when nasty rhetoric exchanged between people from those two camps, sometimes you don't know whether they are referring "Jewish" as a race or just a religion bashing.

And please refrain in drooping Hitler's name in this case because it makes his crime cheap.


Islam itself is not void of interpertation as its history has proven yet again and again. Any religious law imposed in running a country is bad idea. Who favors Christian law imposed in a country? Been there, done that, and it resulted in dark ages. A strict application of Sharia Law is bad idea, because it's no longer its time. And how many Christians want the religious law brought back? That's why separation of state and religion. Any religion.

Another thing is this, if you are born in the Western society, you have a lot of advantages and benefits that we do not have. Most Muslims lived in developing countries with various level of development, including educations etc. And each of those developing countries deal with its own bagage of the past. Colonialism, civil wars etc, which do not have any relation with Islam at all.

Anyway, whatever your opinion about Mahatir, do not use it to judge the country he leads or ever larger Muslim community. I wouldn't judge American by its politician, and you should not judge the Muslim community by its politican/ruler either(and some are terrible/oppresive leaders)

Dody, I respect what you said. Please dont feel that I am drawing judgements about Malasia or its people. In fact Malasia and South East Asia have a special place in my heart because I have known many immigrants and studied the culture with one of the most excellent Asian Studies professors I have even known.
I do have to disagree about the Palestinian issue. There is more to it than colonialism, though that is the veneer it wears. Where is the outrage over Chinese occupation of Tibet if not? There is a current of anti-semitism in the world that I simply have never understood. Other nations have done far greater horrors (the Arabs themselves are not guiltless) and there is not this enduring hatred and suspician. It has been there since long before Israel was ever founded. Western (christian) anti-semitism is well documented and its sources well studied. Muslim and Eastern anti-semitism less so (for I believe politically correct reasons). To attribute them to the existance of Israel is facile in the face of many hundreds of years of evidence. Isnt it just possible that there is a cultural component built in predisposed to irrational jew hating (as there is in the west)? And might not Islam itself bear some blame (as christianity demonstrably has), when one considers that the Qur'an itself incites all sorts of violence against unbelievers, idolaters, and jews? Yes, as we have been told there are many verses urging peace, but as we are seldom reminded there are as many more inciting war, subjigation, and murder. Which do you think are taught in the Madrassas?

Mark:

I wasn't using multiculturalism card to excuse Mahathir's comments.

What I said was for you to consider another culture's point of view. For the most part, what was stressed upon was his antisemitism comments. So much that it clouded another message, which was for Muslims to strive to be better than others (in this case a minority which has succeeded to rise above its dark history).

"To Western ears? Are our ear somehow different in the West? ... For too long, the multiculturalism is all crowd have bullied the West into accepting silliness like this."

Listen, your beliefs, opinions and even the way you express your opinions are a result of your upbringing in the US. That's your culture.

I'm assuming that YOUR point of view is just about as equal and valid as other culture's point of view.
Are you implying that the western opinion is the only one worth adhering to... and the rest of the world's opinions are silly?? You may disagree with the cultural relativist position, but to discount any worth and validity that can be found!

Well Stephanie, that depends on what aspects you are talking about. If we are talking about the 'Western' values we attach to racial and religious tolerance, I would say yes, that is superior. I reject the notion that one cant point to specific, wrongheaded or morally repugnent aspects of another culture because, after all, all cultures are equal. Is treating women as third class citizens a 'cultural difference'? Or a form of slavery? Is anti-semitism acceptable becuase its embedded in the culture? Intolerance? I say no. Not because the West believes it, but because it has worked in every society to build better and fairer lives for all its citizens all over the world. My opinions are part of my upringing to an extent, but much moreso to my experience and my studies. Blaming a small group for the greivences of a large in order to deflect criticism from their own shortcomings is a recipe for genocide. That is simply historical reality. Muslims have every right (and should) strive to be better than others. But they are not given carte blanch to do so. Hatred is hatred, and I will not accept the premise that beating down the jews is a valid point of view for the advancement of any group.

// And Jewish is a race as well as a religion. Islam is simply a religion. And when nasty rhetoric exchanged between people from those two camps, sometimes you don't know whether they are referring "Jewish" as a race or just a religion bashing.//

Dody,
I find this to be an interesting comment and it raises several questions for me. But first, I’d be interested in a clarification of that viewpoint.


It is the first time I’ve seen Jewish referred to as a race. I’ve seen Jewish referred to as an ethnicity, perhaps a nationality, certainly a religion, but not a race. But if Jewish is seen as a race by Muslims, is that then the essences for the correlation that westerners who are Anglo, especially those in America are seen as by-products of the Jewish race? That belief surly would seem to give validity to the “Jews run the world by proxy statement”. Is that viewpoint what drives this “it’s us verses them” mentality? Is it because biblical history ties Jewish (Old Testament) to Christian (New Testament) from our Bible that it projects this disappearing line between Jew and Christian for the Muslim? Is religion the defining factor in the East as far as race is concerned?

TexasLady Nice pick-up. I glossed over it, as I was really looking for answers to the questions I asked her regarding the (mis)treatment of women by their religion. So, along the same lines I ask you Stephanie, is religion the defining factor in the East as far as sex is concerned?

This might interest you guys http://www.int.islamlib.com/en/aboutus.php (Liberal Islam Network)

Mark, give me a minority and a place, and I'll give you history of persecution in one or other period of times in history.

I don't believe there's a natural 'cultural component' in hating the Jews. However, I think humanity has a poor record in treating people that's different (in many facets) and that's a minority.

Guess which minority get accussed of murdering Jesus (who Islam respect and treat as a prophet.)? The Jews is featured prominently in the Bible and mentioned in the Qu'ran.

The history of persecution of the Jews is well documented and went back for thousands of years. The fact that those community of people have survived those times is a prove of resiliency and strength of the Jewish people.

There are so many other cultures and people that didn't survive persecution by others.

Yes, there's an outrage about China occupation of Tibet in Asia. How widespread? As widespread as the support for the cause in America, which is not much. Why? Mix good ole hipocracy, self interest, it's China, etc. Long story.

Another thing Mark, avoid judging Islam on its holy text alone because you will fall into the literal interpretation of the holy book that has trapped the mind and progress of some Muslim community around the world.

Madrassa simply means School in Arabic. That's it. A good school will teach its students to think, and urge them of progress , the bad one will relay on Death To America, the enemy, etc.

I have to object to your statement about superior 'Western' values of racial and religious tolerance. That concept is not owned by Western civilization nor practiced exclusively. The implementation both values are still work in progress both in the West and the East.

TexasGal, there is no confusion of Judaism and Christianity in Islam. Remember, all three of them are sons of Abraham.

I use the word race to mean people + community + culture.

'The Jews rules the world' view is not exclusive to Muslim (no share by all Muslim).

Just ask the people on the street here in America whether the Jews control this country. I don't know how that fucked up view come about.

The state of Israel is one of the most progressive country in the world in terms of law, technology, economy, human rights, etc. And it is bewildering to many Muslims in the world why it still cannot extraciate itself out of the occupation madness. You'd think as a enlightened democracy with a long history of being persecuted that Israel will do better in handling the Palestinian situation.

Cap'n Spin, allow me to jump into your question. In the Far East, religion is just one factor in defining its gender relations. The treatement of women in the Middle East (and many other places) can be argued more as a historical bagage that hasn't been reformed.

The issue of gender equality is also still a work in progress in both the East and West. In the East, the result is still mixed. Indonesia gave the women's right to vote in 1945, on its Independence year. Muslim countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan have had women head of state, or Philliphines. America is still waiting for its woman head of state.


Prostitution is legal in both Malaysia and Indonesia. See it as a protection of women right's in the oldest profession which are dangerous without the protection of the law.

Religion is simply not a good place in finding support for modern idea of gender equality.

Let me close with this. A religion cannot choose who practices its faith. It is useless to argue about Islam without bringing in and considering other factors in the community that practice it.

I just hope the people of faith do not lose their humanity in living their faith.

Dody, thank you. I find your insights to be very valuable. I think we agree on many things, but let me parse one issue I find to be of importance:
I believe that the muslim world does have a cultural problem. I say this, not out of disrespect or ignorance of Islam or its peoples. Nor do I say it as a comparison to western culture, which I might add has many failings of its own to which it might look east for answers. But the failing to which I speak is endemic and it is growing. You claim that man muslims are advanced in womens rights, tolerance, and human rights. That is true. But many are not, many are backwards, and many are preaching this filth in every Muslim nation including the US. Certainly there are many mainstream Muslims that oppose this, but where are their voices? The problem is not the small band of extremists such as all cultures have, it is the silence of those who think differently. Case and point, Mahathir Mohamad is one of the most moderate leaders in the Muslim world, and still his speaches (while containing many good things) still lash out in jealousy and hate. Where is he calling for democracy and equality in the Arab lands? Where is he condemning suicide bombers and demanding that Wahabism and other extremists be challenged? Where are the moderate muslims of the world? I hear isolated voices like your own, but where are their leaders? When it comes to one thing, Western culture has Islam trumped. It is in the ability to argue amongst ourselves before the world without shame. We bicker, we toustle, and we eventually come to the right conclusion. I have yet to see this in the east as a movement. In fact, the opposite is happening. It is easy to blame Bush for the radicalization of Islam, but where are the leaders explaining to the masses about human dignity, equality, tolerance? I realize the holy Qur'an is not to be taken literally (just as the bible), the problem is that no-one is telling the muslim masses that this is so. It is not the intellectuals job simply to know things, but to spread that knowledge through argument and debate. The hatred shown towards Israel is just another simptom of this avoidance. Israel is not a perfect nation, but it is a damn site better than any Arab nation on any scale of human rights or progress. And that is what the Arabs cannot abide.

Dody,

You raise many interesting points about gender equality in your last post, many of which I would agree with. In particular, I agree with you about the legalization of prostitution, and it surprised me to know this about Indonesia. On the other hand, there are social critics and women's advocates who have studied the situation in places like Reno Nevada and will tell you legalized prostitution is simply legalized exploitation, so this is no panacea either. It remains a diffucult and contentious issue.

It seems to me that the Islamic nations which are primarily eastern (Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia) have an easier time with gender than do the middle eastern countries. What is it about the cultural heratige of these eastern countries which creates a better climate for gender equality? With respect to the US, I believe a woman presidential candidate is quite electable in the US, should a viable candidate surface - I think this became true in the '80s, circa Margaret Thatcher. But this remains an unprovable conjecture.

I feel compelled to clarify the references to Hitler that Mark and I made (if I understand Mark correctly). I am not comparing anyone's "crimes" to Hitler; to do so (as so many to in facile and offensive ways) is indeed an insult to the memory of those who suffered from the actual Hitler's actual crimes. The reference is made not in service of a moral comparson, but political warning. If I understand you correctly Dody, what you are saying is simply "don't take Mahathir at his literal word when he talks about the Jews". Despite your well reasoned justifications for this view, I will not be so easily put at ease. Many said the same of Hitler, not to take him at his word - many Jews in fact, right up until they were collected for "relocation". I locate the source of Mahathir's anti-semitic remarks originating in Western thought (particularly late 19th and early 20th century Russian and German thought) as in Islam - my understanding is that Mahathir is a fan of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". And as an American, as one of the alleged "proxies" for the Jews, who are doing their bidding, I am forced to take Mahathir's reference to us (Jews and their proxies) as the "enemy" with grave seriousness, even as I give consideration to your arguments to take this reference with a grain of salt.

Do not underestimate the resonance that the crimes in Nanking, and in Tibet, Pol Pot, and the other great crimes of Communism (Stalin's famines, Mao's Great Leap Forward) have with the American people. This resonance is not always reflected in the media, which is somewhat elitist. The business class of this country is sadly prepared to overlook Tibet as long as they get a chance to make money from China, but among average people the view of China is less favorable from a human rights perspective.

I too am puzzled that the issue of the Palastinians lingers so. The progressive nature of the Israeli state, which you acknowledge, would lead me to believe that the lack of progress cannot be entirely attributed to the Israelis, but must also be allocated among their serious and sincere peace partners - or rather the lack therof. I sometimes wonder if Afafat did not by some mistake assume the role fate had ordained for the Dali Lama, and vice versa.

Lasly Dody I thank you for your comments and sincerely hope you stick around in this forum.

Mark B, you wrote: "Where is he condemning suicide bombers and demanding that Wahabism and other extremists be challenged?" I read the whole thing and defintely recalled that Mahathir called for a progressive, modern interpretation of Islam, and held that the terrorist tactics of the Palestinian struggle were a failure, were generating "blowback" and should be abandoned (I didn't hear "and they're just plain wrong" in there but I may be mistaken). Mahathir did in fact expressly disavow and condemn literal interpretations of the Koran, which as I noted in my first post took some b*lls. Credit where credit is due.

I do expect the governing elites within Malaysian society, as well as Indonesian, to crack down hard on Wahabi inspired terror, because it is as much a threat (or more) to them as it is to us.

I second everything lewy just said.

Dody asked why a powerful, progressive country like Israel hasnt managed to settle its differences with the Palestinians. This poll sheds light:

"Fifty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad should continue their armed struggle against Israel even if Israel leaves all of the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state is created, a new survey shows. "
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1066799672944

How do you make a deal with someone who is telling you to your face that they will break the agreement? Especially when they have broken every other.

Mark B I'm a bit naive. Uhhhh. What agreement? I thought all they had was a roadmap. Must have gotten the mileage wrong, or maybe the speedbumps weren't marked? Wrong roadmap? Only printed in Hebrew? Bus Routes weren't clearly marked? What? Hmmmm.

Several comments above talked about Malaysia being a progressive muslim country. Their 'progressive' status is very much on the fence. The muslim population is only held in check by the non-muslim portion of Malaysia. In the two states of Malaysia where the muslims have the majority, they are enacting sharia law and daring the Malaysian federal government to stop them. The muslims in Malaysia are pressing hard to dominate the non-muslims and intimidate them into submission. Religion of peace, my ass. They are trying to turn Malaysia into a backwater third world country, and they will as soon as they have the demographic upper hand.

You want to know what kind of moonbat Mahathir is? Google up some of his previous speeches. You will not like what you read. His anti-semitism is not something new he put on for the audience. While I will give a nod to the value of pointing out that islam needs to get away from literal koranic interpretation, wrapping it up in a message of hate is stupid. Who that heard the speech will remember that islam needs to change? Most will remember what they want to hear, that it is all somebody else's fault, the jews and their paid enablers.

E We differ on some stuff, but this one - YOU ARE SPOT-ON.

Just one question , does any one out there think that if roles were reversed in this arab/Israeli problem that the jews would be around now? Trust me there would be no universities for the jews no jobs no sewage no water in fact the palastinians or arabs i should say would have done away with them a long time ago. So considering the plight of these transplanted arabs I think they have got off tres lucky. If they spent a fraction of the time on nation builing as they do on schoolyard politics they would be just fine. No sympathy for the transplanted arabs we are sick of it , in fact our troops are dying because of it. If not the Jews it would be Christians, its time some muslim leaders took a stand we are waiting........ remember the Templars.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)