Mahathir’s Speech - An Alternative Muslim View

The only things the British did were to import coolie labor into Central Sri Lanka to work on the tea plantations in the highlands there.

WHY? why did they import coolie labor? because the Sinhala refused to work on the same land that was confiscated from them by the British. on the other hand, the tamils imported were landless laborers (btw, no such thing among the sinhalese highlanders) in India, and they were more than happy to be able to work anywhere.

And that is the basis of Colonialism, that subjugates people, and when they resist, it exploits the situation further.....

If the Jaffna Tamils went to the schools run by the British and got themselves jobs with the government, nothing actually prevented the Sinhalese from doing so except their own laziness and/or stupidity.

from all that i have read and heard about this (though my experiences are more with LTTE members) I have heard varying versions of how this education was offered. Some have said that the Tamils were preferred. Some have said that anyone willing to become Christian and Anglicised was preffered, and more Tamils took to this. And a few have said that the Sinhala were more resistant to the British and their impositions...

I honeslty dont know enough to say what the reality was...but post-independence both sides should have taken measures to rectify the situation appropriately. The Sinhalese reactionaries played a bigger role in messing it up.

As to Sinhalese-Tamil rivalry being fostered by the British, you need to tell us how exactly the British did that. After all, they didn`t even attempt to divide the country the way Curzon divided Bengal in 1905.

racialization is the first and most destructive step in creating divisions. They drew a divide, pretty arbitrary at that too, that divided people into distinct categries of Tamil, Sinhala, Moor, Burgher, etc...divides that did not previously exist on that level and were not distinct. Although the history of the island did have some occurences of conflict, by large it was a harmonius situation before colonialism.

then came the mythification of Sinhalese laziness, which was really resistance to oppression and colonialism. the import of tamil labor from india (and how and why it took place)....etc etc

it WASNT a situation of the grasshopper in #43 :)

A timely story sent by a friend.

CLASSIC VERSION...
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he`s a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

MODERN VERSION...

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he`s a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. BBC, CNN, NDTV show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. The World is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Arundhati Roy stages a demonstration in front of the ant`s house.
Amnesty International and Koffi Annan criticizes the Government for not upholding the fundamental rights of the grasshopper. The Internet is flooded with online petitions seeking support to the grasshopper. Opposition MP`s stage a walkout. Left parties call for ``Bharat Bandh`` in West Bengal and Kerala demanding a Judicial Enquiry. Finally, the Judicial Committee drafts the Prevention of Terrorism Against grasshoppers Act [POTAGA]``, with effect from the beginning of the winter. The ant is fined for failing to comply with POTAGA and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government and handed over to the grasshopper in a ceremony covered by BBC, CNN and NDTV.
Arundhati Roy calls it ``a triumph of justice``. Koffi Annan invites the grasshopper to address the UN General Assembly.

Ref malangbaba #40

[while your last statement is true, it is still important to understand the roots and history of conflicts, both pre and post invasions/colonialism/etc

the tamil-sinhalese conflict does have roots in british favoring the tamils during colonial rule... ]

The only things the British did were to import coolie labor into Central Sri Lanka to work on the tea plantations in the highlands there.

The historic millennium-old Tamil settlements in the East and the North did not benefit from the opening up of these tea plantations... if you consider that working 14-hour days in the broiling sun to be a benefit.

If the Jaffna Tamils went to the schools run by the British and got themselves jobs with the government, nothing actually prevented the Sinhalese from doing so except their own laziness and/or stupidity.

As to Sinhalese-Tamil rivalry being fostered by the British, you need to tell us how exactly the British did that. After all, they didn`t even attempt to divide the country the way Curzon divided Bengal in 1905.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The facts that Tamils have lived in Sri Lanka for over 1000 years and that the Sinhalese themselves claim descent from Bengalis have not prevented strife between ethnic communities in Sri Lanka. Let us not fall into the trap of finding cause and effect where no correlation exists. Let us also not forget that it was AFTER the British transferred power in India that ethnic cleansing began in Pakistan. That cleansing eliminated a population of Hindu Sindhis who were as native to that area as the Muslim residents of that area and certainly have greater claim than the Mujahirs.

That was a long-winded way of saying: look inside before you blame someone else.

while your last statement is true, it is still important to understand the roots and history of conflicts, both pre and post invasions/colonialism/etc

the tamil-sinhalese conflict does have roots in british favoring the tamils during colonial rule...

Ref rozaiba #32

[As far as Malaysia is concerned, the British did encourage the additional Chinese migrants as well as Indians - people with very different religious and cultural ties from the local Malays. They say if the British needed additional labor, they could easily have gotten it from nearby Java- Javanese beiing culturally and physically closer to the Malays.]

Java and Sumatra are indeed closer to Malaya but then they were under Dutch rule. Immigration was not strictly controlled in those days and nothing actually prevented the Javanese or Sumatrans from crossing the seas by boat to reach Malaya -- as they do today to find jobs in the booming labor market of Malaysia. It is just that in the 19th century, the population pressure in Java wasn`t what it is today and people had no reason to venture far to earn a living working hard -- particularly when the living was easy in Java itself.

On the other hand, the periodic failures of monsoon in India made any labor market attractive to Indians and thus Indians signed up to go to Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad, British Guiana, Fiji, South Africa, Seychelles, Mauritius, and much closer to home, Malaya and Sri Lanka. History records that the Dutch recruited Indians (primarily Tamils) for labor in the Dutch East Indies. Many sold themselves as indentured laborers for Re. 1 or were simply caught and shipped off as slaves.

[But colonial powers prefer their subjects to be neatly divided. It makes ruling easier.]

The facts that Tamils have lived in Sri Lanka for over 1000 years and that the Sinhalese themselves claim descent from Bengalis have not prevented strife between ethnic communities in Sri Lanka. Let us not fall into the trap of finding cause and effect where no correlation exists. Let us also not forget that it was AFTER the British transferred power in India that ethnic cleansing began in Pakistan. That cleansing eliminated a population of Hindu Sindhis who were as native to that area as the Muslim residents of that area and certainly have greater claim than the Mujahirs.

That was a long-winded way of saying: look inside before you blame someone else.

The Tutsi/Hutu disparity in Rwanda was not originally caused by colonial sponsorship of one group over another, as the Asians/East African experience is sometimes perceived. Tutsi`s migrated into the plains of Rwanda many hundreds of years ago and held influential positions within that society by dint of their entrepeneurialism and hard work.

The tutsis did come as migrants, but the realtionship between the two tribes was complementary and symbiotic (in many different ways) and no hostilities were known.

the role of Speke and his Hamitic and Shemitic myths (for hutus and tutsis), the priviledge accorded to tutsis by Speke followed by Germany and Belgium, issuing of ethnic cards, etc etc....these differences and seperations created later took on a life of their own...

---

i didnt know that france was involved in the conflict though...i`ll check that book...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

temporal

Any Jew that believes in the existence if Israel as a Jewish state is a Zionist. That probably constitutes 99% of Jews in the entire world. You need to make a further distinction. Those Zionists who believe in the aggressive and belligerent policies of Sharonism are at fault. But not all Zionists.

rozaiba

~~Such policies also helped in other catastrophies such as in Rawanda and Burundi where the minority Tutsi were given preference over the majority Hutu. Tutsis are only 15% of the population but dominate the economy as well as government~~

The Tutsi/Hutu disparity in Rwanda was not originally caused by colonial sponsorship of one group over another, as the Asians/East African experience is sometimes perceived. Tutsi`s migrated into the plains of Rwanda many hundreds of years ago and held influential positions within that society by dint of their entrepeneurialism and hard work.

If you want to read a good book about Rwanda try ``We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda`` by Philip Gourevitch.

One of the most startling things in this book, and it amazes me that it has not been raised and brought to light more rigorously, is the active complicity of the French state in the genocide against Tutsis in 1994. Mitterand and Chirac both gave military, diplomatic and moral support (behind the scenes, of course) to the Hutu power militias in their genocide of one million Tutsis. All in the name of protecting Francophone influence in central Africa.

Whenever I saw Chirac`s face on the television news during the recent Iraq crisis I could not believe the nerve of him lecturing about decency and the rule of law.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion you were having about the role of minorities in the creation of wealth in a capitalist society. It is almost as though they act as an enzyme, as an engine and catalyst for the capitalist model in a free market nation state. There are so many cultural reasons; we only need look at the Jews in Europe and the USA, the Parsis in India, the Indians in the UK in the present day, and as you mentioned, the Chinese in South East Asia. Closed groups with strong work ethics, a mercantile sense, and a belief in self-help and mutual support to ensure their status and upliftment within sometimes hostile societies.

I admire this sensibility greatly.

Effectiveness of speech lies in the reaction from its audience.
The western world got the message of anti-semitism and general discontent. The press wrote artilcles analyzing the speech, in private made a mental note about how uppity the tigers get when well-fed.

The muslim word found it good to see someone standing up to the west, and cheered loudly while pretty much ignoring what he said about muslim backwardness.

Ferozek counted the words.

re: saminshah

You wrote that hate speech would be some one saying, ``I want to kill you`` to me.

I have no objections to that statement, because that is speech. I may disagree with it, but I will uphold your right or an other person`s to say utter that statement. I have been threatened with death before in the United States and in Pakistan. It makes no difference to me. I will not consider that statement as symbolizing hate speech, because it only shows the insecurity of person making that statement.

Hate speech is not the issue. The issue, which Dr. Mahathir`s speech raised was the hypocrisy, which exists in the global media and in some nations, Pakistan included. Lt. General Boykin makes a speech from a pulpit, which is just as offensive to Muslims as Mahathir`s speech was to Jews and the reaction to that speech only reinforces a particular perception. Recently, the EU took a poll of its member nations and asked them to rank the nation considerd as the most dangerous to world peace. 7,500 Europeans picked Israel. Does that poll also symbolize hate? There are interactors on this site, who paint the Prophet (PBUH) with a broad brush and no one considers that hate speech.

Where I fault Dr. Mahathir is that he picked his words poorly, and instead should have opted for the distinction suggested by Temporal in his post # 29. If we are all so keen to ban hate speech and rail against hate speech, we should forget about Dr. Mahathir and start the process in Pakistan. How about we ban all the hate speeches made by the jehadis and all the hate speeches made against the Shias, Sunnis by Sunnis and Shias and Christians in Pakistan and against the Ahmedhis? How about we ban honor killings, because when we condone it, it condones violence against women. When we excuse that horrrible practice, are we not justifying a hatred of women and their rights by our words in defence of that barbaric custom?

Tell me, what is hate speech and who has the right to decide that it hate speech. My speech to you might be hate speech and to me, an expression of an opinion and vice versa. Hate speech is against all and cannot be limited to one ethnic group or nationality.

Ciao

Don`t know how China `proper` benefitted much from the Brits (Hong Kong notwithstanding).

As far as Malaysia is concerned, the British did encourage the additional Chinese migrants as well as Indians - people with very different religious and cultural ties from the local Malays. They say if the British needed additional labor, they could easily have gotten it from nearby Java- Javanese beiing culturally and physically closer to the Malays. But colonial powers prefer their subjects to be neatly divided. It makes ruling easier.

Recall how many people of Indian origin were kicked out of Africa (including some of my relatives) due to the economic control they had over the locals (rightly or wrongly). Such policies also helped in other catastrophies such as in Rawanda and Burundi where the minority Tutsi were given preference over the majority Hutu. Tutsis are only 15% of the population but dominate the economy as well as government.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Anne:

...let me add my voice to those who were welcoming you back:)…

…i share your distraught at Mahatir’s speech…but my take is different…for a seasoned person as such him, he should have made a distinction between jews and zionist

…i would agree with ferozk Concerning the speech, it was unfortunate that the speech will be remembered for its anti-semetic remarks. There were about 4,150 odd words in that speech and only 28 were devoted to Jews and it was these 28 words, which caused an international fire storm. The rest of the speech was against the levels of darkness and backwardness in the Muslim world and the speech, generally, was a rebuke to the Muslim nations in particular and to the Muslims in general highlighting their insignificance in the world.…with this caveat…all references to jews should be changed to Zionists…the genuine jews, hindus, christians, muslims and other followers are not the problem…

…the current problem is the unholy alliance of the neoconziX (neo-cons, zionists and fundo-christians) …they are a menace to world peace…

rgds,

t

#25 by Fosa on November 2, 2003 8:39pm PT

Needs to do some introspection on his own jumbled thought process before he dismisses ther`s posts derisively by calling them names.

Well said Anne...I completely agree with you...as much as I respect Mr. Mohammad for turning his country around in economic terms ( inspite of some of his xenophobic policies especially vis-a-vis ethnic Indians who occupy the lowest rung of Malaysian society), I was let down by his departing message to the world...one would think that a man of science would be more humble and civil...and I am beginning to lose hope in the ``Muslim`` press, because most of them seem to `wah-wah` Mr. Mohammad, and like him, paint the entire scenario with one broad stroke. I`m really glad I read your article...cheers

Kabuli

>>>Then there was Dr. Mahathir`s call to the Muslim ummah to use our ``brains`` and not just ``brawn.`` Okay, a good piece of advice in and of itself. But what was his context? Weaponry. Get educated, so that you can make your own weapons and not have to import hand-me-downs from more advanced cultures.

Unfortunately it is true that the world does recognize the principle of ``might is right``... and as such i think it is beneficial to us to make our own weaponry...

Please let it be known that as a Muslim who wants the welfare of all
Muslims, and as a citizen of the world who favors peace and diplomacy over war and injustice, I am deeply offended by Dr. Mahathir`s speech. I am also painfully disappointed by the inability of Muslim nations to produce a leader who can see the bigger picture and help us emerge as a powerful, peaceful force to contend with.

Have you noticed Musharraf lately? he is far more wise than Mahathir and a bit more clever. I think he is a great leader who balances war, peace and economy just perfectly...

rozaiba,
``Democracy is full of compromises (including compromises in `efficiencies`)``
May be you r right, but some how i am not able to agree with the concept of affirmative action for majority.
In what ways have the chinese benefitted from British during colonial times?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Silly:

I didn`t mean to say that Mohajirs were a product of British meddling (unlike Tamil minority in Sri-Lanka). I used MQM to show how when the majority in a `democratic set-up` makes it`s presence felt, then regradless of the `raison d`etre` of disprportionately high minority influence, there has to be some form of redistribution. Otherwise, there will be chaos.

I agree that no one should be discriminated against. But Mohajirs and the Punjabis actively discriminated against the Bengali majority. You cannot tell the larger Bengali majority that they should go and get some education before staking claim to jobs and opportunities and a larger say in economic and political life. That is an extremely naive claim to make.

Similarly, you cannot tell the Singhalese majority in Sri Lanka that they are wrong in wanting a higher stake in jobs. Initially the Singhalese may have been less productive, less efficient, but that is a useless argument in face of overwhelming numerical strength. Democracy is full of compromises (including compromises in `efficiencies`).

Samin,
``100% right but how you forget 10 % Indians in malaysia ``
From what i have been reading on the internet and from other posters on chowk, Indians are not that socially advanced people in Malaysia. There may be some individual success stories here and there but as a community they are not as prosperous as Chinese.

Rozaiba,
``Examples you can look at are the Tamils in Sri-Lanka who did well before the Singhalese majority staked claim to `their` share. MQM was a result of `majority affirmative action` more than anything else.``

During the colonial times some people were more open to learn modern education from the colonial masters. Case point Tamils and the Mohajirs. Mohajirs were more inclined to learn modern education than the rest of the Muslims in the areas comprising present day Pakistan. They were more educated becoz they were more open to western education and hard work not that they were favored by British.So after partition they occupied all the plum posts in Pakistan not becoz of divide and rule policy. It should`ve been the responisibility of the Pakistan govt to bring the rest of the Pakistanis to the level of the Mohajirs.Discriminating against them is not solution in the name of affirmative action to the majority. Its been 50yrs since the colonial masters left Pakistan, what is the literacy rate in Baluchistan and NWFP. Do you support affirmative action to the people of these 2 states and whats the justification.


``Mahatir succeeded implementing the `distribution of income` programs``
I wonder he would`ve done the same to Chinese if the Bhoomiputras are the prosperous ones. It is the responsibility of the individuals and communities to work hard and prosper. Government should provide the means to support the weaker sections of the society in that process in ways that doesn`t victimise the other individuals/communities just becoz they happened to be rich. Last i know he was the prime minister of all the people living in Malaysia not just for Bhoomiputras and not a robinhood.

I agree that Mahatir maintained peace in Malaysia for the last 30yrs or so, i applaud him for that, but again may be there are other ways of achiveing the same without commiting injustice to Chinese. Chinese are pacifist people i think if not we wud`ve seen MQM like party in Malysia and all the bloodshed like in Karachi.

Silly:

``Don`t tell me about how successful Malaysian economy under him, they just piggy backed on the hard working Chinese. I don`t think he would`ve achieved any success without this 35% chinese population in Malaysia. No where in the world you would see reservations(affirmative action) for majority people. ``


First of all, these South Asian `Tigers` were given extremely easy access to lines of credit by western institutions (IMF, World Bank and the rest). The strategy of the West was to ensure the success of capitalism in order to halt the spread of Communism. This free access to credit enabled the `ASEAN` nations to prosper with double digit growth. Consequently, whenever you have easy access to credit, bad loans being dished out are a common feature- thus the plummet those economies suffered in late 90`s (Soros or no Soros). Mahatir Mohammed happened to be the `right man at the right time` and successfully utilized the situation.

As for this `piggy back` and affirmative action for the majority reference. Well, there are MANY places in the world where this exact type of policy has been implemented. When Europeans had colonized the third world countries, they would always adopt `divide and rule` tactics. And normally, they`d select a `favorable` minority and assign them privileges denied to the `uncooperative` majority. Minorities prospered under those conditions and sucked in disproportionately higher share of the economy.

When the third world countries became independent, and more importantly democracies, the majority would demand a bigger share. Examples you can look at are the Tamils in Sri-Lanka who did well before the Singhalese majority staked claim to `their` share. MQM was a result of `majority affirmative action` more than anything else. Sudan, South Africa, Zimbabwe all have practiced some form of `majority affirmative action. And there are countless examples like this (though one can argue Chinese in Malaysia have always done well regardless of colonial influences- but that`s beside the point.)

However, whereas the above examples have been mostly a failure or are still an ongoing experiment, Mahatir succeeded implementing the `distribution of income` programs. This saves society from race riots (such as those faced by Malaysia early on) - and nothing cripples the economy like race riots caused by majority feeling denied the benefits.

Good article Anne. At least some sane Muslim voice found
I going to conclude Mahathir said and muslins digest it without thinking because he is a leader who led to his country to prosperity .But lot of thinking Muslims left in world yet.
What he paint is some millions Jews are enemy of 1.2 billions Muslims. This is shameful thinking. The people who suffered lot in WWII they needed sympathy not hate. Of course Zionism is dangerous but being anti Semitic is more shameful. He lectures Muslims to be educated to build weapon .It is really offensive to others.


To #3 by MianBhai

“Indeed, the Muslim world is in dire need of leaders of the caliber of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela with the……”

100% agree but I don’t think Muslims respond to these type of leaders in masses. Because as well as I understand Muslims can never believe in leader who believe in non violence.
They told him show boy or traitor not leader.
This is other thing If Palestinians got leader like mahatma Gandhi then Palestine is today free and Israel had try to save it’s face in front of world.


#2 by ferozk on November 2, 2003 4:46am PT

“only 28 were devoted to Jews and it was these 28 words, which caused an international fire storm………….”

Ok I told you four words.
“I will kill you”
Isn’t this very much offensive. Don’t forget this is only four words.

#17 by silly on November

100% right but how you forget 10 % Indians in malaysia

Would you people please not get caught up in polemics and focus more on the irrefutable points in his speech.

The truth is the truth even if it spoken by a dictator/king. What is true is that the muslim world needs a sharp kick in it`s collective behind.

And I don`t see him putting down Jews. He actually praises them for their ingenuity.

Ferozk,
``There were about 4,150 odd words in that speech and only 28 were devoted to Jews and it was these 28 words``

Looks like you are closely following the right wing radio shows in US.It is the same stupid argument they gave while defending Bush about the Niger uranium connection in his state of the union address. What ever spin you put in nice English, the truth is those 28 words are hate speech. Imagine some one giving a 10,000 word speech and telling that ``all Muslims are terrorists``. Are you not going to condemn the persons speech, or are you going to stay calm saying that its just 4 words in 10000 words.

What is Mahatir expecting Jews to do, lie low like some 3rd class citigens of this globe. They worked hard despite all the persecution and reached places in all fronts of the everyday life. Mahatir doesn`t have to put down Jews to exhort Muslims to start using their brains. May be he is the prime minister of a country, but his brain is working like a common man on the street. Don`t tell me about how successful Malaysian economy under him, they just piggy backed on the hard working Chinese. I don`t think he would`ve achieved any success without this 35% chinese population in Malaysia. No where in the world you would see reservations(affirmative action) for majority people.

Dear Studebaker

Please http://visit www.faithfreedom.org

It is a serious website put up by people who are very knowledgeable. They are Arabs (who know the language better than you do) and Iranaians - people Muslim enough to create a theocracy.

You will learn a lot.

Anne Shamim,

Kudos to you. Yours is the first article I have read crtical of Mahathir. He is a moron period. Instead of appreciating the inventions, the idealogies Jews have presented to mankind, morons like Mahathir degrade them. Just look at the people who were present at OIC. Dictators, Monarchs, Kings, Princes etc. Look at ISLAMIC REPUBLIC`s newspapers. So envy of jews. JEWS ZINDABAD !!!!

The author writes [Dr. Mahathir is an educated professional, yet his speech, rather than being diplomatically seasoned, was crude and ``dumbed down.``]

Well, Mahathir Mohammad has always been a demogogue. His book ``The Malay Dilemma`` was banned in Malaysia till 1981 and the ban was lifted just as he became Prime Minister. So don`t expect much better from him.

I suppose all of you should point out to Bush that the offensive words only amounted to 28, just like the questionable statement about Iraq in Bush`s State of the Union address amounted to only 16 words. So you could ask Bush if 16 is good and 28 is bad.

Maybe Mahathir based those 28 words on British Intelligence as reported by the CIA!

Dear Anne - Finally, a voice of sanity! Maybe you should be the ambassador instead of Uncle Kreep Karamatullah K. Ghori.

Zia

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dear Anne you write -- ``Dr. Mahathir is an educated professional, yet his speech, rather than being diplomatically seasoned, was crude and ``dumbed down.``

couldn`t agree with you more -- ``crude and dumbed down`` -- exactly the description .....there is indeed a thin line between the educated and the uneducated in the Emotional Muslim World.......

Great piece

hasan

I have to register my complaint against you, I am deeply offended at your sycophancy, a natural condition of the Muslim Leadership today. Mr Mahatir did not blaze all jews but the Zionist Racist who control so much of the world and are using their influence to effect the Muslim world. And what he meant by using the brains is not in reference to Weaponry but at first to sort out our own civilian structure. The last thing we need is a Elite to brush Mr Mahatir with the Fundamentalist stroke. It is indeed this type of leadership we need if we are to become a single entity rather than then lead by Self Serving Slaves of a Foriegn Master. I dont think the author would be as pained if he heard Sharon or Bush Speak ill of our Nation and their Backwardness, She would possible agree in all earnest and conclude that it is true. We dont need this on the fence analysis. Unfortunately this world has been transformed by Mr Bush into one of Sides.

Medic Mahathir - Right Diagnosis, Wrong Prescription!

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AlamgirHussain31101.htm

Anne

I agree.

Dear Anne Shamim, Your article is baseless and makes little or no sense. Firstly, whatever Dr. Mahathir said about the Muslim World, the West and the Jews is 101% correct.

``The Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim scholars in order to
access their own scholastic heritage.``

Well, that statement is NOT showing his complexities or his insecurities, infact, its telling a fact. Its making us sit down and think for once about the Glorious past we once had. And whats wrong in seeking education and developing your military techonology domestically? Throughout history military as well as economics have been key-sculptors of World events.

``But what was his context? Weaponry. Get educated, so that you can make your own weapons and not have to import hand-me-downs from more advanced cultures.``

Ummm... even though he wasn`t stressing on military that much but the fact is that We SHOULD be developing our own military. For instance, it costs the U.s.a roughly about 20million dollars to produce one f-16. They sell one f-16 for 95million dollars. We should be developing our own tanks, jets, missiles and navy in the interest of effective spending.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Anne,

Good article that mirrors the feelings of a lot of muslims and others that share in the idealism and vision and that yearning for a better world for all of mankind. However, such yearnings must be tempered with pragmatism and an insight to/of the realities of life. You say, `` as a Muslim who wants the welfare of all Muslims, and as a citizen of the world who favors peace and diplomacy over war and injustice ``, you must also ponder and invest a considerable amount of thought as to whether there are any takers for such sentiments on the other side ( mainly the WEST and other non-muslims). Surely not all jews or ALL non-muslims are out to destroy Islam or annihilate muslims. But there are a sizeable number that do plan the destruction/plunder of muslims lands and resources and unfortunately this anti-islamic cabal is in power in most countries that have the wherewithall to effect just such a calamity. May be Mr. Mahathir was alluding to such a cabal. And too often, people like us who yearn for peace and diplomacy are left behind clasping our hands in angiush and pain as we watch from a distance dreadful events unfolding before our eyes. Indeed, the muslim world is in dire need of leaders of the caliber of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin luther King and Nelson Mandela with the proviso that they also possess the brains and bravery of a Salahuddin Ayyubi.

Best regards and I really liked your article. Keep it up.

MianBhai

re: Anne

First of all, welcome to Chowk after long leave of absence!

Concerning the speech, it was unfortunate that the speech will be remembered for its anti-semetic remarks. There were about 4,150 odd words in that speech and only 28 were devoted to Jews and it was these 28 words, which caused an international fire storm. The rest of the speech was against the levels of darkness and backwardness in the Muslim world and the speech, generally, was a rebuke to the Muslim nations in particular and to the Muslims in general highlighting their insignificance in the world.

All said and done, the speech was about the need for the Muslims to revive their miserable levels of education and to improve their economic performances. If the Jews and the world did not like Dr. Mahathir`s 28 words, the Muslims must have hated his other 4,130 odd words.

Ciao

Finally a view one can agree with...

I don`t see this emphasis on Weaponry... Mahatir Mohammed has done so well Economically and has been vanguard of Malaysia against reactionary and theocratic forces.. yet he made these statements... maybe to under cut the growing Islamist sentiment in Malaysia...

Compare this to the statement of the great Ataturk who said:

`Nations are judged by their education and morals first. Military might comes last.`


-YLH