All 57 Muslim states were invited to the meeting in Kuala Lumpur of representatives of the worldwide Umma. But only twenty, a little more than one-third, bothered to send delegations. And many of those delegations were led not by heads of state, but by those lower down on the political totem pole. Among those that did not take part were four of the most important Muslim countries — Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Egypt, and Pakistan. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s decision to pull out – after having said that he would be present — was particularly humiliating for the meeting’s organizers, for Pakistan had been, with Malaysia and Turkey, one of the three original promoters of the meeting. And the circumstances of his change of heart were even more embarrassing: having said he would attend, Imran Khan was summoned to Riyadh by the Saudi Crown Prince and read the riot act, after which Khan announced that he would not be attending the meeting after all. Nor would Pakistani be sending a delegation. To make matters worse, the O.I.C., based in Saudi Arabia and largely controlled by it, issued a blistering attack on the Kuala Lumpur meeting as deliberately intended to undermine the O.I.C.’s authority.
“We’ll Always Have Palestine”
Meanwhile, in his opening speech, Iran’s President Rouhani blamed “serious security threats” facing the Muslim world, and the Middle East in particular, on the “Zionist regime.” Rouhani said the plight of the Palestinians remains the most important issue in the Muslim world.
Hassan Rouhani insists that the main “security threat” facing the Muslim world is the “Zionist regime.” Even Mahathir Mohamed, the genial antisemite and Prime Minister of Malaysia, in his opening address nowhere mentioned the “Palestinians” or the “Zionist regime.” Many of the world’s Muslims no longer regard the “Palestinians” as a central issue; Iran is now seen as the greatest security threat to the world’s Sunni states. They have plenty of evidence to support this view. It is Iran that is supporting the Shi’a Houthis in Yemen, hoping to turn that war-ravaged country into an Iranian ally that could threaten, possibly even with Iranian bases, its northern neighbor, Saudi Arabia. It is Iran that has supported the despot Bashar Assad, an Alawite (the Alawites are regarded as Shi’a Muslims), in the Syrian civil war, even as his regime caused five million Syrians to flee the country, and another six million to be internally displaced. It is Iran’s proxy Hezbollah that in Lebanon has opposed the recent popular protests, and instead supported the corrupt ruling elite that the Lebanese — including many Shi’a – want to see resign. In Iraq there have been widespread, often violent demonstrations, not just against the government for its mismanagement and corruption, but also because it is seen as beholden to Iran. In November the Iranian consulate in Najaf – a Shi’a city — was burned down. Protesters around the country shout “Out, out, Iran.” President Rouhani doesn’t see Iran’s interference in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon as a “serious security threat,” but many Muslims in those countries, and in neighboring states (Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Bahrain, Egypt) beg to differ.
As for the “plight of the Palestinians” being “the most important issue in the Muslim world,” as Rouhani insisted, is it more important than the 1-3 million Muslim Uighurs who are now being held in “re-education” camps by the Chinese? Is it more important than the 780,000 Muslim Rohingyas who have fled Myanmar for Bangladesh? Is it more important than the threat of the Islamic State, which may have lost its “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria but remains a threat, with a significant presence in the Sinai, Libya, Algeria, and Somalia?
Rouhani went on to claim that “the war in Syria, Yemen, and riots and turbulence in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Afghanistan is the outcome of the combination of domestic extremism and foreign intervention.”
That’s quite right, but not in the way Rouhani wants us to believe. The war in Syria is the consequence of the Syrian people becoming fed up with the corrupt and cruel rule of Bashar Assad, but it is Iran that, through its “foreign intervention,” shored Assad up and helped him to win the civil war, even if it meant destroying much of Syria. In Yemen, the “foreign intervention” Rouhani is alluding to is that of Saudi Arabia, but Iran has been interfering just as much through its support, with weapons and money, of the rebel Houthis.
As for the “riots and turbulence in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Afghanistan,” in two of those countries – Iraq and Lebanon – Iran has interfered far more than any other Muslim country, as the street protests (those “riots and turbulence”) against that interference, through its puppet Hezbollah (in Lebanon) and through other Shi’a militias (in Iraq), testify.
Calling Iran a “model of resistance,” Rouhani also urged the Muslim world to develop its own economic framework “to save it from the domination of the US dollar and the American financial regime.”
How is Iran a “model of resistance”? The Iranian rulers have by “resisting” managed only to send their economy into a tailspin. Oil exports have sunk from 2.45 mbd to 0.26 mbd in just the past year, nearly a 90% drop. The Iranian economy has gone into a severe recession. World Bank projections for 2019 indicate a negative growth rate of minus 8.7 percent in its GDP. The Iranian currency has fallen precipitately since the re-imposition of sanctions, with the unofficial rate plummeting to 135,000 rials to one U.S. dollar, thus adding to the financial woes of the Iranian public. The recent protests in Iran over the mismanagement and corruption in the government show the massive discontent with this “model of resistance.” Iran has become a model not to emulate but to avoid.
Mahathir Mohamed’s History
Mahathir Mohamed gave the keynote address at the Kuala Lumpur meeting, in which he deplored the present state of the Muslim world, which he claimed had once led the world. Here is some of what he said:
If we care to honestly assess our situation, we must admit that we and our religion have become the subject of much vilification and defamation.
Muslims and Islam have been equated with terrorism and failures of Government, of irrationality and acts unworthy of civilised behaviour. Muslim countries are accused of authoritarianism and lack of concern for human rights.
Could the 36,000 terror attacks by Muslims since 9/11 explain why so many of us connect – not “equate” – Islam with terrorism? Might it have something to do with the many Qur’anic verses that command Believers to “strike terror in the hearts” of the Unbelievers? Or with that famous hadith in which Mohammed boasts “I have been made victorious through terror”? Does noting that constitute “vilification and defamation”?
Does the authoritarianism of Muslim countries, where despots – monarchs, generals — rein almost everywhere, and only a handful of states have managed to create democracies which seldom last, have anything to do with Islam? Wasn’t Muhammad, the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct, himself a warlord and a despot? Doesn’t Islam encourage submission, rather than resistance, to authority, naturally making despotism the default political system for Muslim states?
There is not a single Muslim country which is classified as developed. All, despite their immense wealth are categorised as developing countries. And they are all weak and incapable of protecting the Muslim Ummah, as is their duty by their religion.
Why have Muslim states, including the fabulously rich oil states, failed to develop modern economies? Could it be that Islam itself is a retrograde force, as Churchill once called it, by stunting mental growth? In Islam, submission to authority is encouraged, while free and skeptical inquiry is discouraged, lest it lead to a questioning of aspects of Islam itself. But that “free and skeptical” spirit is what is needed to challenge old ways of doing things, of making advances in science, technology, and the organization of society. And as noted above, submission to authority in the religion promotes a similar submission in governance: the Muslim world is full of despotisms, while scarcely a single true democracy has lasted long in Dar al-Islam. Furthermore, Islam promotes fatalism: Allah will distribute or withhold his favors as he sees fit. Such fatalism dampens the desire of Muslims to strive economically – why work so hard when everything is up to Allah?
chrisla07 says
Islam suffers from some fatal flaws that will prevent Muslim leaders from ever triumphing over vast regions or over many generations:
1) The culture rejects innovation. Muslim countries are in the backwaters of technology and must buy cell phones, cars, military weapons, etc. from the west.
2) There is no “consent of the governed.” Succession includes hereditary rule and usurpation by force. Look at all the Muslim-majority countries today that are wallowing in anarchy.
3) The religion has been spread by force, deception, or bribery. The relationship of Muslims with their Allah is transactional — as in idol worship. It’s a tribute-reward system, including Paradise for killing non-Muslims.
4) The language of Islam – Arabic – is a dead language. Eighty percent of Muslims, themselves, cannot understand it.
5) The culture rejects gender equality. This means that half of the potential workforce is underutilized. We won WWII because women rolled up their sleeves and manned the factories, and some even served in the military.
6) The culture rejects charging interest on money. This means that capital investment cannot be used to grow cities, industries, or even mechanized agriculture
7) The ideology is frozen in 7th Century dictates and cannot change. Because Sharia Law is based on Allah and the precedents of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, deviating from it is an act of apostasy – a capital crime
Bill Smith says
Your post is a good one as you highlight aspects of Islam that are deeply flawed in the promotion of human flourishing.
I am writing this as I sit in a hotel in Dubai. Dubai is far from ideal, and I am only here for business and am eager to get back to the US. In Dubai you see no homelessness, no drug addicts passed out on the street, no filth or much crime to speak of. This is, there is much to admire compared to squalor, decadence and human misery we see in cities like San Francisco.
But alas, the UAE is the exception not the rule in the Islamic world. And the prosperity here is in part fueled by human exploitation.
While the West has much to commend it, one wonders what it’s fate will be as it continues to drift from its Judeo-Christian roots. I fear a dark age is coming to the West. Was this drift inevitable? Does the quest for innovation naturally lead to the very rejection of the ideas and traditions that made us successful.
We should not be surprised when some Islamic leaders watch us and conclude they want no part of modernity.
Andrew Jude says
The Rohingyas are in large part Bengali Muslim illegal immigrants who are displacing native populations. The Muslim Buddhist conflict is complicated and has its antecedents in British colonial policy, Mughal Empire atrocities and current Islamic terrorist insurgency designed to provoke the military and destabilize the country. Is there a researcher in the group who would take on this topic? The mainstream media are disinclined to do this work and they simply reiterate the politically correct assessments of what is happening there. The vilification of Aung San Suu Kyi is a case in point. Her attempts at explaining the complicated circumstances of this problem are dismissed out of hand. The Bengali Muslims are as much authors of their plight as are any of the other players in this tragedy. Look forward to JW comments.
elee says
Good idea AJ! I specialise in Turkey, which is depressing enough. Non-Muslim Burmese are like non-Muslim Middle Easterners: no one ever hears about them, no one ever asks about them, they have no voice in the world……..like the Jews before Zionism.
Infidel says
Yeah, Western opinion – including right leaning opinion – while being very supportive of Israel and Western Christians, look the other way not only on India, but also Sri Lanka and Burma just b’cos Christian evangelists are looked upon w/ suspicion and contempt for telling them all that they worship false gods (even though Buddhism is an atheistic religion that’s built completely on philosophy and principles, like the Noble 8-fold path). B’cos of that, they are rarely supported when they respond to Muslim attacks
gravenimage says
Infidel, I am a Westerner, and I support India, Sri Lanka, Burma and every other part of Dar-al-Harb against Jihad.
Infidel says
Gravenimage, we on JihadWatch are more often than not the exceptions, rather than the rule. For instance, just check out Breitbart, and see how much support there is for these countries: most threads on them are populated w/ comments about either how anti-Christian they are, or how they are just as bad as Muslims and should be left to fight the Muslims until both sides are destroyed.
Infidel says
Also, a stronger illustration of what I observed: while Republican leaders race against each other to support Israel, they are variably hostile to anti-Islamic moves in Burma or Sri Lanka, and less so India (after the various Trump-Modi meetings). Reason is that they perceive that being anti-Israel is bad for their poll standings, but they have nothing to lose for not opposing Jihad in Burma or Sri Lanka. Incidentally, it’s not a race thing: the same countries who 100 years ago were willing to support Serbia against Austria and Germany today refuse to support Serbia against Muslims of Bosnia or Kosovo
gravenimage says
Sadly, most people in the West have no idea that Infidels in Burma and Sri Lanka have suffered at the hands of Muslims.
Infidel says
Very good point. Buddhism was one of the major religions of India and even Central Asia before 1000AD, when the Muslims arrived. While Hinduism survived in India, Buddhism was pretty much wiped out from not just the Hindu Kush but also India as well, and it’s only the fact that Muslim rulers from the Mamluqs to the Mughals were consumed w/ their war against the Hindu resistance that they never got to Burma, Thailand and beyond (even though the Arabs managed to Islamize the East Indies). And then in the 1800s, when in India, Muslim rule started getting rolled back by the Marathas and the Sikhs, the Brits got involved, and not only colonized both Burma and India, but also patronized Muslims for the sake of suppressing Hindus and Buddhists. The Brits also made it a point to ship Indians – both Hindus and Muslims – to all sorts of places, from the West Indies to Burma, to help prop up their empire, which is why Burma has a Muslim presence at all!!! And today, the Brits don’t have the cajunes to keep their own girls from being raped in England itself by the monsters they unleashed – namely Pakistan!
But yeah, the fact that both the Burmese junta post Ne Win and Aung San Suu Kyi, who don’t agree on much, made common cause on the Muslim issue should tell a story. The Burmese have been accused of persecuting Hindus as well, but the fact that Modi and Suu Kyi both have pretty good relations and India has not seen refugees from Burma makes it clear that only Muslims have been causing problems.
Kepha says
The Muslim-Buddhist conflict predates the British Raj by centuries.
mortimer says
What a fiasco. The call for ‘unity’ among Muslims by the PM of Malaysia has led to disunity and a meltdown of harmony. He spoke out of turn. The Saudi ‘masters’ didn’t like it. After all, they have all the money and no one in the ummah should forget it!
Then, they all raise the ‘poor’ Pallies (an obvious distraction). The Pallies led by corrupt kleptocrats could all be multimillionaires if the monies were distributed evenly.
What a clown show. Do Muslims not get disgusted sometimes with this theatre of the absurd? Muslim countries have real problems like low GDP and illiteracy and lack of clean water and sanitation … oh, and massive corruption, police states and bribery too.
elee says
Clean water is a kafir innovation. If the Prophet lived without it, shouldnt Muslims emulate him now? K 33.22 et al. Same thing with vaccines literacy and human rights. Kufr and innovation, all of it. Help CAIR bring the din of Islam to America or learn what al Lah decreed for kafirs.
elee says
Now that the event is over I can ask: might the world be a better, more humane and decent place if someone had bombed this conclave of evil? Or if Hitler had been assassinated in 1943 or sooner?
Infidel says
If Pakistan agrees w/ Malaysia and Turkey, why don’t they approach their ally Qatar, for all the money they’re getting from Saudi Arabia, and tell Saudi Arabia and UAE that they are not gonna reward them for taking India’s side on Kashmir? Then Imran Khan could have happily gone to Kuala Lumpur and happily lectured them all about Islamophobia w/ a speech that matched one of his great cricket bowling spells in the 80s.
Kesselman says
All of this conclave should have been an assassination target.—Speaking about diverse Islam. What’s
“Radical” Islam? As opposed to what, “Moderate & Peaceful” Islam? Which schools of Islam teach not to slay the unbelievers wherever you find them? Which schools of Islam teach the equality of Muslims and non-Muslims before the law? Which schools of Islam teach that women are to have the same rights
as men? Which schools of Islam teach against slavery? There is no such benign form of Islam.
keya says
So what is the outcome of this meeting! Zero achieved for their ummah. This fiasco was nothing but a an excuse for the muslimes to flock together and curse the kafirs for all their misery.
gravenimage says
Notes on the Fiasco In Kuala Lumpur (Part 1)
……………….
Malaysia is trying to position itself as the leader of the Muslim world, and other Muslim thugs object.
Infidel says
That attempt is beyond hilarious. Race is a major element in islam, and there are 5 races that dominate Muslims, of which 4 are in contention:
Arabs: who are the chosen people;
Turks: who have the reputation of being the greatest Islamizing influence – from Bosnia to Bangladesh, and are people of not just Turkey but also the stans, the Russian Caucuses and Tatarstan as well as a part of the populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan;
Iranians: who de facto lead Shia Islam
Indians: Muslims of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and India
The last block is numerically the most populous – probably hitting a billion on its own right now. But for this bloc, Pakistan probably has the strongest claim to leadership, since India, despite its 180 million Muslims, is not a Muslim country
gravenimage says
Good analysis. Then there are sub-Saharan African Muslims, who despite their frequent pious savagery are considered inferior by most Muslims. That Muslims in Sudan and even Nigeria consider themselves to be “Arab” makes this clear.
underbed cat says
This is strange the 56+1 countries of the OIC and the biggest Islamic countries don’t show? Maybe the U.N. voting block, and all the terrorism coverage is making a dent…..why would Saudi Araibia not show I thought this was Islam central? Could it be true they are trying to modernize….or stalling? Could this really happen? Neverthe less these are huge political moves…It is the doctrine and the motivation to effect it that concerns me…and the purchased fighter jets and Irans capabilites..and Turkey and the Pakistani book of Quranic Warfare very complicated beyond what I can understand. And Israel has to defend to survive thur all of this…. the numbers are frightening even to think it is gathering to the north and south and within on our side of the ocean…and it is protected erroneously as a religion peace and it is Christimas eve.