Mahathir Mohamed’s keynote address sang the praises — not quite accurately, I’m afraid — of Islam’s past:
There was a time when Muslims were recognised for their advanced civilisation. They were able to spread the teachings of Islam to the world of that time. They were well-versed in all fields of knowledge, including the sciences and engineering, especially the manufacture of goods.
But not now. Today we have lost the respect of the world. We are no longer the source of human knowledge nor the model of human civilisation. For a long time in the 18th to mid-20th centuries Muslim countries were all dominated and occupied by European powers. We have now largely freed ourselves. But we have not done much better as independent nations. Indeed, some of us have regressed to the point of once again being dependent on our former colonial masters.
This belief in a fabulous golden age of Islamic civilization is a comforting thought, but many of the advances attributed to Muslims in that Golden Age, from the 8th to the 10th centuries, were appropriations from non-Muslims. Muslims claim to have invented algebra, and the concept of zero, but both of those were taken from Indian mathematicians. Paper-making, and gunpowder were not inventions of Muslims, but taken from China. It was not “the Muslims” who preserved Greek texts from antiquity, but the Christian and Jewish translators, in Cordoba and Baghdad, who performed that task.
Mohamed mentions that Muslims once “were able to spread the teaching of Islam.” But he doesn’t say how Islam was spread. His silence might be taken to mean it was a matter of peaceful conversion. But almost everywhere, Islam was spread by conquest. Those Unbelievers who were conquered faced three choices: death, conversion to Islam, or accepting the permanent status of the dhimmi, which meant submitting to a host of onerous conditions, including the burdensome tax known as the Jizyah. Over time tens of millions of dhimmis, in order to end the ordeal of that status, converted to Islam. It was not the sheer wonderfulness of Islam that led to its adoption, but more often fear and despair among the conquered Unbelievers.
Mahathir Mohamed claims that “We are no longer the source of human knowledge nor the model of human civilisation.” That’s quite a claim. When were Muslims ever “the source of human knowledge and model of civilization”? They never were. He might have said, more accurately, that “in the past, Muslims did make contributions in some fields of science, notably in optics and astronomy. We also helped act as a conduit for advances made in China and India to Europe, such as algebra and the concept of zero, both taken from the Sanskrit mathematicians, and paper-making, and gunpowder, from China. But we have fallen further and further behind the West in every respect. We must ask ourselves why, and not exempt from our investigation those aspects of Islam that may discourage the enterprise of science.”
He could then have discussed the role of authority in Islam, and the discouragement of independent thought, as well as the centrality of memorization in the education of Muslims, which stems from the prestige attached to the memorization of the Qur’an. But this comes perilously close to unacceptable criticism of Islam itself, and he might not wish to antagonize the faithful.
He claims that “for a long time in the 18th to mid-20th centuries Muslim countries were all dominated and occupied by European powers.” Is this true? A moment’s thought would tell us otherwise. Has he forgotten about the Ottoman Empire? Many Muslim lands were “dominated” not by European powers, but by fellow Muslims, the Ottoman Turks. In the Middle East, the Turks remained in control of what is now Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab states, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt, until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire as a consequence of the Empire’s defeat in World War I. In Iraq,the British remained as Mandatary for little more than 10 years, from 1922 to 1932. In Lebanon and Syria, the French remained as Mandatary only from 1920 to 1944 (for Syria) and from 1920 to 1943 (for Lebanon). Iran was never “dominated and colonized” by European powers; it remained serenely aloof. Egypt was never colonized in the classic sense by European powers either, though after the Anglo-Egyptian War in 1882, the British under Lord Cromer entered the country and remained until 1922, largely in order to create an efficient civil service. Egypt declared itself independent of the Ottomans in 1914. Libya remained free of European powers until Italy seized it from the Ottomans in 1911; it then remained under Italian control until the end of World War II, then was administered jointly by Britain and France until 1951, when it achieved its independence. As for the French, they were in Morocco only from 1912 to 1956, and in Tunisia from 1881 to 1956, both places being protectorates rather than colonies of France. The only colony in the classic sense, with the large scale infusion of settlers from the home country, was Algeria, which the French held from 1830 to 1962.
As for Turkey itself, it was never colonized by European powers. The Ottoman Turks ruled over many Muslim lands and peoples for centuries; after the Ottomans collapsed, Turkey lost its empire but remained sturdily independent. Erdogan, sitting right beside Mahathir Mohamed, could easily have set him straight.
Mahathir Mohamed needs to be reminded not only about the Ottoman Empire’s rule over many Muslims for many centuries, but also that three of the most important Muslim states – Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia – were never “dominated and occupied” by European powers.
Mahathir Mohamed continues:
This is the present situation. It was not so in the past. We know that in the past the Islamic Civilisation was highly respected. It was leading not only in adherence to the teachings of Islam as a religion of peace but in all other fields of human achievements. Muslims lead [sic for “led”] in the knowledge of the sciences, in human development, in infrastructure development, in the governance and development of their countries. Muslims built great cities, sailed and map [sic for “mapped”] the seas, traded between east and west along the Silk Road and a great many other things that enhanced the reputation of Islam and the Muslims. Their military strength was incomparable. Muslims and their countries were treated with respect.
Islam as a “religion of peace”? Not to the Believers who read in the Qur’an the 109 verses that command them to fight, to kill, to smite at the throats of, to strike terror in the hearts of, the Unbelievers. Not to the Believers who came out of Arabia, conquered all of the Middle East, and all of North Africa, and then the Iberian Peninsula in the west and Sassanid Persia in the east, and made repeated attempts to conquer the Byzantine Empire. That was finally accomplished not by Arabs, but by Muslim Turks, first the Seljuks and then the Osmanlis. The last stage of that conquest was the taking of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, by the Turks, which was followed by several days of massacring men, women, and children in the city, by the followers of the “religion of peace.”
Nor, for fourteen centuries, was Islam a “religion of peace” the people of Western Europe, who lived in fear of the sudden arrival of Muslim slavers whose ships for centuries raided up and down the coasts of Europe, seizing what loot they could, and kidnapping more than a million Europeans, who were brought back as slaves to North Africa. These Muslim raiders even managed to attack as far north as Ireland, and once, as far as Iceland. In 1631 Muslim raiders seized several hundred inhabitants from the coastal town of Baltimore, and took them back to North Africa for a lifetime of slavery. Tales of the “Sack of Baltimore” terrified Europeans for centuries.
In the west of Europe, Muslim invaders had conquered the entire Iberian Peninsula and got as far as Tours in central France, where their advance was halted by Charles Martel in 745. They continued to rule in Iberia, where the Christians waged war against their harsh Muslim overlords for 800 years,in the armed struggle known as the Reconquista. In the east, meanwhile, having conquered Persia, Muslim warriors began to repeatedly attack Hindustan, beginning in the mid-seventh century; the first major conquest of north India took place under Mahmoud of Ghazni, (971-1030). Over the next half-millennium, and always by ferocious conquest, Islamic states were established in much of northern India. If millions of Hindus lost their lives in battle, many tens of millions more were killed by Muslims after the initial conquest. During the centuries of Mughal rule, beginning in the early 16th century, the historian K. S. Lal has estimated that between 70 and 80 million Hindus were killed. Mohathir Mohamed claims, as so many Muslims do, that Islam is a “religion of peace,” but fourteen hundreds of bloody history, especially in India, tell us otherwise.
mortimer says
Agreeing with Hugh Fitzgerald.
Islam was an EXTINGUISHER of the light of learning, rather than its promoter and Islam remains an extinguisher of learning today.
Islam caused the Dark Ages to fall over Europe … chiefly through the choking of boat and ship traffic on the Mediterranean due to Islamic jihadic PIRACY. One Muslim writer boasted that no Roman dared to place a row boat in the Mediterranean for fear of Muslim attack! This Islamic piracy stopped intellectual and commercial exchange between parts of the Roman Empire and removed the intellectual hub of Alexandria and its fabled library. With retreat, Europe forgot the learning, science and arts of the Roman world.
Hugh Fitzgerald mentions the importance of paper! Very true! When Muslims invaded Egypt they soon ended the production of papyrus which was produced only in Egypt and when it was gone, Europeans had no way to produce books!
André Servier said it brilliantly:
“Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was – and it remains – incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.”
– Andre Servier, in L’islam et la psychologie du musulman (1923)
gravenimage says
Good post, Mortimer.
mortimer says
I want to remind Mr. Fitzgerald of the Islamic doctrine called “TAQLID” … which encourages intellectual passivity in Muslims and their complete deference to the mullahocracy. This is the actual source of Islam’s intellectual TORPOR.
Definition: ‘Taqlid’ is a complete disregard for the role of human intellect in matters of religion. It is blind adherence, uncritical following or intellectual passivity or Islamic obscurantism. Taqlid keeps the Muslim’s mind closed to new information.
Key Quotes: From Irshaadul-Mulook under the heading, ‘Obedience to the Shaikh’
– “He (the learner/mureed) should remain in submission and with respect and dignity to his expert Shaikh just as a mayyit (dead body) is in the hands of the one who gives it ghusl (ritual washing before burial).”
-“Annihilate all your wishes, desires and intentions. Submit yourself to your Shaikh. Do not raise the slightest objection against the taleem (teachings) of your Shaikh.”
Conclusion: ‘taqlid’ is the burying of the human intellect in matters of religion. The mullahs are cast in the role of undertakers.
KINDLY NOTE: Islam is the UNDERTAKER of critical thought and independent inquiry.
Westman says
Another factor, “Inshallah”, the fatalism of pre-determination by Allah, sometimes spoken as, “It is written”, was observed by Churchill. “..there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”
Jewdog says
Mohathir is a hateful, ignorant creep. Don’t buy anything from Malaysia, not that there’s much of a choice.
Infidel says
I don’t. Personally, I practice an Islam boycott – hence my logo of a red circle and strikeout of a crescent-star. Whenever I buy most things, particularly clothes, I check the ‘Made in’ label, and if it’s in any Muslim country that I know – Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, et al, I move on. Of course, there are few things yet ‘Made in USA’, so I compromise and accept things made in communist countries, like Cambodia, Nicaragua, et al. I wish I could boycott China, but that one is really tough, and will probably stay that way for a while
commonsense says
Infidel, I shop exactly as you do, and have done so for years. My study of Islam, and my consequent discovery of its profound, irredeemable malevolence, began shortly after 9-11; my personal boycott of all products (and, where applicable, services) from Muslim countries began when this all became clear to me.
In addition, I try to avoid purchasing anything from Nicaragua, Norway (due to its antisemitic government and trade unions), Kellogg, Heinz, et al. It’s not easy. Also I, keep an eye out for – and avoid- U.S. – based foods which are labeled Halal, such as Saffron Road frozen foods and Crescent poultry. Sometimes, the Halal certification is marked inconspicuously. Whenever possible, I try to discourage unsuspecting shoppers from buying halal products, approaching them when I can discern that they are near packaged fresh poultry and either eyeing those that are halal or have just placed a halal brand in their cart. Usually, my explanations achieve the desired result, and shoppers pick another brand. It’s my small, personal attempt at counter-jihad.
SAFI says
The Muslims attacked and colonized Christendom for a much much longer period of time than the one in which infidel Europe is being accused of “colonizing” them.
Infidel says
Also, the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans – Greece, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Albania, et al far outlasted the British occupation of Egypt and the Sudan, Italian occupation of Libya and Somaliland and French occupation of Algeria
gravenimage says
Notes on the Fiasco In Kuala Lumpur (Part 2)
Mahathir Mohamed:
There was a time when Muslims were recognised for their advanced civilisation. They were able to spread the teachings of Islam to the world of that time…
This is the present situation. It was not so in the past. We know that in the past the Islamic Civilisation was highly respected. It was leading not only in adherence to the teachings of Islam as a religion of peace but in all other fields of human achievements
…………………
What utter claptrap. Islam has never been known as a “religion of peace” in the past–and it was spread by the sword. It is only thought of as a “religion of peace” now by some clueless Infidels in deep denial of what Islam really is.
And note: Mahathir Mohamed blames Jihad terror on the Jews:
“Malaysian PM: Israel is the origin of modern terrorism”
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190929-malaysian-pm-israel-is-the-origin-of-modern-terrorism/
Jayell says
“There was a time when Muslims were recognised for their advanced civilisation. They were able to spread the teachings of Islam to the world of that time”…….but as Mr FitzGerald then points out, all ‘their’ mathematical and other advances were in fact stolen from the people they’d trampled on in their usual way, and not only weren’t they able to continue these advances once they’d completed their trampling, but they effectively went into reverse. The other blatant discrepancy with Mahathir Mohamed’s somewhat cockeyed optimistic assessment of islam’s contribution to human civilisation is that islam’s idea of spreading its teachings were never exactly ‘civilised’ according to the general understanding of that word – unless, of course, Mr. Mohamed has his own definition of ‘civility’.