REBUTTING THE FALLACY OF THE FAILED MALAYS

By the way, many of those successful Malays of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s were not very religiously inclined. Many drank, gambled, partied, and whatnot. It was when the Malays were Islamised or radicalised since the 1970s that things began to change.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

When Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad speaks it is taken as words of authority. I suppose this is because Mahathir is seen as the guru of Malaysian politics. After all he was Malaysia’s Prime Minister for 22 years and the hand behind many things — economic, social and political. And this makes him anulama’ of sorts.

Some years back Mahathir said that there is nothing special about an ulama’. An ulama’ is merely someone who is an expert, argued Mahathir. No doubt when you say someone is an ulama’ you are referring to a religious expert. But even the best jewel thief in the word can be considered an ulama’ — an ulama’ in the art of stealing jewels.

In a way Mahathir is right. You are an ulama’ or one of authority because you are an expert in matters of religion. And any expert in any field who has a PhD or professorship can equally be considered anulama’.

But even an ulama’ can sometimes be wrong, Mahathir included. Mahathir once mocked Muslims who kept beards, allegedly to ape the Prophet Muhammad. Mahathir argued that the only reason Muslims of the year 600 kept beards is because the Gillette shaving blade had not been invented yet so they could not shave and hence kept beards.

That statement of Mahathir really shook up even the Umno people, what more the PAS people who were outraged as such a heretic statement. If any other person had said that, he or she would have been arrested and probably charged for sedition (or even detained without trial under the ISA).

Now, Mahathir was wrong, of course, because in the year 600 they did shave. But they shaved only when they performed the pilgrimage or Haj to the Ka’aba. They would shave their entire head after completing the pilgrimage. So, if they could shave their heads, then there must have been shaving utensils, although not Gillette.

Shaving was a pre-Islamic thing that predated Prophet Muhammad. That means Mahathir was wrong when he said Muslims of Prophet Muhammad’s time did not shave because there were no shaving blades. They actually kept beards so that Muslims can have a different look from Jews and Christians, who did not keep beards.

It was an identity thing and nothing to do with the absence of shaving utensils.

So you see, Mahathir is not always right. He can sometimes be wrong.

Another thing that Mahathir is wrong about is his assessment of the Malays. Mahathir feels that the Malays are failures and the reason for this is because they do not want to emulate the Chinese. And Mahathir regrets that in the 22 years he was the prime minister he had failed to change the mindset of the Malays. That, according to Mahathir, is his greatest regret.

But then what do you mean by failure? Define failure.

I would say that Malaysian judges are failures and the reason for this is because very few Malaysian judges have published books. How many of the federal court judges have written books? In some countries, if you have not published a series of books, you are not worthy of being appointed a judge in the federal court (or supreme court).

We have many so-called ulama’ in Malaysia (meaning the religious type), in PAS included. But how many have written books on religion? I am not talking about just translations. I am talking about actually writing a book on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on.

In fact, many of these so-called ulama’ know very little about the other religions. And their scholarship is confined to just repeating what others have written 1,000 years or more ago. They have not done any research and come out with their own findings.

These are not really ulama’. These are just parrots. They parrot other people’s views. If they did do research then they will discover that there is no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus. The only reference to Jesus is in the four Gospels. And even then the four Gospels are contradictory.

Now, this is a very important point because if the issue of the existence of Jesus were to be questioned, then Islam’s position on Jesus would also raise questions. Would any ulama’ dare venture into an area where even angels fear to tread? And if you do not then how can you call yourself anulama’?

Anyway, back to the issue of the failed Malays. Mahathir and many others look at success and failure merely from the economic or wealth point of view. If you are rich you are successful and if not then you are a failure. The yardstick to measure success and failure is money.

And that is why Malays are perceived as failures, because they are not rich like the Chinese. If Malays can be as rich as or richer than the Chinese then they are successful.

This is the wrong and most dangerous way of measuring things. We are turning Malays into a materialistic race when once Malays were contented with what they had, however little it may be, who were not greedy and jealous of what others have.

When a race becomes materialistic they would stoop to anything to get rich, fair means or foul.

Then Mahathir complains that the Malays are dishonest. What would you expect? Most times you need to be dishonest to become filthy rich. And is this not what you want, for the Malays to become filthy rich? So who was it that created this ‘ugly Malay’? And now that you have created the greedy, materialistic Malay you complain.

We need to broaden the interpretation of success and not only use money as the yardstick. A person may not be rich or may be as poor as a church mouse but then could actually be a genius in other fields. So in that sense this Malay is successful.

Take P. Ramli as one example. When he died his wife, Saloma, was so poor she could not even afford a tombstone for this grave. I was told his friends had to donate to the cost of his tombstone. But he was successful. And if P. Ramli was not successful why award him a Tan Sri posthumously? And should we be ashamed of P. Ramli because he died penniless?

R. Azmi is another very successful Malay who the Malays of the 1950s and 1960s would know. The younger generation have probably never heard of him. He died in 1974 at the age of 51 while squatting in a friend’s garage — who initially found him sleeping on the street before offering his garage as R. Azmi’s new home.

R. Azmi, like P. Ramli, was a genius but so poor that he could even afford a roof over his head. And can you imagine such a genius dying alone in a garage? But then Malays do not care whether you are a genius. They only care whether you are rich and if you are not then you sleep on the street like R. Azmi.

So being a genius is no bloody good. No one cares about that. Geniuses have died without a tombstone on their grave or while living in a garage. So Malays do not want to be a genius. They want to be rich by any means possible because that is how success is measured.

Malays do have brains. And, if properly applied, these Malay brains can be very creative. But we do not want them to apply their brains to creativity. We want them to use their brains to think of how to get rich.

Malays have always been colonised since the beginning of time. In more modern times the Malays were colonised by the Europeans. But the Malays are still being colonised, even after 1957. So the Malays are still slaves even until today.

However, today, the Malays are not being enslaved through colonisation. They are being subjected to mental slavery. And to make sure that the Malays continue to be subjected to mental slavery the law does not allow Malays to leave Islam — mainly because religion is a form of mental slavery (even for Christians and others).

Try removing the shackles of mental slavery from the Malays and allow them to expand their minds and see where the Malays are going to be 30 years from now.

By the way, many of those successful Malays of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s were not very religiously inclined. Many drank, gambled, partied, and whatnot. It was when the Malays were Islamised or radicalised since the 1970s that things began to change.

So, do you need to be a genius to figure out what went wrong?

Oh, and to all those silly Pakatoons who allege that I am attempting to come back to Malaysia, are you stupid or what? When I think and write the way I do, do you really think I will be safe in Malaysia? Bodoh punya Pakatoons!