KUALA LUMPUR: The Pakatan Harapan (PH) government continues to draw
flak from Muslim experts abroad over its recent refusal to do away with
restrictions on foreign speakers on Islamic topics.
a prominent US-based Turkish academic whose lecture in 2017 was forced
to be cancelled by Islamic authorities in Kuala Lumpur before he was
detained for speaking without “religious credentials”, said the excuse
by the government that it wants to contain “deviant” teachings showed
that not much had changed under the new Malaysian leadership.
“The Malaysian authorities still assume that they have a right to define ‘right Islam’ versus ‘deviant Islam’.
then we must ask, who gave the Malaysian government, or any government,
the authority to define Islam?” Akyol, a strong advocate of free speech
in Muslim countries who has frequently criticised both the Islamists
and secularists in his home country, told FMT.
minister in charge of Islamic affairs Mujahid Yusof Rawa defended the
home ministry’s move to vet all foreign missionaries including Muslim
speakers, saying the authorities wanted to make sure their belief
systems were “in line with the Malaysian context”.
Muhyiddin Yassin earlier said that foreign Muslim and non-Muslim
speakers would be monitored to ensure they were “free from deviant
“Whoever comes here, regardless of the form of talks, will be monitored,” Muhyiddin had said.
statement drew strong response from US-based Muslim academic, Nader
Hashemi, who has frequently addressed Malaysian audiences on Islamic
“The vetting of speakers who come to Malaysia to discuss
issues of religion suggests that authoritarianism is alive and well in
Malaysia and that freedom and full democracy remain an ongoing struggle
and aspiration,” Hashemi, who heads the Center for Middle East Studies
at the University of Denver, told FMT.
Akyol, whose book “Islam
Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty” is banned in Malaysia, said
no government had the right to define what is “true Islam” as this
would mean reducing religion to the “interests and whims of political
“With that logic, Iran can ban Sunni Islam as ‘deviant’,
as Saudis can similarly ban Shia Islam and even non-Wahhabi Sunnism. Or
India can ban all Islam saying that, according to its Hindu beliefs, all
Islam is ‘deviant’,” Akyol said.
He said even at the height of the Muslim empire, political leaders had no authority over religion.
caliphs did not have that authority. Islam, rather, was defined by
diverse communities of scholars, believers, and evolving traditions,” he
“The truth that we must accept is that Islam is not owned
by any government because it comes from an authority that is higher than
“The rightful duty of these governments is to
know their limits, protect the rights and freedoms of their citizens,
and allow their societies to freely practise their religious persuasions
and have intellectual discussions about them,” Akyol said.
2017, Akyol’s Malaysian lecture tour organised by the Islamic
Renaissance Front drew protests from conservative Muslim groups and
He was arrested at KLIA as he was preparing
to board a flight to Rome, hours after the Federal Territory Islamic
Affairs Department forced his lecture on the topic of apostasy to be
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” – Thomas Jefferson
The arrogance of this beast called government, the small band of thugs (a.k.a. known as politicians) who band together to rule over millions of people is that they thought they could do it infinitely. This is reflected in their ‘policy’ making and the way they (mis) treat the very people they’re supposed to care for.
The “re-development” of Kg Bharu is revived by Premier Mahathir for the second time after he failed to grab the goldmine two decades ago.
The difference between robbers and politicians is that politicians do it with colorful pamphlets rather than guns.
Deception is their forte and their famous line is, “we’re here to help” and wearing the ‘development’ mask
“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” – Ronald Reagan
#KgBharu@KhalidSamad A hypothetical question: How confident are you that you & #Pakatan will win #GE15? Remember #BN#UMNO fell. A few thousand years ago the people of Rome didn’t believe the Roman empire would fall. What would happen to the Kg Bharu you purchased?
Let’s imagine the next government is lead by non-Malays (not that I mind). You’d have been responsible for the lost of Malay land, and what would you think the Malays would do to you? Stop being arrogant. THINK ABOUT IT!
In the grand scheme of things, this monumental yet ambitious “project” isn’t about helping the kampung people like me, far from it. Its all about feeding the insatiable appetite of the greedy elite Malays who care a damn about anything else but themselves.
The hypocrite Malay elites on one hand got together and “discussed” about their ‘problems’ and lost dignity and on the other hand trample on the village folks of Kg Bharu.
And [recall] when We took your covenant, [saying], “Do not shed each other’s blood or evict one another from your homes.” Then you acknowledged [this] while you were witnessing.
Then, you are those [same ones who are] killing one another and evicting a party of your people from their homes, cooperating against them in sin and aggression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their eviction was forbidden to you. So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part? Then what is the recompense for those who do that among you except disgrace in worldly life; and on the Day of Resurrection they will be sent back to the severest of punishment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.[Q 2:84/5]
If your religion has no apparent effect on your behavior, I’m entitled to assume that your degree of belief is small, no matter how much you protest.
This is a fascinating documentary about an activist group that campaigned hard to bring two major Malaysian corruption scandals to international attention – including one involving former Prime Minister Najib Razak and 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
The story starts in the early nineties when Bruno Manser, a Swiss environmentalist, and Mutanga, a Penan tribesman in Sarawak, paired up to protest wholesale rainforest logging on the island of Borneo (Malaysia). After successfully blockading the logging trucks for more than nine months, the activists and their supporters were imprisoned and torture.
In 1992, they undertook a world tour to bring the plight of Borneo rainforests and the Penan. They visited 24 cities in 13 countries, including the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the UN. The response they received was underwhelming.
Kampung Baru or “Kampong Bharu” (meaning “New Village”) is a Malay enclave in central Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. One of the most valuable tracts of land in the capital, it has been estimated to be worth up to US$ 1.4 billion. Kampung Baru’s elders have turned developers away, saying they want to preserve their ethnic Malay lifestyle. – Wiki
The man most passionate about this piece of gold mine is Tun Mahathir, the current Prime Minister of Malaysia under the new government of Pakatan Harapan. This passion of his began when he was the PM in the old Barisan Nasional regime, but failed to formulate a win-win deal with the landowners and the redevelopment project failed to materialize. He thought he could execute the same program as the one in Langkawi island, which btw is his first passion through the brokerage of Langkawi Development Authority (LADA).
Expectedly the Kampong Baru project is now back on top of his table and the road show has begun and the Town Hall Meet with the landowners took place today Sep 21.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) Mahathir couldn’t be present and his video opening address was screened on stage.
This time around the landowners gathered only to ask the question, “How much are you offering?” The moment the price was spewed from the mouth of the presenter Khalid Samad, the Minister of Federal Territory, the audience roared in jeers and boos!
The offing of RM850/sq. ft, was taken as humiliating by the landowners! Humiliating because the justifications for the low price as compared to the land prices surrounding Kampung Baru were lame and ludicrous.
Over the last couple of years, land transactions in the Bukit Bintang and KLCC areas have been concluded at between RM3,100 and RM3,600 psf. The offing of RM850/sq. ft, was taken as humiliating by the landowners! Humiliating because the justifications for the low price as compared to the land prices surrounding Kampong Baru were lame and ludicrous. – EdgeProp
BTW the iconic Twin Towers KLCC is just a stone’s throw away across the Gombak River, and in fact it is so close the tall shadows of the Twin Towers will fall on Kampong Baru.
And the reasons for for the humiliating offer is more humiliating. Look, racism is prime time in Malaysia and every policy and issues of control are wrapped and packed in boxes printed the word “Malay” on them. Now, here its all about Malay landowners and the bloody excuse of the low price offing is because Kampung Baru is a Reserved Malay land which the Colonial British administrators gazetted as a Malay agricultural settlement in 1900 under the Malay Agricultural Settlement Act. Kampung Baru and her landowners is the epitome of the very word “Malay” and you can’t be more Malay than them in Malaysia.
First and foremost you’re in a Debt-Based Economy system.
If you don’t know what that means…Google it.
If you know, then you ought to know you’re a borrower if you’ve ever
used (paper) money sometime in your life, even if you have none right
now in your wallets or pockets, or have never made any personal loans
from the bank.
“But, but… I work and I’m earning my money?”
Haven’t you heard of Fractional Reserve Banking?
So-called money in circulation is created by debt and is an IOU.
If you don’t know that…Google it.
You work to pay your own debts including all those created in the system, or by your government.
This’ no rocket 🚀 science. Its plain, simple and clear.
All it takes to gulp this down your throat and digest it, is a simple act of research and observation.
One borrows (thus a borrower) because one have none.
Contrary to popular beLIEfs, your pockets are empty, actually.
💰 M O N E Y …don”t we ALL love it! People toil, live, kill, cheat, steal, borrow and lie for it. This article is the most concise I’ve come across…and since you all slog for it shouldn’t you at least know what it is and where it comes from? You’ve loved it all your life…take a few minutes to read about it before you die because of it.
The Purpose of the Federal Reserve Banking System Is Quite Clear
banking has been devised for a purpose unseen and much different than
what the public and most of our elected leaders/legislators believe. The
purpose is not to stabilize, but to destabilize economies for ulterior
Reflect On:How does a system described in the
article benefit the people at all? What is really going on here and how
did we get into this mess? What alternatives and solutions would you
Do Probability and Statistics interest you? Perhaps not. But what about the secret workings of a casino? They are but two sides of the same coin. One side is science, the other application. Economics is the science of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. The application of economics, if honed to a specific, razor sharp intention becomes the most powerful weapon on Earth. This weapon is called the Central Banking system. No country owns this weapon. It is wielded by a tiny circle of people. The identities of these people are largely hidden, but it is abundantly clear they owe allegiance to no country, despot or political ideology. They deploy this weapon at their own discretion. We are the frogs in the proverbial pot of water and they are controlling the stove.
Some basics …
In the 2019 fiscal year the United States Government will spend 1.1 trillion dollars more than it will collect in taxes.(source)This
number is called the “budget deficit.” Operating with a budget deficit
is nothing new in our government’s history. This has been going on for
decades, independent of which party has controlled the White House or
Congress. If you were to add together all the deficits over the years
you would arrive at a sum of approximately 22 trillion dollars. This
number is called the “national debt.”
The ability to “pay off” this debt seems
impossible, yet we continue to operate more or less the same way,
borrowing more and more to meet our country’s obligation to social
services, defense, infrastructure, and obligations to our debt holders.
Most people are aware of these staggering numbers, yet few of us seem to
consider basic questions about the system, like “Where does the money
come from?” or “Who would be stupid enough to continue lending us these
sums given our poor track record of even balancing our budget?” The
answers to these questions are astounding and can lead to an
understanding of our nation’s history and monetary system that is
absolutely necessary to put nearly every aspect of geopolitics into
Creature From Jekyll Island,” author G. Edward Griffin adeptly leads the
reader on an intriguing exploration of the origin of money, lending and
the banking system and its codependence with the governance of people.
Through his thorough examination of military conflicts, the rise and
fall of governments and repeated taxpayer funded bailouts, Mr. Griffin
makes it abundantly clear that human history has been driven more by the
inner workings of centralized banking and not the will of individuals
or even the apparent vision of their appointed leaders.
Federal Reserve, covertly conceived by the wealthiest few and brought
into existence by Congress in 1913, is part of a global system of
centralized banking that has been devised for a purpose unseen and much
different than what the public and most of our elected leaders and
legislators believe. The result of this system, as evidenced by repeated
examples, has not been to stabilize economies but to destabilize them. In his diligent and erudite analysis, Mr. Griffin goes further in asserting that this has been the intention of the founders of the modern banking system all along.
To accept his bold assertion it is useful to first consider how
this is accomplished before understanding why it is done in the first
place. A full analysis of this subject is obviously beyond the scope of a
single article. However, we can still arrive at a basic understanding
of the system and its repercussions here.
advertisement – learn more
Show me the money
As stated above, the total national debt is on the order of 22 trillion dollars as of 2019. However, according to The Federal Reserve
there is only about 1.7 trillion dollars of currency in circulation.
Where are the other 20 trillion dollars? Clearly, it exists only as
numbers attached to accounts existing in computer memory. Monetary
transactions are no longer dominated by the exchange of currency backed
by a commodity (like gold or silver), they are instead represented by
the increase of a receiver’s account balance that corresponds to the
equivalent decrement in the account of the payer. This, of course, seems
like a reasonable system that is equitable to both parties. However, if
you examine it more closely, certain fundamental questions arise,
primarily, where did the money come from in the first place?
total amount of money in circulation in 1950 was approximately 27
billion dollars. How do we now have 60 times more money? The answer is
that it was created by our banks and the Federal Reserve, an institution
uniquely endowed by our government to “print” money at its own
discretion. This should strike you as unnerving for two reasons. First,
our elected officials do not decide when more money is put into
circulation, they have abdicated that authority to the Federal Reserve
that acts independently. Second, why is there ever a reason to do this in the first place?
Clearly, the amount of goods and
services generated by the country has grown with our population and its
concomitant increase in our labor force. Also, innovation in
manufacturing and the development of technologies have given rise to
less expensive ways to make stuff. We have also engineered methods for
extracting our natural resources, making the required raw materials more
abundantly available for industry. These changes continually influence
the supply and demand for goods and services that ultimately will
dictate what things cost. These are the “market” forces that capitalism
relies upon to self-regulate and ostensibly create an environment for
innovation. If the amount of money in circulation is left untouched,
prices will continually readjust to represent the total value of the
total amount of goods and services generated by an economy. There should
never be a need to put more money into circulation.
Where does money actually come from?
expansion of the supply of money is less accomplished by the actual
printing of legal tender than it is by the “creation” of debt. To
illustrate this, let us consider a simplistic model of how a bank works.
First, a bank serves as a secure place to store depositor’s money. The
bank issues the depositor a receipt of deposit. Long ago these receipts
were recognized as being more convenient than actually using coins to
facilitate transactions. The “money” was in a vault, but the receipts of
deposit, when they began to be accepted as payment by a third party,
began functioning as money itself. Griffin explains that this form of
money is termed “receipt money.” The modern representation of this
convenience has taken the form of checking accounts.
When the bank acts as a lending
institution, it can also provide depositors with an added incentive to
keep their holdings there in the form of interest. The bank can pay this
interest on its deposits by lending this money out to other customers
in the form of mortgages, business and personal loans, etc. and charging
a higher interest on these sums. The ability of private citizens and
industry to have access to money to purchase homes or invest in their
businesses or education allows for economic growth and a higher standard
of living and is generally considered a good thing and something we all
When we receive a loan to purchase
something that we cannot “afford” we understand that it has not been
given to us for free. We will pay for it over time. In fact, we will pay
more for it through a loan than if we purchased it outright. The higher
the rate of interest and the longer the term of the loan, the more we
end up paying. In the case of a home mortgage paid over thirty years the
borrower ends up paying several times the amount they borrowed. This is
all spelled out to the borrower when they sign the promissory note and
agree to the terms.
there is something insidious happening when banks lend money today. The
money that gets lent is not possessed by the bank, it is owned by the
depositors of the money. The depositors are free to continue to withdraw
from their accounts, meanwhile the borrowers also have access to the
very same pool of money. When your bank loans a sum of money to another
party the amount in your account there does not get reduced. So, where does the money come from? The bank is essentially creating
money out of debt and subsequently collecting interest on it. This
money is added to circulation and when this happens, the value of every
single dollar in the system gets depleted. Prices go up. This is
inflation, and it can exact a devastating toll on the system depending
on how much debt is created.
amazing as it may seem, banks are only required to keep available a
fraction (10% or less) of the amount of money they lend on hand to meet
the needs of their depositors. Clearly there may come a time when a
large number of depositors demand their money to be returned at the same
time. This is the dreaded “run on the bank” which should
send the bank into insolvency. However, this rarely happens these days
for two reasons. One is based upon the confidence we place on our
banking institutions to make sound loans and upon the economy in
general. As long as we are confident that the bank will return our money
we asked, we won’t demand it back. Secondly, banks operating in the
central banking system are able to borrow money from other banks to meet
the demands of their depositors when needed.
The Fed is a Monetary Cartel that has been setting us up for bigger failures
Federal Reserve, with the power Congress has endowed it with, sets
standards for the portion of money banks within its system are allowed
to loan compared to the money in their “vaults.” Because the
profitability of the bank is directly related to the amount of money
they loan out, banks are motivated to maximize the amount they lend.
Furthermore, because a lifeline to more money through other banks
exists, there is little reason for any individual bank to be
conservative. By uniting banks under common lending practices it becomes
clear that no individual bank will be allowed to go bankrupt. However, there now exists the possibility that many or all banks may fail simultaneously
with a deep and widespread dive in consumer confidence and/or an
accumulation of a great amount of bad debt. Note that the latter will
automatically give rise to the former as in the case of the great
recession of 2008 when it became recognized that a massive number of
irresponsible home loans were made over the course of a decade.
such a crisis arises, it is made clear to the public that a dire
situation is at hand and it would result in major suffering for all if
the government didn’t intervene. Government steps in by infusing the
banking system with large sums of money. This money does not exist
anywhere. It is created on the fly by the issuance of government bonds,
essentially IOUs. But who would be willing to accept government IOUs in
such a crisis? Nobody. Nobody, except the Federal Reserve. Through the
purchase of government debt the Federal Reserve floods the system with
essentially a limitless amount of “money.” This money did not come from
the sale of goods and services or gold bars from the treasury. This
money is ink on paper called Federal Reserve Checks which are used to
fund government debt and ultimately result in greater balances in
commercial bank accounts when the government spends it. The crisis gets
averted. Or does it?
short run, the economy does not grind to a halt, and we laud the
intervention as a success. However, there has been no increase in the
amount of goods, commodities or services that the nation possesses.
There is just more money out there. When that happens, the value of
every single piece of currency, including the money in your wallet,
drops. We grumble at the necessity of more taxes and less governmental
services but few taxpayers realize the extent that their own wealth has
been decremented by an unseen cost called inflation, the direct cause of
poor lending practices of our banks. We are told that we are in a
crisis for a number of vague and complex reasons having to do with
rarely agreed upon economic theories and a failure of our leaders to
appreciate them. In fact, the reasons are simple. We have a system where
banks can and will make the most profit if they make more loans. When
they fail, the Federal Reserve ultimately steps in by creating more
debt, which we shoulder by allowing our earnings and savings to be
briefly review. The Federal Reserve has united most banks to accept
universal lending practices. This effectively prevents individual banks
from defaulting on their obligations, but creates a situation where a
nationwide or global banking crisis can occur. When (not if) that
occurs, the Fed has an understanding with the government that it will
infuse the system with money by “buying” government debt (in the form of
government bonds) that will be used to “salvage” the system. The
public will eventually pay for this in two ways. First, through
the obligation to repay the debt and interest and second,
through inflation as money floods the system. It should be clear then
that this maneuver is designed to keep lending institutions in perpetual
business aggrandizing their wealth.
Central Banks make money by doing nothing
important at this point to look more closely at the money making machine
the banks use for generating profit. Recall that banks are only
required to hold no more than ten percent of their deposits (assets) on
hand and are free to loan out the rest. However, there is a greater harm
they can exact through our banking system’s definition of an “asset.”
Let us say that a bank holds $1,000,000 in deposits. It can write
$900,000 worth of loans on that money keeping $100,000, or 10% of it on
its books as “reserves.” That money loaned out does not exist, it is
created the moment the loan is written. Once written, that loan,
effectively the promise of the borrower to pay it back, is now considered an asset of the bank too!
This means that the bank can subsequently write loans of 90% of that
“asset” (or another $810,000) as well. Once the second round of loans go
out, they too are considered assets. This iterative process effectively
allows the bank to “loan” out $9 for every $1 it was given as a
deposit. The bank uses the one million dollars in deposits (reserves) to
“create” nine million dollars in debt and, of course, earn interest on
it. The term “earn” is highly questionable in this scheme. The bank
provides no real service, creates no tangible product, does no labor and
assumes little risk yet is able to collect a continuous stream of money
from assets that never existed until the moment someone agreed to
borrow from them. This is called “fractional reserve banking” and as
shocking as it seems, it exists wherever an economy has abandoned a
commodity (gold or silver) backed currency. In other words, everywhere.
The Fed makes the most when we are at War
Turning back to Mr. Griffin’s assertion that the system has been designed
to create instability, we can see that the banking system reaps the
greatest benefit when needs exceed resources. The Federal Reserve (and
any central bank) has the sole authority to create money when the need
for debt arises. Is it unreasonable that central banks, functioning
without accountability to any authority, government or otherwise, would
welcome every opportunity to exert this power, especially when it is so
lucrative to them?
were to examine the situation from a central banker’s perspective we
would regard global events in the context of debt. What kind of event
creates the greatest and most urgent need for resources? War. War
requires a nation to redirect their youth away from the creation of
goods and services and into military service. There is the cost of
munitions, fuel, care for the wounded and ultimately reparations. The
bigger and the longer the war the better …if you were a central banker.
The Greatest Conspiracy in our history is still in play today
there really be an unholy alliance between central banking and
governmental war machines? This may be obvious to some, but to many this
approaches absurdity. A government for and by the people seems too
powerful to be influenced by financiers and monetary policy makers. If
banking insiders had any influence over our elected officials, the media
would bring immediate public attention to it, right? In order for this
kind of treachery to take place it would require the hidden
collaboration of a very small group of extremely influential persons in
government, central banking and the media. This would be a conspiracy,
which many believe would be impossible today.
no question that it has happened in the past. As detailed in “The
Creature from Jekyll Island,” the United States entered WWI after The Lusitania,
a massive British liner with 195 American civilians on board, was sunk
by a German U-boat attack. Prior to setting sail from New York, The Lusitania
was loaded with tons of weaponry including six million rounds of
ammunition purchased with funds raised for England through JP Morgan’s
investment house. This was done in broad daylight with the ship’s
manifest a matter of public record. The German government protested that
using such a ship to transport weapons was in direct violation of
international neutrality treaties. The American government denied this
was taking place. The German embassy then appealed to the American
people directly, placing ads in newspapers urging them not to book
passage on The Lusitania as it represented a strategic target that would fall under German attack. The U.S. State Department prevented these warnings from being run.
time J. P. Morgan, one of the chief architects of the newly created
Federal Reserve, was profiting from selling English and French bonds to
American investors to raise money for their war effort against Germany.
In addition, the two countries spent significant sums on products
purchased from companies in Morgan’s control. When it became clear that
Germany was nearing victory through their control of shipping lanes in
the Atlantic with their U-boats, Morgan’s income stream was threatened.
England, France and the American investing house knew their causes would
only be saved if the United States entered the war against Germany. At
the time this seemed a practical impossibility as Woodrow Wilson,
approaching reelection, was riding a broad anti-war sentiment sweeping
the country. This all changed when the The Lusitania
sank. Morgan had, in the meantime, purchased control over major
segments of the media and flooded the public with pro-war editorial. The
media, the banks and our government worked together to see that America
entered WWI on April 6, 1917. War expenditures, as always, were fueled
by monetary expansion engineered by The Fed. Between 1915 and 1920 the
monetary supply doubled and the value of our currency dropped by nearly
WWI is one of many examples in our planet’s history where the spoils of war went largely to the inner circles of the banking system that often finance both sides of conflicts. If this version of history still seems too incredible to believe, consider this: How often would a nation engage in war if it didn’t have the money to pay for it? Nations rarely do, unless they have a central banking system. Conventional history books paint our species’ long tradition of conflict as good vs. evil or liberty vs. tyranny while characterizing dictators and their ideologies as threats to the greater good. The real threat is hidden in plain sight and is far more diabolical, as it is not confined by borders or allegiance to governments that inevitably rise and fall.
Some scientists such as quantum gravitational expert Carlo Rovelli and physicist Julian Barbour seem to believe that time is not real and should be removed from the equations of physics so that we can move forward with a unified theory.
Maybe they are correct.
I don’t subscribe to time. Time itself is an illusion and humans are bound and entrapped by it.
We strapped ourselves with a contraption aptly called the WATCH and become guided by it by watching it all day long. Worse, we set the buzzing reminder in case we’d miss watching it.
If time is all we have, don’t waste it, especially not on the slave drivers/masters!