LIKE FATHER LIKE SON A SNAKE IN THE GRASS, LOVE TO WATCH MY FATHER HAVE SEX?

Obsessions or fetishes are normal inclinations towards one thing or the other. Here is a list of a few fetishes – while some are innocent, the other are on the wild side. 

We all have things that turn us on. Don’t be afraid of them, enjoy them as they will help make your sex life better. Check the list if any of these are yours and hey, you might even find something you didn’t know you liked.

1. Stomachs: Both men and woman like to flaunt their flat stomachs. Nothing is hotter than a woman who is fit, knows it and is oozing with confidence that says ‘I know my body is sexy’.

2. Piercings: This is something that is popular with younger people. They pierce everything than can. They don’t stop at the ears like a normal person does. They may pierce their tongue, eye brows, nipples, lips, tongue, and even their genitals! Ouch!

3. Latex, leather, rubber: A lot of men love to look at women wearing very tight material. One doesn’t have to imagine what the person looks like underneath their clothes – it’s there for anyone to see.

4. Domination: Some men and women like to be told what to do. This may also involve whips, hand cuffs, or chains. It is extremely popular for unfathomable reasons.

5. Feet: This is a popular fetish. Some men like to adorn a woman’s feet with jewellery or henna, while others like to lick them.

6. Lipstick/ fingernails: Red lipstick – all men can think about is the ring that will be left during oral sex. This is one of the things that make a woman look like a woman.

7. Hair: This isn’t as weird. We all like to see a woman who keeps her hair clean and smelling great! Some guys like a woman who has a pony tail or has braids in her hair.

8. Water: Every man dreams of that woman who sticks her head up from the pool and is so very good looking. We like water because people tend to wear little or nothing in water. Nothing looks better on a woman than a wet t-shirt or a wet bathing suit that fits snuggly on her breasts.

9. Golden showers: This is where you urinate on your partner, or they urinate on you and it’s a great turn on. Sometimes it has to do with domination. There is no signal stronger than pissing on someone.

10. Voyeurism: This is the most popular fetish. People love to watch and be watched having sex. This is one of the reasons why porn is so popular. We love to watch someone have sex.

Most of us nurse hidden fetishes. A fetish is characterised as an obsession, not just something sexual that you are attracted towards.Sex expert Dr. Rajan Bhosle says, “Sexual fetishes are nothing more than unconventional, yet harmless sexual practices. There are many, which border on the unhealthy. One should understand that having a fetish is not abnormal, everyone has fetishes, but it’s just that we nurture them within set limits. There are different degrees of fetishes that range from mild to extreme.” He further goes to explain that if, “one is attracted to blondes that’s one thing, but if you are unable to get aroused unless you’re with a blonde, then you likely have a fetish”. 

Fetish can be particular from individual to individual. They fall under three categories – media, form and animate. In the first category, a fetish is developed for a particular material with which one is obsessed with such as rubber, leather, latex, and silk. But with form fetish, it’s the shape of the object that gives a high such as a woman’s stilettoes, knee-high boots or lingerie. On the other hand, body parts like feet, hair, buttocks or breast are called “animate” fetishes.

It’s important to understand that fetish preferences differ from individual to individual. “Generally it’s seen that a fetish is accompanied with certain feelings of guilt or shame. Try and seek other people who share the same sexual desires and practice it,” opines sex expert Dev Karan.

Some of the top fetishes that couples seem to posses:
Body piercing: Ask the younger lot and body piercing seems to be a top fetish amongst them. Interior designer Priya Gill says, “A pierced body turns me on. It can be anything from belly buttons to tongues and eyebrows. Everyone should have at least one body piercing in “that” place to create a feeling of arousal”. Dr Rajan Bhonsle puts in a word of caution saying, “One should be very careful as to where he has got the piercing done from. The area should be free from any kind of infection and kept clean. One should also try to sterilise the ornament they are wearing”.

Latex fetish: Men love material. The “bad” and “naughty” are always attractive. Model Rahul Mehra states, “My girlfriend’s wardrobe has loads of garments in latex and leather. It’s quite a turn on for me and gives me pleasure, making me more innovative in bed”. Watching a woman move around in anything tight and shiny is a tease in itself. Dr Shekhar Shah says, “The hygiene factor is very important. Sweat blisters must be avoided. Signature stockings are common with women. Latex gear also acts a catalyst. Fetishes are, most of the times related to some object or palpable thing”.

Fetish of having sex with a sex worker: The high from having adulterated sex with a sex worker gives a kick. Sayali Singh, a student openly admits “Though I am into a relationship, but last year for the first time I made out with a gigolo. It was extremely exciting as we tried out new sexual positions as compared to my staid boyfriend whose company I don’t enjoy much”. Sexologist Dr. Shekhar Shah highlights that, “while having sex with a prostitute, one should be clear that the person is free from sexually transmitted diseases or he has to pay much more for a fun of a few minutes.”

Voyeurism and display: Many couples confess to being turned on by pornography or watching another couple in the act. HR executive Raj Kaushal admits, “Watching a porn movie makes a lot of difference to my partner and me. Erotic scenes give us a high”. On the other hand there are couples who liked to be watched or even video tape their sessions to later enjoy viewing them. Dr. Rajan Bhonsle explains, “This is a common phenomenon as porn movies are meant to give both partners a sexual boost and inspiration”.

Fetish for body parts: Having a fetish for body parts is a sexual interest most people have. Be it your partner’s hand, feet or even nails – it’s a sexual high. Journalist Ishita Mehra says, “My boyfriend loves it when I run my long nails on his back and he says that it arouses him”. The largest global study of sexual kinks conducted by the University of Columbia reveals that the feet and shoes are by far the biggest turn-ons. Dr Rajan opines, “The body part when well displayed acts as a turn on. The feet and objects associated with the foot are the most common fetishes”.

Braids and ponytails: A woman’s hair has always been a fetish for men. Blondes, brunettes, red heads, long haired, short haired, thick hair or curly haired – men enjoy the feel of a woman’s hair. Raj Kaushal says that, “any girl who has a funky hairstyle or indulges in experimentation with her hair attracts me. I think it’s attractive and sexy”. Hair is used as prop most often in sexual sessions. Dr Dev says, “Men love to play with a woman’s hair and get naughty. Even a slight f difference in colour or texture excites them”.

Unusual outfits to enhance sex: All one needs is to get more creative as Richa Sahoo, a PR executive explains saying “one day I had dressed like a nurse and then my guy’s excitement knew no bounds. He was all charged up with passion”. Dr Rajan explains, “This is very common amongst couples who love to experiment with role play.”

Group sex: Some couples consciously choose to involve other people in their sex play. Software Consultant Richa Singh says, “When I heard first about group orgies I found it to be weird and kinky. But gradually I started living my fantasies; it was a sort of my secret desire which came true”. It’s only necessary to seek help if any harmful consequences are emanating from your sexual habits. Dr Dev says, “Whenever involved in group sex be sure that none of the partners have STD infections and proper hygiene is maintained. Also take care of the place where all of you have got together for the act and ensure it’s a safe spot”.

So, finally it has been confirmed. The MCA has its sticky hands all over the white ‘ang-pows’ issue. But worse than Ibrahim Ali, who distributed cash to senior citizens in these ‘pak kam’ or funeral envelopes instead of using the traditional red packets, the MCA tried to pretend it was not involved.

And like a snake in the grass, Labis MP Chua Tee Yong even slammed Malay rights group Perkasa for the faux pas, when all the while there were MCA leaders who had helped to organize the event.

“Perkasa should have been aware. They should have learnt the practices of another race before organising such an event, so that they did not upset anyone,” said Tee Yong, the son of MCA president Chua Soi Lek, who has maintained a deafening silence while the community raged at what they perceived to be the ultimate insult.

For the issue is not just about an ancient taboo or superstition, it was the blatant and ruthless abuse by the MCA and Perkasa of the community’s senior citizens.

“If this is not betrayal, I don’t what is. If Soi Lek and Tee Yong are not careful, people will say they are capable of selling their own grandmothers to stay in power,” condemned PKR vice president Chua Jui Meng.

Snake in the grass

Indeed, Tee Yoong’s slick words aimed to give the impression that he was on the side of his community and firing at full ballast at the ‘rotten and racist’ ultra rights group Perkasa sickened many who knew the truth behind the incident.

MCA Seputeh division committee member Collin Tiew has confessed that he had helped organize Perkasa’s Chinese New Year gathering and brought along at least 50 senior citizens.

“I have been made a victim for bringing some 50 people to Perkasa’s Chinese New Year open house in Kampung Baru on Sunday. It was not my intention to offend anyone. If my action has hurt the people’s feelings, I would like to apologise to the Chinese community,” said Collin, who s also the MCA Sri Desa branch chief.

Collin’s involvement also confirms the sad suspicions that MCA has all along been playing a double or even triple game to dupe the Chinese community.

In 2008, the party was severely punished by its core electorate for subjugating their rights to Umno’s. MCA leaders were accused and declared guilty by Chinese voters of putting their personal interest and cushy government jobs ahead of Chinese rights such as fighting for fairer distribution of scholarships, licences, business and educational opportunities.

Soi Lek has denied this, always blaming opposition “spin” and “lies” for his party’s own woes. To revive confidence, he has waged a fight for greater economic rights with Umno and Perkasa, demanding that a long-held 30% quota for Malays be dropped.

However, the extent of this fight is always limited and MCA always stops when given a final reprimand from Umno, prompting Malaysians to suspect that it was all a “sandiwara” or playacting.

MCA’s ‘independence’ proven to be a ‘sandiwara’

Collin’s collaboration with Perkasa, although he claims he has never met Ibrahim Ali before, shows that MCA, Umno and Perkasa do work hand in hand together.

This despite, Perkasa staging a shaming and noisy demonstration last year, calling Soi Lek and the Chinese party all sorts of insulting names including “Porn King” to convince the Malays that it was doing its job as a fierce defender of Malay rights, while the MCA ‘co-starred’ to convince the Chinese that it was championing their rights.

“I do not endorse what he said, I merely translated it,” was Collin’s giveaway when asked why he took part in the Perkasa event to the extent that he went on stage and gave a speech.

“If Ibrahim did this for his personal agenda, then I regret it. I am being condemned, I’m a victim of this incident,” was Collin’s rather lame apology.

Exploited and manipulated once too often

But Collin is wrong. He is not the victim. The Malaysian Chinese are the victims – the victims of the MCA’s lies and manipulation of the past decades. And this is why there was such a furore.

“People get fed up of being used and exploited year in, year out. The MCA has gone too far this time. It has pricked its own bubble and the pus is spurting all over. Nobody wants to go near it, Malaysians want a clean country. We want a real country, not a make-believe world and definitely not sandiwara,” PKR vice president Chua Jui Meng toldMalaysia Chronicle.

 Labis MP Chua Tee Yong  Malay rights group Perkasa for the faux pas, when all the while there were MCA leaders to help to organize  the event 

readmore http://taxidriverstreetvoices.blogspot.com

/2012/01/like-father-like-son-snake-in-grass.html

Vinita Dawra Nangia says In an era that prides itself on ripping away dreamy veils to reveal ugly truths, a sense of mystique is a rare, undervalued commodity!

If most people were left gawking after actor Sonam Kapoor’s verbal ‘full monty’ recently at an event in the capital, it was certainly not in admiration! Some snickered, others turned up their noses, while yet more frowned in disapproval. Tsk, tsk, tutted the capital’s swish set, how can a well-brought up lady talk of unmentionables like saggy bums, cellulite and facial hair!

More to the point, how can an actor, who is by the nature of her profession a dream merchant, unpeel the glossy layers to reveal an ugly truth?! Let’s be honest, this is not about honest revelations;  it is more about shattering illusions! Tough to forgive someone who does that! One can never look at Sonam again without thinking of all that is hidden from view!

As it is, social media sites haven’t left much to the imagination. This is an era that has ripped away the aura of mystique, where very few see the advantage of maintaining an enigmatic image. You do not need to wonder anymore what celebrities are doing, with their obsessive compulsion to tweet minute-to-minute ideas and thoughts; gosh, even details of their illnesses and fears!

Compare this to the mysterious aura that surrounds stars of yesteryears, or even Rekha for that matter. A mistress of mystique, never has she stepped out to confirm or deny a rumour. She has been accused of many things but the lady has never reacted. In fact she has smartly teased rumour mongers further by well-executed, pre-meditated acts. Remember the time she stepped out in public with sindoor in her hair, giving rise to rumours that she had secretly married Big B? Or, another time when at an Awards Nite she hugged each member of the Bachchan family till she reached the man himself, who in panic staged a walk-out?

Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was a truly enigmatic woman who despite living out a life in full public glare, was able to maintain her mystique. So is Sonia Gandhi; she leaves people with a sense of wonder and curiosity even in an era of totally intrusive and aggressive media coverage. To their credit, a few actors who keep a distant from tweets and tell-all interviews and so retain some enigma, are Aishwarya Rai, Ranbir Kapoor, Kareena Kapoor, Saif Ali Khan and Katrina Kaif!

Those who know the art of dwelling long in public imagination and hearts, learn the art of keeping the veil in place; it is those who are desperate for any kind of attention, even if short-lived, that insist on tearing all veils down and executing regrettable full montys!

The incessant blows to imagination by hard-hitting reality make it impossible to indulge the ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ (S.T Coleridge’s term for suspending judgement on unreal elements in literature), which is so intrinsic to the true enjoyment of art —  be it fiction, films, theatre or painting and sculpture. It’s almost as if everybody has a compulsion to keep lifting the veil of imagination to let reality make its way through.

For instance, how can you possibly enjoy a television serial when there is a raging controversy on Facebook regarding  “double frames vs single frames” and body doubles?  When you are made to realize that the romantic lead has actually not shot a single scene together for weeks on end and what you are witnessing is actually a slick job by editors? When while watching a programme, facebook starts vibrating with protests about how the creative team has messed up and the real actor and the body double used for the same scene from different angles, are dressed differently?

You do not want to notice these things! I, for one, find it extremely irritating when people watching a movie keep critically pointing out the liberties the filmmaker has taken with reality. For heaven’s sake, he is supposed to do that in order to build a reality away from your actual world — a space where you can escape for some blissful moments! A space where you give in to a willing suspension of disbelief and allow yourself to believe all that the dream merchant wants you to believe.

Of course if you allow yourself to do so… And yes, with your permission, all you actors out there busy washing your dirty linen through tweets!

And yes, of course Ms Sonam Kapoor, once you are done telling us all about your bodily hair, insisting we count your moles and warts along with you and critically examine your “rolls of fat” while you confess that your “t*t and a*s are not very nice”!!!

 

related article http://suarakeadilanmalaysia.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/why-the-world-should-care-about-anwar-ibrahim-believes-that-the-prosecution-case-is-compromised-an

related article

MP Ong Tee Keat. The govt needs to stem the rot Over the better part of last year the country has been engaged in a debate on corruption and money stashed abroad.While corruption is an important issue the more important issue plaguing the nation is lack of  Lack of morals Sex & scams: How we turn a … Read more

MP ONG TEE KEAT. SAYS B.N ‘S LACK OF MORALS A MALAISE THREATENING TO ERODE THE INTEGRITY AND COMPETITIVENESS OF A NATION.

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said the performance of the opposition in the states under their rule left much to be desired.

“They’ve already been given a lot of chances. A lot of unhappy things have happened in Penang, the same (is happening) in Selangor.

“They have been given the chance. What’s there left to try. If we allow the situation to deteriorate badly, it will be difficult to repair,” he told Bernama here.

related article http://suarakeadilanmalaysia.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/who-the-fuck-are-you-haramjada-mahathir-saiful-has-right-to-sell-his-juboq-sex-with-farah/

He was queried on the opposition’s strategy of asking voters to give them just one chance to rule Malaysia and that they could be changed later if they failed to perform.

But eventually the ANWAR lost  patience with  UMNO. Najib was speaking about the Umno’s crony agenda. Not the Malay agenda. For those reasons we must do the exact opposite. Deny these so-called Malay leaders a chance to concentrate power. It’s power which they shall apply to the misfortune of the majority of Malays and to

Read more NAJIB RAZAK TO GANGSTER-CUM-POLITICIAN MAHATHIR I’M GONNA MAKE YOU AN OFFER YOU CAN’T REFUSE GO TO JAIL

To another question, Dr Mahathir, who was Malaysia’s prime minister for 22 years until 2003, said the selection of winnable Barisan Nasional (BN) candidates for the next general election should take into consideration the views of the grassroots.

“If they don’t support the winnable candidates, the winnable candidates will not win,” Dr Mahathir pointed out.

He said that members of BN component parties should be willing to support the chosen candidates irrespective of who they were.

Don’t let Dr M and his hawks blackmail the nation anymore

 A truly suspicious case   feedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something … Read more ADEI PARIAHTULUKAN MAHATHIR DON’T FUCK AROUND ENOUGH OF SODOMIZING THE MALAYS

Dr Mahathir also brushed aside claims that the Malaysian electoral process was unfair.

“In Malaysia, throughout our electoral history, there has never been a time the opposition did not win (any seats). They won to the point of capturing states.

“Many states have fallen into opposition hands. If there is manipulation, no way they can win,” he added.

 Read moreLANDMINES IN A UMNO ECONOMY CULTURE LIBERATING THE MALAY MIND

We begin trumpeting the oft-repeated phrases of freedom and the greatness of our age-old civilization, patriotic values and the glory to the motherland. We speak about the lofty ideals of pluralism and freedom of expression and repeat ’Umno laying groundwork for Sex Video 2.0′Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia’s front-page report yesterday quoting one of the ‘Datuk T’ trio about a new sex video allegedly involving Anwar Ibrahim is yet another attempt to further tarnish the opposition leader’s reputation.   Despite being front-paged by Umno newspaper Utusan, the much-threatened Datuk T sex video sequel drew a big yawn, reflecting the low esteem the Malaysian public held for Prime Minister Najib Razak’s party which has been blamed for sinking the country into unprecedented depths of gutter politicking. …
“Basically, the game is up. Nobody is so stupid as to fall for it anymore. Malaysians have made up their minds how capable a PM Anwar will be and how capable a PM Najib has been. They will make their decision at the ballot box, and it will be in Anwar’s favor even if Datuk T screens a different sex video every night,” Batu MP Tian Chua told Malaysia Chronicle.

most Malay professionals would like to see the two go toe-to-toe on policy issues.
“There appears to be a change in what the people want. They want a new culture of debate rather than smear campaigns,” Merdeka Center director Ibrahim Suffian had said. 

http://themalaybusinesstribune.blogspot.com/2012/01/mahathirs-peculiar-form-of-double.html

“Is this the stand of the opposition Pakatan (Rakyat) coalition, when the government does not even have diplomatic relations with Israel,” the deputy prime minister was quoted as saying in the report.

“The Barisan Nasional regrets this statement by Anwar,” Muhyiddin added, saying the opposition leader’s remarks appeared to ignore the plight of the Palestinians.

Earlier today, Umno Youth accused Anwar of defending “Israel’s Zionist regime” over his reported remarks, saying it was Palestinians who needed protection, defending and humanitarian aid after being oppressed by Israel.

Muslim-majority Malaysia is an ardent supporter of Palestine and has no diplomatic ties with Israel.

Muslim politicians have long vied for support from Malays by denouncing what they say is inhumane aggression from Israel towards its neighbour.

Anwar has previously been attacked as a supporter of the Zionist movement due to his interaction with prominent Jewish figures in the West.

But the opposition leader had turned the tables on BN in 2010 when he claimed public relations firm APCO Worldwide, then contracted by Putrajaya, was responsible for both the 1 Malaysia and 1 Israel campaigns.

Malaysian Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi revealed yesterday that he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Franceexplained Malaysia’s stand on the West Asian issue.Stressing that it was at Netanyahu’s request, he said the Israeli leader had agreed to the conditions that he (Zahid) had insisted on prior to the meeting, which was held during the Paris Air Show]“I said that if he wanted to have a meeting with me, he should not bring along any Israeli aide or photographer and he should not indulge in double standards, and he agreed,[/b]” Dr Ahmad Zahid told Malaysian reporters here. He is on a six-day visit to Lebanon.Zahid said that at their meeting of 35 minutes, he stated that if Israel was sincere about establishing peace in West Asia, it should recognise the Palestinian government.“If Israel wants to extend a hand to establish peace, it must not resort to violence against the people of Palestine and neighbouring countries,” he said.Zahid said Malaysia always stood by countries such as Lebanon, Syria and Palestine in their attempts to stop the Israeli atrocities.He also said that Lebanon has listed Malaysia as a supplier for its military modernisation programme next year.Lebanese Defence Minister Elias Al-Murr made the commitment when Zahid made a courtesy call at his residence here today.“Military assets (weapons and logistics) produced by Malaysia have been tested and found suitable for use by the Lebanese Armed Forces as they suit the climate here,” he told Malaysian reporters here today.
Zahid said he would study the country’s capability in supplying military equipments to Lebanon and ask the defence industry to be prepared.
Lebanon has been promised aid by alliance countries aimed at modernising its military assets, but not for war.
He added the sale of equipment to Lebanon would not be a problem for Malaysia as it only involved ordinary military equipment, not offensive weapons.Zahid is in Lebanon to give moral support to over 340 Malaysian peacekeepers serving with Malcon West 2 under the United Nations (UN)flag to ensure peace at the Lebanon-Israel border.– Bernama

wowww…netanyahu mintak jumpa, zahid letak syarat, netanyahu akur dgn syarat zahid….WOWWWW….;P
(aku harap media2 alternatif tidak labelkan zahid ejen israel…:P)

Early Attempts at Diplomatic Relations

The hostility of Indonesia, which characterized Malaysia as a neocolonialist creation dependent on British bayonets, prompted Malaysia’s leaders to take steps to improve its image, especially in the Afro-Asian world. Approaches to the Arab countries came at the expense of relations with Israel. To win Arab and especially Egyptian sympathy, Malaysia developed a policy of “Muslim solidarity” and made every effort to appear as a Muslim country, especially from 1965 onward. Meanwhile, various Malaysian figures made anti-Israeli declarations and opposed Israel in both bilateral and international contexts.

The first Israeli-Malayan political contact came when Moshe Sharett visited Kuala Lumpur in 1956 as part of his trip to Asia. Sharett had been Israel’s first foreign minister and also prime minister for a time, and he toured Asia under the sponsorship of the Foreign Ministry. “The Tunku” (Abdul Rahman’s princely title) was then chief minister and was expected to serve as prime minister after the granting of independence, which was scheduled for the following year.

Sharett met with the Tunku on 14 October 1956. Sharett suggested that an Israeli consul be appointed in Kuala Lumpur and, after independence, be elevated to ambassadorial level. According to Sharett, the Tunku’s response was “favorable without hesitation” and he said he “welcomes the proposal with pleasure.” The Tunku also said, however, that the idea had to be approved by the British Foreign Office, which was responsible for foreign relations until independence. Before their parting, the Tunku reiterated his own approval and said, “It will be considered an honor for us to have a diplomatic representative from Israel.”³

Only on 13 February 1957 did the Asian and African Division of the Israeli Foreign Ministry instruct Israel’s ambassador in London to approach the British Foreign Office for approval to open a consulate in Malaya. When the British asked the Malays about it, they did not reply promptly but apparently were negatively inclined.

On 13 August, the British Foreign Office advised the Israeli ambassador to wait until Malaya’s independence on 31 August and directly ask the new government. On 26 August, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion sent a congratulatory letter to the Tunku and told him Israel was ready to establish “appropriate representation” in Kuala Lumpur. Israel also voted to accept Malaya in the United Nations. On 23 December, a member of Malaya’s UN delegation told a member of the Israeli delegation that Malaya recognized Israel but had no intention of establishing diplomatic ties with it.

On 10 November 1959 the Israeli envoy to Australia, Moshe Yuval, reported that he had met the day before with the Tunku during the latter’s visit to Australia. Among other things, the Tunku told him: “I remember my conversation with Mr. Sharett. The leadership of Malaya knows the character of Israel very well, but the Muslim masses in our country are opposed to you. Therefore, we cannot establish diplomatic relations with you.” Concurrently, the Tunku promised Arab governments that Malaya would not open formal ties with Israel, and this was reported in Jordanian newspapers.⁴

In August 1960, a new opportunity arose to convey a message to the Malayan government. Because of expense, the Israel Football Association was unable to send a representative to a conference of the Asian Football Federation in Kuala Lampur, of which Israel was a member and the Tunku was president. The Israel Football Association requested that the Foreign Ministry dispatch someone to Kuala Lumpur from a nearby embassy. The Foreign Ministry decided to send this author, then serving as the second secretary in Rangoon, Burma (now Myanmar).

In the course of a conversation with the Tunku, he explained that establishing diplomatic relations with Israel would give the opposition radical-Islamic political party ammunition to weaken the government.⁵  Nevertheless, the warm hospitality and expression of goodwill by the Tunku and other major Malay figures raised the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s hope that Malaya would not rebuff various Israeli attempts at contacts, eventually laying the groundwork for diplomatic ties. One idea was to open a consulate in Singapore, then a separate British Crown Colony, that would handle affairs concerning nearby Malaya.⁶

In November 1961, the Tunku visited London. Israeli ambassador Arthur Lurie met with him on 25 November. Lurie expressed Israel’s disappointment at the lack of diplomatic ties and suggested beginning by appointing a lower-level representative such as a consul. The Tunku responded that pro-Arab groups strongly opposed Malaya recognizing Israel, and that the Arab countries, especially Egypt, pressured Malaya in this regard. He said he would welcome, however, the development of commercial relations and suggested opening a consulate in Singapore, which was then the center of Malayan commercial activity.

The Israeli commercial company Astraco, which had branches in other Asian countries, had earlier opened an office in Singapore. In March 1963, the Malayan Foreign Ministry granted it a license to open a branch, known as Interasia, in Kuala Lumpur.⁷

The Federation of Malaysia was formally established on 16 September 1963. Israeli foreign minister Golda Meir sent the Tunku a congratulatory telegram.⁸

Early in 1964, less than a year after opening the office in Kuala Lumpur, Astraco decided that it had no economic justification and the Singapore office could handle commerce with Malaya. The head of the company conveyed this to the director of the Asian and African Division of the Foreign Ministry. The question arose as to whether it was worth continuing the office in any way possible so as to maintain an Israeli presence in Kuala Lumpur. A Foreign Ministry official could be sent to manage the Interasia branch and attempt to promote relations between the two countries. The present author volunteered for this assignment.

Continued Rebuffs

At the end of May 1964, the Tunku’s closest friend and football entrepreneur Lim Kee Siong arrived in Israel as the Asian football tournament was being held there. This author presented him with a letter to the Tunku stating, among other things, this author’s intention to come to Malaysia. Lim Kee Siong also met with Foreign Minister Meir. He told her that the Tunku and the Malaysians in general felt friendship toward Israel, but Arab pressure and the need for support in Malaysia’s conflict with Indonesia, which opposed Malaysia’s creation, prevented setting up diplomatic ties with Israel.

Meir replied that Malaysia being a Muslim country did not justify the lack of diplomatic relations with Israel and mentioned the examples of Nigeria, Chad, and other African Muslim countries. She asked Lim Kee Siong to convey to the Tunku that Israel was interested in full diplomatic relations or, at least, the gradual development of ties between the two countries.

On 18 July 1964, the director-general of the Malaysian Foreign Ministry, Zaitun Ibrahim, visited the Israeli ambassador in Bangkok, Yehiel Ilsar, who was an old acquaintance. Zaitun Ibrahim, too, said there was great friendliness toward Israel in Malaysia but also opposition because of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Tunku had to take into account the hostility toward Malaysian-Israeli ties in the opposition parties, and in his own party as well. Malaysia, furthermore, needed all the support it could garner from Islamic and Arab countries.

At the start of August 1964, the Tunku gave a lecture to the Foreign Affairs Council in New York. When a listener asked about Malaysian-Israeli relations, the Tunku responded that Malaysia was involved in a bitter struggle with Muslim Indonesia and could not expose itself to the criticism and pressure that would result from improving ties with Israel. Nevertheless, Malaysia maintained a favorable attitude toward Israel and he himself had made special efforts to clarify this to Israeli representatives in various countries.

This author was in Kuala Lumpur from November 1964 to January 1966-outwardly, as head of an Israeli commercial concern and not as a diplomat. However, the Malaysian government understood the real nature of the mission. During this period the author met with the Tunku, the interior minister, the permanent secretary of the Foreign Ministry, and with the secretary of the Department of Culture, Youth and Sport, all of whom were Muslims, and with other ministers who were Chinese and Indian.

At this time Israel made concerted efforts to further relations with Malaysia, which failed for two main reasons. First, it was too late; Malaysia, as noted, was already trying to marshal Arab support in its struggle with Indonesia and wanted to strengthen ties with the Arab world. Second, the Israeli Foreign Ministry dealt with the matter carelessly and sporadically.⁹  Three forces pressured the Malaysian government to expel this author from Kuala Lumpur and terminate the Israeli presence in Malaysia: the Islamic opposition party, the Egyptian embassy, and the British High Commission. The Foreign Office in London and the High Commission in Kuala Lumpur took pains to conceal their attitude from Israel.¹⁰

Malaysia’s Growing Antagonism

In the wake of the Conference of Nonaligned Nations in October 1964, Malaysia wanted all the more to be accepted among the Afro-Asian countries. By 1965, its attitude toward Israel was increasingly antagonistic. Its diplomats avoided Israeli counterparts, and it refused to grant entry permits to Israelis, engaged in anti-Israeli initiatives at the United Nations, and made belligerently anti-Israeli, sometimes even anti-Semitic, declarations in the United Nations, international agencies, and so on. In 1965, four Malaysians participated in courses at the Afro-Asian Institute in Israel, and another came to Israel for an advanced course on education. From 1966, no more Malaysians came to Israel for studies.

In the parliament in Kuala Lumpur on 23 August 1966, the Tunku stated that Malaysia did not recognize Israel. He even berated Singapore, which by then was independent, for having Israeli advisers, and compared Singapore’s status in Southeast Asia as an enclave surrounded by Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia to that of Israel surrounded by Arab countries. As of January 1968, Israeli seamen arriving at Malaysian ports were forbidden to disembark from their ships. In 1974, trade with Israel and the granting of entry permits to Israelis were completely prohibited.

Five years after Malaya’s independence, it had diplomatic relations only with Egypt and Saudi Arabia among the Arab countries. After 1967 this increased, and by 1991 Malaysia had relations with all of them.¹¹

Nevertheless, impromptu interactions with Israel continued. In August 1968 Abd al-Rahman, a businessman and son of the Tunku, came to Israel on the initiative of and accompanied by the Israeli entrepreneur Shaul Eisenberg. Abd al-Rahman represented a Malaysian lumber company and met with people in that field during his visit. In November 1969, Malaysian representatives of the Asian Sports Federation asked their Israeli colleagues to support Malaysia’s bid to host the Asia Games in 1974. They claimed that the Tunku was obligated to prevent discrimination of the kind that occurred when Israel was not invited to the Asian Games in Jakarta in 1962.¹²

The Tunku retired as prime minister in 1971 and was appointed the head secretary-general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).  From 1971 to 1981, two Malaysian prime ministers continued the policy toward Israel but took no particular interest in the Jewish state. The situation changed when Dr. Dato Mahathir bin Muhamad was elected prime minister on 1 July 1981. Mahathir introduced a different style. His book The Malay Dilemma, written in 1969 in the wake of Malay-Chinese riots, manifests his racist outlook. In this generally anti-Chinese work, Mahathir maintained that races are distinguished not only by ethnic origin but also by many other characteristics. The Jews, for example, not only have hooked noses but also an instinctive understanding of finances. Sale of the book was banned in Malaysia, and Mahathir was temporarily expelled from the ruling Malay political party.

A short time later, he was reinstated and intensified his political activity, eventually becoming education minister and later prime minister. A radical Muslim, Mahathir was severely anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic and gave Malaysia’s foreign policy a new tone toward Israel and in general.¹³

An Anti-Semitic Prime Minister

During Mahathir’s years as prime minister he made extreme anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic statements, some of which achieved wide resonance. Mahathir nurtured anti-Semitism in a Malaysia that was without Jews. On 27 January 1981, in a speech in Saudi Arabia, he urged regaining the Palestinian lands by force since Israel was not invincible. He also, as will be discussed, vilified Israel at major venues.

In June 1983, Mahathir issued a statement attacking Israel for its incursion into Lebanon and calling it “the most immoral country in the world.” In October 1983, at the OIC’s Sixth Conference on Palestine held in New York, Malaysia expressed concern about Israel’s renewed activities in Africa and called for their immediate halt. Malaysia opposed establishing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and supported the resolution at the Jerusalem Conference of the OIC (New York, April 1984) to sever ties with any country that moved its ambassador to Jerusalem.

Malaysia supported the PLO more strongly than did any other Southeast Asian country. In 1969, Malaysia was the first Asian country to permit Fatah to open an office in its capital, which in 1974 became a PLO office. In August 1982, under Mahathir, this office was given full diplomatic recognition. Malaysia’s foreign minister claimed that Israel should recognize the PLO before demanding that it recognize Israel. In May 1983, Malaysia hosted a conference on the Palestine question with UN funding and expressed anti-Israeli propaganda in its media. Yasser Arafat, paying an official visit to Malaysia in July 1984, was received by the king and spoke to a large audience.¹⁴

In August 1984, a visit to Kuala Lumpur by the New York Philharmonic was canceled because of the Malaysian information minister’s demand that a work by the Swiss Jewish composer Ernst Bloch be removed from the program. The minister’s statement on the matter included anti-Semitic expressions.

 From 1983 onward, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was published and disseminated in Malaysia. On 12 August 1983, Mahathir asserted in a speech to the Malaysian Press Club that Jews and Zionists controlled the international media. He repeated this charge four days later and added that the journalists working for foreign newspapers under Jewish control were trying to destabilize Malaysia through distorted reports.  He called the Wall Street Journal a Jewish tool.

  In a speech in September 1986 at the summit of the Nonaligned Nations in Zimbabwe’s capital, Harare, Mahathir complained that the Jews’ exile two thousand years ago and their persecution under the Nazis had not taught them anything. On the contrary, these persecutions had turned them into the very monsters they vilified in their own propaganda; they had become the gifted students of Goebbels.

In another speech to the Malaysian parliament on 10 October 1986, Mahathir referred to attempts by Zionists to use Malaysian individuals and groups to damage the country’s economy. He also blamed the “Zionist press” in Western countries for the low level of American investment in Malaysia.  He often attacked the New York Times and the Asian Wall Street Journal as Zionist publications.¹⁵

Israeli president Chaim Herzog’s visit to Singapore in November 1986 evoked harsh Malaysian reactions including bitter condemnations of Israel and Zionism. There were calls to cut off Singapore’s water supply and burn its flag.¹⁶

Mahathir and Malaysian diplomatic representatives made constant belligerent speeches about Israel, often condemning it for causing suffering to the Palestinians. In 1992, Malaysia denied entry to a delegate from Israel’s El Al airlines for the International Flight Conference in Kuala Lumpur. In December that year, it denied entry to an Israeli football player on the Liverpool team, and the team canceled its visit to Malaysia.

In March 1994, Mahathir prohibited the screening of Steven Spielberg’s movie Schindler’s List on the ground that it was an anti-German propaganda film aimed at winning support for Jews and contained too much violence. When this evoked protests in the United States and Australia, the Malaysia cabinet canceled the prohibition against the film but required that seven scenes with violence or sex be cut. Spielberg, however, insisted that the film be shown in its entirety or not at all. In the end, it was decided to remove all his films from Malaysia.¹⁷

Early in 1992, Israel began normalizing its relations with China, India, and other Asian countries. This drew its Foreign Ministry’s attention to the Muslim countries in Asia. The view regarding Malaysia was that Mahathir was an anti-Semite and there was no chance of changing his country’s hostile policy so long as he was prime minister.

The Oslo Era

The signing of the Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles on 20 August 1993 brought Mahathir to lower his tone. Malaysia’s deputy foreign minister announced in parliament that Malaysia welcomed the Israeli-PLO agreement. Mahathir, on a different occasion, said Malaysia would consider diplomatic relations with Israel, but first Israel had to do more to bring peace to the Middle East. He expressed hope that Israelis and Palestinians could now live in peace and that all Palestinian land would be returned, and pointed out that the future status of Jerusalem remained unresolved.

The deputy minister of international trade and industry said Malaysia aimed to penetrate the Israeli market as soon as the two countries set up diplomatic relations; meanwhile, the trade and economic sanctions against Israel would continue. The foreign minister said Malaysia would pledge $5 million to help the Palestinians govern Gaza and Jericho, would help them develop the infrastructure in areas evacuated by Israel, and would provide technical assistance in the administrative and police domains. The PLO ambassador to Malaysia claimed it was the first country to offer assistance to the PLO after the signing of the agreement with Israel.

On 28 December 1993, however, Mahathir announced at a press conference that Malaysia was not yet ready to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. By then several Gulf states had done so, but Malaysia’s stance was that Israel still had much to do. For example, Israel had not announced its acceptance of a Palestinian state or that it would cease “terrorist activities” even as the Palestinians were asked to end their own terror tactics.¹⁸

On 14 July 1994, the brother of the king of Malaysia, Tunku Abdallah bin Tunku abd Al-Rahman, paid a private visit to Israel. He was the chairman of a consortium of commercial and investment companies. Among others, Tunku Abdallah met with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. When the visit was made known in Malaysia, Mahathir denied that the government had arranged it or that Tunku Abdallah was on a diplomatic mission. He said he did not know about the trip and believed it was strictly for business.

On returning to Kuala Lumpur on 16 July, Tunku Abdallah said his visit was entirely private and aimed at checking the feasibility of opening commercial relations in tourism and technology, and this was in the framework of his trip to Europe. He claimed Israel had exploited his visit for political advantage since he was the king’s brother, and that his meetings with Rabin and Peres were of a social nature only. He apologized to all those who were offended by the visit. Nevertheless, the justice minister threatened that the police would investigate Tunku Abdallah and confiscate his passport for breaking the law by visiting Israel.¹⁹

While the Malaysia government and media were occupied with Tunku Abdallah’s visit, Mahathir announced that Rabin had written to him to suggest establishing diplomatic relations in light of the improved Israeli-PLO ties. Mahathir had replied, he said, that Malaysia opposed such relations until Israel and the PLO resolved all the remaining issues between them. He told the press, moreover, that he was not convinced of Israel’s sincerity in its peace talks with the PLO, since “Israel continues to humiliate the Palestinians and has no intention of returning Jerusalem to them.” Although Rabin believed this was the right time to advance relations with the Asian Muslim countries, his overture to Mahathir was merely tentative.

Meanwhile, Malaysia had no intention to revoke its trade embargo with Israel. In a visit to Jordan on 9 October 1994, Mahathir explained at a press conference that Malaysia would decide whether to recognize Israel only after it signed peace treaties with all the Arab countries and fulfilled all the Arab demands including with respect to Jerusalem.²⁰

At that time there were indications that Malaysia had changed its approach to Israel in some areas relating to economics. During 1994, a small number of Israelis were allowed to enter Malaysia to attend international conferences on various topics. Specifically, in December that year Malaysia granted entry permits to eight Israelis who came to participate in a conference on fertilizers.²¹

On 24 October that year, Malaysia permitted Malaysian Muslims to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem but not to visit other places in Israel. The pilgrims could enter Israel only through Jordan and stay no longer than two weeks. In announcing this, the deputy foreign minister said there was no change in Malaysia’s policy toward Israel despite its attempts to make peace with Arab countries and the PLO.

When this was made public, Christian groups in Malaysia asked for a similar arrangement. The foreign minister approved their request on 10 November. Shortly thereafter, the president of Malaysia’s travel-agent association met with the commerce and tourism attachés at the Israeli embassy in Singapore to work out details for Malaysian tourism to Jerusalem. During 1-5 January 1995, a delegation of Malaysian travel agents visited Israel.²² In that year, a Malaysian delegation took part in an economic conference in Casablanca in which Israel also participated, and in a continuation of the conference in Amman, and El Al and the Malaysian national airline signed an air-traffic agreement.

Furthermore, in late May 1995 a Malaysian television crew visited Israel. On 18 June, the program it filmed there was broadcast on Malaysian television. It included an interview with, among others, the then Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert. Israeli songs were heard in the background.²³

The picture was more complex regarding commercial relations. On 17 September 1994, Malaysian customs authorities impounded a shipment of 24,000 tons of fertilizer on the suspicion that it originated in Israel, from which imports were illegal. However, Malaysia began to suspect that there was a counterboycott on selling Malaysian products by Jewish businessmen in various countries. In mid-January 1996, Malaysia’s minister of international trade and industry announced that his ministry was exploring the possibility of gradually instituting commercial relations with Israel. He added, however, that such trade would have no political significance. “It will be like with Taiwan. We do not have diplomatic relations with her but there are numerous commercial relations.”

In a visit to New Delhi in January 1996, Israel’s then finance minister Avraham Shochat said he looked forward to diplomatic relations with Malaysia and Indonesia in the near future. The director-general of Malaysia’s Foreign Ministry responded by saying Malaysia was in no hurry to have diplomatic ties with Israel, repeating what Mahathir had said a few days earlier.²⁴

An Ongoing Coolness

Revealing misplaced enthusiasm, the director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Industry and Trade, Yosi Snir, requested clarification from Malaysia on the issue of permitting economic relations with Israel. Only upon receiving a response, he explained, would his ministry remove Malaysia from the list of countries from which imports were forbidden. In addition, the spokesperson for the Israel embassy in Singapore said Israel looked forward to Malaysia taking steps to normalize commercial and diplomatic relations with Israel.²⁵

Apparently, Malaysia did not respond to the Israeli feelers. In mid-February 1996, however, a Malaysian businessman visited Israel to discuss cooperation between Israeli and Malaysian companies. In late March a delegation of Malaysian businessmen came to Israel and held talks with heads of chambers of commerce. Although Malaysia’s official boycott of Israeli products still stood, the head of the Malaysian delegation said he had been authorized by the minister of industry and trade. In early May the Israeli Port Authority sponsored an international conference, and a sixteen-member Malaysian delegation attended with government approval.

These developments, along with Malaysia’s change of policy in granting entry permits to Israelis, created an expectation that Malaysia was about to open an economic interest office in Tel Aviv.²⁶ In June 1996, the parliamentary secretary of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry announced in parliament that his ministry was considering sending an official commercial mission to Israel. The Malaysian foreign minister added that future commercial relations with Israel depended on the efforts of the new Israeli government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, to achieve peace. In October 1996, the Malaysian bank Public Bank Bhd. established direct relations with Israel’s Bank Hapoalim to enable commercial firms in both countries to make direct financial transactions. Malaysia’s deputy finance minister announced that Israeli businessmen would be permitted to invest in Malaysia.²⁷ 

In light of these developments, the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) in New York decided to urge Malaysian leaders to speed up establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. Several meetings were held with Malaysian representatives to the United Nations and with Malaysia’s deputy prime minister, but these did not lead to any positive outcomes.

In 1997, Malaysia took two small steps in the area of youth and sports. During 3-16 March, an Israeli youth delegation made up of fourteen high school students of both sexes visited Malaysia. It was said that Mahathir himself was behind the initiative. The students visited two schools and met with the education minister and other senior government officials. This visit did not arouse public interest.

Yet when an Israeli cricket team arrived a few days later to take part in an international tournament, demonstrations by Muslims and students erupted in which Israeli flags were burned. To achieve calm, the foreign minister quickly declared in parliament that Malaysia had no intention to establish diplomatic relations with Israel “until Tel Aviv honors its obligations according to the peace treaty it signed with the Palestinians.”²⁸

Mahathir had made the same point at a press conference in New York late in September 1996. Moreover, in reaction to the violence that had erupted over Israel’s opening of a tunnel at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, he accused the new Netanyahu government of trying to retreat from the agreements signed by the Rabin government. Mahathir said the opening of the tunnel was a provocation and an assault on the sanctity of the Al-Aksa Mosque. Speaking at the UN General Assembly at that time, Malaysia’s foreign minister said Israel’s attempt to make Jerusalem its capital was illegal, and that Malaysia supported the Palestinians’ aspirations for self-determination in their own state.²⁹

Protesting Mahathir

In July 1997, when Malaysia faced a severe economic crisis, Mahathir was convinced it was caused by the Jewish financier George Soros. It seems Soros’s dealing in Malaysian currency harmed the country’s economy, and the reports in Malaysian newspapers were full of anti-Semitic innuendos. Mahathir tried to explain this: “We are not anti-Semites. The Arabs are also Semites. Just as people make a connection between Islam, Muslims and terrorism, there are people in this country who are inclined to connect [dealing in foreign currency] with Jews. . . . I think that most Jews are innocent, but the impression is that the Jews have a lot of money. They know how to manipulate money. . . . “

In October 1997 when the crisis worsened, Mahathir continued his anti-Semitic rhetoric. He referred in a speech to the “international Jewish conspiracy” and to his government’s fears that the Jews planned to destroy Malaysia’s and other Muslim countries’ economies.³⁰

American Jewish organizations reacted. The JCRC sent a letter of protest on Mahathir’s comments to Malaysia’s UN representatives. Jewish leaders in New York met with Malaysian diplomats and with the Malaysian deputy prime minister and finance minister, Anwar Ibrahim, who was visiting the city. The Malaysians tried to explain that Mahathir was prone to outbursts and did not heed advice from anyone, but was not an anti-Semite. Anwar Ibrahim, however, said Mahathir sincerely believed in the “international Jewish plot.” Shortly thereafter Mahathir fired Anwar Ibrahim, who was tried for corruption and sexual offenses and given a long sentence.

The Jewish leaders demanded that Malaysia establish full diplomatic relations with Israel. The Malaysian UN ambassador and Anwar Ibrahim explained that Malaysia supported Palestinian rights and censured the Netanyahu government. The time was not right to continue working to improve relations, and Malaysia was not ready for normalization.

Additional Jewish organizations condemned Mahathir as an anti-Semite, as did the U.S. State Department. The World Jewish Congress announced that it would file a complaint with the UN Council on Human Rights in Geneva. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning Mahathir for his anti-Semitic remarks.

Mahathir, however, rejected all criticism and did not apologize. The only step taken was an official Malaysian letter, not from Mahathir himself, to the UN Council on Human Rights claiming that Mahathir was incorrectly quoted in the media and “never intended to insult Jews or cause them distress.” Whereas the World Jewish Congress praised the letter and considered the incident closed, Israel did not see it as an adequate apology.

On 21 June 2003, officials of Mahathir’s political party distributed copies of Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic book The International Jew to delegates at their annual assembly, where Mahathir delivered a speech. On 16 October that year at a meeting of the OIC in Kuala Lumpur, two weeks before stepping down as prime minister, Mahathir delivered an anti-Semitic diatribe, saying among other things that “the Jews rule the world.” Although many countries outside the OIC objected, he did not retract. The Egyptian foreign minister and other Muslim figures praised his remarks and supported him.³¹

Nevertheless, during these years the signs of a thaw continued. In 1998 a Malaysian, for the first time since 1965, took a course on community development in Israel.³² In February 2000 two Israeli teams, male and female, participated in a ping pong tournament in Malaysia. The opposition Muslim political party warned the government of “undesirable consequences” and claimed Israel was an “illegal country.” The minister of sport responded that Malaysia could not discriminate against any country if it wished to hold international sport competitions and especially if it wanted to host the Asia Games in 2006. He affirmed that Malaysia’s view of Israel as oppressor of the Palestinians remained in force.

Since succeeding Mahathir as prime minister in October 2003, Dato Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi has reiterated Malaysia’s total support for the Palestinians and severely criticized Israel, though in a style less crude than Mahathir’s. He accused Israel of state terrorism and of inflicting evils on the Palestinians that were starting to resemble the atrocities undergone by the Jews themselves. He said in a speech on 14 September 2005, “We must maintain a distinction between acts of terrorism and the right of people fighting for self-determination,” implying that Palestinian terrorism was justified. He criticized suicide bombings as inexpedient but not as immoral.³³

Conclusion

Despite Malaysia’s many provocations regarding Israel, especially during Mahathir’s tenure, the country has not generally been of great interest to Israeli policymakers or to Asia specialists in its Foreign Ministry. Sharett was an exception, and Meir in the 1960s and Rabin in the 1990s also showed some interest. Otherwise prime ministers and foreign ministers have been indifferent, even though Mahathir’s pronouncements in particular could have prompted Israeli countermeasures in the United States.

Malaysian politicians state from time to time state that they will not open diplomatic relations with Israel so long as the Palestinian problem is not solved.

By Mohja Kahf
“A secret locked” is supposed to mean, a Muslim woman’s beauty, which she has kept under her physical hijab, “A tale untold” is supposed to mean her personality which she has kept reserved with her inner hijab which is her sense of modesty Wedding Night of a Muslim Woman My secret locked, a tale untold,The only key, within your hand,
Too sacred for them to be hold, To pure for them to understand.
Tonight I tell that tale to you,An open book for you to read,Your book, I yearn to read it too,And share each breath, your every need.
Gone the lonesome years, weeks, days,For now our hearts have taken flight,
You look at me with longing gaze,And I, at you with shy delight.
Love me; love all that I am,Cherish me as precious treasure,
Teach me with gentle guiding handEndlessly seeking His pleasure.
Poem By Fatima Barkatulla
This poem is from Sisters Magazine
What did your wedding night mean to you? I wrote this a few days ago and tried to capture the feelings one has after ones wedding: that evening when for the first time I prayed with my husband, and spent my first hours with him. My wedding day and the early days or weeks after marriage were the dearest days of my life to me. Alhamdulillah since then Allah has given us even more depth to our relationship and has given us wonderful days too, but those early weeks, they are unique. And for a girl from a religious family, who had worn her hijab from the age of 9, it was a totally new experience. Alhamdulillah for the blessings of this life which give us a glimpse as to how wonderful the blessings of the next life might be…
Explanation of the poem: (just to prevent any misunderstandings!)
Well, actually it is about the beauty of Muslim Marriage in general, not just my own personal experience. And it is about how the Wedding Night is the first time that a Muslim couple get to really understand each other’s personalities.
“A secret locked” is supposed to mean, a Muslim woman’s beauty, which she has kept under her physical hijab, “A tale untold” is supposed to mean her personality which she has kept reserved with her inner hijab which is her sense of modesty.
“The only key within your hand”: means that the only person who has access to see her and to get to know her is her husband. The next two lines mean that the people around her, men and women who don’t understand hijab, can’t see the purity in it and are not allowed to see the precious nature of the Muslim women beneath.
“Tonight I tell that tale to you” is meant to mean: that tonight the Muslim woman is able to freely express her personality and tell her life-story to someone at last who really is interested and wants to hear.
The “open book” meaning the story of her life, her biography so far. And the next lines: That she too longs to understand her new husband and where he has been, what he has done and what experiences have made him who he is.
“For now our hearts have taken flight” means that it is on the Wedding Night that Allah puts true love between your hearts, as you get to spend more time with each other.
“You look at me with longing gaze, And I at you with shy delight”, well, there I tried to capture the fact that now the couple can freely look at each other.
The last four verses contain the message that a Muslim woman has for her husband about their marriage to come: to love her and all the good in her, to cherish her and value her, to correct her gently if she needs correcting, to teach her with wisdom, bearing in mind that their life is all about seeking Allah’s pleasure.

Crimson chiffon, silver lamé or green silk: Which scarf to wear today? My veil collection is 64 scarves and growing. The scarves hang four or five to a row on a rack in my closet, and elation fills me when I open the door to this beautiful array. Last week, I chose a particularly nice scarf to slip on for the Eid al-Fitr festivities marking the end of the month of Ramadan.

It irks me that I even have to say this: Being a Muslim woman is a joyful thing.

My first neighbor in Arkansas borrowed my Quran and returned it, saying, “I’m glad I’m not a Muslim woman.” Excuse me, but a woman with Saint Paul in her religious heritage has no place feeling superior to a Muslim woman, as far as woman-affirming principles are concerned. Maybe no worse, if I listen to Christian feminists, but certainly no better.

Blessings abound for me as a Muslim woman: The freshness of ablution is mine, and the daily meditation zone of five prayers that involve graceful, yoga-like movements, performed in prayer attire. Prayer scarves are a chapter in themselves, cool and comforting as bedsheets. They lie folded in the velveteen prayer rug when not in use: two lightweight muslin pieces, the long drapey headcover and the roomy gathered skirt. I fling open the top piece, and it billows like summer laundry, a lace-edged meadow. I slip into the bottom piece to cover my legs for prayer time because I am wearing shorts around the house today.

These create a tent of tranquility. The serene spirit sent from God is called by a feminine name, “sakinah,” in the Quran, and I understand why some Muslim women like to wear their prayer clothes for more than prayer, to take that sakinah into the world with them. I, too, wear a (smaller) version of the veil when I go out. What a loss it would be for me not to have in my life this alternating structure, of covering outdoors and uncovering indoors. I take pleasure in preparing a clean, folded set for a houseguest, the way home-decor mavens lay elegant plump towels around a bathroom to give it a relaxing feel.

Tassled turquoise cotton and flowered peach crepe flutter as I pull out a black-and-ivory striped headscarf for the day. When I was 22 and balked at buying a $30 paisley scarf, my best friend told me, “I never scrimp on scarves. If people are going to make a big deal of it, it may as well look good.”

I embraced that principle, too, even when I was a scratch-poor graduate student. Today I sort my scarves, always looking to replace the frayed ones and to find missing colors, my collection shrinking and expanding, dynamic, bright: The blue-and-yellow daisy print is good with jeans, the incandescent purple voile for a night on the town, the gray houndstooth solidly professional, the white chambray anytime.

As beautiful as veils are, they are not the best part of being a Muslim woman — and many Muslim women in Islamic countries don’t veil. The central blessing of Islam to women is that it affirms their spiritual equality with men, a principle stated over and over in the Quran, on a plane believers hold to be untouched by the social or legalistic “women in Islam” concerns raised by other parts of the Scripture, in verses parsed endlessly by patriarchal interpreters as well as Muslim feminists and used by Islamophobes to “prove” Islam’s sexism. This is how most believing Muslim women experience God: as the Friend who is beyond gender, not as the Father, not as the Son, not inhabiting a male form, or any form.

And the reasons for being a joyful Muslim woman go beyond the spiritual. Marriage is a contract in Islam, not a sacrament. The prenup is not some new invention; it’s the standard Muslim format. I can put whatever I want in it, but Muslims never get credit for that. Or for having mahr, the bridegift that goes from the man to the woman — not to her family, but to her, for her own private use. A mahr has to have significant value — a year’s salary, say. And if patriarchal customs have overridden Islam and whittled away this blessing in many Muslim locales, it’s still there, available, in the law. Hey, I got mine (cash, partly deferred because my husband was broke when we married; like a loan to him, owed to me whenever I want to claim it) — and I was married in Saudi Arabia, a country whose personal-status laws are drawn from the most conservative end of the Muslim spectrum.

I had to sign my name indicating my consent, or the marriage contract would not have been valid under Saudi Islamic law. And, of course, I chose whom to marry. Every Muslim girl in the conservative circle of my youth chose her husband. We just did it our way, a conservative Muslim way, and we did it without this nonsensical Western custom of teenage dating. My friends Salma and Magda chose at 16 and 17: Salma to marry boy-next-door Muhammad, with whom she grew up, and Magda to marry a doctor 10 years her senior who came courting from half a world away. Both sisters have careers, one as a counselor, one as a school principal, and both are still vibrantly married and vibrantly Muslim, their kids now in college.

I held out until I was 18, making my parents beat back suitors at the door until I was good and ready. And here I am, still married to the guy I finally let in the door, 22 years (some of them not even dysfunctional) later. My cousin, on the other hand, broke off a marriage she contracted (but did not consummate) at 16 and chose another man. Another childhood friend, Zeynab, chose four times and is looking for Mr. Fifth. Her serial monogamy is nothing new or radical; she didn’t pick up the idea from reading Cosmo or from the “liberating” influence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. It’s simply what a lot of women in early Muslim history did, in 7th- and 8th-century Arabia.

And would you guess that we’ve also been freer to divorce and remarry than Christian women have been for most of history? In medieval times, when Christian authorities were against divorce and remarriage, this was seen as another Islamic abomination. Now that divorce and remarriage are popular in the West, Muslims don’t get credit for having had that flexibility all along. We just can’t win with the Muslim-haters.

Here’s another one: Medieval Christianity excoriated Islam for being orgiastic, which seems to mean that Muslims didn’t lay a guilt trip on hot sex (at least within what were deemed licit relationships). Now that hot sex is all the rage in the post-sexual revolution West, you’d think Muslims would get some credit for the pro-sex attitude of Islam — but no. The older stereotype has been turned on its head, and in the new one, we’re the prudes. Listen, we’re the only monotheistic faith I know with an actual legal rule that the wife has a right to orgasm.

Of course, I’m still putting in my time struggling for a more woman-affirming interpretation of Islam and in criticizing Muslim misogyny (which at times is almost as bad as American misogyny), but let me take a moment to celebrate some of the good stuff. Under Islamic law, custody of minor children always goes first to the mother. The Quran doesn’t blame Eve. Literacy for women is highly encouraged by the traditions of theProphet Muhammad. Breast-feeding is a woman’s choice and a means for her to create family ties independent of male lineage, as nursing creates legally recognized family relationships under Islamic law. Rapists are punishable by death in Islamic law (and yes, an atavistic part of me applauds that death penalty), which they certainly are not in any Western legal code. Birth control allowed in Islamic law? Check. Masturbation? Let’s just say former surgeon general Joycelyn Elders’s permissive stance on that practice is not unknown among classical and modern Muslim jurists. Abortion? Again, allowances exist — even Muslims seem not to remember that.

It’s easy to forget that Muslims are not inherently more sexist than folks in other religions. Muslim societies may lag behind on some issues that women in certain economically advanced, non-Muslim societies have resolved after much effort, but on other issues, Muslim women’s options run about the same as those of women all over the world. And in some areas of life, Muslim women are better equipped by their faith tradition for autonomy and dignity.

There are “givens” that I take for granted as a Muslim woman that women of other faiths had to struggle to gain. For example, it took European and American women centuries to catch up to Islamic law on a woman’s fully equal right to own property. And it’s not an airy abstraction; it’s a right Muslim women have practiced, even in Saudi Arabia, where women own businesses, donate land for schools and endow trusts, just as they did in 14th-century Egypt, 9th-century Iraq and anywhere else Islamic law has been in effect.

Khadija was the boss of her husband, our beloved Prophet Muhammad, hiring him during her fourth widowhood to run caravans for her successful business; he caught her eye, and she proposed marriage to him. Fatima is the revered mother figure of Shiite Islam, our lady of compassion, possessed of a rich emotional trove for us. Her daughter Zainab is the classic figure of high moral protest, the Muslim Antigone, shaking her fist at the corrupt caliph who killed her brother, her tomb a shrine of comfort for millions of the pious. Saints, queens, poets, scribes and scholars adorn the history of Muslim womanhood.

In modern times, Muslim women have been heads of state five times in Muslim-majority countries, elected democratically by popular vote (in Bangladesh twice and also in Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan). And I’m not saying that a woman president is necessarily a women’s president, but how many times has a woman been president of the United States?

Yet even all that gorgeous history pales when I open my closet door for the evening’s pick: teal georgette, pink-and-beige plaid, creamy fringed wool or ice-blue organza? God, why would anyone assume I would want to give up such beauty? I love being a Muslim woman. And I’m always looking for my next great polka-dot scarf.

Saba Azad 

For those of you hungry hippos waiting for round two of my foodamentary… thou shalt hold thy digestive juices another week yet… I’m taking a slight detour of the musical kind this week… so here goes.My relationship with music has been a long and somewhat tumultuous one. There’s been a lot of chasing, hide and seek and sulking involved. Now before you think music is just another corny pet name for my boyfriend let me tell you our story.
I went to a kind of school where music was part of the syllabus and mandatory for all children till their teens. As my mother taught in the same school she gathered soon enough that singing is something both her children have taken a liking to and seem to have a talent for so a music teacher or ‘master ji’ as he liked to be referred to was promptly employed to make sure our untrained voices could be guided into some sort of tamed discipline.

So there we were, my brother and I enrolled in our first formal music lesson. Very early on  we learnt a few things about our new teacher. Sweet guy and all but took some 7 lessons a day so by the time he hit our place he was so knackered that by song two, like clockwork, he’d be nodding off on the harmonium our mother purchased for our learning benefit thus turning the lessons into one big pillow fight. Picture this – master sir asleep on the keys, kids jumping from couch to sofa pulverizing each other.It didn’t take long for mum to realize that mister guru man was nothing short of a sleepwalker thus ending our short-lived training of the musical kind, well mine at least. My brother carried on his training in classical guitar and turned out to be what can safely be referred to as musical genius.My musical career in the meantime was restricted to the school choir where invariable owing to my ‘alto voce’ I was made to sing with the boys. Torturous to say the least given this was the phase of adolescence when every boy was “just disgusting” even though small crushes were quietly developing under the surface. Anyway that is where music stopped for me for many years with my audience restricted to shower faucets and toilet rolls.

Let’s backtrack a little to the beginnings of my curiosity with music.

Ours is what one would call a highly musical household complete with my parents’ insane LP collection to the rarest and oldest analog recordings of the masters of the classical (both Indian and western) scene. Not to forget a large collection of folk from the depths of Punjab and the north west frontier (Sind, Baluchistan). Also a sizable collection of the great dames of ghazal singing Begum Akhtar, Iqbal Bano, Farida Khanum.

Needless to say our education was varied. Where as on one hand Chopin and Bach reigned supreme, Bade Ghulam Ali Khan Saheb and Kumar Gandharva had their own special place. Mum and dad made sure our ears were trained in every possible way not because they wanted to produce little musical protégés but because according to them music is essential to life.Then of course came the teens where everything your parents have shown you is hogwash and you must find your own style to contrast theirs.

This is where MC Hammer, REM, Mr. Big, the unbearable Enigma, 2 unlimited, Khaled, Snow and most importantly the Beatles make an entry, this phase reliant entirely on the then very anglicized FM radio and cassettes was quick to pass and thankfully so leaving behind but one survivor- The Beatles of course.The next phase borrowed from much older (read cooler) cousins by my brother filtered down to me by default in fact now that I think back it wasn’t until my brother left home for college and I was rendered musically dry that I started acquiring a music collection of my own.

Dylan. A sub phase, which followed soon after, moved on to Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, the Rolling Stones, Radiohead, Phish. Followed up by some insane jazz from across the world and ‘world music’ as we like to slot music outside of the cultural boundaries of western or homegrown music. I don’t know if it’s the same with most of you but often I find myself passing through phases where I obsess over a band or a few artists for months on end and then poof just like that I’m done with them until years after on a road trip to god knows where, someone plays it on the car stereo and you find yourself humming every little note mouthing every little lyric…crazy!!

At this point it is important to mention some of my current favorites across all genres stuff I listen to now I wonder if you guys dig someone in here…Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday, Air, The Strokes,

Miles Davis, Ali Farka Toure, Morphine, Iggy Pop, Bebel Gilberto, Buena Vista Social Club, John Renbourne, the Gershwins, Toots and The Maytals,  Spoonbill, JJ Cale, Chet Baker, Traffic, Django Reihardt, Squarepusher, Gotan Project, Prince, Steely Dan, Betty Davis, Jamiroquai,The Stooges, Battles, Mazzy Star, Flying Lotus, Robert Johnson,The Kinks, The White Stripes, Trilok gurtu, ZZ Top, Joni Mitchel, The Yardbirds, Jefferson Airplane, Tom Waits, and so many more everyday growing passing through phases…disappearing for many years and reappearing by accident.

A very important part of my involvement with music came from being audience to some exquisite live performances ever since I was knee high- whether they were drunken fakirs from Pakistan, Pete Seeger, Kishori Amonkar, Pandit Jasraj, Bhimsen Joshi, Roger Waters, Baul musicians from Bengal or drawing room ‘baithaks’ at my uncle’s place.

Ma’s involvement in organizing some of the largest music festivals across the subcontinent at the time gave us an exposure that was not only difficult to come by but highly eclectic and influential to say the least.

My first band (Catharsis) came while I was still in school I was one of three singers and we performed covers from classic rock bands. My next brush with performing outside of the bathroom came post school at many inebriated jams at friend’s places where I slowly from behind large pillars acquired the confidence to sing in public, since then its been one winding road singing for many bands, studio sessions, impromptu lyric writing all along trying to acquire the tools to produce the kind of music I’d like to listen to. Soon soon moon moon!!