Reading history book is much more easier than reading economic or political science book, that I must say. Much of this, I think, is the human inclination toward stories rather than abstract theories, rhetoric, and argument. It took me just 11 days to finish Firas Alkhateeb’s book Lost Islamic History: Reclaiming Muslim Civilization from the Past.

To compress 1400 years of history of Islamic civilization into 274 pages is very hard, if not impossible. To do this, of course, you have to pick and choose on what is important, what to be included, what to exclude and what is history and what is not. This selection  is exposed to the bias of individual historian, all historian cannot escape from this dichotomy, Alkhateeb included.

 Alkhateeb made ‘lost’ as a title to fill the gap that American textbook left about the Islamic history in their teaching of world’s history. So, for average Muslim, who received Islamic education, much of the book is pretty similar to what they were thought in school, especially on the early history about Prophet Muhammad and the first four caliphs. There are a lot of interesting stories, speculation, myth, but none were dealt in details as this work is a compression of 1400 years of history. But all in all, it was a pleasant read, one that spark your brain cell to have a long thinking.

Commenting on how Muslim scholar such as al-Razi and Ibn Sina contributing to the human knowledge, which further the studies of previous scholar such as Galen and Hippocrates, which was used to lay the pillar of modern medical science in the West, Alkhateeb dispelled  the theory of ‘the clash of civilization’ stressing that civilization not only interact in aggressive and warring attitude. They also inspire each other and advance the work of each other in many fields in harmonious ways.

If there is one thing that is new from the book, at least for the Muslim who are well versed with Islamic history, is that Alkhateeb is successful in breaking the romanticized narrative of Islamic history. As we often thought that across the time there were great unity among the Muslim, the fall of one Islamic empire is succeeded by another, politely taking turns. This was not the case. The division is bloody, especially after the killing of Uthman, the third caliph. There are a lot of politicking and civil war, in fact in the 900s, there were three dynasties claiming the caliphate: the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and the Umayyads.

The saddest part of Islamic history may be the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols on 10 February 1258. Not only the population of estimated 200,000 to 1 million was massacred, but the fall of Baghdad also means that hundreds years of scholarship in the field of mathematics, science, history, lost forever as the Mongols razed down the ancient institution of House of Wisdom and dumped all the books into the Tigris River, turning the river black with ink.

The story of Islam in Spain also were discussed, from my point of view, in adequate detail, although the student of history might want to find other sources which delve in it deeper. From the founding of Ummayyad Caliphate of Al-Andalus by Abdul Rahman Al-Dakhil until the fall of the last Muslim Kingdom in Granada under Muhammad XII, known as Boabdil by the Spaniards. The most interesting part of that history is how the Berber Muslim of North Africa frequently crossed the strait of Gibraltar to defend their Muslim brethrens, first by the Murabitun, then by the Muwahhidun, but in the end the infighting among the Muslim brought down the Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula.

As a Malaysian, I chuckled a little bit as I read how Alkhateeb wrote the issue of how the Malay identify greatly their identity with Muslim identity. Not that it was wrong, it kind of funny to read how our culture were written in the international writing. He even quoted ‘masuk melayu’ the term given when someone embraced Islam with the meaning that he had enter the realm of the Malay. This issue actually very contentious at home, as the Muslim in Malaysia want their non-Muslim brother to understand that you can keep your culture even if you embraced Islam.

We often think that Mustafa Kamal, was the one responsible to secularized Turkey from their Islamic roots. But, the fact was it started much earlier, from the reign of Abdulmecid I (1839-1861) which brought in the era of Tanzimat or re-organization. During this era the legal code was changed from Shari’a to the French system in favour of a liberal and secular Western approach.

As the Islamic empire crumbled, the Muslim was instilled with nationalism, their land were carved under colonialism and imperialism. In the end they entered the modern world as individual nation states, much of which the boundaries of these new nation states was drawn by their previous colonial master. Ending his book, Alkhateeb noted that in this modern world, the Muslim now are in the cross road. To return to their former glory, some revivalist scholar preached that they need to return back to their faith, at the same time emerged a new class of scholar that preached that they should not return to the past but embraced the new ideals of the modern world. These two ideas are still contesting with each other, and their future will be determined by how this contest played out.       

I was naive to think that I could understand Marx’s thinking by simply picking up the Communist Manifesto out of the blue and start reading it. Indeed, after this futile exercise several years ago, I understand and remember nothing except for the call for workers to unite, the last line of the manifesto.

Paul D’Amato did a brilliant job in this title explaining to layman reader the essence of Marxist thinking. It is a perfect place for any person to begin their journey to understand Marx’s elaborated thinking. I discover the book some time ago when I asked myself a question “If we gave everyone equal decent living wages to everyone, what will be the motivation for people to work, innovate and use their creativity?” – I landed on one of D’Amato writings on the net and discovered his book.

In his introduction, D’Amato exposes the need to have an alternative thinking to solve various social issues. The raison d’état for this need is the failing of capitalism – or the uncontrolled mess created by modern capitalism to be inherited to future generation. Capitalism created a huge gap between the rich and poor, often unbalance with unimaginable wealth and great misery stood side-by-side. He gave a stark example where per capita income of Sub-Saharan Africa stood at $490 whereas per capita subsidy for European cow is $913.

Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel’s philosophy, in fact he was considered a Young Hegelian during his early years. Initially he considered the workers as a suffering being, not a shaper of the world social condition. He still believed that change must come from philosophy, not crude material struggle. But after witnessing French workers commitment, workers strike in Britain, Germany, and France, Marx ceased to view workers as a secondary component to social change.

Marx materialist method insist on the importance of material change instead of only abstract value, ideologies, or theories. In the absence of enough food, equality as a value means slow death – an equality of suffering. Working class, now, viewed by Marx as active agent for their own liberation. When he wrote that “The philosophers have merely interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it” he is not saying that abstract ideas are meaningless, it is meaningless if its stay on its own without any change on the physical and material ground, idea must transform material changes in society to be considered useful.

Through this thinking materialist rejected the idea that “people are poor because they are lazy, if they work harder, they can become wealthy”, which suggested human has unrestricted “free-will”. The fact is however, people were poor because of material condition such as factories close, wages are low, or people fell ill and can’t work. These all are material condition that can be change, its not a matter of abstract theory.

Because Marx was heavily influenced by Hegel, D’Amato discussed in adequate depth the concept of Hegelian Dialectics, which I enjoyed very much. He discussed how the death of old idea, and the birth of the new idea, is not separate and distinct, but one that negate from the other, the old idea create a condition for a new idea to emerge. Its like a plant which grew out from a seed, it grew into a new shape and form, yet both are the same plant. Marx applied this Hegelian Dialectics with materialism for social change. He viewed that the development of new society only made possible with the abundant material produced by capitalism. In other words, capitalism provided material condition to create a new socialist society. For example, the efficiency of food production makes it possible to eradicate hunger, the material condition exists, what’s needed is a new distribution system.

Other than Hegel, the book also discussed Thomas Hobbes in the chapter of Marxist view of history. Hobbes stated that a state, separate from the society is needed as an alternative to war. The state, in Hobbesian view, acted as referee that regulate social brawl, regulate conflict between different parties within society to maintain order by exerting its coercive force. But this view is flawed as it assumes that the state could be neutral, in reality the state also had interest in every issue. He explained how Marxist rejected this justification for power, stating that, through the writing of Engels, that the concept of state came at the later part of history and does not arise in the earlier time when the society exist in its egalitarian and classless form.

The discussion on economics, or Marxist economics was confined in one chapter in this book. It started with the flawed mainstream economic models that cannot predict economic crises, the mainstream economics dressed up themselves as “science” but it isn’t. He then put forward the labor theory of value (LTV) which was the foundation of Marx’s theory on capitalism. The theory supposed that value came from workers labor, and to create profit, capitalist cannot simply mark-up the price because these will cancel each other’s out in the commerce, they need to pay workers less than what their labor produce, the surplus become profit. This is the core of injustice towards workers, the book also discussed workers condition in company such as UPS and Amazon where workers literally managed and treated like “robots”.

In the capitalist system “over-production” means that a product was overproduced and cannot be profitably sell for profit. The supply and demand of overproduction does not correspond to human needs. That is why we can have “grain-glut” yet millions of people go hungry every year. India have 200 million malnourished people, yet India export 5,000,000 metric tonnes of rice in 1995.

Socialism according two D’Amato was possible and necessary for two main reason, one, the material abundance created by capitalism. This abundance makes it possible for everyone to live with dignity, without hunger, what socialist advocated is the distribution system base on human need not greed. Two, is the periodic crisis brought by capitalism, socialist advocate for a much more sustainable system, that is not based on short term profit, but by long term sustainable planning. The systemic change also possible, by the creation of a new set of people by capitalism, the proletariat.

Revolution is not a fancy vacation. Through out history it filled with blood, the question then is, can we reform the system without revolution? Or change the system gradually within the bound of constitution? D’Amato brought a wealth of historical example on the failure of the “reformist” and “constitutionalist”. One of them is the killing of Allende of Chile, he concluded that the ruling power will not give the key to power and privilege easily, it needs to be wrestled. To make sure that the power can be wrestled, the military must be on their side, and remain on their side once they have the power, so that restructuring can be carried out without falling back to the counter-revolution.

The history of Russian revolution also was discussed, albeit somehow briefly. D’Amato take the readers on how the Revolution was won, the tactics and strategies played out by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, and also how the revolution was lost, degraded into autocratic dictatorship of Stalinism. One of the strategies of Lenin was to never halt the work even though if the organization was thrown into illegality, the work must continue underground, according to the current condition, and resurface once condition allowed. The Russian Revolution failed because of the lack of material condition at that time, in order for socialism to succeed it needs material abundance, something that Russia was lacking. This disadvantage put a halt to the revolution from becoming, in Trotsky’s word “permanent revolution”, that is revolution works permanently until all her aim achieved. Permanent Revolution also means that it will not stop at national border, socialism cannot survive when confined in a nation as an island surrounded by an ocean of capitalism.    

At the core of his argument, D’Amato insist on the definition of socialism, it not about nationalization, but what important is that workers control over production and distribution. What we have today is abundance of produce but disproportionately distributed, the system distributed product base one profit. Socialism on the other hand will base their distribution on human needs. This distribution system can only be achieved through internationalism, it cannot survive as island of socialism in the middle of capitalist ocean, as the failing of Soviet Union has shown.

Quoting the English writer William Morris on profit:

“It is profit which draws men into enormous unmanageable aggregations called towns, for instance; profit which crowds them up when they are there, into quarters without garden or open spaces; profit which won’t take the most ordinary precautions against wrapping a whole district in a cloud of sulfurous smoke; which turns beautiful river into filthy sewers; which condemns all but the rich to live in houses idiotically cramped and confined at best, and at the worst, in houses for whose wretchedness there is no name.”

On Zionism, D’Amato is very clear that the project is racist, but different from their South African counterpart, Zionism goes further than just oppressing native population, it seeks the removal of native Palestinian from their land to build exclusive Jewish state. D’Amato dispelled Zionist propaganda that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land”. He also elaborated on the connection and contact of Zionist leaders with the Nazis, as they share the same goal, the Nazis want Europe without Jew, the Zionist want all Jew to fled Europe to resettled in their new Jewish nation, both shared the same goal of “separation of Jews from gentile”.

Finally, what does the future that socialism seek to build?

D’Amato answered this with the words from Eugene Debs “Production and distribution for all the people, collective ownership of industries and their management, elimination of rent, profit, and interest, the end of class rule, slavery, ignorance, poverty, cruelty, and crime”. Socialism seek to abolish class, and with that it rendered the existence of state as instrument of enforcement disappears. Whilst we may find that many of the solution proposed is hard to churn, many would agree on the failing and flaw of capitalism in structuring our modern society. We don’t have to be a Marxist or socialist, but, we all need to work together to re-created a more just and sustainable society.

Sad, angry, depressed, hopeful, were few of the thousands of emotions aroused reading ‘From Beirut to Jerusalem’, a memoir by Ang Swee Chai. Through her passion, love, perseverance, bravery, and determination, the world is indeed greatly indebted for her work both as a doctor and also as a witness to the massacre suffered by Palestinian refugee in Sabra-Shatila during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Her maternal grandfather was a conservative and traditionalist, he believed that an educated woman will not make a good wife. But her mother was a defiant daughter, register herself to school and went to become a teacher. Her father ran away from his grandfather in mainland China refusing to marry a girl arranged for him and went to became a journalist in Singapore. During the Japanese invasion on Malaya, both of them met in the Outram Road prison in Singapore.

After Japan was defeated, they settled as a family. When her mother was pregnant, she went back to her hometown in Pulau Pinang to give birth to her. She was raised in Ayer Itam district in Pulau Pinang with her younger brother, Lee Cyn. They eventually moved back to Singapore following their father’s work. Raised in poor family, her mother raised her with discipline, she then continues her studies in medical school. She married Francis Khoo, a lawyer and activist. Francis was accused to be a communist, he fled Singapore in 1977 avoiding arrest under Internal Security Act (ISA) and took refuge in Britain.

Her parent was areligious but they allowed their children to choose a religion of their own. She embraced Christianity during her studies in medical school.

Ang was well versed about Israel even before volunteering. The church has taught her that Israel was God’s chosen people, and the return of the Jew to Israel was a verification of biblical prophecy. There are many reasons why she supported Israel, one of it was the oppression of the Jew by the Nazis, and the Nazis were Japanese ally during world war, with the creation of Israel the Jew can defend themselves, its a realization of justice from God.

She was prejudiced towards Palestinians, the church has told her that they were terrorist, an old foe, the Philistines of the Old Testament. She was a bigoted, self-righteous fundamentalist Christian, like many Christians she rejoiced in the military triumph of Israel. But that morning in Sabra and Shatila, God destroyed that self-righteousness.

In her memoir, she recreated that journey, from a bigoted Christian fundamentalist to peace activist and friend of the Palestinian people. It started in 1982 when she watch the horror of Israeli invasion and bombardment of the people of Lebanon through British television. The killing of women and children shook her to the core, she resigned prom her hospital in Britain, pack her bag, and went to Beirut as a medical surgeon volunteer.

In Beirut, Dr. Ang Swee Chai served at Gaza Hospital, Palestinian refugees named their hospital with their town in Palestine, its a symbol of longing to their homeland from where they were expelled by the Zionist colonialism. Many of the camp residence were refugees who fled the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948. The hospital situated near the Sabra and Shatila camp. Here, she witnessed the kindness of Palestinian people, the gentleness they showed toward their guest, she also saw their courage, resolution, patience, and resistance against Israeli aggression and occupation.

Before the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Palestinian fighters from Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed to evacuate from Beirut as a condition of a ceasefire. Dr. Ang noted “this is the first time that I realized that PLO fighters (who she preconceived as a terrorist) have a home and family in Lebanon, they withdraw and left their wives, children, siblings and parents”. The Palestinian gave away their weapon, the roads are cleared from any barrier. On 14 September 1882, water and electricity supply were restored. They believed in the promised of United States and western powers, that they will be let to live unharmed. They were wrong.

The next day, the camp were encircled by Israeli army and under siege, Israel coordinated Phalangist militia to enter the camp and massacred the people, children, baby, women, old people were brutally murdered. Dr. Ang realized the scale of barbarity and hope that the PLO did not withdraw on the first place, so they can defend the camp people. But it was too late. She recollected this barbaric massacre in her memoir which was first published by Grafton Books & Times Book International in 1989.

Reading her memoir really shock reader’s emotion to the core, your tears will be flowing like a river as she collected her horror, by page 70 your tear will run-out dry, there is so much to take. The story of a people exiled from their homeland in 1948 only to be massacred again by the Israelis in 1982, Dr. Ang could not help but ask, where should they go?

She recalled a story on the height of the killing, there was a woman and a child brought into the hospital, the woman was shot on her stomach and badly wounded. After operation, she needed a blood transfusion. She overheard that the nurse told the doctor that the blood pint given to her was the last, and the child need blood transfusion of the same blood type. She refused the blood pint so that the child can have it and asked for painkiller instead. She died shortly after.

She also written a story about a boy named Mahmoud, who was her patient before the massacre, he injured his wrist whilst helping his father rebuilding their house. After the massacre, when she walked down the road in the camp, Mahmoud appeared, ran toward her and hug her, he was so happy to know that she was alive. Soon, children began to appear around her, they saw her camera and asked for a photo, they wanted the world to see that although their house have been destroyed, their parent massacred, they still can smile and raised their hand with victory sign. Their courage was astonishing.

Reflecting on the Palestinian tragedy, she wondered why Palestinians need to suffer to accommodate the victim of Nazis persecution and European racism? At the end of the memoir, in the post-script, she also reflected on her Christian belief. She wrote “[I was] a bigoted, self-righteous fundamentalist Christian. I thought that I knew the Bible, and God was on our side. I rejoiced in the military triumph of Israel. On that morning in Sabra and Shatila, God destroyed that self-righteousness. Many of my Zionist Christian friends shunned me, but I am no longer intimidated by all this. I have seen a different face of God – that of love, compassion, and grace. He promised Ishmael would be a father of many nations. Palestinian are the children of Ishmael and the children of Abraham. He will wipe away all tears and bring us home..next year in Jerusalem.”

Dr. Ang Swee Chai then became a co-founder of Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), she became an activist and regularly invited to talk about the plight of the Palestinians. Her experience in Lebanon changed her life completely, she became the witness of Sabra-Shatila massacre which taught her to never relent in the face of injustice. In her letter to her husband, Francis Khoo she wrote “we are just two small persons in the history of liberation..I saw the face of death, I saw their power and ugliness, but I also saw fear deep inside their eyes, the children of the new generation will come, and they are not afraid”.

The book opens with a foreword and preface of the new version which basically gave a summary of what had happen since the first publication in term of reception. The work was cherished by heterodox economist and sparked debate over the way of economics was taught as a subject. This was in light of the economic crash in 2008-09, which was not predicted by many ‘experts’.

The idea however was rejected by mainstream neo-classical economist due to the fact that it challenges the established theory.

David Orrell blamed the abused of mathematical models, used by bankers, analyst, and economist, not just the models cannot predict the crash, he argued that the model helped cause the crash. But he went further, not just the mathematical models were flawed, the fundamental theory in which we understand economy is plain wrong.

Orrell maintained that whilst economist based their economic law from reductionist model of Newtonian physics, humans are not like atoms, they are not rational and cannot be modelled. He is not alone on this, Ha Joon-Chang also maintains in his book that economics is not a science like physics.

But while Chang criticized free-market economics, Orrell went further and dispelled the fundamental ‘law’ of economics – the supply and demand theory. He insisted that the supply and demand curve, which was taught in every economic school, has never been proven empirically with real data, the curve is “like a unicorn, always drawn but never really seen”.

The problem with the curve is that it exists on ceteris paribus – other things held constant, but in real life, this was never the case, supply and demand always change and dance together. The danger of perceiving the concept as ‘law’ will have a severe consequence in real life, we will be searching (wasting our time) for a creature that is non-existent.

Orrell then pointed his gun to the ‘efficient market’ hypothesis which assume that people are rational motivate by profit, have access to market data, and independent in making decisions. This theory take root from atomic theory which equate individuals like a particle of atoms. He lamented that this is fundamentally wrong as human always did irrational things and they communicate, advocate, and influence others, to create a mathematical model out of individuals based on atomic theory will lead us to a catastrophic trap. This trap made IMF made a comment in 2007 that “world economy will have a robust growth in 2007 and 2008” before they eventually crashed.

He then cited evidence from the UK housing market, where people under constant pressure from advertisement to buy house and made profit through speculation. People buy houses more than they needed, to make profit. This creates a psychological pressure and induced others to follow suit, they did not act rationally, but emotionally fearing of missing out, and behave in “herd” behaviour. Obviously, you can’t make mathematical model from human emotions. The notion that market will regulate itself in mathematical precision is therefore highly unlikely and nowhere to be seen.

One of Orrell point is to make finance less efficient, this point was in common with the call made by economist, Ha Joon-Chang in his book about problem with capitalism. Orrell argued that by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act which separate daily commercial bank with speculative investment bank make the financial system more integrated. Therefore, default is contagious, one failure can drag the whole system down. He called for re-compartmentalization of these banks, although it reduces efficiency, it introduced a control mechanism to limit failure. Another aspect that might save us in time of crisis is redundancy, in nature this can be observe on the extra kidney we carry, while in the economy, this mean that banks need to have limit to their gambling risk and hold extra reserve to survive the bad time.    

The economy is unstable according to Orrell, to elaborate this argument, he explained the banking system in the word of economist Hyman Minsky who contended that the borrower can be categorized to three, first the hedge, this is a regular borrower who can pay their principal and interest. Next, the speculative, who can only service his interest such as the mortgage borrower. Than the final one, the ponzi, who had a lot of hope, can only pay if the asset price continue to rise. As the debt continue to accumulate, it will eventually burst, starting with the ponzi, followed by the speculative, and finally dragging down the hedge – this will be the Minsky moment.

Financial system is not a natural system, we had a say and can better engineer them. Orrell suggest that we model them from the current extreme form which focussed on short-term profit towards a more normal ones which gave lesser profit but much more resilient from crashes, he then laid his suggestion on how to achieve this goal. One of them, is create a barrier by testing financial product to understand their risk before releasing them to market. Regulation, contended Orrell, will caused some inefficiency but it gave stability, he then poked the concept of the ‘invisible hand’ by saying that if we looked at our own hand, it is heavily regulated – from temperature to cell salinity – putting economist to shame.

Other interesting discussion in the book by Orrell is about the differences of government monetary policy between Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes. Whilst Friedman inherit the free-market ideology and anti-regulation propagated by the Chicago boys, Keynes expanded government involvement in the economy and advised the boosting of government spending during recession to compensate demand. He also took a punch on Friedman stating that its ironic he opposes government intervention but at the same time the Chicago boys sustained themselves in part by government grants.

Many of his argument do ring a bell, underlaying assumption in economics such as people are rational is somewhat laughable. Human are not computers, they are highly emotional, and because humans are the building block of the whole economy, the economy must be emotional, we can’t exclude the most important trait of human being, produced a model out of it and applied it to the real world.

But there is also an oxymoronic argument put forward in his book. In one of the chapters he tried to make a case that the economy is gendered, he even brought forward the concept of yin and yang claiming that the aggressive bet and speculation are attributed to male trait (female did not gamble?). But while trying to make his point, he took a sharp turn and wrote that ‘it would be terribly reductionist to blame…solely on people with a tendency to grow facial hair’. So which is it, is it really gendered or it is a reductionist assumption?

Current economic theory is not a science, Orrell contended, but rather an ideology peculiar to a certain period in history because it does not add up to the empirical data and made various assumption which does not hold true in real life situation. He went on outlining the similarity of the global economy with a ponzi scam by Bernie Madoff. Such similarities includes a complicated but plausible story, trust, incentives, a network of rich and powerful people, influence with regulators, illusion of growth, and an outdated machine (a price theory that said price is always right).

Orrell also called ethics to be included in the economic equation, as there are many aspect that will lead to harmful consequence if the whole decision was left to market to decide. For example, he asked if we leave resources such as oil for investment company such as pension fund to decide, why should they put a cap on production? Their motive is short term gain without consideration of long-term environment decays. These are the area that need to be addressed by ethics in the form of government intervention and regulation.

I do find one question fairly amusing. When he tried to make a case that other field of studies actually needed to construct new economic model, he asked a question ‘are philosophers in agreement that market can make ethical decision?’ This question, I think, is also an oxymoron. Philosophers were always in disagreement almost about everything between them.

Finally, concluding his book, he asked readers to confront every economist in their lives and observe their reaction. They can reply in denial, anger, depressed, or in good case, accepted the criticism and chartered a new path. For a change to happen, we need to acknowledge first that the problem exist.

This article is a review of the book ‘Economyths: 11 Ways Economics Gets it Wrong’ by David Orrell.