In his speech to the OIC, he said that human rights and democracy are a Jewish invention and therefore are illegitimate

G'day Nevets, Thank you for your question. As I recall, it was the Jews. He said this at a meeting in 2003 according to the Asian Times. "The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," Mahathir told the Islamic meeting. "They get others to fight and die for them," he added. "They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power." These remarks were widely condemned around the world. I have attached sources for your reference. Regards References Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/EJ23Ae03.html Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathir_Mohamed BBC Sayings of Mahathir Mohammed http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3198105.stm

Mahathir is regarded by many, especially in the West, as an anti-Semite. According to Mohamad, Jewish people created democracy and Human Rights. Mahathir claims that the Jews "invented and successfully promoted socialism, communism, human rights and democracy". Not only Adolf Hitler, but the highest circles of the Catholic Church believed that communism was a Jewish plot, as a Swiss priest, Father Martin Rhonheimer, documents in the November 2003 issue of First Things. Not since Hitler has the leader of an important country claimed that democracy itself was a Jewish invention, at least in the modern period. The Jews did indeed invent democracy, in its modern form, although not quite in the way he imagines. Modern (as opposed to ancient Greek or Roman) democracy stems from the Protestant motto "solo scriptorum", "only the Bible", by which every man must interpret scripture for himself. To begin with, Protestantism was unimaginable without Jewish theologians (who exposed the incompatibilities of free will and original sin), not to mention Jewish bible translators. In such a world, congregations must elect their church elders (Presbyterians) or even their pastors (Congregationalists), rather than accept church hierarchy. If democracy rules ecclesiastical affairs, why not then secular affairs as well? Only Anglo-Saxon Protestantism had the opportunity to take on a political form, thanks in large part to the colonization of America. The American Revolution has been charaterized as a second English civil war, in which the Whigs supported the American rebels against the Tory government. England's democratic impulse came from the extreme wing of its Protestants, from such sects as the Separatis who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony, or the Quakers who founded Pennsylvania. Only on American soil did radical Protestantism flourish unimpeded by monarchy and established church. Mahathir Mohamad is a spreader of evil conspiracy theories. They are as real and tangible to him as the chair on which he sits. In the rough-and-tumble of democratic governance, conspiracies help little, because all the important issues will come to light one way or another. What Bernard Lewis calls "consultative" governance in the Islamic world, however, only can exist through conspiracies. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EJ28Aa02.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahathir_Mohamad

Having read the informative answers above, I see no reason to accept Mahathir Mohamed's personal opinions regarding the "invention" of a sociological organizational method or human rights. Despite his obvious political leanings, I would ignore anyone who claimed to have the answer to these inventions. As for human rights, they are an abstract concept, not God-given, but granted by governments and described by its laws. The United Nations, Red Cross or any other organization can define this term, but they cannot grant rights or enforce them. They can only rattle their cans to get attention for their causes.