My post on Srivijaya hit a nerve. Specifically, somebody called Menj! Oh, Rajan, come to my aid please! LOL!
The best thing is, while he is calling me as an idiot economist from a third rated university and all, he mistook Srivijaya as Majapahit. I had problem understanding his objection — it did not make sense at all — until I realize, the “Srivijaya” he was referring to oddly has the same timeline as Majapahit. Majapahit that existed between the 13th and the 16th century while Srivijaya was founded between 3rd and 6th century and ended before the 14th century. Menj kept harping on what had happened between 13th and the 16th century when in fact, many history books do not talk about Srivijaya when dealing with that era.
For instance, Demak had never attacked Srivijaya. Such attack never occurred because both states had never met each other. Demak came to being more than 200 years after Srivijaya finally collapsed after Majapahit conquered Palembang (and Jambi too). Demak did conquered Majapahit however.
Further, the capital of Srivijaya was located (mostly; it shifted several time because of attack from Rajaraja of Chola and Majapahit) on Sumatra. But Majapahit’s capital was located on Java from the start to the end.
Another example of misaligned timeline by Menj concerns Pasai and Perlak. Menj said both sultanates existed before Srivijaya. Au contraire, the places called Pasai and Perlak were firmly within the realm of Srivijaya at least till the 13th century. To make it clearer, the sultanates of Pasai and Perlak existed after Srivijaya’s peak (or even end).
The best thing is, when Srivijaya was in power, Islam had not arrived yet. When Majapahit was in power, Islam had indeed arrived. The buzz word was Hinduism and Buddhism. Islam was mostly irrelevant in the powerplay.
So, could he have misattributed Srivijaya as Majapahit?
LOL! Most definitely.
Lesson: stop calling people idiot and start looking in the mirror. Think before you speak.
Checkmate.
For those that are interested more about at least two of the most powerful empires in maritime Southeast Asia history, read Srivijaya (guess who wrote that?) and Majapahit at Wikipedia. Or alternatively, a good book to start with is Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and Malay Peninsula by Paul Michel Munoz.
Since he has a reputation of removing his post after being caught for committing folly, I am reproducing his post here and keeping a screenshot:
A majority of Malaysian historians have accepted the fact that the Malaccan Sultanate (14th to 16th century CE) is pretty much the sine qua non the starting point of where Malaysian history begins, since the rise of Malacca was the Golden Age of the Nusantara region in not only socio-political terms, but also in terms of education, art, sciences and philosophy. Malacca was not the first place to receive Islam in the region (see S.Q. Fatimi, How Did Islam Came To Malaysia?) but nonetheless it has been equated with modern-day Malaysia, particularly because we still have descendents of the Malacca Sultanate in the modern-day monarchy of Perak. Since Malacca was the first place where the Muslim Malays actually formed a viable and self-sustaining government, it is often referred to as the starting point for modern Malaysian history.
However some Islam liberals, like this low-class American university economist, try to question this unique status of Malacca. The reason is because they seem to think that the previous Majapahit and Srivijaya empires were a more viable starting point of reference to determine the religious culture of the Malaysian Muslims. Here we shall look at their arguments and refute it point by point, insha’allah.
Argument 1:
While Malacca was a great empire, a greater civilization was Srivijaya. I truly believe that Srivijaya was that brilliant light that stayed bright from nearly a millennium. Malacca was a just spark, though brilliant as it may be.
I wonder on what criteria was this based on? The so-called “greater civilization [that] was Srivijaya” was eventually overrun by the neighbouring country of Demak. Demak, by the way, was an Islamic sultanate.
Argument 2:
The Malaysian education system fails to give Srivijaya the respect it deserves. So many Malaysian textbook pages concentrate on Malacca and successive minor Malay states but ignored that one large Malay empire that spanned from the Isthmus of Kra all the way down to Central Java and, at one point in time, even the banks of the Mekong. Admittedly, Srivijayan border was porous unlike modern states but its sphere of influence was far larger than that of Malacca or even of Malaysia.
The capital of Srivijaya was in Java Island, a remote place with not even any resemblance of culture to the Malays of the Peninsula. Mentioning their place in history was not ignored but It is like claiming that since the Crusader kingdoms [that was not established until after the First Crusades] were not given its proper due in Islamic history, therefore it means that these kingdoms are “greater” than the later Ayyubid Sultanates or the Ottomon Caliphate.
But what are the significant Srivijayan contributions to the Nusantara culture? What philosophical or cultural advancements had this “greater civilisation” provide that we can speak of today? Our liberal idiot does not make mention at all! He is simply uncomfortable with the fact that “the Malacca effect” was so emcompassing that his forefathers reverted to Islam many centuries ago and today, he is a Muslim instead of remaining as a Hindu!
Argument 3:
Perhaps part of the reason why the Malays stress so much on Malacca is the fact that so little information is known about Malay history earlier than the 14th century. Relatively modern Malays have been so ingrained with the notion that their history started with Malacca and further pushed Srivijaya into that one book in a section of a library that nobody goes.
This has to be the silliest of all arguments thus far. One can simply go to the library and pick up the works that are replete with information on the subject. Refer to, for example, S.Q. Fatimi’s How Did Islam Come to Malaysia? (a monograph by the MSRI, published in 1978 if memory serves me correctly) where she makes mention of the Islamic Sultanates of Perlak and Pasai (in modern-day Acheh). Syed Muhammad al-Naquib al-Attas had also discussed this subject briefly in Islam and Secularism (published by ABIM, 1979) and he has a monograph on the subject as well. Perhaps the economist should go out of his shell once in a while and read up a bit before talking about the subject.
Argument 4:
Srivijaya, despite its status, was only discovered by historians in the early 20th century. That was the times when vehicles were powered by steam engines.
And where is the reference for this? Reference, reference, reference! Do not make sweeping statements without backing them up!
Argument 5:
In a way, Malacca was the successor of the glorious Srivijaya. If Malacca could be seen as a sultanate that later led to Malaya and Malaysia, then Srivijaya could be seen as such as well.
And before Srivijaya there were the Islamic Sultanates of Perlak and Pasai and Champa. Perhaps we should say Srivijaya was a “successor” of these civilisations as well!
Argument 5:
Something must explain this bias that sides with Malacca. Could it be caused by religion?
Likewise we should ask the liberal the same question: Something must explain this bias that sides with Srivijaya. Could it be caused by religion? [Critical Thoughts. May 15 2007]
I appreciate a good debate on history but the way Menj handles it adds nothing of value.
