Jumaat, 12 Februari 2010

Wacana Facebook: Polemik pensejarahan dan jati diri Melayu

Selang beberapa hari yang lepas, saya dan beberapa rakan Facebook membahaskan perihal pensejarahan dan jati diri Melayu. Di sini saya lampirkan beberapa jawapan balas daripada pelbagai sudut pandang untuk perkongsian bersama para pembaca sekalian. Saya lampirkan secara verbatim jadi maaf kalau ada bahasa rojak dan juga singkatan perkataan.

Permulaan thread/status Facebook:

"Jijik sangat ke perjuangkan nasib bangsa sendiri? Tanah air ini bukan wujud lepas zaman pasca-kolonial. Kita meneruskan sejarah lampau yang panjang. Biarpun perjuangan Melayu itu tercemar dek kezaliman gol. bangsawan tak kira UMNO etc., bukan hakikat perjuangan itu kotor sendiri. Kezaliman UMNO tak boleh disamakan secara toto sbg kezaliman Melayu."

M. Rafiq: "man 'arofa nafsahu faqod 'arofa RABBahu"..inilah keyword bagi kekuatan sesuatu bangsa..siapa yg mengenal dirinya maka dia akan mengenal RABBnya..bukankah sekuat mana kita bergantung pada RABB maka sekuat itulah pertolongan RABB pada hambaNYA..bila bangsa(baca : melayu) meninggalkan makna dirinya maka Tuhan pun akan meninggalkan hambaNYA...
Wan Aimran: "Kita meneruskan sejarah lampau yang panjang."

How far back in history do we want to go? Will it involve an erasure and re-writing of our past?

God knows best.

Wan Rausyanfikir: We should choose our datum when Islam reaches here. That's it. The rest are not as important as Islamic historical impact that lasted very much here.

M. Rafiq: Banyak berbeza pendapat tentang teori sejarah buat ape..yg rugi org awam..aku setuju dgn Wan.."The rest are not as important as Islamic historical impact that lasted very much here."..ada yg lebih penting patut kita sedari bukan bermaksud denying the other historical fact..takkan dgn sejarah bangsa pun nak liberal kot? aneh2

Nik Azmi: "...We should choose our datum when Islam reaches here. That's it..."

In my opinion, that's exactly what Wan Aimran's question was trying to extract, although what he intended to extract is up to him.

The history of nation cannot be conveniently cherry-picked, not can a cut-off date be arbitrarily decided, lest we impair our own objectivity.... See More

I am certainly against introducing such a cut-off date for the reason stated above.

"...The rest are not as important as Islamic historical impact that lasted very much here..."

And that depends on what is "Islam" that's been discussed here. If Islam does not allow us to disown our father, can we then disown our father's father, and their fathers before that? (figuratively) Did the Prophet himself disown his own history prior to Prophethood?

If, for example, we can rely just on "Islam" or "Islamic history" to guide us into the future, one wonders if that can be sufficient for mankind to reflect, especially Muslim history itself is riddled with many un-Islamic events.

Given the chance, would we place reliance on "pre-Islam" history which is good, or do we rely on "post-Islam" history which is bad?

Why did the Quran bother to repeat the stories of the crushed nations were it not for us to learn from the "un-Islamic" history?

As such, I am of the opinion that "pre-Islam" history is as important as the post one. Lest we forget that the Quran is full of stories so that we may reflect.

Verily, Allah knows best

Imran Mustafa: Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

"We should choose our datum when Islam reaches here."

When actually did Islam 'reached' the Archipelago? What does 'reach' mean, anyway? Surely one cannot say that Islam has 'reached' the Archipelago if there's only a few hundred conversions in a very specific geographical area, or could one? The idea itself is just wrong, as the development and spreading of religion cannot be traced as easily as, say, the spreading of empires.... See More

And I am quite troubled by this notion of cherry picking, as Azmi said. If any previous identity and practices were washed clean, then surely in the modern world we would not have any cultural practices that are similar to that practiced by Hindus. One might say that Malays have been 'Islamised' and things like this, but that does not negate the fact that some of the practices are from local influences that are not strictly 'Islamic'.

This idea simply compartmentalised history, which is wrong as human beings do exchange things during their historical interactions. By saying that, you simply show that you are not interested in anything that is not within your agenda. That, as Azmi said, impairs objectivity, which is, quite simply, the search for truth.

Without objectivity, how can one be a public intellectual? How can one educate people when one is not interested in the truth, rather, puts a line arbitrarily on the ground?
"takkan dgn sejarah bangsa pun nak liberal kot? "

Fakta adalah fakta. Liberalisme adalah satu ideologi. Tak ada kena mengena fakta yang liberal. In fact, tak masuk akal pun ayat tersebut.


Wan Rausyanfikir: @Imran and Nik:

T kasih kerana sudi bagi komentar yang kritis. Tapi aku rasa kamu berdua agak tersasar dalam menilai ma'na hujah aku yang sebenar.

Pertama, premis yang aku berikan tiada bermaksud untuk disown mana-mana sejarah pra-Islam sebagai satu yang nihil. Seperti mana fakta-fakta lain, rentetan peristiwa itu masih merupakan fakta selagi mana ada pembuktian. Tetapi, fakta tiada boleh disamakan dengan hakikat. Fakta sejarah dan hakikat sejaah berbeda dari segi ontologi. Kita boleh lontarkan indeks fakta sejarah ribuan tahun tapi tiada semua fakta itu boleh diberi kebenaran yang sama darjat.... See More

Bertitik tolak dari inilah para pemikir Barat dan Islam bersikap memusatkan datum masing-masing pada titik yang paling signifikan dalam merangka jati diri bangsa masing-masing.

Bagi Barat seperti yang dikatakan Heidegger, mereka harus bermula mendefinisikan jati diri mereka sebagai satu hakikat daripada Tamadun Yunani purba.

As you could notice in most campuses in the West, their hallmark for intellectual excellence will always be projected from the cultural homage of the Greeks. Just go the the library, or the design of the colleges, surely there you can see statues of Greek gods etc.

Mereka tiada pula pilih Cowboys sebagai lambang jati diri agung mereka ataupun Natives Red Indian etc.

Are they not cherry picking? I don't like that word when you try to comprehend the fundamental structure of my arguments. This is not cherry picking but DEFINING THE ESSENCE OF OUR EXISTENCE IN HISTORICAL DIMENSION just as the ulama' and philosophers defining man as "al haywan al-natiq" and Aristotle defining man as "rational animal".

You see they can define man as laughing animal etc. but they did not as OTHER CHARACTERISTICS do not define man as SUCH IT SHOULD BE KNOWN. This is mantiq in its real sense:

"min al-ma'lum ila majhul"

"from the KNOWN to the UNKNOWN"

Therefore we must choose the best and the haqiqah of our historial precedents as the foundation of our jati diri in defining WHO WHAT-NESS (mahiyyah) of OUR CHARACTER in HAQIQAH SENSE, not FACTUAL SENSE per se.

By doing this that does not mean I am cherry picking or neglecting or disown the "otherness" of our historical precedents. It is just we do not consider them to be SO SIGNIFICANT in DEVELOPING OUR HISTORICAL ONTOLOGY which leads to our JATI DIRI in current times.

In our case, the Malay-ness of Malay has a very intimate ontological connection with Islam thus could best be described the Malay-ness and Islam as "isi dan kuku".

Sudah tentu kita perakui akan kewujudan pengaruh Hindu dan Buddha dalam the Malay-ness of our Jati Diri tapi telah diIslamisasikan dengan jayanya oleh para ulama' mutahaqqiqun. Kita masih lagi menerima konsep budi dan jiwa yang bukan asal daripada bahasa Arab Islami tapi MA'NA kata kunci tersebut tiada mencerminkan HAKIKAT MA'NAWIYYAH-nya yang asal sebelum Islam datang.

I guess my last piece of advices are do read Islam dalam Sejarah dan Kebudayaan Melayu carefully. You might disagree now but perhaps if you get clear understanding of Prof. Al-Attas' elucidation of everything from the historical facts of Islamization process, its empirical evidences, its context etc. Insya-Allah wou will be able to understand my line of thoughts in this matter. Some people have read it but they have not read it carefully or ignorantly (yes, reading great works requires some preparation) due to the epistemological error they have in their worldview (this is where liberalization of Historical facts could happen from MISLED INTERPRETATION) thus leading to erroneous conclusion EVEN being presented with CORRECT FACTS.

Once you are back in Malaysia, perhaps we can pay a visit to some Attasian scholars for a better explanation.

I'm just a student. Not an authority.

By the way, I have not go deeper into 'Assabiyyah yet. Later.


Nik Azmi: I understand all that you have said above, except for that I disagree with the "pre-Islamic... not as important".

And I am familiar with what Al-Attas elaborated about Malay history before I came to know him.

It is the "Islamisation" part which I have "issues" with. I will not say disagreement, but I must state that this is open to contest, as I do not see how "Islamisation" changes things in the way that Al-Attas asserted.... See More

Having said that, I am also aware (as you have also said) that the "Islamisation" as proposed by Al-Attas has yet to be completed. This is the point of contention, I may argue, as the idea of "Islamisation" per Al-Attas seems to be something novel. Is it not "completed" or is it something that cannot be completed i.e. a continuous process of evolution, as Islam really is?

I have also questioned before if this means reinventing the wheel, or is it a continuation, or an upgrade of the works of Al-Ghazali (and those before and after him)? I have also asserted that reinventing the wheel would be something at a different level altogether, although I cannot be sure unless I read more.

I can only form my opinion if a few questions around this area is satisfactorily answered. Until then, I will have to leave it where it is now.

To relate to the topic above, as you have clarified, it is not about disowning history literally. Yet again, I must re-emphasise that pre-Islam history is yet ever as important if we want to ensure that objectivity is not in any way compromised, as you have yourself said, "fakta tiada boleh disamakan dengan hakikat".

However, allow me to also quote from your own line, "Fakta sejarah dan hakikat sejaah berbeda dari segi ontologi".

What is the truth?

A muhaqqiq, as I understand it, cannot afford to impair his objectivity by doing a selective examination. This is different, of course, if a discourse has been qualified in the very beginning, where the outcome of a discourse is expected to be partial. However, as far as a claim to the truth is concerned, nothing can be left out.

When quoting Heidegger, I assume that you also recognise that he can be as wrong as we are, if not worse, and vice versa. If he choses to anchor his identity to ancient Greece/Greeks, that is simply a matter of choice, although the current Pope's official stance is that Europe's identity and root is in Christianity.

As far as the Malay identity is concerned, I cannot come to comfort myself that "Malayness" lie in Islam, when many others, whether Indonesian, Filipinos or Cambodian, has yet to move on to embrace Islam. Whether that is the truth or not, I cannot say, although that is a fact.

That does not mean that Malayness and Islam are mutually exclusive, as we in Malaysia are aware that the two are interwoven within our social fabric. What I am trying to get at here is that there are many parts of the Malay world, which gives us the Malay identity, still fall outside the circle of Islam, and to ignore that is a great injustice to our own history, and our own self.

My proposal is that to recognise that there is a Malay-Muslim identity that we have now in Malaysia, and also in the greater part of Southeast Asia, and at the same time do not deny our pre-Islam heritage, and recognise the non-Muslim Malay's claim to the Malay heritage.

Islam is, afterall, a universal religion, a "din" which goes beyond all boundaries, social, cultural or otherwise.

To anchor the Malay identity to Islam is not wrong, but to detach the non-Islamic, to the point of rejecting what is alive and in existence, does not seem to be something that a man of truth would do.

Verily, Allah knows best.

Imran Mustafa: Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

First and foremost,
"Are they not cherry picking?"
Just because they are doing it doesn't mean that you can and should do it.... See More

"Fakta sejarah dan hakikat sejaah berbeda dari segi ontologi. Kita boleh lontarkan indeks fakta sejarah ribuan tahun tapi tiada semua fakta itu boleh diberi kebenaran yang sama darjat"

The way academicians do history is that they have certain texts and historical records ad then interpret what they can from these records. Records are sometimes made by rulers as propaganda tools, and these are the records that is the most readily accessible and available to us most of the time, as is the nature of such records. So then, historical 'facts', from my understanding, are usually interpretations that have gained some measure of confidence due to other supporting evidence and it seems that they usually sprung from frameworks that historians use to interpret data. Hence, historical 'facts' is, in some sense, empirical and is always open to contest.

However, it is imperative to recognise that any competing theory must be able to account for most, if not all, of the facts. An example would be the rise of anti semitism in post WW1 Germany. Since it is known that anti semitism is not prevalent in the German lands before the war (we know from the records that Jewish emancipation in German lands started much earlier than in other countries), we will need to fit all data to any theory that we might come up with. With data and context, some interpretations might be able to fit the data better than others but it is essentially that, an interpretation.

The contention here is not on the historical records, rather, on the extent of the framework that is used to define the Malay. Facts are just that, facts. And I must confess that I know very few facts. I know a lot of empirical interpretations, both scientific and historical, but facts are few and far in between.

"Bagi Barat seperti yang dikatakan Heidegger, mereka harus bermula mendefinisikan jati diri mereka sebagai satu hakikat daripada Tamadun Yunani purba. "

I am intrigued as I am not sure how deep is Heidegger's influence on modern culture and philosophy. In the science field, it seems that the logical positivist philosophy is more pronounced, but I might be mistaken. Care to enlighten me?

"Therefore we must choose the best and the haqiqah of our historial precedents as the foundation of our jati diri in defining WHO WHAT-NESS (mahiyyah) of OUR CHARACTER in HAQIQAH SENSE, not FACTUAL SENSE per se.

By doing this that does not mean I am cherry picking or neglecting or disown the "otherness" of our historical precedents. It is just we do not consider them to be SO SIGNIFICANT in DEVELOPING OUR HISTORICAL ONTOLOGY which leads to our JATI DIRI in current times."

As always, this is a framework, a historical framework. Being a framework, it usually will have problems, especially to account for all the facts. So then, as Azmi pointed out, there are problems with this framework, and I think these problems has to be recognised. The question is, do you? Or do you take it without question?

(On that note, I don't think this is a question of adab, as I am not saying that such interpretations should be thrown away, rather, that their short comings be recognised. With recognition, one can then work for a solution and during that process, usually one discovers a lot of stuff which might even alter the original framework. In some sense, history as a subject does work that way, as new facts are being uncovered, old interpretations becomes invalid.

By the way, I don't understand what "historical ontology" is or how you develop it. Google suggested a book, but even that is by only 1 person that is relatively new (2003). So I don't know how such a work will stand under scrutiny.

"Once you are back in Malaysia, perhaps we can pay a visit to some Attasian scholars for a better explanation.

I'm just a student. Not an authority."

That does not mean you cannot be critical towards an interpretation. As I said before, history is all about interpretations. Some are strong, some are weak, but the framework would usually have problems, however strong it is.

As always, I stand corrected.

M. Rafiq: tak masuk akal sebab sibuk dgn istilah...cite berpusing2 dan lebih mengarah kepada perpecahan mengenai makna, tujuan & falsafah sejarah..liberalisme ke secularisme ke memang sebuah ideologi..apa yg saya cuba sampaikan ialah liberalisme bukan sekadar menyerang Agama, malah menyerang pemahaman dan pemikiran kita. termasuk pemahaman dan pemikiran kita... See More terhadap sejarah.nama pun ideakan? jadi bukankah itu menunjukkan rangka pemikiran seseorg dlm menegaskan jawapan dia..sejarah bukan sekadar laporan atapun intepritasi yg direkod dokumentasikan..sebab tu kita namakan sejarah yg asas bahasanya "Shajarah" bermakna pohon ataupun pokok..pokok bagus mesti benihnya pun mesti bagus..yg kita nak cari,huraikan dan terangkan kpd masyarakat ialah "benih" kekuatan sejarah bangsa melayu.." Some are strong, some are weak, but the framework would usually have problems, however strong it is."..saya tak yakin ini adalah tafsiran yg tepat sama sekali betul utk membincangkan sejarah..

Imran Mustafa: Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,


1. 'Serangan' bererti ada yang menyerang, dan perbuatan tersebut adalah secara sedar. Ideologi tidak boleh menyerang, hanya boleh memberi salah faham. Dan sekali lagi, fakta ialah fakta, liberalisme ialah ideologi. Tidak ada kena mengena antara satu sama lain. Fakta: Melaka ditawan pada tahun 1511. Apa yang ideologi boleh katakan tentang ini?... See More

Jawapan yang mengatakan 'itu lain' tidak boleh digunapakai disini kerana itu adalaha 'fakta sejarah'.

Apa yang anda maksudkan oleh liberalisme dan sekularisme?

2. Tak masuk akal kerana anda tak fahamkah, atau kerana ayat tidak betul? Kalau makna sesuatu ayat itu salah, maka betulkanlah. Jika kami sibuk dengan istilah, maka fahamkanlah sendiri. Kesilapan boleh diperbetulkan, sesuatu yang tak masuk akal boleh ditanyakan. Fizik kuantum juga tak masuk akal kepada kebanyakan orang, tak pula mereka bising.

3. "saya tak yakin ini adalah tafsiran yg tepat sama sekali betul utk membincangkan sejarah.."

Jadi, apa tafsiran yang tepat untuk membincangkan sejarah? Dan siapa yang berikan? Mengapa ianya tepat? (Ataupu tidak boleh bertanya soalan ini kerana ianya terlalu 'liberal' dan kami ini 'sekular'?)

Saya memberi definisi yang umum digunakan oleh sejarawan diseluruh dunia. Bacalah capaian-capaian ini:


Wikipedia Indonesia:
"Untuk sejarah modern, sumber-sumber utama informasi sejarah adalah: foto, gambar bergerak (misalnya: film layar lebar), audio, dan rekaman video. Tidak semua sumber-sumber ini dapat digunakan untuk penelitian sejarah, karena tergantung pada periode yang hendak diteliti atau dipelajari. Penelitian sejarah juga bergantung pada historiografi, atau cara pandang sejarah, yang berbeda satu dengan yang lainnya."

Cara pandang sejarah? Historiography? Ada bezakah dengan 'framework'?

Kefahaman anda tentang disiplin ilmu yang dipanggil sejarah, pada hemat saya, tidak tepat.

Sejarah yang konon-kononnya "Islamik" sekali pun pada asasnya merupakan interpretatasi dalam cara pandang Islam. Dan kerana yang membuat interpretatasi itu manusia, sudah tentulah boleh silap. Walaupun dengan cara pandang Islam, interpretatasi dari 'framework' yang dibina sendiri sudah tentu boleh silap. Jika tidak, masakan sejarawan Muslim boleh sampai kepada konklusi berbeza daripada rekod yang sama?


Wan Aimran: 1) "Having said that, I am also aware (as you have also said) that the "Islamisation" as proposed by Al-Attas has yet to be completed. This is the point of contention, I may argue, as the idea of "Islamisation" per Al-Attas seems to be something novel. Is it not "completed" or is it something that cannot be completed i.e. a continuous process of evolution, as Islam really is?"

I think I have raised this issue before with you Faysal when I asked whether a good analogy of the Islamisation project in the Nusantara region is a wave gradually rolling back and forth on the shore, or a tsunami suddenly that comes crashing on the beach leaving everything changed after it has receded back into the sea.

Of course depending on which metaphor one is inclined and ultimately subscribed to will colour how one perceives issue such as the identity, history and authenticity of a particular ethnicity, from which questions such as 'What is the authentic Malay identity consists of?' and 'Which history is our history?' are born.... See More

Emphasizing the former too much risk diluting the foundations of the identity of any particular ethnic groups, whilst rigidly asserting the latter has the potential of essentializing traits of particular ethnic groups.

It must added as well that too much emphasis on the latter can cause the original Islamisation project (if one can speak of it as a well-defined, purposeful and monolithic enterprise) to steadily lose its critical potency (since if the Islamisation project supposedly occur at one particular moment in time and location in space, and has altered everything for the better, why relevance does it have for us now?).

Personally, I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle of these two very different metaphors for the Islamisation project.

Of course in selecting which of the two metaphors is more to our liking, one must be guided with facts, selections must be scrutinized and omissions must be justified. Apart from abstract considerations, one must also recognize the so-called 'lived reality' of the members of the society in question (i.e. Malaysians in this case) in terms of its plurality and diversity.

It is easy (and perhaps a bit self-serving) to say, "Malay identity consists of A, B, C and D", but one must also ask how well does that conception translates into the vernacular.

This quest for authenticity I think cannot operate exclusively at the level of abstractions; its conclusions must be borne out justly and fairly by history.

Orwell famously said, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

The danger is that some people's desire for control outpace their willingness to seek and understand.

2) "In my opinion, that's exactly what Wan Aimran's question was trying to extract, although what he intended to extract is up to him."

The discussion so far follows pretty much what I expected when I posed that question. So I'm happy :)

God knows best.

M. Rafiq: Imran: Dlm konteks hakikat sejarah,alam ini dicipta utk ke arah penyempurnaan..gerakan sejarah 1 bangsa paling tidak menuju kemerdekaan. Jadi penekanan kpd pengagung sejarah sebelum kedatangan Islam dan keagungan penjajahan tidak menggalakkan cita-cita murni sejarah bangsa.Dlm quran takde pun diagungkan sejarah rom dan farsi-bukan bermakna takde-.... See MoreDlm sirah pula ditonjolkan kehancuran simbol2 keagungan rom & farsi ketika Maulidnya Nabi kita,Muhammad saaw..kita belajar yg arab sebelum Islam pun bertamadun walaupun tidak bermoral.mereka ada nilai tatabahasa yg tinggi dlm bahasa arab dan itu pun salah satu cabang ketamadunan.Tetapi apabila Islam muncul,pelbagai kecemerlangan demi kecemerlangan dtg.etika,keimanan dan sebagainya berubah dan menuju kearah kesempurnaan.

Itulah yg cuba kita buat dlm sejarah bangsa kita..Dato Maharajalela dahulu dipanggil pengkhianat kalau kita rujuk pada sejarah penjajah,tapi kini dia dianggap pejuang sebab kita rujuk dr sudut sejarah Islam & kemerdekaan..kalau kita berfikir dengan adanya kesan pemikiran liberal dlm kepala jadi catatan sejarah pun dari sudut liberal..kalau dr sudut Islam tentulah mengangkat Islam itu sendiri..nak taknak sejarah pun ada unsur2 tauhid juga sebab hakikatnya Tuhan semua manusia dan makhluk adalah ALLAH..jadi bukankah sepatutnya sejarah membawa manusia mengenal diri dan mengenal Tuhan/RABBnya..man 'arofa nafsahu faqod 'arofa RABBahu..sumber segala ketamadunan & kejayaan adalah ALLAH dan kajian2 yg berunsurkan kpd kecermerlangan bangsa kesan daripada kedatangan Islam..sebab itulah prof Al-Attas kaji Hamzah Fansuri,Nuruddin Ar Raniri, Abd Rauf Singkel dan Batu Bersurat Terengganu..ini adalah asas yg saya yakini..kalau sejarah tidak sampai menuju kearah keTuhanan seperti tiada apa-apa..sejarah bangsa melayu hebat pun sebab aqidah,akhlaq dan imannya..kesannya akan nampak pada tamadun..

Wan Rausyanfikir: There are degree of knowledge that we must carefully be aware of when it comes to define our jati diri. Of course total rejection is not the solution but anchoring our jati diri to the fundamental aspect of our existence is something to be reckoned with.

Islamization and De-Islamization comes hand in hand. One will dominate another according to the degree of power they have been exerting upon each other. The phases that Al-Attas describe in his Islam dalam Sejarah dan Kebudayaan Melayu is more about sociological dimension of the Islamization process. A deeper context of Islamization that has defined the Malay-ness should not be viewed in that manner per se.

This is where I want to strike the difference between modern sociological explanation from the more subtle philosophical discourse about history.

The crux of Islamic philosophy of history has been re-defined by Ibn Khaldun through his work Kitab al-'Ibar. None of Islamic historians ever use the word 'ibar to represent history as before this they normally used "tarikh", "silsilah" etc.

In the final verse of surah Yusuf:

"La qad kana fi qasosihim IBRA tul li ulil ALBAB"

There are 2 key words here that define theIslamic Philosophy of History: 'ibar and albab.

As we all know the word 'ibrah = pengajaran came from the root word of 'ibar. So history is not dead and this is where the cyclical history of Ibn Khaldun build its root from. History in Islam is not mere facts but a living existentialist as well essentialist manifestation of facts that lead to Truth as being said by Rafiq just now.

The word albab = wise person came from the root word "lubb" means "core/crux".

Therefore only a man with a higher understanding of the CORE/CRUX of a thing in this case history able to understood the real meaning of it thus able to distinguish the most important from the unimportant one.

This is where Ibn Khaldun genius lies on as well Al-Attas conception of Malay history. Both of them are not sociologist in modern sense, neither a factoid historians rather an ulul albab that have embedded concrete Worldview of Islam from their earlier training as mutakallim, philosophy, fiqh, ulum al-Qur'an, balaghah, mantiq as well tassawuf. Their interpretation of history I believe is far more meaningful and accurate than other historians in their respective areas of inquiries. I would say the best, and most convincing period.

Definitely a historian needs a framework or else he is just a scribbler (riwa'iyy) or far worse a mythologist like Homer that masquerade as historian.

As far as I knew according to Prof. Alparslan Acikgenc, al-Tabari is the first historian that employs scientific principle in interpreting history through his world- system framework, far exceeding Immanuel Wallerstein.

Surely Max Weber and Durkheim are no near to this kind of ulul albab, what more secular historians or confuse Orientalist who distorted our heritage!

Letih debate dalam FB ni. Later la ye. Those are my views.


Nik Azmi: @Mohamad Rafiq:

Whilst I agree with many parts of your last reply, you are not answering the questions posted.

I believe what you said above are about the purpose (maqsid) of history, instead of what is history.... See More

Our purpose in this life is to be in the service of Allah, that goes without saying.

However, in doing so, when talking about history, we must understand how history is constructed, this how it can be dissected.

I believe Imran Mustafa has given an elaborate explanation about some epistemological espects of history, without going to the purpose.

Thank you for writing all those, but I would rather appreciate if you can give an alternative definition of history i.e. answering the question, if you disagree with what Imran Mustafa has said.

And also, I may add, some incoherence and full or Arabic terms which will be difficult for non-Arabic speakers, or even native Arabic speakers reading this in English to understand.
@Wan R:

"...but anchoring our jati diri to the fundamental aspect of our existence is something to be reckoned with..."

As I have said, I have no qualm about anchoring our (Malay-Muslim) identity to Islam, but in doing so, we cannot ignore the "physical/living/empirical reality" that made up the Malay identity itself, especially the pre-Islam one.... See More

Just in case if it is not clear, I am for the anchoring of the (Malaysian) Malay identity to Islam. But with caveats that I have laid out previously.

As for the rests of your writing, I'll just re-emphasise what Imran Mustafa said i.e. a framework is built in order to fit into a set of data. In doing so, some data might not fit into the framework.

Wan Aimran also contributed the statement that any ommission must be justified, any admission must be scruitinised. This is true for all proposed frameworks, by anyone.

Suffice to say that some of the points which you have proposed may be met with heightened scepticism on my side, for the reasons I have stated above, and what Wan Aimran and Imran Mustafa also said.

However, we can save that for later. A face-to-face discussion is preferred for this.

Verily, Allah knows best.

M. Rafiq: Kalau x masuk akal, masukkanlah dlm akal dgn faham.Kalau penuh istilah arab memanglah bahasa melayu dibina dengan kalimah-kalimah dan perkataan arab sebab dipengaruhi dgn kedatangan Islam.Dan Islamlah faktor terbesar dlm ketamadunan bangsa melayu.

Istilah bahasa arab yg digunakan pun taklah sampai penuh dan padat rasanya.Hanya beberapa perkataan yg biasa kita gunakan dan faham dan 1 hadis qudsi yg saya sediakan terjemahannya sekali.

Org melayu yg mengkaji sejarah bangsanya nak mudah faham pada hemat saya rujukan-rujukannya biarlah dlm bahasa melayu.Senang nak faham.Bangsa lain yg kaji sejarah bangsanya bukan melalui bahasanya tidak mengapa.Cuma kita tumpukan pada bahasa kita kemudian baru kita ambil rujukan org lain sebagai sokongan atau sebagainya.... See More

Bila kita bincang mengenai sejarah,pertama mula yg kita akan kaji ialah apa makna dari sudut harfiah sejarah. Dari situ baru kita faham apa itu sejarah.Kemudian barulah kita faham apa matlamat sejarah.Kita menulis sejarah@merangka sejarah@cara pandang sejarah berdasarkan matlamat.Itulah framework sejarah bangsa melayu.Sumber2 sejarah seperti yg saudara imran sertakan rujukan wikipedia itu pun betul bukannya salah.kaedah pengkajian sejarah mestilah berpandukan asas sejarah seperti yg saya cuba sampaikan melalui tulisan2 saya di atas.

Bahasa inggeris pun sebenarnya tidak dpt menjelaskan semua makna bahasa arab dgn tepat. Contohnya 'religion', perkataan tersebut dari akar kata latin yg memaksudkan mengikat. Jadi adakah tepat bila religion diguna pakai utk terjemahan 'Din@agama' sedangkan maksud 'din' bukan mengikat tapi membebaskan.Prof Al-Attas menterjemahkan 'hakikat' ke bahasa inggeris sebagai 'truth and real' dan Prof al-Attas mengakui bahawa terjemahan tersebut masih tak tepat sebab 'truth and real' masih tak menggambarkan makna sebenar perkataan 'hakikat'.Walaupun demikian beliau tetap menggunakannya sebab itu sahaja yg dpt diusahakannya setakat ini.

Bila penjajah menyerang melaka dahulu dengan kepala para tentera portugis tu sarat dengan idealogi penjajahan, takkan nak kata idea tidak menyerang melaka? Bila para sekularis dan para liberalis yg dlm kepala mereka teguh degil dgn idea sekular dan liberal berlawan hujah dgn ilmuan Islam adakah kita nak katakan idealogi tidak menyerang agama? Definisi 'serangan' yg diberikan oleh saudara imran saya setuju tapi kita semua tahu dan sedar 'serangan' bukan sahaja aktiviti fizikal.Serangan mungkin sahaja ada dlm pelbagai bentuk termasuk emosi, ideologi, fizikal dan spiritually. Setan ganggu kita ibadah takkan nak kata setan tidak serang iman kita.Takkan kita nak tunggu setan tendang kita secara fizikal sampai tertonggeng ke baru nak akui yg setan menyerang.Gangguan setan yg bermatlamat merosakkan hubungan kita dgn ALLAH swt itu merupakan sebuah serangan dlm bentuk kerohanian.

Kita boleh sahaja bertanya dan saya sama sekali tidak memandang perbuatan itu satu masalah.Malah dlm hadis Nabi saaw pun ada meriwayatkan yg Nabi saaw ada bersabda :

"Pertanyaan adalah kunci kepada gerbang hikmah"

Pada saya masalah yg timbul bila kita mahu menyamaratakan keutamaan semua peristiwa sejarah.Para sejarawan muslim bercanggah kesimpulannya ada beberapa kemungkinan.Kalau mereka merujuk rekod yg sama tetapi berbeza kesimpulannya sudah pastilah kesan dari kesalah fahaman salah seorang dr mereka. Ini pun mungkin salah satu kesan dari ideologi yg menjadi dasar pemikiran mereka.Jika sumber rekod yg berbeza pastilah juga berbeza kesimpulannya.

Rasanya Wan acap kali ajak kita sama-sama baca dan teliti karya Prof Al-Attas seperti Islam dalam Sejarah & Kebudayaan Melayu, Risalah Untuk Kaum Muslimin, Islam & Secularisme dan sebagainya.Jadi ada baiknya kita baca sama-sama dan bincang kaedah bagaimana nak membantu bangsa kita sedar tentang kekuatan diri bangsa kita dan cara utk memartabatkan bangsa kita.Supaya akal merewang kita pun masuk ke dlm rangka pemikiran Islam.Sebab kelogikkan akal, dan sumber kepada segala logik sumber & titik ukurnya adalah Islam, Quran & Sunnah Nabi Muhammad saaw.Yang bertentangan dgn Islam adalah tidak logik.

Manusia memang sama sekali tidak sempurna melainkan Nabi Muhammad saaw tetapi manusia menuju ke arah kesempurnaan jika jalan yg dia pilih adalah Jalan yg dicipta oleh YANG MAHA SEMPURNA, ALLAH AZZA WAJALLA..

Saya hormati tulisan rakan-rakan sekalian.

1 ulasan:

mansur berkata...

[1] The Malay Identity, as far as the Malays of Peninsula Malaya is concerned can be traced to the Coming of Islam and the Process of Islamization as seen from our own eyes rather than what the Orientalist Ethno-anthropologists or even the local Historians say.

[2] No doubt, the origins of human specie and other ancient and primitive inhabitants of this region can be traced to the "Out-of-Africa Theory" which comes in two (2) Migrations.

[3] 1st Migration is directly from Ethipia, Yemen, Persia, India and into SEA. The 2nd Migration is via China whereby the human species have somewhat taken a different appearance.

[4] Note that there was a serious cataclysmic eruption which resulted in formation of Lake Toba and the whole area covered in "red dust particles"; common to this region and went as far as East Coast of Africa! Also, nearly devastated the 1st Migration population.

[5] Most inhabitants of Sumatra, Malaya, Borneo Java etc are likely, the peoples of the 2nd Migration coming from the China Route thousands of years ago!

[6] The Malay Identity is definitely a recent phenomenon brought about by the coming of Islam passively at first which later culminated in the whole Process of Islamization beginning with the Ethnic Rulers.

[7] The IDENTITY is the Language,and System of Belief and largely peoples of almost the same "origin" ie. most likely the peoples of the 2nd Migration "Out-of-Africa Theory" which by then have become diverse sub-ethnic groups.

[8] Otherwise, the peoples of the Malay Archipelago are nothing more than Pagans, Animists and NOMINAL Buddhists and NOMINAL Hindus and combinations thereof.

[9]Otherwise, the peoples of Malay Archipelago would be likely behave the same as the Hindu-Balinese, Animists, Pagans and SYNCRETIC Buddhist-Hindu-Pagan-Animist that still survive in many remote and interior parts of Java-Sumatra-Sulawesi-Muluku and even Iran Jaya.

[10] It is difficult to say whether it is fortunate or not that the Malays DID NOT become Jews or Christians before or totally absorbed by Hinduism, Ancestors Worshipping or some other electic religions.

One thing is certain when Hindu-Buddhism was striving , the Malays were NOT that enthusiastic and whether the same can be said of they really and wholeheartedly wanting to become peoples of Islam.