Thread by @uglyluhan

Gonna use this question as an excuse to look at the Islamisation of the Melaka kingdom, and whether there was opposition to the religion

https://twitter.com/LuQQAtMe/status/1350368256763183105?s=19

I previously did a thread explaining why it's unlikely that the founder of Melaka converted to Islam. I had fewer followers back then so I kept the thread simple to avoid confusing anyone who's unfamiliar with the topic. I'll go into a bit more detail this time

We have a few sources for the early history of Melaka. These are the Sulalatus Salatin (Sejarah Melayu) written in Melaka, the Bustan al-Salatin written in Aceh, the Chinese Ming Shi (明史) and Yingya Shenglan (瀛涯勝覽), and the writings of the Portuguese

The first thing to note is that the rulers of Melaka, as in other parts of the world, each had more than one name. Figuring out who's who has puzzled historians, resulting in disagreements til this day

The Sejarah Melayu mostly uses reign names, that is, the names which those rulers took during their rule. By looking at the other sources, we may be able to match personal names to the reign names

Most of us know that the founder of Melaka was the Srivijayan prince Parameswara, whom the Sejarah Melayu refers to as Raja Iskandar Shah. This name change has been the main reason so many younger Malaysians assume Parameswara converted to Islam

So he became Muslim and changed his name right? It would make sense, but the Sejarah Melayu itself disagrees. Instead it says that it was a later king, Raja Kecil Besar, who converted after seeing the Prophet Muhammad in a dream

In fact, every source says that the first king of Melaka to embrace Islam came after Parameswara. The question is which one

The conflicting genealogies in the sources resulted in disagreement among later historians. The common opinion prior to the second world war was based on Portuguese sources, being that Parameswara had a son named Iskandar Shah who embraced Islam

The Islamisation movement of recent decades brought revisions, as those of a more Islamic bias took advantage of the confusion in genealogy to push the conversion back as far as possible, all the way to Parameswara himself

So according to this view, it was Parameswara who married a Muslim princess of Pasai, had a dream, converted and then changed his name. This has become something of an accepted "truth" among the Malay right-wing (not "conservatives", mind you)

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tru…

But if we examine the other sources in tandem, it should be clear that whichever of the kings converted, it was certainly not the first king Parameswara, the only "evidence" for which is his seemingly Muslim name Iskandar Shah

The conservative view had generally been that it was his son who converted, as the Portuguese recorded, and that the Sejarah Melayu was simply inaccurate in this instance. This is what I had learned as well

The theory goes like this. We know that there were already Malay Muslims on the peninsula even before the founding of Melaka. So while Parameswara didn't convert, perhaps his son who had been more exposed to the new religion accepted Islam instead

But as far back as the 60s, there were other —in my opinion, better— theories. By comparing the various sources, including two versions of the Sejarah Melayu, Christopher Wake concludes that the first Muslim king of Melaka was in fact the third ruler

Then what of Iskandar Shah? First of all, it appears to be a title or at least a regnal name rather than a personal name. This is why both Parameswara and his son Megat are called Iskandar Shah

Second, the words Iskandar and Shah are not inherently Muslim. Shah is simply the Persian word for a monarch. There was even a Hindu dynasty in South Asia called the Shahi, from the Persian term

historypak.com/hindu-shahi-dy…

Iskandar is the Middle Eastern form of Alexander, as in the Macedonian warlord who became known to Malays though Islamic legend

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1131692822128496640?s=19

So then why would the Melakan kings have taken this name if they were still Hindu-Buddhist? One possibility is that they were covering their bases. Their city was still mostly (or largely) pagan, but many of the traders and neighbours were already Muslim

Under such circumstances, it may be that either Parameswara or his son took on the "Muslim" reign name Iskandar Shah, contrasting with their more local personal names. Perhaps they thought this would put them into greater favour with the Muslim community

If you ask me, I believe the first two rulers were given the title Iskandar Shah posthumously to reinforce their claimed descent from Alexander, and to keep the later Muslim identity intact

Raja Kecil Besar, the king who did convert according to the Sejarah Melayu, used the Sanskrit title Sri Maharaja even after taking the Arabic name Mohammed Shah. But contrary to popular belief, he didn't simply convert the entire court or kingdom

Folklore tells of pagan villages well into the Melaka-Johor era. Many among the Malay nobility too favoured Hindu-Buddhist tradition, as it likely helped them retain their high status. And that brings us to the point of this thread

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1189942625672892416?s=19

Was there any Malay resistance to Islam in Melaka? Not in any hostile sense. In contrast to its introduction in India or Iran, Islam arrived in SEA peacefully. For the common man, its egalitarianism was probably appealing

For the ruling class, the new religion was entirely a political matter, as I explained in this thread

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1292112229509128195?s=19

Considering the classism inherent to Hindu Malay tradition (which remained entirely intact even after conversion for some reason 🙄), it's really no surprise that there was tension from the old guard in the Melaka court

On one side were the conservatives lead by the bendahara. Aware they were never going to get back Palembang, but keen to retain the political organisation and traditions of their homeland

On the other side were the pragmatists, lead by the treasurer and backed by powerful Indian-Muslim merchants. You might even call them... Libtards bringing in pengaruh barat

On the Muslim side, the treasurer's daughter married Baginda Mani Purindan, an Indian Muslim, whose father-in-law happened to be the ruler of Pasai, a Muslim kingdom in northern Sumatra

Mani Purindan's son was named Tun Ali, an Arabic name that contrasted with the bendahara's family who had entirely Malay names. Tun Ali eventually became treasurer himself, with the title Sri Nara di-Raja. The two opposing sides were both grandparents of the king's children

The two princes were borne of princesses from neighbouring kingdoms. The heir apparent was Raja Ibrahim, son of a princess from the Hindu Sumatran kingdom of Rokan. Raja Kassim was the son of a princess from Muslim Pasai

Despite the very Muslim name Ibrahim, the prince was on the conservative side. We can't tell what were his personal beliefs, but it's entirely likely that he was pagan, or a Muslim who practiced pre-Islamic ceremonies, which was common among Malays prior to the 20th century

After the death of Sri Maharaja, Raja Ibrahim ascended the throne under the name Sri Parameswara Dewa Shah. Note here the use of the Persian "shah" despite having an otherwise overtly Hindu title

This king's name is given as Raja Ibrahim in the Sejarah Melayu and Raja Hitam in the Bustan as-Salatin. His Sanskrit kingship title is recorded in the Ming Shi. He has another title which we'll get to later

The new king was still a young man, and it appears that real power was in the hands of his mother's relative, the regent. He's referred to in the Sejarah Melayu simply as "Raja Rokan". At this point, the Muslim faction staged a coup against the regent

The takeover resulted in the death of both the regent and king, allowing Raja Kassim to replace his half-brother as king, and bringing into power the Muslim faction of the Malay court. Ostensibly, the attack was to defend Melaka's sovereignty

But the Hindu-Muslim rivalry within the Malay nobility is implicit. Arranging marriages with princesses from Muslim Pasai and Hindu Rokan was probably a calculated move on both sides

As I'm sure any Malaysian knows, the worst crime in a Malay kingdom was derhaka (treason). The Sejarah Melayu tries hard to vindicate the regime change, which may be truthful but is most likely exaggerated. History is written by the victors right?

First, it characterises Raja Ibrahim as the spoiled child. Though Sri Maharaja was very fond of his son Raja Kassim, the king never went against the wishes of Ibrahim's mother, the princess of Rokan. It's always the woman's fault

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1286645000462245888?s=19

Moreover, it tells that Raja Ibrahim was detested by the populace, whereas the well-mannered Raja Kassim was loved by his subjects. Upon taking the throne, the autocratic Ibrahim casts his half-brother out of the palace to live as a fisherman

It was while selling fish that Raja Kassim is met by a foreign maulana from across the Indian Ocean (atas angin) who perceives the prince's status despite his fisherman's guise, and foretells that he will be king. In other words, God is on his side

And according to the Sejarah Melayu, the attack on the palace was not against the king himself, but the foreign regent. It was only in the ensuing chaos that Raja Ibrahim lost his life. That's.. not suspicious at all

As Prof Khoo Kay Kim explained, the fact that every justification is given for the coup demonstrates how heinous was the crime of derhaka to Malay society, for whom power was maintained by the illusion that the royal family had an inherent supernatural claim

Like a backdoor government, Raja Kassim did not come to power through traditional (legal) means. If he couldn't legitimise himself, it would break the illusion

The Sejarah Melayu also calls Ibrahim by the moniker Abu Syahid (martyr), a name obviously given only after his demise. This proves beyond a doubt that the text does use posthumous titles, which I assume is the reason the Hindu king Parameswara is referred to as Iskandar Shah

It's also worth noting that while certain versions of the Sejarah Melayu give all the Melaka rulers the title of sultan, the Bustan as-Salatin only begins using this title for the first Muslim king, Mohammed Shah

Other sources style Raja Kassim as the first sultan, a title he apparently took after his conquests (and conversions) of Pahang and Kampar. This seems most likely

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1129666624171077632?s=19

His reign name was Muzaffar Shah (the victorious) which is incidentally similar to the meaning of his ancestral homeland Srivijaya (glorious victory)

Although Raja Kassim was not the first Muslim ruler of Melaka, it was during his reign when Islam first became firmly established in the Malay court. And given Melaka's role in spreading Islam through SEA,

It's possible that if Raja Ibrahim had remained in power, Islam would've spread more slowly through the archipelago. Maybe there would still be Hindu-Buddhist Malays in Malaysia today. Just speculation though

Remember that the reason the Melaka nobility asserted their identity as Melayu was not out of some racial pride, but to recall their Srivijaya origin, the great Malay empire of the era

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1100656671091613697?s=19

Their term Tanah Melayu was not a claim to race-based land ownership as it's often used today, but denoted those areas which are under Melaka (ie. descended from the Melayu royal house of Srivijaya) control

https://twitter.com/uglyluhan/status/1064455992446861312?s=19

It was the ways of Melaka that came to define Malay culture. And with Muzaffar Shah's consolidation of power, that came to include Islam, if not during his time then certainly later on