Talk:Spread of Islam in Indonesia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title[edit]

Could we have a better title for this? Maybe something like 'The Spread of Islam.." or "Rise of Islam.." or maybe even "The Arrival of Islam..". "Coming of Islam.." doesn't sound too good as a phrase in the title. --Bluerain talk 15:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for your interest. I was wondering whether people had read it. I wrestled with this title for some time. Of your suggestions, I think the spread of Islam in Indonesia is the best, but I am not convinced it is better than "The Coming of Islam". "Rise of Islam" doesn't really fit and the "Arrival of Islam" sounds a bit like simply the moment the traders got off the boat - the article covers more than that. I think it is important though to maintain the dates to define the article. Much happened since 1600 even though it was by then established as the dominant religion and Islam is still changing today. Ie, i wanted some seperation with Islam in Indonesia. It also forms an important chronological part in the History of Indonesia series. I actually got 'The COming of Islam" from the first (or second?) chapter of the referenced Ricklefs book regarded as one of the best, if not the best, standard history books on Indonesia. I figured if it was good enough for Ricklefs, it was at least OK for WP. But, would be happy to discuss more. thanks Merbabu 18:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I have not finished by the way working on this article. There is some discussion of some Malay and Javanese legends that I'd like to put in (seperate section) - for now though I have simply put historical discussion in. And, it would be good to have other sources, of which i have a few, but there is always too much to do. Merbabu 18:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still go for "Spread of Islam" over "Coming of Islam" if the choice is only between those two, though I'm open to any other suggestions. Till then, why not atleast capitalise the 'c' in "coming"? --Bluerain talk 08:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

  I don't know if it's any help, but my search to get me to this good article was, "How did indonesia become muslem?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.226.224 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, my understanding is that only the first word and proper nouns in titles (and headings) are capitalised. per WP:MOS i believe. Check other wikipedia articles. (proper nouns are words like Islam and Indonesia - in case you don't know :-) ).
Well, if we must move away from what arguably the most respected contemporary Indonesia historian uses, how about 'establishment'? I could live with that. What are your thoughts? Merbabu 08:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would you mind if I raised this with other Indonesia editors who's opinion I respect? I'll ask them to comment here. I will suggest 'establishment'. Thanks for your interest. Merbabu 08:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I opt for "The spread of Islam in Indonesia (1200–1600)". — Indon (reply) — 08:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem i have with 'spread' is that this article is intended to cover both the arrival/coming and establishment. Furthermore, it wasn't necessarily a spread from west to east, rather pockets were established across the archipelago and its influence moved out from these (although of course, the first is generally accepted to have been Aceh/north sumatra). Remember also, that a ruler may have adopted islam but that did not mean the population had yet done so either, and trader towns on the coast may have been Islamic, but not interior peoples at first. Just my thoughts. Indon, what do you think of 'establishment'? For me it covers both the arrival/coming bit and it becoming the dominant religion. Merbabu 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Merbabu, so my vote would be for either "The coming" or "The establishment". (Caniago 09:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
...and, I'm happy to drop 'coming'.--Merbabu 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is so little hard evidence of what really happened - I dont believe much has been proved either way - and so much paper and time has been spent on the arguments - apart from a few headstones - I go for spread,or rise - arrival and coming for me, regardless of merles hard work - suggest something discrete in time - i suspect from my understanding - is that spread or rise are more appropriate, just my few rupes suggestion SatuSuro 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha!, ask Satu and consensus surely goes out the window, although no doubt for valid knowledgeable and insightful reasons.
OK, although 'spread' is not my preference, it is not completely objectionable. Just as a final question Satu, what do you think of 'establishment' (for me, this means arrival and eventual domination over time)? Can that in your opinion be ruled in or out? Merbabu 09:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Establishment feels like the american constitution, on a single piece of paper - if one mixes the old dutch academics examination of the old chinese records on the north coast (ie chinese muslim traders into the ports) , the others who claim its all from southern india (further coastal trading links but from another direction) , and the others who have variants of the few headstones extant - that is the gravestones in the majapahit graveyards (from wherever they are claimed to have originated from) - sorry cannot do. (Sorry michael) If we go into the generally accepted folklore of the wali songo the process was by conversion by example - or the folkore of the ransacking and looting of earlier religious establishments - it still feels like spread to me. I could always be wrong - its like Gunung Merapi in 1006 - sheer speculation... SatuSuro 12:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Establishment' sounds too formal, like it was some kind of unified, planned introduction of the religion. --Bluerain talk 13:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can live with 'spread'. Merbabu 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue is not really crucial, isn't it? So I am happy with 'coming' or 'establishment' or 'spread' or 'arrival'. :-) — Indon (reply) — 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Merbabu 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, we are changing to "The spread of Islam in Indonesia (1200 to 1600)"? Merbabu 15:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks that way - unless there is any last vote otherwise at this time of night in indonesia and australia - any voters in new york at this stage? SatuSuro 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do New Yorkers know where INdonesia is? ;-) Merbabu 16:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least one does - remember the "Indonesian Civil War" debate? :-) Sorry to be a fly in the ointment, but I still think "coming" or "arrival" are best as this discusses the event in time that seperates "no Islam" and "Islam" in Indonesia. "Spread" could be sometime after the actual arrival. Davidelit 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, your reasoning is correct over the differences between coming/arrival vs. spread, HOWEVER, the article covers both. Ie, it is thought (ie, evidence very sketchy and inconclusive) that Islam came about 1200 and over the following centuries 'spread' and became the dominant religion in most Indonesian regions by 1600. Oh well, that is my thinking. Maybe we need a vote? Merbabu 06:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Credible sources I've read say that Muslims had arrived in Indonesia right near the start of Islamic history - ie, a few hundred years before 1200. Travellers and traders, but this didn't mean the local population took it on as their own religion, which is not thought to have started until the 1200's - and then took several centuries. The article here aludes to that. Hence, 'spread' in a way is not to far from the mark. As I've said, i simply used 'coming' as it was what respected historian used - and in my mind this is first and foremost, even soley, a history article - and I didn't initially agree with 'spread' as it sounded a bit like something to do with margarine - but i've been convinced.
Even though we are in general agreement, but not full agreement, I'm going to change it to 'spread'. I know it's not perfect but hopefully we can all accept it. Please let us know if you really can't live with it. regards Merbabu 02:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is a main article Spread of Islam as well as History of Islam, I boldly moved the page from "Spread of Islam in Indonesia" to "History of Islam in Indonesia" as this is more consistent with other pages about religious history in particular countries. - – Fayenatic (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See further discussion at WT:WikiProject Indonesia#Category issues. – Fayenatic (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Indonesia" (to name or not to name)[edit]

I must say, I preferred the older version, which began by acknowledging (albeit lightly) that these peoples were not "Indonesians" at all. "Indonesia" is a recent invention, not an ancient society. Even "Javanese" is quite recent, to say nothing of "Sumatran" (arguably a ludicrous term). So here we have an article which naturalizes the existence of a dubious condition. The article treats "Indonesia" as a given, as an a priori fact. I thought that the opening helped to at least address that "Indonesia" is a term of convenience in this case, not a real entity to be reified. Thus, I think it's more scientific, shall we say, to leave the opening in an ambivalent state of "Indonesianess." Smilo Don (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So very very lucky you dont have australian economists wikipedian who so unrepententingly fiercely jump on the x formerly known as y sentences in wikipedian articles as WP:SYNTH - you have perhaps just merbabu I to cope with :) - please in all good faith - forget it and find something else to have a quabble about, as for science and words - you have ventured into the armpit of the universe when it comes to indonesia and etymology - unless you want to have a protracted and injuring debate better left alone - adding your own POV to words is not helping the encyclopedia or its articles - dubiousness, and recent inventions may be your personal problem - but for the easily understandable online encyclopedia - they stay and please understand it has been accepted label by 50 years of international scholarship and discussion - if you want to correct the whole academic community - please do not do it on wikipedia - it is not the appropriate location - write a book :) SatuSuro 23:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of talk page headers is to remind us - This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The spread of Islam in Indonesia (1200 to 1600) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. SatuSuro 00:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My 2 cents...

While it might be narrowly and technically correct to say that it’s 20th concept, it would actually open a tricky can of worms, not just for Indonesian historical articles, but also any country’s history. And as SatoSuro points out, it goes against long-established and universally accepted conventions. I can just see it now…

OK, so I presume no-one is suggestion quite that change, but the above does illustrate the extent of the issue. Why pick on Indonesia? Why not Australia, United States, and Germany?

Also, a few other points…

  • Firstly, it’s not “the old version” – the change was only made yesterday, from the referenced version.
  • It’s the established convention – it’s not just a matter of “if it’s good enough for Ricklefs, Vickers, Taylor, et all, then it’s good enough for wikipedia”, rather to venture away from firmly established conventions to cater for our own known POV’s on the legitimacy of a state is a serious wiki sin.
  • misleading...
"Islam is thought to have first been adopted by various peoples, now collectively referred to as Indonesians, sometime during the eleventh century, "
This suggests that all Indonesians adopted it in the eleventh century – but as the rest of the article shows, this is not the case. (although, I concede the previous version was not much better).
  • The changes don’t concern the concepts of Sumatran and Javanese peoples – rather it mentions the islands of Java and Sumatra. I know one or two editors have issues with the legitimacy of the Indonesian state, but up the existence these islands is fairly reliably sourced. (wink wink)
  • If anyone actually wants to work on expanding the article, providing new information, then that is a much better use of time than arguing over POV-laced hair splitting over semantics.--Merbabu (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Indonesian legends"[edit]

Hair splittting semantics? May be. I read a story about seven wise men spread Islam in Java, but do not see the story here. Andries (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are the nine Wali Sanga, around whom much much is myth. Yes, they have an important part in the story, although not 100% historical - much is legend. They should be included - as part myth - and this gets back to my point immediately above about spending time expanding the article instead arguing over semantics. --Merbabu (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I've started this section. here. --Merbabu (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mythology/legends/etc can actually have essences of useful information - there is the rather pathetic tale of one american academic warning another off another about using javanese sources - nah dont bother with that archive (solo kraton) - and the receiver of the tale accepted the info - there is in its own way a vast resource of javanese history locked up in the solo kraton - but it needs work a huge amount - to work with cerita rakyat, collected tales and the marvellous floating nine(seven, eleven etc) saints - specific dates and events might not be there - but the actual use of the legends in javanese culture to ascertain some issues is something no one academic has adequately pursued far enough yet - the following has clues as to the way of 'seeing' folklore and issues and how it provides underlying info about the culture but the subject is thoroughly avoided by most
  • Fischer, Joseph, 1926- The folk art of Java / Joseph Fischer ; assisted by James Danandjaja ... [et al.]. Kuala Lumpur ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1994. ISBN 9676530417
So for that reason i would not put non-historical - SatuSuro 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will remove the "non-historical" from the heading - now just "Indonesian legends as sources" or should it just be "Indonesian legends"?--Merbabu (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng He[edit]

Hi, I noticed that Zheng He is not mentioned at all in this article, but on Zheng's article there are several Indonesian scholars mentioning his contributions in spreading Islam in SE AsiaZheng_He#Zheng_He_and_Islam_in_Southeast_Asia. Should this be included?--PCPP (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. The Wali Songo article claims that 5 of the Sunan were Chinese Muslims, so that is another thread in the discussion. Martindo (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The spread of Islam in Indonesia → Spread of Islam in Indonesia —

  • So that the article title doesn't begin with an article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 22:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with the the title beginning with an article ("the")? Indeed, it sounds wrong without it. Is it wikipedia policy? Otherwise, I don't see a reason to change. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try and see if I can find it hidden somewhere in the guidelines, but at least the article's title should be consistent with Spread of Islam and related articles. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't take as long as I thought it would. Found it here: WP:THE. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion about this is also currently taking place here. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, that would be a discussion I started with you. :-) Anyway, I don't like the proposed change, but I can see the tide is against me so I won't try and stand in the way. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as standard policy WP:THE. 137.205.222.193 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Myth[edit]

"One of the defining characteristics of the spread of Islam in Indonesia was that it was achieved through mostly peaceful means"

Well "mostly" is a good hedge, but the fact that countless Reliable Sources repeat each other on this point doesn't make "peaceful" a fact. The most obvious counter-example is the name Jakarta, derived from Jaya-Karta, meaning "precious victory" -- the victory being the conquest of the Hindu kingdom of Sunda Kelapa by the Demak Sultanate.

All references to "peaceful" should be hedged in some way, unless the subtopic specifically refers to conversion or spread that was verifiably conducted without bloodshed. Martindo (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wanted to say this, but no need. 125.165.108.86 (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spread_of_Islam_in_Indonesia&oldid=1213310806"