FORUM : WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE

Me : What is knowledge?

At this point in my search, I would say that knowledge is TRUTH. The ultimate TRUTH belongs to GOD.


Putting it simply....whatever is "true" - then it is "knowledge", otherwise it is just a notion. It is true that the general meaning of knowledge may be defined as any info that you know...but am trying to look at it in a more philosophical way without resorting to bygone great philosophers .


What is rationality?


It is a passage or means to acquiring knowledge. It is related to the function of the mind - thinking- rather than intuition or emotion and is therefore subject to human capacity for inquiry. Knowledge would therefore grow and develop with man's capacity for rational thinking.


Is there such thing as knowledge?


Yup.


Is rationality the ultimate source of knowledge?


Ultimate source of knowledge is GOD. Rationality is only a way to acquire knowledge and a very important one too.


A :I tend not to agree with your position. Because if I think that what we learn in school and college can be regarded as knowledge, many of them are merely theories. Thoeries are just assumptions which are made out of conducted experiments and studies.  There is no absolute truth to them.  For example, the theory of evolutuon by Charles Darwin, which you can learn in college.  Scientists are still continuing to look for evidence to support this claim but the thoery itself is already taught in colleges. I am not a supporter of Darwin's evolution but I still regard it as a kwowledge. It's fun to learn too. Just like philosophical and ethical theories. They are not completely wrong or right. And theories are frequenlty changed over time. So does syllabus in school and college. I am not saying your position is wrong. It's just a matter of one own's perspective. I think that way and you think the other way.


Me : You are most welcome to comment, aishiteru.

In my humble attempt at defining "knowledge", I am looking at it from the other direction. Putting it simply....whatever is "true" - then it is "knowledge", otherwise it is just a notion.  It is true that the general meaning of knowledge may be defined as any info that you know...but am trying to look at it in a more philosophical way without resorting to bygone great philosophers. Cheerio.


B : Hope you are okay with my queries below - sincerely interested in the topic.

Are you implying that something that is not confirmed true cannot be accepted as knowledge?  is it just the object of the knowledge or is it applicable at the meta-level as well - e.g. knowing of a lie?

Secondly, how do you define truth as this is also subjective.  even if you define it as something from God as above, there are a lot of things that are not explicitly defined as from God - does it mean that it is not true?  is H20 equals to water?  Is my dream real?


A : I think the way he or she is saying it is like whatever TRUE is knowledge, otherwise, it is just a notion or assumption, not necessarily a kind of knowledge to him or her. BTW it is the best to leave to him or her to explain it further..


Me : My perception is, TRUTH may be  proven by man. 

Let us take fire as an  example. Given the right conditions as per it's natural laws or essence, it would burn.  However, whether it would actually or ultimately burn.......that eventuality is in God's hands.

I am a believer in God, the Creator and as such, the so-called natural laws or essence of  things are the way they are created . They would therefore continue to behave accordingly within the universe, henceforth allowing  the rational man the opportunity to make the right choices in life.  Unfortunately, man's ability is often hindered by  limitations  such that the ultimate TRUTH is often obscure.

I hope I have not confused anyone. Thank you both for your interest.


A : What about legends and folk stories? are they knowledge as well?

C : ...legends and folk stories...u learn something from them too don't u???....tho they may not be of any benefit or applicable to u...but u do noe something about those legendary heroes...villains...monsters...so...dont u think that the things that u got from all these legends and folk stories are considered as knowledge??? 

A : I think it's very difficult to decide whether or not they are knowledge.

Think about hikayat Hang Tuah for example. we do not know whether Hang Tuah is real or the story is merely a creation of Tun Seri Lanang (if i'm making a mistake here, please correct me). okay let say Hang Tuah is very close between real or not that is very tough to be determined, then we may accept it as knowledge, becuase it is quite possible for him to actually exist. another example that I really like is dragon. the creature does not only appears in chinese legends but also in other culture such s malay, persian, and western. we cannot quite say wether dragon actually exist or not, but it can be very close to be between real or not. someone might say dragon might be dinasour. so we might accept dragon as knowledge too, though we are not sure if dragon is fact or fake. but what i want to point out is some of the folk stories, myths or legends can be so unreal to some extent, it's just very hard for us to believe. i dont know, maybe the story of Raja Sakti yang lahir dari buluh betung. do you believe a human could be born from buluh betung? I do not even know what type of buluh is buluh betung. it sounds so ridiculous hehe.


Me : Mind if I join in?

To me, legends and folklores are notions or just beliefs that need to be  proven. 

Let's take a police investigation. On TV we often hear them say "what do we know about the case so far". This suggests the knowledge of facts that have been proven in the course of the investigation.

In the case of Hang Tuah which appears in  Sejarah Melayu which has various versions about him and his origin. Then again it needs corroboration by other sources. At best his character still remains a legend perhaps in as much as in the case of  Robin Hood. It is the time that made romance  grow.

D : To day it is almost impossible, sometimes utterly confusing,  to dig up any real definition of knowledge. The simple reason is because if you are a student of philosophy, for the sake of completeness, the subject of knowledge is called epistemology [Gr.,=knowledge or science]. It is a  branch of philosophy that is directed toward theories of the sources, nature, and limits of knowledge. What is important is not what you put in your brain but the essence of knowledge itself. Since the 17th century epistemology has been one of the fundamental themes of philosophers, who were necessarily obliged to coordinate the theory of knowledge with developing scientific thought. R?? Descartes- I think therefore, I am- and other philosophers (e.g., Baruch Spinoza, G. W. Leibniz, and Blaise Pascal) sought to retain the belief in the existence of innate (a priori) ideas together with an acceptance of the values of data and ideas derived from experience (a posteriori). This position was basically that of rationalism. Opposed to it later was empiricism, notably as expounded by John Locke, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill, which denied the existence of innate ideas altogether. The impressive critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant had immense effects in an attempt to combine the two views.  This was a compromise between the rationalist dan empirist. In later theories the split was reflected in idealism and materialism. The causal theory of knowledge, advanced by Alfred North Whitehead and others, stressed the role of the nervous system as intermediary between an object and the perception of it. The methods of perceiving, obtaining, and validating data derived from sense experience has been central to pragmatism, with the teachings of C. S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Sir Karl Popper developed the view that scientific knowledge rests on hypotheses that, while they cannot be positively verified, can be proven false and have withstood repeated attempts to show that they are. Philosophers in the 20th cent. have criticized and revised the traditional view that knowledge is justified true belief. A springboard for their research has been the thesis that all knowledge is theory-laden.....cogito ergo sum....

"At this point in my search, I would say that knowledge is TRUTH. The ultimate TRUTH  belongs to GOD." - I feel like you have just put a bullet in between my eyes. Ultimate truth transcends human knowledge. Plato's theory of idea tells us that what we perceive as reality or true knowledge are mere duplicate and imperfect truth.

A : 2 + 2 = 4  real? true? false?


Me : I can prove that 2 = 1.

Let , a=b
Multiply both sides by a:
a^2=ab
Subtract  b^2 from both sides:
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
Factoring:
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a-b)
Divide both sides by (a - b):
a + b = b
Substitute b for a:
2a = a
Divide both sides with a:
2 = 1
So, what happens when you substitute  1 for 2 in the equation 2 + 2 = 1 + 1 = 2.

So, 2 + 2 is not always = 4
Is it? Cor .....its just me feeling sleepy ...that's all.

A :  What a wicked trick.

we can also conclude that 2 = 1, so 1 = 1/2 so 1 = 2 = 1/2 

or trivial, 2a = a works if a = 0

BTW you just prove that numbers can be very deceiving 

Me : Thamrong,

Thanks for taking us through the brief  history of epistemology, if I may say so. I sense that your conclussion is somewhat parallel if not congrueous to my own. At least that is how I percieve "justified true belief" :

Truths and Beliefs are two independent entities. When Beliefs(my Notions)  have been Justified( my Proven) then they become Knowledge. 
As human become more developed in the various departments, say, mind, senses and what have you, then more Beliefs/Notions may be Justified/Proven or eliminaded or replaced. There is a whole wide opportunity here for people to expound their ideas. Hence resulting in many Theories. My stand is, there is a lot more Truths out there to be Justified/Proven much of which transcends normal human faculties to comprehand. Some people may be blessed with the ability to comprehand more than others. This "unknown"  area had in the past become the "playground" of the more powerful. We fully note that in certain era, no new Ideas were expounded while in another era and place there seemed to be so many new ideas surfacing. These new Ideas are the Beliefs/Notions/Perceptions which may be "Duplicates of the imperfect Truths". Heheheheh...some may be utterly outrageous and need to be eliminated!

Why are Truths imperfect..? Is it because they are always changing.....in the state of Flux? Who or what is controlling it?

I shall sign off here for now to ponder on this. 

D : Interesting! In philosophy there is no absolute answer. The Number 2 is meaningless if it stand by itself, a mere symbol cold and dumb. 2+2 may not be 4 to me because I might perceive your 4 as 5. What guarantee that your color yellow which you perceives  is yellow to me?

Me : I catch your drift....that is as far as  numbers go.....

It is said  that maths is not a "reality" but rather a description of reality which the human can only approximate . Some of you may have your own take on this. I would be interested to hear it. For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means.

Now, there are otherways to show that  2 + 2 not = 4,  which I better  not elaborate!. Does it mean that the description  is false?  My take on this is, it requires a further identification. So what does it tells us? That justification requires limits and boundaries???? 

A : Am sorry to butt in your conversation but i'm just curious to know if you consider yourself a logical positivist?

Me : At this stage, I am not really concerned about engenreing (gee, I hope there is such a word) myself least it might limit my thoughts. However, I would say that much of what little thoughts I have on the subject seem to be  in tandem with it. Some of it's  principles are still beyond me  though.

D : "For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means."-Me too..Philosophy is a tough nut to crack.

Me : I recall thamrong mentioned about the imperfect truth.  If by that he means that truth is always changing, no........I think Truth does not change. You see, what has happened,  has happened and that is the Truth. You can never change that. Imagine if ultimate Truth is also changiing, then man would never ever comprehand let alone reach it.

I read somewhere that "ultimate reality" is "truth".............Real things are things that exist....some say it includes the essence (what it is) and some say it doesn't as essence exist in the mind. I think for a thing to exist it has to have the essence. Essence alone cannot prove the thing exists....heheh ..  as it exist only in the mind! For example , if we describe the sphinx is an animal that has a human head and the body of a lion(the essence)......but does it exist? So it cannot be real.

Aaaah.........I have said too much!

A : "At this stage, I am not really concerned about engenreing (gee, I hope there is such a word) myself least it might limit my thoughts. However, I would say that much of what little thoughts I have on the subject seem to be  in tandem with it. Some of it's  principles are still beyond me  though".

TRUE!

It's no fun to stick to one concept all time. 

As for me, I yet find a philosopher/ philosophical thoery that I can completely agree or disagree with - well I do not study all of them of course.. When I read arguments from Friederich Nietzsche, I thought at first I completely disgree with his position, but after reading it thoroughly, I find that he makes some good points in his arguments. And I really like them too.

Excuse me for getting off-topic for a while. Now back to the topic. 

Please let me know if I sound like a little agrressive to you HEHE. I hope I am not. I like this topic and look forward to hear more from you. Coz seem like you give your heart to this topic as well. I hope I am right by saying this. If I am not, correct me.  From your given answer, I assume that you are saying that you cannot completely agree with logical positism? Is that true? If it's tue, then it seems to me that you also believe in somehitng that is left unverfiable, far from proven to be true. Is that what you are saying or is it just me think like that?

Me : "From your given answer, I assume that you are saying that you cannot completely agree with logical positivism? Is that true? If it's tue, then it seems to me that you also believe in somehitng that is left unverfiable, far from proven to be true. Is that what you are saying or is it just me think like that?"

Bull's eye buddy. That's my ultimate Truth. 

So far man are mostly verifying things through  the five senses  and the brain they are linked to within the central nervous systom.. That is why man are so limited. Do note that we should not rule out the existence of all others just because we have not found a way to justify them yet.  I think there has to be another way to approach the ultimate Truth...otherwise the whole purpose of  mankind would be futile. That is still my search. 

Some  suggest replacing it  with "faith" .................

Oh well............who knows what tomorrow's experience would bring! Hehehe....I may have to pitch my goal posts elsewhere!

D : To keep the pot boiling I am getting back to basic. I was lost in the maze for the last couple of days.

This topic can be aptly called the theory of knowledge or epistemology.   In other word it is called 'treatment of the subject of knowledge'. In the history of western philosophy  one of the earliest proponents of the 'theory of knowledge' was Plato with his concept of 'idea' or 'form'.

Accounts of knowledge usually do not take the form of a theory in the manner like the studies of gravitation or production of baby when parents slept in the same bed. The issue to be addressed is what knowledge is, weather we have the knowledge, are we human, animal or my keyboard are capable of having knowledge, the conditions under which we have any knowledge, what is the scope of knowledge etc. etc.

A : So you believe in something that is called ultimate truth? and not everybody in this world are capable of accepting/accessing this so called ultimate truth aka "you-definition-of-knowledge" (refer to page 1) because our senses are limited? and that (limitation) also explains why we keep changing our "generally-accepted-idea-of-knowledge" (what we know about something) since our sense are not perfect?

Is that what are you saying?

When someone said: only god knows, is he or she  accepting the idea that God knows everything, including things that are out of our reach/comprehension?

Faith!!  I like the connection of this word with your explanation.

I would like to know if plato's theory is in accordance with hamizao's argument of knowledge.

D : The  Knowledge of the  existence of God :

Ultimate truth or knowledge transcends everything else, including human knowledge. How about God? Through reasoning, can the existence of God be proven?

Rene  Descartes (Cogito Ergo Sum), protagonist of the modern philosophy, broke away from the theological thinking of the Scholastic school and he offered a very elegant proof of the existence of God using rationalist methodology.

He found within himself that idea of God, that is, an entity which is infinite completely perfect, omnipotent, omniscience, and all-knowing. Next question is this cannot emanate from nothingness, nor can it originate within himself. He is finite, imperfect, weak and full of doubt and ignorance, and if the idea originated within him, the effect would be superior to the cause. This is impossible. Consequently, the idea of God must have been placed within him by some superior and higher entity which attain the perfection of that idea, that is, by God himself.

To spice  up Hamizao's Justified true Believe I wish to add some elaboration. This is something I cooked up from one of the sites.

"The Tripartite Theory of Knowledge

There is a tradition that goes back as far as Plato that says that three conditions must be satisfied in order for one to possess knowledge. This account, known as the tripartite theory of knowledge, analyses knowledge as justified true belief. If you believe something, with justification, and it is true, the tripartite theory says, then you know it; otherwise, you do not.

Belief
The first condition for knowledge, according to the tripartite theory, is belief. Unless one believes a thing, one cannot know it. Even if something is true, and one has excellent reasons for believing that it is true, one cannot know it without believing it. Knowledge, quite clearly, requires belief.

Truth
The second condition for knowledge, according to the tripartite theory, is truth. If one knows a thing then it must be true. No matter how well justified or sincere a belief, if it is not true that it cannot constitute knowledge. If a long-held belief is discovered to be false, then one must concede that what was thought to be known was in fact not known. What is false cannot be known; knowledge must be knowledge of the truth.

Justification
The third condition for knowledge is justification. In order to know a thing, it is not enough to merely believe it; one must also have a good reason for doing so. Lucky guesses cannot constitute knowledge; we can only know what we have good reason to believe."

Bertrand Russell wrote something about imperfect truth, which I may recall, which is related to sense perception, flux and substance. Plato highlighted that what we perceive is imperfect image or copies of the reality. I am assuming metaphysical truth is reality and you are free to disagree with me. Taking a horse as an example there can never be two horses which are alike (color, shape and sub species) but the idea of a horse as an animal with four legs is immutable. Taking another example, a triangle can be draw in several shapes, however, all shall meet the criteria of sum of all angle is equal to 2 rights angles.

A : Thumb sup to you for bringing the thoery up, Thamrong!

I hear the word metaphysic often yet I could not grasp its meaning quite thoroughly. Anybody here willing to explain it to me a little bit?

D : "When I read arguments from Friederich Nietzsche, I thought at first I completely disgree with his position, but after reading it thoroughly, I find that he makes some good points in his arguments. And I really like them too."

As a layman with little brain I attempted to read Nietzsches' works. It does not take very long because I have to return it to the bookshelf before I go crazy.

Me : Heheheh.....I sumise that the guy must have lived his life to the fullest and probably died of it too! You did well to let him be least he dragged you down with him .......insane.     Poor soul .....no wonder he  thought that  life was nothing more than a meaningless business of suffering and striving. Oh, if only he had seen the wisdom of it all!

A :  I remembered when my class first introduced to him by my profesor, almost everbody in my ethics class including myself despised his idea of good and bad until my professor pointed out what he actually thinks. If you look at his writing positively, you will find some good points. Of course I do not buy all his arguments but there are few good things that I've learned from him.

D : This is another word which drive me nut

There are several definitions and one I am most comfortable is by Robert C, Solomon. 

Metaphysics. Most simply, the study of the most basic (or "first') principles. Traditionally, the study of the ultimate reality, or "Being as such" (Ujud maka  itu). Popularly, any kind of very abstract or obscure thinking. Most philosophers to day would define metaphysics as the study of the most general concepts of science and human life, for example, ?eality,?existence,?freedom,?God,?soul,?action,?mind.? In general we can divide metaphysics into ontology (theory of being-theori ada), cosmology, and concerning God and immortality of human soul.

D : "It is said  that maths is not a "reality" but rather a description of reality which the human can only approximate . Some of you may have your own take on this. I would be interested to hear it. For me, I haven't even started to ponder what "reality" means."

A very interesting comment.

I take that you are assuming 'reality' as something we can be perceived with our senses, a 'substance',  worldly and physical. This mode of thinking may compel you to the limitation and the pitfall suffered by the scholastic thinkers. The ceiling of philosophical study was brought to such a low level that the thinking mind cannot go beyond theological arguments.

I am suggesting that you should break yourself from that mental bondage and go beyond that. Take 'reality' as an 'idea' which is all perfect, beautiful, permanent and immutable then life will be more interesting. Take for an example; parallel lines only meet at infinity which is valid in physical world. However, infinity can never be realized because it is only an 'idea'. Another example, I remember reading Sir Mohd Iqbal about the notion of 'Hell and heaven'  which he suggested that it should not be treated as a locality instead thinks it as a 'concept'.

Me : Metaphysics.....I read somewhere that the term is somewhat a misnomer and no wonder that word always put a bomb in my brain!! :

At this point I am of the view that it 's subject is on a different plain compared to physics.......it is more ethereal rather than physical....more surreal rather than real , the soul  not  the body................celestial and spiritual. I read somewhere that to attain the true understanding of the matter requires  a 6th sense. Someone had told me that to understand this, revelations would have to be processed both by the mind AND the "hati". In this context I am using the same word "hati" as a representative of the seat of the 6th sense. At this point in my search, I reckon that the understanding/justification  would manifest in something that you would "feel"  e.g. the feeling of inner peace, enlightenment. ..........Could that be faith??

D : To strengthen my argument  I put forth  herewith  Pluto stands on the concept of reality. I am  a strong advocate of rationalism and I put it that empirical methods as subordinate to  it. As a layman and no formal training my path towards understanding reality  is a hazardous and painful trip, however, it is worth taking  and very satisfying. 

Plato, the pupil of Socrates, carried the Socratic teaching into the region of metaphysics. If knowledge through concepts is the only true knowledge, it follows, says PIato, that theconcept represents the only reality, and all the reality, in the object of our knowledge. The sum of the reality of a thing, is therefore the Idea. Corresponding to the internal, or psychological, world of our concepts is not only the world of our sense experience (the shadow-world of phenomena....you would be familiar with the concept of the caveman or katak bawah tempurong), but also the world of Ideas, of which our world of concepts is only a reflection, and the world of sense phenomena, a shadow merely. That which makes anything to be what it is, the essence, as we should call it, is the Idea of that thing existing in the world above us. In the "thing" itself, the phenomenon presented by the senses, there is a participation of the Idea, limited, disfigured and debased by union with a negative principle of limitation called matter. The metaphysical constituents of reality are, therefore, the Ideas as positive factors and this negative principle. From the Ideas comes all that is positive, permanent, intelligible, eternal in the world. From the negative principle come imperfection, negation, change, and liability to dissolution. Thus, profiting by the epistemological doctrines of Socrates, without losing sight of the antagonistic teachings of the Eleatics and of Heraclitus, Plato evolved his theory of Ideas as a metaphysical solution of the problem of change, which had a baffled his predecessors.

D : "At this point I am of the view that it 's subject is on a different plane compared to physics.......it is more ethereal rather than physical....more surreal rather than real , the soul  not  the body........"

One this issue, I think, we are standing on a common ground.

A : I think Nietzche's preoccupation could have been more into societal challenges kind of things. He saw a lot of sufferings and strivings and his foremost question was,...................... how best to live in a "godless and meaningless "world. Amongst his thoughts are the need for a value system that should change to meet new challenges and  analysis of morality.

He distinguished morality into (1) Master Morality and (2) Slaves Morality. Of course what is good and evil in one is the opposite in the other. He found that the slave morality was predominant in Christianity. Hence his onslaught on the Judeo-Christian religion.

On the value system, in order to meet new challenges new basis should be sought to support new values. In other words values including culture need not be preserved. He promoted supremacy of the man ( not any particular race. Feel free to correct me if you think otherwise) who is the best, healthiest and strongest in character.  This brought emphasis on toughness in the face of misery, a character often taken out of context and tyrants have drawn some inspiration from it but understood him only superficially. Well, fortunately for him, he did not live long enough to see the political development in his country.

I found out that he actually became a Swiss citizen and spent many years in Switzerland and Italy until his death(?)

E : If absolute truth is the existence of God, than the sanctity of human existence is govern by morality molded in religions. If religion is part of knowledge and educates humans than it would safe to say that practising one would allow a person to be moral under a certain set of morality.

Now, my question is what about people who are without religion but still exercise a set of behaviour that protects human sanctity. Can a person without religion be moral? For instance, a nurse in Africa who does  her/his chores purely for the sake humanity and does not hold to any particular belief.

Can we be moral without religion? Can a baby be brought to adulthood be moralwithout religion?

D : This is no longer hypothesis. Natural law advocates morality, honor and good ethics. Case in point most pagan rulers and all ancient thinkers advocate morality and righteousness.

Me : In every person there  exist a natural need to self preserve. For that matter even animals do have it too. Therefore, anyone can still have their own ideas  about good and bad, right and wrong behavior even at the most simplest level of social organization.

Hehe...just my 2 cents

"Cogito Ergo Sum"    - Rene  Descartes

KAUM MUDA (THE NEW PARTY)

Thinking about the history of Malacca I am reminded of the mentions made by the village elders and some family members of the regular meetings of the Kaum Muda at my great-grandmother's house. The meetings were often attended by my step- great-grandfather and including some friends from Rawang Sheih Tahir, the father of Tun Hamdan Tahir, whose name is my younger brother's namesake. I never knew what it was all about then and I still do not know much about it now either as I was never a student in History. However, throughout the years the sons of the friends from Rawang remained good friends with the family. As for Tun Hamdan, he remained well spoken of by the family.

What little I know about it now appears that it was a progression of the Malay-Muslim mind. The Kaum Muda were reformists and were mainly Penang, Malacca and Singapore Muslims who had inherited somewhat different intellectual traditions unlike the more traditional Muslims who were subjects of the Malay Kingdoms.

Among the more important and influential figures of the Kaum Muda were the Sumatran-born Sheikh Mohamad Tahir Jalaludin al-Azhari and the Melaka-born Syed Sheikh Ahmad Al-Hadi. Both of them were regarded as representatives of the Kaum Muda generation and they were very much attracted to the reformist and modernist ideas that were en vogue in the Muslim world at the time.

It appears that there were disputes between Kaum Muda and Kaum Tua (The Old Party) over religious and related social issues. All this seemed to have culminatad from the growth of the more popular Western-oriented education and changing economy brought about by rubber.

From what i understand, the KMM (Kesatuan Melayu Muda)and the Kaum Muda are quite different entities. While KMM was only embodied in late 1930s with the influence of members of the failed communist revolution in Indonesia who had escaped to Malaya the Islamic reformists (Kaum Muda) started much, much earlier. Of course they met with strong opposition from the Kaum Tua who were the traditionalists viz. the rural ulamas, the broadly peasant society the ruling Malay elites of the other States coupled with the British policy towards the Malays being the assumption that the great majority of them were desirable to remain within the traditional agricultural society made it quite impossible for the Kaum Muda to breach.

However I do understand that in the late 1930s, many Malays regarded KMM as Kaum Muda which could have arised as in retaliation, the traditionalist had accused the Kaum Muda as being communists. KMM really had nothing to do with Islam.

POWER BEHIND THE THRONE

As the saying goes, "Behind every successful man, there is a woman". There appears to be a number of women of the court who have left their mark in the Malay court history. Some of them were even female rulers.

The Promotion of Tun Mutahir

The Promotion of Tun Mutahir to the position of Bendahara Melaka was in fact the result of the influence of a lady of the royal household.

According to The Malay Annals by R O Winstedt, after the burial ceremony of the last Bendahara, Sultan Mahmud Shah had listed down 9 possible candidates for the new Bendahara. However, the Sultan's mother who was following the selection process from behind a door had whispered her choice of a relative, Tun Mutahir. The Sultan acceeded to her choice.

I am reminded of a movie on the Moghul rulers where there was a curtain behind the Sultan's throne where the queen and other female members of the royal family were seated. They would also whisper their opinion to the Sultan and therefore all the Sultan's decisions would appear to be his alone.

Queens of Kelantan

According to Sejarah (History) Kelantan the first queen of Kelantan was Che Siti Wan Kembang, daughter of Sultan Ahmad. She is believed to have ascended the throne following the death of the male regent who was a relative. She did not marry and later gave up the throne to her adopted daughter, Putri Sa'dong.

Putri Sa'dong was noted for her beauty. Although she was married, the King of Siam demanded to marry her. She was taken to Siam but refused to sleep with the King. Her excuse was that the King had sores on his body. Later she cured him of the sores on condition that she be allowed to return to Kelantan. Return she did only to find that her husband had been unfaithful to her.

During the ensuing quarrel she stabbed her husband to death. Her reign ended abruptly.

Queens of Patani

Patani, once a cradle of Islam in SEA was for a period of time, ruled by four queens in succession!

There were two versions as to the reason for this:

1. That the aristocrats were tired of despotic male rulers (European account);

2. That the male lineage ran out (Hikayat Patani/Patani Annals).

It is said that Raja Ijau (Green), the first queen, was installed when all male royal successors have died in two palace revolutions. She was the sister of the late young Sultan who had been murdered while seated on the lap of his aunt, the regent. She too died in that revolution.

During her reign (1584-1616) trade and diplomatic ties flourished with the Portuguese, Dutch, English. Japanese and SEA. Raja Ijau paid attention to her people's needs. She was remembered for her project in constructing a canal to check the salinity of a river.

She was succeeded by her sister, Raja Biru (Blue) (1616-1624). She was accredited for building a stone dam to regulate the swift flow of a river that threatened the palace.

The third queen was Raja Ungu (Purple) (1624-1635) who had just married the Sultan of Pahang before ascending the throne. She returned to Patani after the death of her husband to rule Patani.

She is said to pursue an anti-Siam policy and was supported by other Malay states and the English merchants. It is said that Siam had taken offence to the fact that the queen's daughter(?), Raja Kuning (Yellow), who was married to a Siamese Officer had been married off to someone while her husband was away.

Raja Kuning ascended the throne from 1635-1688. During her reign Patani-Johore relationship became strained. The reason being, during the absence of the Sultan, the Yang Dipertuan Muda (either the Sultan's brother or cousin) had "violated" Raja Kuning and then had a "affair" with her dayang (maid), Dang Sirat. Apparently, Dang Sirat was a court singer and was capable of magic spells. The Yang Dipertuan Muda managed to escape thus saving his life. However, according to Dutch source, his followers were massacred while Hikayat Patani says that they were expelled.

Upon the death of Raja Kuning, her lineage ended. The Patani Malays elected Raja Bakal, a descendant of the Sultan of Kelantan. The new dynasty did have a queen, Raja Dewi (1707-1716).

It is noted that religious forces did not raise any objections to the rule by queens.

As history is told, in 1728, the Siamese broke up the Patani Kingdom.

Queens of Aceh

Aceh too had four queens about the same time as the Patani and Kelantan queens:

Safiyatuddin Taj al-Alam (1641-1675)

Naqiyatuddin Nur al-Alam (1675-1677)

Zaqiyatuddin Inayat Shah (1677-1688)

Kamalat Zinatuddin Shah (1688-1699)

Aceh had been ruled by despotic sultans for 50 years. When the very despotic Sultan Iskandar Muda died without an heir, his son-in-law, the Pahang Prince Iskandar Thani, was installed as Sultan. Although he was not very powerful, his moderate rule was appreciated by Aceh's dignitaries as they were fed-up with the despotic rule of previous Sultans. They were also fortunate that Sultan Iskandar Muda had eliminated all his sons whom he suspected of being in league to cause his own downfall. Only a illegitimate son, Tengku Itam, had survived.

When Sultan Iskandar Thani died, the dignitaries installed the Sultan's widow as raja. The story goes that Sultanah Taj al-Alam was an intellegent and just raja and Aceh became peaceful and prosperous. Power, however was still in the hands of the dignitaries. They were often challenged by Tengku Itam. Such challenge became serious during the reign of the 3rd sultanah (queen) when the dignitaries divided up the padi growing area into three and to be headed by district heads.

Although there were attempts to topple every queen, they all failed until a fatwa said to be from mecca, which forbids Muslim women from being raja. With this Sultanah Kamalat had to give up the throne.

It should be reminded that when the first queen was installed, it was with the support of the renown ulama of Aceh, Nuruddin Ar-Raniri who was  close with Sultan Iskandar Thani. He had become very influential in Aceh after winning a religious debate with sufi members such as Hamzah Fansuri and a few others. Unfortunately when his influence diminished, the rule of the queens in Aceh ended.

Queens of Johor

Yes, Johore to had a queen who surfaced after Johore underwent a period of turmoil. Firstly, she had to face the Portuguese then Aceh and finally Jambi which was a vassal of Johore at the time.

The war with Jambi was over a womam.....The Sultan's younger brother, Raja Muda, had married the daughter of the ruler of Jambi. He had returned to Johore several times without ever taking his wife with him. To the people of Jambi, this was an insult and war ensued in 1859 extending for 20 years. It only ended when Johore finally defeated Jambi.

Raja Muda died after the war ended in 1675 and two years later Sultan Abdul Jalil died. He was replaced by his nephew Sultan Ibrahim. In the mean time, his son-in-law in Jambi, Laksamana Paduka Raja Tun Abdul Jamil had become an influential man. After taking Jambi, he, with the help of Jambi, had defeated Palembang and it's ally, Bugis. With that he became less respectful of Sultan Ibrahim. Meanwhile Sultan Ibrahim was already thinking of eliminating him.

On 16 Febuari, 1675 Sultan Ibrahim died suddenly. It is said that he had been poisoned by his three wives. All three wives were later punished by death. His young son was installed Sultan Mahmud while his wife, daughter of Laksamana Paduka Raja (her name unknown) ruled as queen. She was entrusted to care for Sultan Mahmud as her ward.

However, the dignitaries of Johor were not too happy with the Laksamana who had given important government positions to his sons without consultations with them. They suspected that this was all his plan.

At the throne, Sultan Mahmud was placed on the lap of the queen instead of the Bendahara's in accordance with the Johore tradition. Johore dignitaries found this disrespectful and a revolt ensued during which the Laksamana was defeated.

There were two versions to what happened to Sultan Mahmud and the queen. In short, Sultan Mahmud was saved by the Bendahara, while Laksamana was persued and later caught at sea near Trengganu. He was later put to death by a kris. With regard to the queen, it is said that she and her sister who had been promised to Raja Muda Indragiri, were drowned at sea. Hence ended the three years reign of the Johore Queen, 1685-1688.

Such was the intrigue in the Johore palace.