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.

Mongols In The Nusantara

Today I am thinking of events nearer to home associated with the Mongols....

When the Kediri Kingdom fell in 1222, Singosari became the new powerhouse in Java. In 1286, Prince Kertanegara, son of Vishnuvardhana, became king. He was well aware of the Mongol threat and reckoned that a united "Nusantara" was one way of facing the threat.

AS usual, Kublai Khan had sent a deligation to Kertanegara requesting acceptance of Mongol lordship. However, as the Mongols had just lost in Japan,Tongking and Champa, in 1289, Kertanagara siezed the Mongol delegates and returned them with wounded faces.

This had caused the wrath of Kubilai Khan and hence the Mongols made preparations for war. At the same time Kertanagara had just completed his "Pamalayu" expedition to extend his kingdom to the Malay Peninsular and West Borneo. He had rather expected the Mongol's response.

However, Kertanagara's power in Java had been toppled and the territories that were once his vassals took the opportunity to revolt. Kertanagara was eventually killed and by the time the Mongol armada reached Tuban, the enemy was no more!

Kertanagara left no son and the new crown prince was his son-in-law, Vijaya. Vijaya took the opportunity to acquire Mongol's assistance to retake the throne of Singosari by promising to accept Kublai Khan's lordship. The ploy worked. When the Mongol forces were broken up to perform new duties, Vijaya attacked the various groups one by one. The rest escaped and returned to China

King Vijaya later went on to establish the Majapahit Empire..........

The Converted Jews

Mengikut James W. Von Brunn dalam bukunya "Kill The Best Gentiles" perkatan "Jew" ini dicipta oleh William Sheridan, seorang dramatis British, dalam karyanya "The Rival" pada 1775. Perkataan ini datangnya dari perkataan "Judean" dan diguna sebagai perkataan slang dan bermaksud JUDEAN OF HEBRAIC FAITH tetapi punya perwatakan orang2 KHAZAR. Asal-usul Khazar korang boleh baca sendirilah kat internet. Macam2 ada. 90% Jew sekarang adalah terdiri dari orang2 Khazar.

Kononnya perkataan "Jew" tidak diguna dalam Old Testament asal dalam bahasa Hebrew ataupun Torah yang telah dialih bahasa dari Aramaic ke bahasa Greek dan lain2. Selepas 1776 apabila Khazar diterima oleh Kingdom2 Kristian sebagai serpihan kaum Judea dari diaspora, mereka dipanggil Jew secara rasmi. Masa itulah "Talmudism" menjadi "Judaism". Maka bermulalah perkataan "Judaism" dan "Jew" dimasukkan kedalam edisi2 semakan Talmud dan Holy Bible kemudiannya. Justerunya orang2 Khazar telah menjadi "The Choosen People", pewaris Covenant, Palestine dan lain2 kekayaan dan khazanah yg berada di bumi Palestine. Barang diingat mereka boleh mendapatkan tanah untuk dijadikan negeri di bumi Afrika tetapi mereka telah menolak cadangan itu dan mereka mahukan Palestine juga.

Apakah sebenarnya yg dikatakan perwatakan Khazar itu? Cukup dengan yang berikut sahaja buat masa ini:

Pakar sejarah memanggil mereka Ashkenazi (Asiatic/European Jew).

Pakar anthropology memanggil mereka Mongol-Armenoid Jew.

Pakar psychology memanggil mereka "manicdepressives".

Mereka juka dikenali sebagai "Masters of deceit".

Ni ada satu lagi cerita tentang mereka yang dipetik dari penulisan Benjamin Freedman who was a Jewish defector.

Masa itu, menjadi kebiasaan bagi negara2 Kristian di Eropah untuk mengadakan upacara rayat mengangkat sumpah taat setia kepada raja2, pembesar2, tetuan punya tanah dan lain-lain. Apabila Khazaria jatuh ke tangan Russia, pihak Khazar telah menukarkan Talmud di bahagian-bahagian tertentu dengan effek bahawa sumpah itu tidak valid kepada Jews walaupun dilafaskan. Lambat laun hal ini menjadi pengetahuan ramai. Mereka juga menolak bahasa Russia dan semua langkah2 Russia untuk mengasimilasi orang2 Khazar ke dalam negara Russia tidak mendapat sukses. Oleh itu banyaklah kejadian2 yang diceritakan oleh sejarah sebagai pogrom, persecution, diskriminasi dan lain-lain. Ada Rabbai yang ingin membuang undang2 ini dari Talmud kerana ianya tidak ada kena mengena dengan persoalan spiritual, akan tetapi Rabbai Khazar tak bersetuju. Jadi, sampai la ni mereka masih mengamalkannya.

Kepada sesiapa yang tertanya2 mengapakah "Jew" amat tidak disenagi pada masa dahulu, ini mungkin menjadi salah satu jawapan.

HIRAM ABIFF AND THE SOURCE OF "THE BROTHERHOOD"

Just thought of dwelling into the subject of Hiram, builder of the Temple of Solomon.

Modern masonic movement is believed to have been based on what the Knights Templars found in the ruins of the Temple of Solomon. It is believed that they had brought them home and used them till this day. Whatever they were they had caused their activities to be banned by the Catholic Church.

Pergerakan mason modern dipercayai ada banyak berdasarkan apa yang dijumpai knights templars di bekas'Temple of Solomon'. Dipercayai, mereka telah membawanya pulang dan menggunanya sehingga kehari ini. Apakah dia yang dijumpai itu sehinggga pergerakkan itu telah diharamkan oleh pehak Gereja Katolik?

The story is told that, Balkis, Queen of Sheba, had fallen in love with Hiram Abiff. Solomon was certainly displeased with this. Whilst Hiram was building the Temple, there were three smart masons who had requested for a promotion. However, Hiram had rejected the request. Another source says that the three masons had forced Hiram to reveal the secrets of the construction of the Temple. It had been said that only three people were privy to these secrets - Solomon, Hiram's King who had sent him to Solomon an Hiram himself. Hiram refused to devulge the secrets. One day Hiram was killed and buried. The three masons were charged with his murder and punished. Here I wish to emphasise on the "brotherhood" and the secrets which have been kept so well that they were willing to die for them. This is a quality valued by the "masons"

Mengikut ceritanya, Queen of Sheba, Balkis, telah jatuh cinta dengan Hiram Abiff. Sudah tentu ini tidak di senangi Solomon. Juga semasa Hiram membina Temple itu ada 3 orang mason atau tukang batu yang bijak telah meminta dinaikkan pangkat. Permintaan ini ditolak oleh Hiram. Satu lagi sumber menceritakan bahawa tukang2 batu itu telah memaksa Hiram untuk memberi tahu akan rahsia pembenaan Temple itu. Dikesahkan bahawa hanya 3 orang yang tahu akan rahsia ini - Solomon, Raja kepada Hiram yg menghantarnya ke Solomon dan Hiram sendiri. Haram enggan membuka rahsia itu. Satu hari, Hiram telah dibunuh dan ditanam dan tukang batu yang bertiga itu telah dituduh membunuh Hiram dan dihukum. Disini sy ingin menekankan tentang "pakatan" dan rahsia yang disimpan begitu rupa sehingga sanggup dibunuh. Inilah salah satunya yg diutamakan oleh "masons".

According to my notes, history of "Brotherhood" began during the time of the Sumers. I do not intend to explain it at length as it would require an open mind to accept the facts. It would suffice to know that it had been accounted in cunieform on tablets found in Iraq. They have been translated by experts.

Mengikut catatan saya, sejarah pakatan setiakawan atau Brotherhood itu sebenarnya berputik dari zaman Sumer lagi. Saya tidak berniat menceritakannya dengan lebih lanjut (saya ni memang suka bercerita) kerana ia memerlukan fikiran terbuka untuk menerima fakta2nya. Cukup dengan mengetahui bahawa cerita ini ada tertulis dalam tulisan cunieform atas batu-bata yang telah banyak dijumpai di Iraq dan diterjemahkan oleh pakar2.

To the Sumers, "Brotherhood" meant "keepers of secret things". It is said that in 1118, the Knights Templars found "scrolls" beneath the Temple of Herod. Whatever they were, they had made them rich and powerful.

Erti "Brotherhood" kepada orang2 zaman Sumer dahulu adalah "penyimpan rahsia". Ada diceritakan Knights Templers ada menemui "scrolls" pada 1118 di bawah Temple Herod pula, entahlah.....Walauapapun bendanya, ia telah menyebabkan mereka kaya dan berkuasa.

There are several stories about what was found in Jerusalem then. In brief, the Knights Templars were "Free men" not bound by the Catholic philosophy of those days. If you understand the history of Roman Catholicism, this story will be more meaningful and you will understand why the Freemason operates in secret.

Memang ada beberapa cerita tentang apa yang dijumpai di Jerusalem itu. Dipendekkan cerita, Knights Templars adalah "bebas" tidak terikat kepada garisan2 falsafah katholik pada zaman itu. Kalau kekawan faham bagaimana Roman Katolik bermula maka cerita ini akan menjadi lebih bermakna. Juga boleh difaham kenapa Freemason bergerak secara rahsia.

In 1948 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in Qumran. They were writings on copper sheets amongst which are about the history of Yehoshua(Jesus' real name) which is quite different from the version that is generally known today. The people of Qumran in those days were the Essenes who escaped from Jerusalem during the Jewish revolution.The revolution brought the destruction of Jerusalem and it's temples. The Esanees were the original followers of Yehoshua, Nasoreans. The writings on the scrolls mention about some treasure being hidden below the Temple of Herod.

Dengan penemuan Dead Sea Scrolls di Qumran pada tahun 1948 yang mengandungi penulisan atas kepingan tembaga diantaranya menceritakan tentang sejarah Yehoshua(nama sebenar Jesus) yg bukan seperti cerita rasmi yang diketahui umum sekarang. Penghuni Qumran pada masa itu terdiri daripada orang-orang Essenes yang telah melarikan diri dari Jerusalem semasa revolusi Yahudi yang membawa kemusnahan Jerusalem dan temple-templenya. Mereka adalah pengikut2 asal Yehoshua, Nasoreans. Penulisan discroll itu ada juga menceritakan yang mereka ada menyuruk harta dan penulisan lain dibawah Temple of Herod.

With this, it is believed that the Templars had obtained very original Christian documents! For sure, their practices which were different from the official Catholic's did not please the Church.

Dengan ini dipercayai bahawa Templars telah mendapatkan dokumen2 Kristian yang amat original! Sudah tentunya amalan2 mereka yang berlainan dari amalan rasmi Katholik tidak disenagi pehak Gereja.

In my opinion the founding fathers of Freemason had good intentions i.e.having a moral system for members of the masonic craft based on brotherhood, love and truth. However, the brotherhood, had been infiltrated by the Illuminati and many real "masons" left Freemason.

Pada pendapat saya pengasas Freemason mempunyai cita2 murni ia itu satu sistem moral buat ahli2 kraf "mason" dengan berprinsipkan setiakawan, penyayang dan kebenaran diantaranya. Akan tetapi, kumpulan ini telah diresapi Illuminati dan ramai ahli2 yang sebenarnya "mason" telah meninggalkan Freemason.

To my knowledge, the term "Illuminati" had been used in different context by different groups e.g. "Illuminated Ones" (11th century). A german group, "Illuminati" in 15th century claimed to have been illuminated by Satan, said to be an angel from heaven called Lucifer/Iblis, the bearer of light.

Pada pengetahuan saya, perkataan "Illuminati" telah digunakan dalam beberapa cara oleh beberapa kumpulan seperti "Illuminated Ones" (kurun ke-11). Suatu kumpulan Jerman "Illuminati" dalam kurun ke-15 mengaku mendapat cahaya dari Satan yang difahami sebagai malaikat di syurga bernama Lucifer/Iblis, ia adalah pembawa cahaya.

There was another group in Afghanistan in the 16th century, said to be searching for illumination from the Supreme Being who was in need of a perfect man. Those who reach the 4th degree were said to have become the "Enlighten One" and shall be bestowed with mystical abilities. Upon reaching the 8th and the last degree, they would be told that they have attained perfection. Their aim is to influence those in power for peace on earth. During the time they were fighting the Mongols who were in power in India. This group survived till the 17th century. After that, other groups grew.

Ada suatu kumpulan di Afghanistan pada kurun ke-16 mencari illuminasi dari Yang Maha Agung dan berkemahuan akan suatu kelas manusia yang cukup semporna. Apabila mereka sampai ke tahap darjah 4 mereka akan menjadi "Enlighten One" dan akan menerima kebolehan mistik. Apabila sampai ke tahap darjah 8 atau akhir,mereka akan diberi tahu yang mereka telah mencapai tahap semporna. Tujuannya adalah untuk mempengaruh orang2 atasan untuk keharmonian didunia. Pada masa itu mereka banyak melawan orang2 Mongol yang berkuasa di India. Kumpulan ini bertapak sehingga kurun ke-17. Selepas itu lain2 kumpulan pula bertunas.

I reckon by the time Adam Weishaupt learned about all these groups and their and their rituals, he had adopted some of the doctrines and rituals for his own group( Order of Illuminati) to fight suppression by religions and to establish a religion "of reason". Be reminded that the Jews had suffered religious suppression for a long time.

Saya kira apabila Adam Weishaupt mempelajari penulisan tentang semua kumpulan2 dan amalan2 mereka, ia telah sedikit sebanyak memetik doctrine2 dan amalan2 dari mereka buat pertubuhannya sendiri untuk melawan penindasan oleh agama dan menukarnya kepada agama "of reason". Seyugia diingatkn pehak Yahudi telah lama ditindas di Eropah.

The Battle of Ayn Jalut

From one perspective, the battle in the Valley of Ayn Jalut, not far from Jerusalem, the victory of the Mamluk from Egypt was hailed as a milestone in the history of the Muslim Empire. How come the Mongols were defeated?

Mongke Khan's(grandson of Genghis Khan)expansionist policy had earlier seen the Mongols pushing westwards into the Muslim territories. The forces were led by his brother Hulagu. After the fall of the Hashshashin in Persia, the 500-year-old Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, and the Ayyubid dynasty in Damascus. Hulagu's plan was to then proceed southwards through Palestine towards Egypt, to confront the last major Islamic power, the Mamluk Sultanate. Their envoys to the court of Qutuz in Cairo delivering the demand for his surrender had been killed and their heads had been displayed over one of the gates of the city.

Fate had it that news of the death of Mongke Khan who was campaigning in China was soon to be received. With this a large size of the Mongol army was withdrawn to return home for an impending decision on the successor. The Great Khan was always chosen from the best in the family of Genghis. Only one commander and about 15,000 men and Syrian conscripts were left behind to guard the borders of Damascus.

Two groups of Crusaders were the first to harass the Mongols. The Mongols retaliated and the cities of Sidon and Beirut were destroyed. The Templars were reduced to bits. It could be that the Crusaders had entised the Mongols to enter Palestine to help him achieve Muslims' release of their hold of the region. In fact Hulagu, whose wife was a Christian, had earlier agreed to the alliance. However, when Hulahu withdrew a big portion of his army, the Crusaders decided to have a go at them instead. That was why they were completely destroyed by the Mongol.

On the other front, the Mamluk, tired of waiting for the Mongol.decided to attack the Mongol instead. First they defeared a Mongol border petrol. With that in hand, the Mamluk proceeded into the Valley of Ayn Jalut. It was a tough battle , 50-50. The Syrian conscript bolted and the Mongol commander wad killed there. The detail of the battle is interesting. While it was a fight to the death they, the Mamluk did not meet the full force of the Mongol army.....

After that the Mamluk went on to conquer Damascus dan Aleppo. Due to development elsewhere in the Mongol Empire, the Mongols never returned to Syria.

The Mamluk Sultan was Qutuz. It is said that his wife died in the battle.

More Mongols.....

My blabbering continues herewith...

Do you know that in Genghis Khan' time, the laws of the Mongols allowed men to take as many wives they wanted. However, it was the rich who would ultimately take multiple wives. I suppose this was for practicality and survival of the tribe. I had read somewhere in the case of the Red Indians of North America they would simply leave the widows in the snow to die as a woman without a man to look after her, would impose a heavy burden on the rest of the tribe. It is after all looking at the same issue from a different angle. It is said that the polygamous practice ensured all women to be eventually married and hence the celibacy of their men.....

Marriage with their father's widow's were also allowed except their own mother. So would marriage with sisters except their sisters from the same mother.

Genghis was betrothed at the age of nine. According to tradition, prospective husband would stay with his prospective bride's family. The prospective couple would then be able to acclimatise with one another. However, you know that Genghis' died on the way home from the betrothal. So he was forced to return to his family after which many things befell him. History is told that he was able to return to his betrothed 7 years later.

Nothing much is said of his wedding but not long after that his wife was kidnapped by another tribe said to be in revenge for what his father had done. You see wife kidnapping had been a way of many Asian Minor tribes, some persist even until today. Gangis' mum had also been kidnapped from her tribe by his dad.

The mongols were regarded as disciplined. This may have been due to the death penalty for espionage, betrayal, stealing, adultery and 3 times bankrupt merchants.

Genghis is renown for his codes and laws. They were usually tolerant and indifferent towards religion. Priests and religious institutions were free from taxation. Traditionally the Mongols practised Sharmanism and the belief of life after death was evident in their funerary practices. It is also told how Genghis had ordered his commander, Jebe to lead twenty thousand Mongol soldiers across the length of Asia and defend the Muslims of Balasagun.

As the Mongols had conducted the campaign at the request of the Uighur Muslims, they did not allow plunder, destroy property, or endanger the lives of civilians. Instead, Jebe's army had defeated the army of Guchlug and beheaded him. Following the execution, the Mongols sent a herald to Kashgar to proclaim the end of religious persecution and the restoration of religious freedom in each community. According to the Persian historian Juvaini, the people of Kashgar proclaimed the Mongols "to be one of the mercies of the Lord and one of the bounties of divine grace."

Although Persian and other Muslim chroniclers recorded the episode in tremendous detail, the Secret History of the Mongols summed up the entire campaign in one simple sentence. "Jebe pursued Guchlug Khan of the Naiman, overtook him at the Yellow Cliff, destroyed him, and came home." From the Mongol perspective, that is probably all that mattered. Jebe had killed the enemy and returned home safely.

Mongol Expedition to Japan

A lot had been said about Mongol expedition to conquer Japan amongst which was the cause of the downfall of the Mongol Empire

There may be some truth in that. Pethaps, if Kubilai Khan had given more focus on the management of his Yuan Dynasty, it might have shone longer and brighter(?) Perhaps it was the urge of expansion was simply the manifestation of a great Mongol traditional. As there was not much more land the Mongols had not conquered, Japan became the the next target. There were many campaigns on Japan but two became very well known as they almost bankrupted the Empire and tarnished the image of Kubilai.

The first was in 1274. As usual Mongol would first send a demand for submission of it's adversary. However Japan's "insolent" reply caused the Mongols to prepare for war.The Koreans were pressganged to provide the fleet and sailors to carry 20,000 troops......perhaps more than enough to deal with the illequipped Japanese. It was indeed a very easy progress for the Mongols. However, the night after Mongol landing in Japan, a storm blew up and the Korean sailors insisted that they set to sea least their ships would be dashed against the rocks and be destroyed and they would have no means of retreat after that. The Koreans may be right, but once at sea they were scattered by the winds ......13.000 lives were lost. The Mongols withdrew.

The second expedition was in 1280 after the defeat of Sung. Kubilai wanted revenge on Japan. This time 900 ships brought 40,000 troops from Northern China and 100,000 Chinese from Southern China. This time, the Japanese in Kyushu Island were more prepared. They had built a fort. They battled for two months but fate would have the typhoon wind to blow up again. The Koreans again asked for a retreat to sea. In the melee 60,000 troops drowned or slaughtered trying to get off the beach.

Many sources blamed the Koreans. However, it could also be the lack of knowledge of the weather in Japan. It was unlikely that they were lacking in naval warfare as the Sung Dynasty had been defeated in a naval warfare......

Genghis Khan

Indeed Genghis Khan is among my favourite heroes. I have two books on him - "Genghis Khan" by Michel Hoang and the other, "Storm From The East" by Robert Marshall. Not too long ago, while recuperating from tendon operation in my right leg a dear friend had lent me some DVD of Chinese series on Genghis Khan. Theh were simply wonderful.

Sure, Europe called him and his people barbarians. Yet surprisingly, they were very tolerant towards religions, unlike some of European Empire. If only Genghis Khan had not died early (he is said to have fallen off a horse in his 60s) he might have taken the whole of Europe. His grave remains unknown till this day. All those who witnessed the burial ceremony were killed so that his remains lay undisturbed.


CONTRIBUTION ISLAM


In the year 1295, Ghazan Ilkhan converted to Islam and hence persia and Mesopotamia returned to Islam till today. Ghazan introduced many reformation in it's government, economy, taxes and judiciary. His brother, Olgietu who became the next Ilkhan continued the reformation of his realm, much in the expression of arts - poetry, paintings, ceremic and above all, architecture. His new city, Sultaniyya became well known with his octagonal buildings. His monuments were masterpieces and his mausoleum became one of the greatest Islamic landmarks.

Oljeitu's son, Abu Sa'id became the first Ilkhan with a Muslim name.It brought the golden age of Mongol era - economy boomed and there was peace. Unfortunately, Abu Sa'id died heirless in 1335. Many non-Muslim elite left while the rest became absorbed into the local population.Mongol control on Persia ceased and the Ilkhanate disappearsd Persia then drifted into a period of ununified government until 30 years later Timur The Lama (Tamerlane,a Turki-Mongol warrior appeared from Samarqand.



On another front, Ozbeg Khan of the Golden Horde (Jochi-Batu line) officially embraced Islam in 1313 and all Muslim nations in the Middle East rejoiced. They maintained good relations with the Christian West. Mosques were built by Mamluk Egyptian architects. Ozbeg too did not have an heir. Soon after the Khanate seemed to languish and numerous puppet Khan became the order of the day.


On yet another front, in 1529 Babur of the Chaghdai Khanate escaped to Northern India an defeated the Lodi Dynasty. Henceforth began the Moghul Dynasty whose centre was in Agra.They built beautiful gardens,and famous palaces and forts which are known till today like the Taj Mahal.