How Did Indonesia and Malaysia Become Majority-Muslim?(reddit.com)
reddit.com
How Did Indonesia and Malaysia Become Majority-Muslim?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5o8avu/how_did_indonesia_and_malaysia_become/dchh4ru/
36 comments
>TL;DR: Shit was complicated.
>Actual TL;DR: Rulers converted for economic, political, and personal reasons. Not much work has been done on popular conversion, but so far it seems that the government and Sufis both helped spread Islam on a popular level. The new religion was perceived as magic, provided solace in a changing world, and finally became just a part of life.
>Actual TL;DR: Rulers converted for economic, political, and personal reasons. Not much work has been done on popular conversion, but so far it seems that the government and Sufis both helped spread Islam on a popular level. The new religion was perceived as magic, provided solace in a changing world, and finally became just a part of life.
Java used to be Hindu, as evidenced by Borobudur and other monuments.
If you're working in Indonesia and your boss is Muslim and you're not, the fastest way to get ahead is to convert.
That plus other one-way traps reinforces Islam as a dominant religion.
If you're working in Indonesia and your boss is Muslim and you're not, the fastest way to get ahead is to convert.
That plus other one-way traps reinforces Islam as a dominant religion.
> If you're working in Indonesia and your boss is Muslim and you're not, the fastest way to get ahead is to convert.
This is hyperbole. While Im sure there are businesses where it's true (there are millions of them in Indonesia), it's not common at all, at least in my experience in Java/Sumatera. There are glass ceilings based on ethnicity in some companies, but it's rarely related to religion and more based on cultural cliques.
This is hyperbole. While Im sure there are businesses where it's true (there are millions of them in Indonesia), it's not common at all, at least in my experience in Java/Sumatera. There are glass ceilings based on ethnicity in some companies, but it's rarely related to religion and more based on cultural cliques.
While Borobodur is many things, it is not Hindu. The friezes on the site are stories from the life of the Buddha (and his past lives) and the monument itself is capped by a large number of Buddhist stupas.
> While Borobodur is many things, it is not Hindu. The friezes on the site are stories from the life of the Buddha
Technically, the term "Hindu" as defined by the British just meant non-Muslim. In fact, it was the British who popularized the term Hindu in the first place since prior to British influence, there was no such religion, just a broad set of different religions such as Shivaism, Buddhism, Vishnuism and numerous others. In many places such as Assam, Buddha is revered by people who are labeled as Hindu.
Technically, the term "Hindu" as defined by the British just meant non-Muslim. In fact, it was the British who popularized the term Hindu in the first place since prior to British influence, there was no such religion, just a broad set of different religions such as Shivaism, Buddhism, Vishnuism and numerous others. In many places such as Assam, Buddha is revered by people who are labeled as Hindu.
You are correct, GP might be mistaking it with Prambanan [1] a nearby hindu temple that, like Borobudur, is located next to the city of Yogyakarta.
[1] https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/642
[1] https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/642
Do you have a source for this? Or is this just personal experience?
Borobudur is a Buddhist temple though?
Are you Indonesian?
Does anyone have a plot showing % of population that is Muslim over time for different countries?
This image [1] comes from "Converson to Islam in the Medieval Period" by Richard Bulliet [2]. The percentages inferred by Bulliet roughly track a sigmoidal curve. He makes an argument in analogy to the spread of a disease through a social network.
It should be noted that the deta is from Iran, but presumably the same arguments apply for Southeast Asia.
[1] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-69BqAL9ARKg/T1WBF0NwxeI/AAAAAAAAAB...
[2] http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674732810
It should be noted that the deta is from Iran, but presumably the same arguments apply for Southeast Asia.
[1] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-69BqAL9ARKg/T1WBF0NwxeI/AAAAAAAAAB...
[2] http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674732810
I doubt that there's enough data to plot. For early modern South East Asia, only a couple of records per century survive for the total populations of the main cities, and those are pretty dodgy.
There might not be any quantitative records of religious beliefs. When our ancestors encountered people of a different religion, it was more about chopping heads off than about counting them.
There might not be any quantitative records of religious beliefs. When our ancestors encountered people of a different religion, it was more about chopping heads off than about counting them.
Maybe there could be some good proxies though.
mikaeluman(3)
Who is the author? Is this accurate? Is it one guy's theory, a fringe theory, one of competing mainstream theories, or consensus?
Certainly Reddit and the comment's length are not indicators of accuracy. They are indicators of an author with a lot of time and motivation, which could be good or bad.
Certainly Reddit and the comment's length are not indicators of accuracy. They are indicators of an author with a lot of time and motivation, which could be good or bad.
In general this is true, but /r/AskHistorians (along with /r/AskScience) is an exception. It has very high standards for answers (as you can see several times a day when a the mods nuke an entire thread for not being good enough): all answers have to cite reliable sources and they have many “verified” posters who the mods have confirmed are actual historians in their field. I’m sure misinformation sneaks in on occasion, but overall the posts are reliable and you can consider them, including this one, to be reliable.
Thanks. Where can I find out the credentials of who wrote that answer? Also, as I asked before, how do I know where this theory fits in the domain of accepted theories?
> It has very high standards for answers (as you can see several times a day when a the mods nuke an entire thread for not being good enough):
I'll point out that this practice indicates nothing about the quality; it depends on the mods and not on the quality. If the mods' taste happens to correlate with quality, only then would it result in higher quality comments. For example, mods in a forum that promotes conspiracy theories might also delete threads that don't match their definition of 'quality'.
I'm a little concerned that the parent comment might represent a Reddit theory of accuracy, quality and scholarship, but not the real thing.
> It has very high standards for answers (as you can see several times a day when a the mods nuke an entire thread for not being good enough):
I'll point out that this practice indicates nothing about the quality; it depends on the mods and not on the quality. If the mods' taste happens to correlate with quality, only then would it result in higher quality comments. For example, mods in a forum that promotes conspiracy theories might also delete threads that don't match their definition of 'quality'.
I'm a little concerned that the parent comment might represent a Reddit theory of accuracy, quality and scholarship, but not the real thing.
Their criteria for an "expert" flair are discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4p4wl7/rules...
As for individual posters, you can probably just message them and they'll be happy to provide their background. If not, I'm guessing you can message the mods and ask for some proof that they are who they say they are.
As for individual posters, you can probably just message them and they'll be happy to provide their background. If not, I'm guessing you can message the mods and ask for some proof that they are who they say they are.
I find that /r/AskHistorians values length of answers and the formation of a narrative there within to be valued above pretty much any other concern. Citations are rare, and its even rarer that anyone checks out of they match up. Stuff isn't really vetted, although occasionally really outrageous stuff gets called out.
I would not classify it as reliable, even if accurate and knowledgeable people post there.
I would not classify it as reliable, even if accurate and knowledgeable people post there.
AskHistorians is definitely not about the length of answers, except in that it takes a fair bit of writing to communicate complicated histories. The format does encourage a narrative, but that's reflective of the fact that most of the people reading are laypeople, not scholarly peers who can be expected to know unstated background. If you personally find it easy to teach laypeople the breadth of a field of discourse without narrative simplification, you have a very rare skill.
That said, I think many people misunderstand the discourse that's happening there. It's not academic, but instead a touchpoint between academics(-ish) and laypeople. The kinds of questions being asked are decidedly not the sorts of questions discussed in literature. Flairs in turn have to give an educated answer that actually communicates with the asker. Citations don't really fit well into what's happening for either side. They're time consuming to produce and no one reads or even understands them, nor do they provide particularly relevant information. You can't usually cite a consensus, after all.
That said, I think many people misunderstand the discourse that's happening there. It's not academic, but instead a touchpoint between academics(-ish) and laypeople. The kinds of questions being asked are decidedly not the sorts of questions discussed in literature. Flairs in turn have to give an educated answer that actually communicates with the asker. Citations don't really fit well into what's happening for either side. They're time consuming to produce and no one reads or even understands them, nor do they provide particularly relevant information. You can't usually cite a consensus, after all.
- South East Asian Royalty adopted Islam due to being likely swayed by rich Muslim merchants + missionaries and then gradually became popular.
- South East Asian Peasant populations without strong Buddhist/Hindu religious influences adopted it to fill void of previous Animist religions or even just Animist traditions.