ethnic and religious identities and integration in

Ethnic and Religious Identities and Integration in Southeast Asia Edited by Ooi Keat Gin and Volker Grabowsky

ISBN 978-616-215-126-2 EUROPEAN UNION

European Regional Development Fund

l

www.silkwormbooks.com 320-0450

Ethnic&Religious_cover_2017.indd All Pages

Ethnic and Religious Identities and Integration in Southeast Asia

ooi keat gin is an award-winning author and editor, a professor of history and coordinator of the Asia Pacific Research Unit (APRU-USM), School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia. volker grabowsky is professor of Thai studies at the Department of Languages and Cultures of Southeast Asia, University of Hamburg, and speaker of the Asia-Africa Institute.

Edited by Ooi Keat Gin and Volker Grabowsky

This stimulating volume analyzes the impact of ethnic change and religious traditions on local, national, and regional identities. Through the lens of identity, the authors explore and appraise the level of integration within the political borders of Southeast Asian nation-states and within the region as a whole. Case studies include the Bru population in Laos/Vietnam, hill tribe populations without citizenship in northern Thailand, the Lua also in northern Thailand, the Pakistani community in Penang, the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Karen Leke religious movement in Thailand/Myanmar, political Islam in Indonesia, Sufi Muslims in Thailand, pluralism in Penang, the Preah Vihear dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, and hero cult worship in northern Thailand. Historians and social anthropologists variously tackle these issues of identity and integration within the kaleidoscope of ethnicities, religions, languages, and cultures that make up Southeast Asia. The result is a rich, multifaceted volume that is of great benefit to students and specialists in unraveling the complexities of national and transnational dynamics in the region.

ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITIES AND INTEGRATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Edited by

Ooi Keat Gin and Volker Grabowsky 2/6/2560 BE 14:19

CHAPTER 8

Thailand’s Muslim Kaleidoscope from the Central Plains to the Far South Fresh Perspectives from the Sufi Margins Christopher M. Joll Despite having been profoundly influenced by Theravada Buddhism for more than a millennium, Thailand is an ethnically, linguistically, and religiously heterogeneous geobody. After descendants of Chinese immigrants, widely regarded as Thailand’s largest and most successfully assimilated ethnic minority, Malays residing south of Satun and Songkhla form Thailand’s second-largest non-Tai ethnic block. Malays are three times more numerous than the northern Khmer of southern Isan. Practically all Malays are Muslim, and Islam is Thailand’s largest religious minority, but not all Muslims in Thailand now self-identify as Malay. Particularly when compared with other ASEAN member states with Muslim minorities, Islam in Thailand has been remarkably well studied. Graduates determined to read everything written about Thailand’s Muslim face, but whose environmental sensibilities would be offended by having to sacrifice a small forest to print off hardcopies of all published works, will presumably celebrate the plethora of modern non-print options.1 Although studies of Islam in Thailand continue to be published, there are assumptions that Muslims in Thailand can be neatly divided into “Malay Muslims” and “Thai Muslims.” This binary had provided the theoretical ballast in several studies, for example, Imtiyaz Yusuf (2007, 2) describes Thai Muslims as belonging to either the “integrationist” Islam residing north of districts in southern Songkhla and Satun where few still speak Malay, and the Malayspeaking Muslims who represent the over-whelming majority of Muslims in Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat that he describes as volatile and largely unassimilated. 2 These groups developed through the combined effects 317

Ethnic&Religious_interior.indd 317

2/6/2560 BE 13:34

318 | Christopher M. Joll

of the “backgrounds, history and the ethnolinguistic configurations” of these regions, and local interpretations of Islam therein. Integrationists see themselves as members of a “Buddhist multi-religious country where Islam is the religion of a minority community,” whereas unassimilated Malays view “Islam as a part of ethnolinguistic identity in a part of the country incorporated into Thailand.” This chapter explores the inadequacies of this binary, and in turn, suggests alternative conceptualizations of Thailand’s Muslim kaleidoscope that is empirically grounded, informed by relevant theoretical debates, and explained by the history of Muslim population movements. The empirical data presented below was collected during the course of a multi-sited study of Sufi orders (Arabic: turuq, tariqa [sing.]). No claims can be made that Sufism in Thailand is comparable in scope to that in India or Indonesia; nevertheless, it is an important element of Thailand’s understudied traditionalist majority.3 I conducted my fieldwork between September 2012 and July 2015, two years after a decade of relatively unbroken residence among urbanized Malays in Pattani’s provincial capital. By comparing Pattani’s dynamics with what I encountered in a range of Thai-speaking Muslim communities in Ayutthaya, Bangkok, Phuket, Ko Yao Noi (Phangnga), Songkhla, Yala, and Narathiwat, this chapter both builds upon, and complements, my analysis of the ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity of urban Malays in Pattani (see Joll 2011). This explains—although does not entirely excuse—the attention I have given to Sufi orders found in Thai-speaking Muslim communities. The chapter is divided into three sections. The first, and shortest, provides a brief description of the distribution of Thailand’s four most visible and viable Sufi fraternities. These are found in Muslim communities in 1) Ayutthaya and 2) Bangkok, where central Thai is spoken; 3) between Phangnga Bay, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Songkhla, and Satun, (referred to as the upper south) where most speak Southern Thai; and 4) the far southern provinces of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat, where bilingual Malays dominate. As the largest Sufi orders in Thailand are not only present in these three culture zones but largely remain within them, any reconceptualization of the cultural geography of Islam in Thailand should be attentive to everyday


2/6/2560 BE 13:34

Thailand’s Muslim Kaleidoscope from the Central Plains to the Far South | 319

linguistic preferences. Indeed, this appears to ultimately be more significant than origins. The Southern Thai–speaking Muslims of the Andaman Coast were once subjects of the Malay kerajaan (sultanate), and most Muslim communities in central Thailand acknowledge historic links to the Malay kerajaan of Patani. The second section examines the theoretical issues involved in the construction of coherent subnational identities. I provide a theoretical prolegomena on the role of linguistic repertoires, followed by a history of the ethnonyms “Thai” and “Malay.” The latter reveals these possess remarkably recent histories. I show that Malay was once a flexible category that permitted the incorporation of a range of immigrants to the Thai / Malay Peninsula who “became” Malay. “Thai-Muslim,” by contrast, represents a recent example of an authority-defined, state-led project of ethnogenesis. The focus of the third and final section is the history of Thai-speaking Muslim communities. After providing details about population movements during both the Ayutthaya and Bangkok periods, I present a range of cartographical and census data. In parts of Thailand where Muslims now speak only Thai, they were referred to as Malay—even by the Siamese. My accounts of intriguing encounters with Malay materiality in Thai-speaking Muslim communities with which this section concludes, suggests that elements of Thailand’s Muslim kaleidoscope represent leaves of the same (Malay) tree.

Distribution of Sufi orders in Thailand The cultural geography of Sufi orders in Thailand is summarized in map 8.1. In the far south, where the Ahmadiyyah-Idrisiyyah has replaced the Shattariyyah as the most important Sufi order, the vast majority of Muslims are now bilingual Malays. The Qadriyyah, which possesses strong links with South India, enjoys a large following among central Thai–speaking Muslims. Like the Ahmadiyyah-Idrisiyyah, this order has remained within the cultural milieu where it was first adopted and localized. The Shadhiliyyah are distributed between Central Thai– and Southern Thai– speaking Muslim communities. The fourth viable and visible tariqa is the


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Map 8.1. Distribution of Sufi orders between Ayutthaya and Narathiwat


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Ahmadiyyah-Badawiyyah, whose members almost exclusively come from Thailand’s southern Thai–speaking upper south. Since the late nineteenth century, pondok (traditional Islamic boarding schools) in the Malay far south affiliated with the Shattariyyah Sufi order, became increasingly influenced by the Ahmadiyyah-Idrisiyyah founded by Sheikh Ahmad ibn Idris (1749–1837) (Pauzi Haji Awang 2001; Sedgwick 2005).4 This included individuals such as the famous Sheikh Wan Ahmad bin Muhammad Zain Mustafa al-Fatani (Sheikh Ahmad al-Fatani, 1856– 1908), who was inducted in Mecca by Ibrahim ibn Salih ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Duwayhi (Ibrahim al-Rashid, 1813–74). One of Sheikh Ahmad al-Fatani’s many Malay disciples (Ar. murid), was ‘Abd al-Samad ibn Muhammad Salih (Tuan Tabal, 1840–91), who became the first to propagate the AhmadiyyahIdrisiyyah-Rasihiyyah order following his return to the east coast of the Thai / Malay Peninsula, in the late nineteenth century. The size and vitality of the Ahmadiyyah-Idrisiyyah in present-day Malaysia and southern Thailand is largely the legacy of Sheikh Muhammad Said ibn Jamal al-Din al-Linggi (1875–1926), who was inducted in Mecca by Ibrahim al-Rashid’s Egyptian student and successor, Sheikh Abbas bin Muhammad al-Dandarawi (1898–1953). Mark Sedgwick (2005, 161) comments that under Tuan Tabal, the Ahmadiyyah-Idrisiyyah was a “Meccan tariqa with a presence in the Malay world,” but under al-Linggi, AhmadiyyahIdrisiyyah-Dandariyyah became a Malay movement with “increasingly loose connections with its Meccan origins.” For over a century, the leader (Ar. sheikh) of Malaysia’s Ahmadiyyah-Idrisiyyah community has resided in Negeri Sembilan, but his official representative (Ar. khalifah) inducts Malay disciples from Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat from his home on Kota Bharu, the capital of the northeastern state of Kelantan. The second mass Sufi movement in Thailand is the Qadriyyah, which was established in Ayutthaya in the 1520s through the preaching and miracles (Ar. karamah) of a certain Sheikh Samat Maimun, or Shah Allah Yar, better known throughout Thailand as Tok Takia. Tok Takia initially arrived in sixteenth-century Ayutthaya, which had a sizable Muslim population before being destroyed by the invading Burmese in 1767.5 Tok Takia arrived


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


with three companions from India and converted a local abbot after this newcomer’s magical powers proved to be the most potent. The abbot’s temple (Thai wat) was converted into a mosque known as Wat Khaek Takia.6 His house was constructed in 1554 during the reign of King Chakkraphat (r. 1548–69), and after his death in 1579 it was converted into a tomb (Ar. maqam). Before Tok Takia’s death, King Mahathammaracha (r. 1569–90) bestowed upon him the title Chao Phrakhun Takia Yokin. The most important Qadriyyah saint in parts of India known to have contacts with Ayutthaya at the beginning of the sixteenth century was Syed Sahul Hameed Nagore Andavar of Tamil Nadu (1504–70).7 He was a thirteenth-generation Sayyid and a fifth-generation descendent of Sayyid Abdul Qadir Jilani, whose Qadriyyah guide was Sheikh Mohammad Ghouse Gwalior, reputed to have brought this tariqa to India (Saheb 1998, 56). His expansive and hugely influential maqam (referred to throughout South Asia as a dargah) in Tamil Nadu from the sixteenth century is known as Nagore-e-Sharif.8 The Qadriyyah established in Ayutthaya by Tok Takia was revitalized in the late nineteenth century by Sheikh Abdullah bin Ibrahim (Tok Khru Abdullah Soon, or “Abdullah the teacher”) and his murid, Sheikh Muhammad ‘Ali bin ‘Uthman (Sheikh Muhammad ‘Ali Shukri, or Tok Ki Seh) (1848–1932). The former studied in Mecca under Sheikh Ahmad Khatib bin ‘Abd al-Ghaffar al-Shambas (1802–72), who combined the devotional practices of the Qadriyyah and Naqshabandiyyah (Laffan 2011, 54, 56, 61, 136, 145; Mulyati 2002, 37–45; van Bruinessen 1994, 1995, 2000; Hurgronje 2007, 278, 287, 296). The high regard with which he was held is clear because his maqam was constructed next to that of the famous Tok Takia, which annually receives thousands of devotees. In addition to being a disciple of Tok Khru Abdullah Soon, Tok Ki Seh traveled at a young age to Mecca, where he studied under Sheikh ‘Abd al-Karim, Ahmad Katib al-Sambas’s successor (Mohamed Mustaqim Mohamed Zarif 2008; Bradley 2010; Hurgronje 2007, 293, 296–98, 300–302). Following his return to Ayutthaya, he led a Qadriyyah revival that established new communities in Minburi, along the Saen Saep Canal around present-day Rama 9, and in Nonthaburi


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


and Phatthaya. There is no evidence of Qadriyyah influence moving out of central Thailand. When Tok Ki Seh died in 1932, he was buried in an ornate maqam next to the Masyid Aliyiddarol in the village of Phu Khao Thong, within sight of one of Ayutthaya’s largest stupas dedicated to King Narai (r. 1656–88). How were Qadriyyah from central Thailand able to study under the tutelage of a Malay from Borneo and his Javanese student in Mecca? As I reveal below, before the 1930s most Muslim communities in central Thailand spoke both Thai and Malay. Most were descendants of war prisoners brought to Bangkok during the five decades of war with Patani and Kedah that began in 1786 (Bradley 2012). While the Ahmadiyyah-Idrisiyyah spread throughout the Malay far south through traditional pondoks, and the Qadriyyah became a mass movement in central Thailand from its base in Ayutthaya, the unique aspect of the third mass Sufi movement is that its followers are widely distributed in both central Thailand and in the Southern Thai–speaking upper south. This is the Shadhiliyyah-Ahmadiyyah order, the local corruption of Shazuliyyah, but it is best known as the Pha Khiao (Thai: green cloths), so named because anyone who is inducted receives a green cloth. The Shazuliyyah order was brought to Bangkok in 1929 by an Arab from the Hijaz whose initial base of operation was the well-known Muslim community of Ban Khrua located on the Saen Saep Canal, near the Chao Phraya River, which was constructed by Malay war slaves (Mustafa 2011). Malay disciples from Minburi initially traveled thirty kilometers along the canal to study under Sheikh Khalid al-Bakri, and to perform the Shazuliyyah dhikr led by him, which consisted of a lengthy and elaborate series of devotional litanies. Malay disciples from Minburi eventually donated land to Sheikh Khalid al-Bakri, where Thailand’s Shazuliyyah headquarters, known as Ban Yai (big house), was eventually constructed. The tomb of this founding sheikh was constructed adjacent to Masyid Kamal al-Salam. The presence of the Shazuliyyah in the Southern Thai–speaking upper south came about after Sheikh Khalid al-Bakri’s son (and successor), Sheikh Muhammad Dohar al-Bakri, shifted to Nakhon Si Thammarat. Although the current sheikh is based in Minburi,


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


his two southern representatives live in Krabi and Satun, where Sheikh Dohar is buried. The fourth Thai tariqa is comparable in size to the aforesaid three orders, despite having only arrived in the 1950s. The Ahmadiyyah-Badawiyyah (better known as the Muhammadiyyah) is named after the Egyptian sheikh Ahmad al-Badawi (1180–1259). Almost all Ahmadiyyah-Badawiyyah in Thailand are Southern Thai speakers, where the Shazuliyyah also have a large following. Like the Ahmadiyyah-Idrisiyyah and Qadriyyah, this order remained within the cultural milieu of its founder. Its principal conduits are the pondoks and balasohs (unregistered mosques / prayer rooms). Although these are widely distributed, the principal pondoks are located in the hometowns of Tok Khru Ae (1923–86) in Ko Yao Noi (Phangnga Bay), and of his companion Tok Khru Loh in Huai On in Songkhla’s Ratthaphum District.9 Both were inducted by their Kelantanese babo, Haji Abdullah Tahir (1897–1961), while studying at his Madrasah Ahmadiyyah in the village of Bunut Payong, on the outskirts of Kota Bharu.10 The spectacular spread of the Ahmadiyyah-Badawiyyah between Songkhla and Ranong is largely attributable to Tok Khru Ae’s reputation as someone committed to the sharia who also was blessed with miraculous powers.

Revisiting language and ethnonyms What is the significance of the most visible and viable Sufi orders in Thailand being distributed in the manner describe above? Answering this question requires us to address a number of theoretical issues. These Sufi movements have not only become historically embedded in Central Thai–, Southern Thai–, and Malay-speaking Muslim communities, but they largely remain within these distinct cultural and linguistic zones where they have became localized. This raises questions about the heuristic purchase of the aforementioned Thai Muslim / Malay Muslim binary. Although alternatives must be empirically grounded, theoretical rigor is equally important. As such, this section offers a prolegomena on the role that language(s) play in belonging—both national and local—and is followed by a self-consciously


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


iconoclastic interrogation of the ethnonyms. The contributions of Leonard Andaya and Joel Kahn are drawn upon in respect to Malay-ness. My discussion of the latter in particular emphasizes the role that population movements and language played in a range of ethnic groups becoming Malay through their interactions. This section concludes with a summary of Thainess, which I reveal to have been a relatively recent ethnic designation. Assertions about Thailand’s ethnolinguistic homogeneity are “very much a social construct, ideologically serving at certain times to mask and at other times to highlight the internal diversity of the Thais” (Rappa and Wee 2006, 106). Although Central Thai is designated as the country’s only official language, more than seventy languages drawn from the Tai-Kadai, Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Sino-Tibetan, and Hmong-Mien language families are spoken within the kingdom’s boundaries. These languages are hierarchically organized. Subsidiary to Central Thai, the languages of northern Thailand (Kham Mueang), northeastern Thailand (Lao / Isan), and southern Thailand (Phak Tai) serve as vernaculars in local communities and function as lingua franca among the minority language communities. Their grammar, pronunciation, and lexicon are as different from each other as are the members of Romance or Germanic language families. Besides displaced languages, and town languages such as Chinese and Vietnamese, marginal languages are spoken in the vicinity of borders. Marginal languages include Shan and Khmu in the north, Khmer in the northeast, Mon in the northwest, and Malay in the far south.11 What role does language play in identity? Paul Kroskrity (2004, 496) claims that as an object of study, language remains “neglected, dismissed, denigrated, or proscribed.” Multiple, complex, and contextually specific connections exist between language and belonging. Joshua Fishman (1999, 444) refers to language and culture as having grown up together, arguing that the former symbolizes and indexes the latter. Furthermore, huge areas of life in which “language is the culture” exist consequent of the law, education, religion, government, politics, or social organization owing to the existence of language (emphasis added). The importance of language is in the role it plays in speakers producing and reproducing particular identities. Language


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


represents a significant symbolic (yet flexible) resource, and many arguments about identity draw on linguistic evidence. Nevertheless, its role often remains unacknowledged (Bucholtz and Hall 2004, 369). Interest in speakers—more than simply the languages they speak— spurred a range of important insights. From the late 1970s, linguistic anthropology became increasingly influenced by anthropology’s wider engagement in practice theory and the social agency of social actors, which Kroskrity (2004, 500) refers to as a mixing of “Marxist materialism” with “Weberian idealism.”12 Variationists focus on the phonetic details of dialects, such as the differences between Central and Southern Thai. By contrast, interactionalists appreciate that group membership is negotiated through interactions. It is no accident that most linguists conceiving identity as hybrid and heterogeneous have worked in multilingual contexts. In opposition to primordialists asserting that “identity” is in one’s blood, constructionists or circumstantialists argue that “belonging” is relational and contingent, located in negotiated interactions between speakers. Belonging consists of “cultural” elements that are assumed, learned, and shared. Nevertheless, speakers strategically employ linguistic repertoires in performative interactions. In multiethnic, multilingual, and religiously diverse Southeast Asia, belonging is a co-constructed and reflective activity where shifts and reconfigurations are required to “meet new circumstances” (Bucholtz and Hall 2004, 371). While Malays in southern Thailand self-identify through a range of autonyms, a number of factors affect which of these is chosen (Joll 2011, 66–75; Joll 2013). For Malays in southern Thailand, autonym selection is affected by the language in which interactions are conducted, perceptions about the identity of interlocutors, and the relative status of those involved (Le Roux 1998, 244). Over and above Melayu (see below), both the autonym Orae Islae (Malay: Muslims) and references to Phasa Islae (Thai: the language of Islam) indicate that the Malay language and Islam are central constituents of cultural identity. Indeed, Seni Mudmarn (1994, 32, 39) regards “Malay” as a noun that reflects the major traits of a distinct ethnic group, while “Malay Muslim” emphasizes the inseparability of Islam from Malay ethnicity. In addition to questioning Mudmarn’s foreclosure of Malay conversion to


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


other religions, Chaiwat Satha-Anand (1992, 30–31) contends that Islam is more universal than Malay-ness, and Malay-ness is less accommodating than Islam. Therefore, the “Malay” element of “Malay Muslim” should be seen as a subordinate adjective. Indeed, Patrick Jory and Michael Montesano (2008) have documented the variety of ethno-religious and ethnolinguistic communities that have long been present on both sides of Thailand’s southern and Malaysia’s northern borders. Not all Malay-speakers are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Malay.13 A number of commentators have pointed out that, as it refers to a language, culture, ethnic group, or polity, the word “Malay” (Melayu) is problematically imprecise. Amri Baharuddin Shamsul (2004, 143) points out that even nonMuslim groups were once designated “Malay” on the basis of their linguistic repertoires, dress, culinary practices, and participation in Malay-speaking trading networks. Leonard Andaya’s Leaves of the Same Tree (2008) argues that while differences between Melayu, Minangkabau, Batak, Acehnese, Orang Asli, and Orang Laut now exist, these are “leaves of the same tree.” Precolonial trade led to the emergence of these groups along the Straits of Malacca, a phenomenon referred to as ethnogenesis.14 Centuries before the introduction of international conventions curtailing population movements and imposing national identities, belonging was plural and porous. Aside from and beyond language, belonging could be expressed in a variety of ways ranging from culinary preferences and prohibitions on how hair was cut, to sarong-tying techniques. Furthermore, during times of rapid change, “belongings” could, as Andaya (2008, 10) asserts, be altered in ways that maximized individual or group advantage. Complementing Andaya’s arguments about plural and porous belongings and ethnogenesis along the Straits of Malacca is Joel Kahn’s Other Malays: Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism in the Modern Malay World. Kahn’s (2006, xxi) arguments about the construction of Malay-ness along the Thai / Malay Peninsula emphasizes the role of migration in the late nineteenth century by people he refers to as the “other Malays.” These range from immigrants from Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, and southern Thailand who speak versions of Malay, to those speaking other languages such as Minangkabau,


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Mandailing, Banjar, and Bugis. Kahn points out that in the British census of 1921, definitions of Malay-ness assumed mobility. Malays were divided between those born in Singapore, territories that became known as the Federated Malay States (FMS) and the Riau Archipelago, and those who had lived “continuously in the [British] colony for not less than fifteen years.” Alternative categories were employed in the 1921 census (Nathan 1921). This led some Arabs to fail what the British considered the “real test” of being capable of speaking Arabic (ibid., 91). J. E. Nathan explains that Javanese, Banjarese, Dayak, Boyanese, and Bugis were all classified as distinct “races with separate languages and customs.” Even after generations, they possessed features that were distinct from the “native population.” Decisions about the status of Malays from Sumatra were resolved in 1921, whereby some were classified as racially distinct while others were referred to as Malays. The former included Acehnese, Korinchi, and Mandailing, while the latter hailed from Jambi, Kampar, Siak, and Minangkabau (Nathan 1921, 71; cited in Kahn 2006, 18). Judith Djamour’s study in the 1950s describes peninsular Malays and immigrants from Sumatra and the Riau Archipelago as being Muslims who are physically indistinguishable from one another and “eat the same food cooked in much the same way,” especially when compared with the newly arrived “Chinese, Indians, and Europeans” (Djamour 1959, 6; cited in Kahn 2006, 26). Kahn’s (2006, 31) analysis of settlement patterns along the Thai / Malay Peninsula during the nineteenth century subverts “assumptions about the stability of traditional Malay villages.” Migration was facilitated from the 1870s by the expansion of British and Dutch colonial control of the region (ibid, 38). The scale of immigration meant that the results of the 1911 census are misleading. The Malay population was estimated at over four hundred thousand.15 At the turn of the twentieth century, approximately 1.25 million Malays resided on the Thai / Malay Peninsula, but most were concentrated in Kelantan, Terengganu, the Straits Settlements, and the Federated Malay States.16 American anthropologist Donald Nonini commented that during the early colonial period in British Malaya, unoccupied and / or sparsely populated lands were settled by either Malays from elsewhere in the peninsula


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


or immigrants who arrived over a fifty-year period that reached its peak in the two decades after 1911. The 1911 census records that “12 per cent of the Malay population of Negeri Sembilan, 10 per cent of Pahang Malays, 31 per cent of Perak Malays, and 48 per cent of Selangor’s Malays had been born either in the Straits Settlements or outside the Peninsula” (Nonini 1992, 45). From 1786, Bangkok engaged in five decades of brutal military campaigns against the Malay vassals of Kedah and Patani. These territories were severely depopulated through the combined effects of fatalities, refugees (who fled south), and war slaves taken north to Bangkok. Although Bangkok’s last campaign of that prolonged assault was conducted in the 1830s, Kahn adds that during the last decades of the nineteenth century there was another wave of migration in the region. There was an exodus from Kelantan during the 1880s following tornadoes, cattle epidemics, and “rapacious rulers” that reduced the population by two-thirds within six months.17 Acehnese refugees made their way to Penang. Javanese, Bugis, Banjarese (from Borneo), and Minangkabau and Mandailing from Sumatra came in “large numbers, often founding whole new villages.” References to “foreign Malays” are replete in colonial reports from this period. Kahn (2006, 41) even suggests that in many states, Malays of foreign origin may have outnumbered locally born Malays. Nevertheless, by the early twentieth century “Malay” signified a “single, stable ethnic group.” Despite their “culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds,” Malays were “sufficiently homogeneous” and readily distinguishable from other British subjects such as the Chinese and (mainly Tamil) Indians (Kahn 2006, 43). Malay-speaking Muslims from Minangkabau, Mandailing, Bugis, Acehnese, and Banjarese communities became Malays through their interaction with each other (ibid., 83). How does this development of Malay-ness mirror the evolution of Thainess? Peninsular Malaysia and Thailand share a number of commonalities. Chris Baker (2003) has argued that, like Malacca, Ayutthaya was a cosmopolitan, maritime city-state with loose control over its vassals. Ayutthaya’s prosperity before its defeat by the Burmese in 1767 began with the defeat of Malacca by the Portuguese in 1511. By the 1790s, the first ruler of Siam’s Bangkok-based Chakri dynasty controlled much more territory than


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Ayutthaya ever had. This population possessed neither a shared language nor a corporate identity. Indeed, Andrew Simpson and Noi Thammasathien (2007, 391–92) point out that at least half of premodern Siam was made up of Lao and Kham Mueang speakers. Furthermore, following Siam’s treaty with the French in 1893, “almost 80 per cent of the total ethnic Lao population” in mainland Southeast Asia was ruled by Bangkok. Bangkok considered that its future survival required its transformation into a unitary state. While avoiding becoming directly colonized by the French and the British by ceding territories, Siam also pursued a policy of internal colonization.18 Following the 1932 coup that deposed King Prajadhipok, Siam’s new military rulers emphasized the role of Central Thai as a national language, emblematic of the nationalism that was replacing the traditional emphasis on the monarchy. The military governments led by Field Marshal Plaek Phibun Songkhram (1897–1964) before and after World War II (1938–44 and 1948–57) promulgated a series of state decrees (Th. ratthaniyom, cultural mandate). Decree no. 1, issued on June 24, 1939, changed the name of the country from Prathet Siam to Prathet Thai. Decree no. 3, issued on August 2, 1939, reinforced the first by forbidding the use of “any regional or ethnic / religious modifier of the word ‘Thai,’ so that terms such as ‘southern Thais,’ ‘northeastern Thais,’ and ‘Islamic Thais’ should not be used.” All inhabitants were simply “Thais.” This is an example of what Amri Baharuddin Shamsul (1996) has referred to as “authoritydefined labels,” which he compares to everyday ethnonyms. Terms such as Lao and Shan were to be replaced by the word “Thai.” Decree no. 9 was specifically concerned with the Thai language.19 Decree no. 10 stated that Thai people should not appear at public gatherings, in public places, or in city limits without being “appropriately dressed,” which included “wearing a wraparound cloth” (Royal Gazette 1939, 1940). These decrees represented a state-sponsored project of ethnogenesis indiscriminately imposed upon its ethnolinguistically and ethno-religiously diverse population.20 Many of these measures specifically targeted Siam’s large and economically influential Chinese population, whose newspapers were banned and schools closed. Nevertheless, as Thailand’s second-largest ethnolinguistic minority,


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Malays were also affected. They were now “Thais” who must speak Thai and only wear sarongs at home or while performing salat. Malays assessed the term “Thai Muslim” as indistinguishable from the oxymoronic “Buddhist Muslims” (Le Roux 1998, 243). The rural Malays of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat don’t even refer to Buddhists—let alone themselves—as Thais. They are Siamese, or Orae Siyae. Duncan McCargo (2011, 836) describes Thailand’s nation-building elites as committed to the suppression of “all notions of ethnic difference.” This was a “quietly repressive process” that led to the widespread concealment, denial, or downplaying of ethnic origins. In Thailand, Muslims are accepted, but not Malays (ibid., 840). Michael Connors (2008, 113) expresses similar sentiments by referring to Thai-ness as an ethno-ideology that tolerates subordinate identities but accepts no equals. Without claiming that social identities are solely based on linguistic repertoires, in the preceding discussion I have demonstrated that in ethnically, religiously, and linguistically diverse nation-states such as Thailand, language plays an important role in national and regional identities. Bangkok-based bureaucrats—both past and present—presumably applaud Muslims from Narathiwat to Ayutthaya for being capable of communicating in Central Thai. However, Southern Thai is inadequately understood by most people in central Thailand and the Malay far south, and the Malay dialect spoken in Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat is incomprehensible to almost everyone north of Songkhla and Satun. Second, despite having become reified by ethnonationalists between Singapore and Bangkok, the ethnonyms “Thai” and “Malay” have surprisingly recent histories. Some of the dynamics described by Andaya and Kahn are discernable in Thailand. If the “other Malays” from Sumatra and Riau “became Malays” through extended interactions, could one refer to the Muslims of Thailand’s central plains and upper south as the “other Thais”? Alexander Horstmann (2004) has argued that Buddhists and Muslims in the Songkhla basin share similar cosmologies, while Suthiwong Phongpaibun (2008) asserts that bonds of brotherhood exist between these communities. A number of differences exist between the Thai-speaking Muslims of Songkhla, and the Malays of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat. Arguably the most significant is that the


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


latter have been negatively affected by its contact with the state’s unruly military, corrupt or incompetent bureaucracy, and dysfunctional democratic institutions. Nevertheless, and as I have previously argued, many Malays who have personally benefitted from Thai modernity have no objections to being referred to as “Thai Muslims,” and even refer to themselves this way (Joll 2011, 69, 71). Although these are relatively recent developments in the far south, this has long been the attitude of Muslims of the upper south and central plains.

Muslim population movements Whereas the preceding sections presented portrayals of the role of language in the construction of regional identities, and that some ethnonyms such as “Malay” and “Thai” possess surprisingly recent histories, my focus below is on Muslim population movements. I reveal that a mixture of voluntary migration and forced movements contributed to the cultural geography of Sufism presented above. I begin in central Thailand, where the Qadriyyah have been present since the sixteenth century. In the early twentieth century, the Shazuliyyah order was established in Ban Krua, with a chapter being established in the Southern Thai–speaking upper south by the son of this order’s founding sheikh. This leads me to address the issue of the ethnolinguistic identity of the upper south, where two of Thailand’s largest Sufi orders have mass followings. I conclude with a description of some fieldwork encounters explained by these population movements. Large Muslim populations have lived in central Thailand since the Ayutthaya period. By the 1600s, Ayutthaya had a thriving Muslim community made up of a mixture of merchants from the Near East and South Asia, along with Cham army and navy volunteers (Yoneo 2012). Tomé Pires mentioned “Moors” and “Turks” in this Siamese entrepôt, as did fellow Portuguese Fernão Mendes Pinto, who stayed in Ayutthaya between 1626 and 1629. He reported the presence of seven mosques that served approximately thirty thousand Muslim residents (Pinto 1989, 63–65). Chevalier de Chaumont, who visited Ayutthaya in 1685, observed that the


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Malays were “quite numerous,” although most were slaves. Makassaris and “many people of the Island of Java” also had an established presence there (Smithies 1995, 42; cited in Davisakd 2008, 89). A map composed by Simon de la Loubère in 1687 identifies two Muslim settlements located “along the river banks outside of the city wall to the south west” (Loubère 1969, 92). Another map prepared by French engineers includes Chinese and Moorish communities inside the city wall to the southwest. Engelbert Kaempfer, a German physician who visited Siam in the late 1690s, includes similar details in his map (Kaempfer 1998). He mentions that the “central city road linking the north of the city to the palace consisted of shops of the Chinese, the Hindustani, and the Moors.” As is well known, Persians who traveled from the eastern coasts of South India held powerful positions related to overseas trade in the Siamese courts (Marcinkowski 2004). Davisakd Puaksom (2008) describes linguistic elements of the Siamese cosmopolitanism in his fascinating study of how the Javanese epic Panji was locally adopted and adapted during the Ayutthaya period. The Malay language was used not only by Ayutthaya’s foreign office in communications with diplomats and traders from Southeast Asia (particularly the Malay world), but also in dealings with Westerners from the Dutch East Indies and British South India (ibid., 117). Muslims were also present in Siam’s new capital of Bangkok. King Taksin (r. 1767–82), who ruled during the short-lived Thonburi interregnum, had attitudes about ethnic and religious diversity that differed from those of the Ayutthaya period. These led him to pursue anti-Christian and anti-Islamic policies, including banning Siamese and Mon from becoming Muslims (phuak mahamat) or Christians (phuak khao rit). Converts faced capital punishment (Sombat 1973, 382–83). Nevertheless, some of the foreign fighters who defended Ayutthaya in its final days were Muslims. Riyad Mustafa (2011, 93) relates that the first Cham settlers of Ban Khrua originated from Ayutthaya and were given land by Rama I as a reward. Winyu Ardrugsa (2012, 75) adds that Chams and Malays were exempted from tax as a reward for contributing to the navy of King Mongkut in the nineteenth century. There is general agreement that over and above migrants from Ayutthaya in the late eighteenth century, and (mainly South Asian) immigrants in


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


the late nineteenth century, most of central Thailand’s Muslims were descendants of chaloei, or war slaves. These were brought to Bangkok during the five decades of war with Kedah and Pattani (Bradley 2012). This practice, states Uri Tadmor, caused “frequent and sizable population movements” that explain the forms of bilingualism found throughout Thailand. Chaloei possessed a low status in Siamese society at the time, although they were higher than ordinary slaves (Th. phrai), who could neither own land nor purchase their freedom. Francis Bradley cites claims by John Crawfurd (1820) that in 1828 at least ten thousand Malays lived in Bangkok. Following Siam’s 1832 campaign in the southern part of the country, the region was once more depopulated to defuse resistance. J. H. Moor, in an account published in the Singapore Chronicle on November 22, 1832, reported five thousand “wretched creatures” arriving from the Malay coast (cited in Bradley 2012, 154). Western travelers made mention of Malay settlements in central Thailand. Baas Terwiel commented that in the early 1800s, in settlements on the outskirts of Ban Chong in Ayutthaya, the dialect of Malay spoken strongly suggests that the residents had originated from the Malay kerajaan of Patani. Terwiel (1989, 151) found other Malay villages north of Ang Thong. In the 1880s, Malay was still spoken in these communities. W. E. Maxwell also claimed that Siam possessed a large Malay population descended from war captives (Tadmor 2004, 518). Malay chaloei served a number of functions. As the countryside surrounding Bangkok was underpopulated, the new settlements they established provided a barrier against invasion. The fresh agricultural products grown by them fed the city’s growing population. However, the most important function of the chaloei was the labor for public works that they provided. In Bangkok during this period, the construction of the Saen Saep Canal was a major public works project. The canal was part of a network of existing canals that drained swamps, increased rice production (primarily through irrigation), and improved communication and transportation (Tanabe 1977). However, the Saen Saep Canal is most closely associated with the large Muslim population living along its banks, which Riyad Mustafa (2011, 31) recently estimated to be at least half a million.21 Raymond Scupin


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


(1998, 239) comments that anyone traveling on this canal discovers that it is “punctuated by mosques which have been erected on both the east and west sides.” Moreover in his study of multiethnic healing between Buddhists and Muslims in Pattani, Songkhla, and Bangkok, Louis Golomb (1985, 8) notes that the majority of Bangkok’s Muslims perpetuate many of the healing practices found in Malay communities of southern Thailand. Anyone viewing a map of Southeast Asia, as Philip King (2006, 26) points out, observes the Thai / Malay Peninsula standing with its “head in the fields and its feet in the water.” Its lower portion is located adjacent to the Straits of Malacca, but the peninsula’s middle section possesses a “far less precise identity.” This is frequently rendered as a “culturally anomalous point of conflict” between isthmian / mainland / Siamese and insular / littoral / Malay Southeast Asian powers. Paul Wheatley’s (1961, xvii) division between mainland and island Southeast Asia fails to deal with the region’s “problematic central space” (King 2006, 26). King enquires where the dividing line is located, if it exists. Providing answers is complicated by the lack of “striking physical differences” through which the northern portion of the peninsula can be conveniently divided from its southern counterpart. Furthermore, highland / lowland terrains are sporadic and not high enough or broad enough to prevent mobility. The Thai / Malay Peninsula’s dearth of physical distinctions has led some to cite cultural / civilizational indicators, including where Buddhists are, and are not, present. However, King (2006, 27) notes that among the many inadequacies of this approach are notions of bounded Siamese or Malay zones. Whether by competing Western or Siamese colonialists, or Malay or Thai nationalists, the unstable and heuristically suspect binary of the “Malay peninsula” and the “Siamese isthmus” has been stabilized through its relentless repetition. Another aspect of the northern sections of the Thai / Malay Peninsula having been routinized is that this was a “site of continual conflict and civilisational contestation” (ibid., 29). Although histories of Patani included narratives chronicling diplomatic and military maneuvers with Siam, Patani also waged war against Muslim competitors to its south. Furthermore, Singora / Songkhla and Ligor / Nakhon Si Thammarat


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


also attempted to rid themselves of Siamese suzerainty. King (ibid., 30) suggests that, rather than simply “civilisational tensions,” conflicts both between and within “Malay” and “Siamese” polities were also concerned with “squabbles between local elites” that were capable of attracting troops lured by promises of war booty. A wealth of European accounts exist, many of them written before the 1909 Anglo-Siamese Treaty.22 Based on cartographic and summary evidence of the first (postal) census conducted by the Siamese (Bunnag, Gray, and Xenos 2012, 97; Grabowsky 1993), the estimated total Malay population was 289,423. Most (240,652) were counted in Monthon Nakhon Si Thammarat. This administrative division reached from the north of the present-day province of the same name down the east coast to the border of Kelantan, whose total population was estimated at 645,545. A total of 34,903 Malays resided in Monthon Phuket which extended along the peninsula’s west coast facing the Andaman Sea from the Burmese border to the southern border of present-day Trang Province, which had a total population of 178,599. Although the Muslim population of the Siamese capital was not covered in this census, there were 5,235 Malays in Ayutthaya (Grabowsky 1993, 64). These are summarized in map 8.2. Numerous insights into the range of Siamese and “Malay” influences in present-day Phuket and Kedah are provided by Cyril Skinner’s (1985) translation and commentary of the early nineteenth-century, The Battle for Junk Ceylon: The Syair Sultan Maulana. Skinner includes a number of maps with details about Siamese and Malay place names mentioned in this epic (map 8.3). Almost all of these have been incrementally Thai-ized from the beginning of the twentieth century. Similar details are provided by Larry Sternstein (1985, 1990) and Craig Reynolds (2011), both of whom describe the geography of present-day Songkhla, Phatthalung, and Nakhon Si Thammarat as having changed drastically from the 1830s (map 8.4). More important than changes in geography, E. H. S. Simmonds relates that the local rulers of Phatthalung rejected Islam in favor of Buddhism as late as 1772 (1963, 613). Khoo Salma Nasution (2007, 25) recounts similar developments in Phuket a decade later. Two sisters, Nang Jun and Nang Muk, were the daughters of


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Map 8.2. Distribution of the Malay population in the 1904 census Source: Grabowsky (1993, 72)


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Map 8.3. Malay place names from the early nineteenth century Source: Skinner (1985, 44)


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Map 8.4. Nineteenth-century settlements between Phuket and Songkhla Source: Sternstein (1985, 144)


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Ayutthaya’s governor in Thalang (as Phuket was known at the time) and a Malay noblewoman from Kedah. Nang Jun became the wife of Phraya Thalang, the governor of Thalang District. As is well known, Burmese troops invaded the west coast of the peninsula in 1785. The recently widowed Nang Jun, along with her sister Nang Muk, defended Thalang against the invaders by dressing five hundred men in the population as soldiers who maintained a presence on its barricades. This ploy successfully deceived the Burmese about the strength of their defenses and precipitated their retreat. In 1786, Rama I bestowed the titles of Thao Thepkasattri and Thao Sisunthon upon Nang Jun and Nang Muk. Nevertheless, they are both buried in Muslim graveyards. The mixture of the Western travel accounts, maps, and census data introduced above demonstrate that in parts of Thailand where Muslims have routinely been referred to as Thai-Muslims, they were once known as Malays. Walter Vella’s (1978) account of the development of Thai nationalism during the reign of King Vajiravudh (r. 1910–25) includes vignettes of his encounters with Muslim subjects in between Pattani, Nakhon Si Thammarat, and Bangkok. In all of these, specific reference is made to Malays, not Muslims.23 For example, Vella comments that as well as meeting Malays during royal visits in Nakhon Si Thammarat and nearer the Malaysian border, he also had contacts with Malay communities in Bangkok who “owed their origin to groups of prisoners of war taken in the early nineteenth century.” While touring these communities, King Vajiravudh accepted their “enthusiastic welcome” (Vella 1978, 198). He also received “Malay” representatives at court during his birthday, and on a number of other occasions. Isabelle Rivoal and Noel Salazar (2013, 178) have recently interrogated the role of serendipity in contemporary anthropology, arguing that while research questions must be narrow enough to provide focus, open-ended ethnographic enquiries increase the chances of unexpected empirical encounters. While conducting fieldwork, I have had some serendipitous encounters with aspects of Malay materiality. The first two relate to the language, while the third is concerned with the material aspects of Malay burial rites. Although individuals deeply invested in the Thai Muslim / Malay Muslim binary might


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


regard these as anomalies, I argue that these make perfect sense for anyone aware of Muslim population movements described above. I have come across a number of handwritten manuscripts in the possession of Sufi practitioners in Thailand. One of these was a 159-page handwritten Jawi manuscript written by a seventy-year-old gentleman named Bae Suf, a typical Patani Malay shortening of Abang Yusuf. He penned this during his twenty-year sojourn as a student in Sufi pondoks in Minburi, Mayo District of Pattani, and Ko Yao Noi (where he studied with Tok Khru Ae). In and of itself, this is not unusual, except for the fact that this individual was born in east Bangkok, near the border of Nakhon Nayok Province. There is an elevated platform on the northern wall of the prayer room in the pondok led by Tok Khru Ae, on the island of Ko Yao Noi. This was one of the last pondoks where Bae Suf studied, and where he wrote the latter portions of his manuscript. The person who constructed this platform appears to have placed it high enough from the floor to avoid dampness during the rainy season, but low enough to maximize the space where things could be safely stored under the tile roof. On this platform are collections of Islamic textbooks written in Malay using a modified Arabic script referred to as kitab jawi that have been wrapped in plastic and sealed with packing tape. For a variety of reasons, students graduating from this pondok chose not to take these kitab home with them. They were safely stored there, as it is consider sacrilegious to burn or otherwise discard these. Another reason that so many books remain at Tok Khru Ae’s pondok was that no students spoke Malay. Although some (like Bae Suf) traveled to Ko Yao Noi from central Thailand, most Ahmadiyyah-Badawaiyyah in Thailand are Southern Thai–speaking Muslims of the upper south. Bae Suf ’s Jawi manuscript and the kitab jawi stored in this pondok’s prayer room materialize the Malay background of Thai-speaking Muslim communities in Thailand’s central plains and upper south. There are other reasons for questioning the heuristic value of extant conceptions of Thailand’s Muslim kaleidoscope. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 are versions of a bamboo cage associated with Muslim funeral practices. Figure 8.1 is a sketch by Nelson Annandale (1903, 79), who traveled through


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Songkhla in the late nineteenth century. Figure 8.2 reveals that similar bamboo constructions are still used by Qadriyyah in Ayutthaya. These are covered with garlands, a practice based on prophetic traditions (Ar. hadith) that the presence of live flowers prevent the dead from being interrogated and tortured by the angels. Although in almost all parts of Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat these bamboo structures disappeared decades ago, in traditionalist Malay communities that have resisted decades of reformist activism, similar structures have been retained, although the garlands have been dispensed with.

Fig. 8.1. Sketch from Nelson Annandale’s account of the material elements of Muslim funeral culture in Songkhla. Source: Annandale (1903, 79)

Fig. 8.2. Garlands draped over bamboo cages in a graveyard in Ayutthaya (January 1, 2013)


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Conclusion In their introduction to Beyond Turk and Hindu, which brings together analyses of religious identities in South Asia by different contributors, David Gilmartin and Bruce Lawrence remarked that all histories are present-minded, and that this leads otherwise “fair-minded historians” to anachronistically read “fixed religious categories” laden with “modern valences” back into history. Scholars appear extremely reluctant to jettison them. This is the case, even after it is clear that these categories no longer fit the evidence (2000, 1, 3). My study of Sufism between Ayutthaya and Narathiwat broadened my appreciation of Muslim devotional practices and Islamic movements in Thailand. More than that, it deepened my interest in historical ethnography and introduced me to cultural geography. In this chapter I have introduced linguistic, and to a lesser extent, material evidence that sheds light on the inadequacies of the Thai Muslim / Malay Muslim binary. I have also provided a history of Muslim population movements, and the ethnonyms through which British, Malays, and Thais attempted to “define and rule.”24 What issues are involved in articulating alternatives that are empirically grounded and at the same time informed by relevant theoretical debates and historical sources? What is the significance of Thailand’s most visible and viable Sufi orders being present in the three cultural zones where the vast majority of Muslims in Thailand have long resided? Despite the similarities between these Sufi orders, the most important of which is their Malay background, I have argued that everyday linguistic preferences are the most important element distinguishing them. I have also demonstrated that most Sufi orders remain within the cultural zones of their founders. The notable exception is the Shazuliyyah, which has a large following in the Southern Thai–speaking upper south, where the son of the founding sheikh migrated to and was ultimately buried. The heuristic purchase of the standard conceptualizations of Islamic diversity in Thailand can be called into question because it ignores the role that Central Thai, Southern Thai, and Patani Malay play in constructing and maintaining subnational identities. Nevertheless, I have no intention of advocating that


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


a binary be replaced by a threefold typology. As William Roff once quipped, scholarly passion for taxonomy is an occupational hazard for social scientists. Taxonomy, like taxidermy, should only be tried on the dead (1985, 8). Rather than referring to Thailand’s Muslim kaleidoscope, I might have made mention of a mosaic. What are the inadequacies of the latter? While mosaics are made up of more than one color, these are fixed. By contrast, a number of factors can change the size and configuration of colors in kaleidoscopes. Furthermore changes are assumed. 25 Ethnicities can be solidified, or dissolved. I have argued that between the Malaysian border and Thailand’s central plains, it is linguistic change that has most profoundly impacted the ethnic kaleidoscope of Islam in Thailand. While religious change can be almost instantaneous and easily reversed, Malay language loss (or defection) in Thailand is incremental and is almost always irreversible. Are “Thai Muslims” leaves of the (same) Malay tree? My enthusiasm for Leonard Andaya’s reconstruction of ethnogenesis in the Straits of Malacca is based on the plural and porous Muslim identities that I have observed throughout Thailand. It is more than Muslims in central Thailand and the upper south who self-identify as Thai Muslims. Most Malays in Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat who have pragmatically adopted the autonym “Thai Muslim” live in provincial capitals and have personally benefited from Thai modernity. They also wish to pass these benefits onto others. Some Malays willing to accommodate themselves to the demands of Thai modernity maintain an allegiance to the Malay world south of the Golok River. For others, this accommodation has led to diminished connections and greater allegiance to fellow Thai-speakers. I have shown that over a century ago, a range of “other Malays” from Sumatra “became” Malays through their interactions with the Malay-speaking settlers of the Thai / Malay Peninsula. In addition to being leaves of the (same) Malay tree, “Thai Muslims” of Thailand’s upper south and central plains are today’s “other Thais.” Just as Thailand’s Muslim kaleidoscope has changed over the last two hundred years through the combined effects of population movements and language defection brought about by intervention by the state and resistance by traditional elites, further changes can be expected during the twenty-first century.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Notes

1. I have summarized these as dealing with the following topics: (a) surveys of Islamic diversity between northern, central, and southern Thailand; (b) dynamics in the Malay far south including Malay responses to modernization, development, and environmental degradation; (c) descriptions of Thai assimilationist policies, including the unintended consequences of registering pondok schools, and Bangkok’s language policies on local religious leadership and Malay literacy and orality; (d) studies based on fieldwork among the Southern Thai–speaking upper south, most of which interrogate the dynamics of coexistence between Buddhists and Muslims; (e) the history, inner workings, and impact of modernist, reformist, and revivalist movements; and (f) observations by European observers from the sixteenth century. Outnumbering all these, however, are publications analyzing aspects of armed rebellions in Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat before the amnesties of the late 1980s, and since 2004. See https://www.academia.edu/12081841/ Muslims_in_Thailand_A_Topical_Bibliography_Compiled_April_2015_. 2. Yusuf (2007) develops Omar Farouk Bajunid’s (1988, 5) assimilatedunassimilated binary, consisting of “a whole diversity of ethnic groups such as the Muslim Siamese, the Thai-Malays, the Haw Chinese, the Bengalis, the Arabs, the Pathans, the Punjabis and the Samsams.” 3. Uman Madaman (1999) wrote a doctoral dissertation on Thai turuq, and Rajeswary Brown (2013) has included fascinating material on a range of turuq in her Islam in Modern Thailand: Faith, Philanthropy and Politics. 4. This is unrelated to the controversial Ahmadiyyah of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908), considered by most Sunni Muslims as heretical. For the leading role that the famous Sheikh Daud bin Abdullah bin Idris al-Fatani (1740–1847) had in the Shattariyyah, see Bradley (2010), Narongraksakhet (2010), and Rahimmula (1990). 5. For studies on the Muslim influence in Ayutthaya, see Andaya (1999), Julispong (2007), Hourdequin (2007), and Swichart (1997). 6. The Thai word khaek refers to any foreigner but was a common way of referring to South Asians.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


7. Otherwise known as Sahul Hameed, Shahul Hamitu, or Nagore Andavar. 8. For treatments of Nagore-e-Sharif, see Khoo Salma Nasution (2014), Ricci (2011), and Saheb (1998). 9. Tok Khru Ae is mentioned in Surin Pitsuwan (1985, 254). 10. Intriguingly, little is left of the Haji Abdullah Tahir’s legacy as a Sufi sheikh. No aurad is held on Friday evenings at the mosque next to the madrassa. Unfortunately, obtaining answers to questions about Haji Abdullah Tahir’s Ahmadiyyah-Badawiyyah lineage (Ar. sanad) and litany (Ar. wirid) is complicated by his house having been completely destroyed by a fire some decades earlier. 11. Displaced languages are spoken by refugees, most of whom are Tai speakers (Phuan, Song, Phuthai, Lao Wiang, Lao Khrang, Nyoh, Yooy), but others include Mon and Khmu spoken in parts of central Thailand. 12. The influence of Marxism at the time led some to view languages as political/economic resources employed by individual speakers, ethnic and other interest groups, and nation-states. 13. Bilingual Thai Buddhist communities have long lived in Kedah and Kelantan, many since the Ayutthaya period (Carstens 1986; Chan Johnson 2012; Mohamed Yusoff Ismail 1993; Winzeler 1985). Throughout Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat, Thais and Thai Chinese speak Pattani Malay. Thai-speaking Muslim communities have long existed in Kedah, Satun, and Songkhla (Banks 1980; Nishii 2000; Kobkua 2008). 14. Some of the most interesting examples of ethnogenesis can be found in Curta (2005), Fennell (2007), Hall (2000), Leman (2000), Turner (2010), and Wazir Jahan Karim (2009). 15. In 1839, British officials estimated that the total population of Perak, Selangor, Pahang, and the three main districts of Negeri Sembilan was approximately one hundred thousand in 1849 (Newbold 1839). Another official from the early nineteenth century described Johor as “largely uninhabited,” with Malay populations concentrated in fishing villages at river mouths and a “sparse aboriginal population" (Kahn 2006, 32). 16. Namely, Perak, Selangor, Pahang, and Negeri Sembilan.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


17. For more details, see Gullick (1987, 103–4). 18. On unofficial colonial influence, see Baker and Pasuk (2014), Harrison and Jackson (2011), and Loos (2006). On Siam as an internal colonizer, see Streckfuss (1993, 2010, 2012). 19. The decree specified: “1. Thai people must extol, honor and respect the Thai language, and must feel honored to speak it; 2. Thai people must consider it the duty of a good citizen to study the national language, and must at least be able to read and write; Thai people must also consider it their important duty to assist and support citizens who do not speak Thai or cannot read Thai to learn it; 3. Thai people must not consider place of birth, residence, or regional accent as a marker of division. Everyone must hold it to be true that all born as Thai people have the same Thai blood and speak the same Thai language. Place of birth or accent makes no difference; 4. Thai people must consider it their duty to conduct themselves as good Thai citizens should, and to urge and instruct those who do not yet know and understand their duty as to the duties of a good citizen of the Thai nation” (Royal Gazette 1940, 78). 20. For more information see Chayan (2005), Reynard (2006), Reynolds (2002), Kobkua (2012), Turton (2000), and Thongchai (2000, 2009, 2011). 21. Mustafa (2011, 31) adds that it is “very likely” that the figure is “much higher,” on account of figures being based upon “estimates of numbers living in around fifty Muslim enclaves in Bangkok.” 22. For some of these accounts, see Carrington (1906), Crawfurd (1820, 1830), Cushman and Milner (1979), Davies (1902), Gerini (1905), Kiernan (1955), McCarthy (1900), Newbold (1839), Osborn (1861), Skeat (1953), Wright and Breakspear (1908), and Wright and Reid (1912). 23. Vella (1978, 81, 156, 197–99, 228). 24. This is the title of a book on colonial racial politics by Mahmood Mamdani (2012). 25. I wish to thank Giuseppe Bolotta for employing this analogy during his presentation at “Southeast Asian Studies in Asia, 2015”, held at Kyoto International Convention Centre, December12–13, 2015.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


References

Andaya, Leonard Y. 1999. “Ayutthaya and the Persian and India Muslim Connection.” In From Japan to Arabia: Ayutthaya’s Maritime Relations with Asia, edited by K. Breazeale, 119–136. Bangkok: Foundation for the Promotion of Social Sciences and Humanities Textbook Project. ———. 2008. Leaves of the Same Tree: Trade and Ethnicity in the Straits of Melaka. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Annandale, Nelson. 1903. “Customs of the Malayo-Siamese.” In Fasciculi Malayenses: Anthropological and zoological results of an expedition to Perak and the Siamese Malay states, 1901–1902, edited by N. Annandale and H. Robinson, 61–89. London: University Press of Liverpool. Baker, Chris. 2003. “Ayutthaya Rising: From Land or Sea?” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 34 (01): 41–62. doi: 10.1017/S0022463403000031. Baker, Chris, and Pasuk Phongpaichit. 2014. A History of Thailand. New York: Cambridge University Press. Banks, David J. 1980. “Politics and Ethnicity on the Thai-Malay Frontier: The Historical Role of the Thai-Speaking Muslims of Kedah.” Kabar Sebarang 7:98–113. Bradley, Francis R. 2010. “The Social Dynamics of Islamic Revivalism in Southeast Asia: The Rise of the Patani School, 1785–1909.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison. ———. 2012. “Siam’s Conquest of Patani and the End of Mandala Relations, 1786–1838.” In The Ghosts of the Past in Southern Thailand: Essays on the History and Historiography of Patani, edited by P. Jory, 149–60. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. Brown, Rajeswary Ampalavanar. 2013. Islam in Modern Thailand: Faith, Philanthropy and Politics. London: Routledge Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. 2004. “Language and Identity.” In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edited by A. Duranti, 369–94. Malden: Blackwell. Bunnag, Amornrat, Rossarin Soottipong Gray, and Peter Xenos. 2012. “Toward an Historical Demography of Thailand.” Journal of Population and Social Studies 20 (2): 82–108.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Carrington, John. 1906. “Montone Puket (Siam) Malay Peninsula.” Journal of the Siam Society 3 (1): 28–42. Carstens, Sharon A. 1986. Cultural Identity in Northern Peninsular Malaysia. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International Studies, Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Chaiwat Satha-Anand. 1992. “Pattani in the 1980s: Academic Literature and Political Stories.” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 7 (1): 1–38. Chan Johnson, Irving. 2012. The Buddha on Mecca’s Verandah: Encounters, Mobilities, and Histories along the Malaysian-Thai Border. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti. 2005. “The Thai State and Ethnic Minorities: From Assimilation to Selective Integration.” In Ethnic Conflicts in Southeast Asia, edited by K. Snitwongse and W. S. Thompson, 151–66. Bangkok: Institute of Security and International Studies. Connors, Michael K. 2008. “Another Country: Reflections on the Politics of Culture.” In Divided Over Thaksin: Thailand’s Coup and Problematic Transition, edited by J. Funston, 110–23. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Crawfurd, John. 1820. History of the Indian Archipelago, Containing an Account of the Manners, Arts, Languages, Religions of its Inhabitants. Edinburgh: Constable. ———. 1830. Journal of an embassy from the governor-general of India to the courts of Siam and Cochin China exhibiting a view of the actual state of those kingdoms. London: H. Colburn and R. Bentley. Curta, Florin. 2005. Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Turnhout: Brepols. Cushman, Jennifer W., and Anthony C. Milner. 1979. “Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Chinese Accounts of the Malay Peninsula.” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 1–56. Davisakd Puaksom. 2008. “The Pursuit of Java: Thai Panji Stories, Melayu Lingua Franca, and the Question of Translation.” PhD diss., National University of Singapore.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Davies, R. D. 1902. Siam in the Malay Peninsula: A Short Account of the Position of Siam in the States of Kelantan, Patani, Legeh and Siam. Singapore: Fraser and Neave. Djamour, Judith. 1959. Malay Kinship and Marriage in Singapore. London: Athlone Press. Farouk Bajunid, Omar. 1988. “The Muslims of Thailand: A Survey.” In The Muslims of Thailand. Vol. 1: Historical and Cultural Studies, edited by A. D. W. Forbes, 1–30. Bihar: Centre for South East Asian Studies. Fennell, Christopher C. 2007. “Crossroads and Cosmologies: Diasporas and Ethnogenesis in the New World.” African Diaspora Archaeology Newsletter 10 (3): 16. Fishman, Joshua. A. 1999. Concluding comments in Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, edited by J. A. Fishman, 443–54. New York: Oxford University Press. Gerini, G. E. 1905. “Historical Retrospect of Junkceylon Island.” Journal of the Siam Society 2 (2): 121–268. Gilmartin, David, and Bruce B. Lawrence. 2000. Introduction in Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia, edited by David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence, 1–20. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Golomb, Louis. 1985. An Anthropology of Curing in Multi-Ethnic Thailand. Illinois: Urbana University of Illinois Press. Grabowsky, Volker. 1993. “An Early Thai Census: Translation and Analysis.” Journal of the Siam Society 84 (1): 49–85. Gullick, John. M. 1987. Malay Society in the Late Nineteenth Century: The Beginnings of Change. East Asian Historical Monographs. Singapore; New York: Oxford University Press. Hall, Thomas. D. 2000. “Frontiers, Ethnogenesis, and World-Systems: Rethinking the Theories.” In A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology, edited by T. D. Hall, 237–70. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Harrison, Rachel. V., and Peter. A. Jackson, eds. 2011. The Ambiguous Allure of the West: Traces of the Colonial in Thailand. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books. Horstmann, Alexander. 2004. “Ethnohistorical Perspectives on BuddhistMuslim Relations and Coexistence in Southern Thailand: From Shared Cosmos to the Emergence of Hatred?” Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 19 (1): 76–99. Hourdequin, Peter. 2007. “Muslim Inf luence in Seventeenth Century Ayutthaya: A Review Essay.” Explorations: A Graduate Student Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 7 (2): 37–46. Hurgronje, Christiaan Snouck. 2007. Mekka in the Latter Part of the 19th Century: Daily Life, Customs and Learning, The Muslims of the East-IndianArchipelago. Slightly rev. 2nd ed.. Leiden: Brill. Joll, Christopher M. 2011. Muslim Merit-Making in Thailand’s Far-South. Dordrecht: Springer. ———. 2013. “What’s in a Name? Problematizing Descriptions of Muslims in Southern Thailand.” In Islamic Thought in Southeast Asia: New Interpretations and Movements, edited by P. Jory and Kamaruzzaman Bustamam-Ahmad, 125–38. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Jory, Patrick, and Michael J. Montesano, eds. 2008. Thai South and Malay North: Ethnic Interactions on a Plural Peninsula. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. Julispong Chularatana. 2007. “Muslim Community during Ayutthaya Period.” Manusya: Journal of Humanities 10:89–107. Kaempfer, Engelbert. 1998. A Description of the Kingdom of Siam, 1690. Bangkok: Orchid Press. Kahn, Joel S. 2006. Other Malays: Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism in the Modern Malay World. Honolulu: Asian Studies Association of Australia in association with University of Hawai‘i Press. Khoo Salma Nasution. 2007. “Once Upon a Time in Phuket: Changing Identities among the Baba Chinese and Thai Muslims in a Tourist Paradise Reflections on the Human Condition: Change, Conflict and Modernity.” The Work of the 2004/2005 API Fellows. 24–38. Accessed May 4, 2014,


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


http://www.api-fellowships.org/body/international_ws_proceedings/year4. pdf - sthash.LtkjeyRK.dpuf. ———. 2014. The Chulia in Penang: Patronage and Place-making around the Kapitan Kling Mosque 1786–1957. George Town, Penang: Areca Books. Kiernan, Y. G. 1955. “Britain, Siam and Malaya: 1875–1885.” Journal of Modern History 28 (1): 1–20. King, Philip. 2006. “From Periphery to Centre: Shaping the History of the Central Peninsula.” PhD diss., University of Wollongong, Wollongong. Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian. 2008. “National Identity, and ‘Sam-Sams’ of Satun, and the Thai Malay Muslims.” In Thai South and Malay North: Ethnic Interactions on a Plural Peninsula, edited by M. J. Montesano and P. Jory, 155–72. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. ———. 2012. “Historical Identity, Nation, and History-Writing: The Malay Muslims of Southern Thailand, 1940s-1980s.” In The Ghosts of the Past in Southern Thailand: Essays on the History and Historiography of Patani, edited by P. Jory, 228–45. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. Kroskrity, Paul V. 2004. “Language Ideologies.” In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edited by A. Duranti, 496–517. Malden: Blackwell. Laffan, Michael F. 2011. The Makings of Indonesian Islam: Orientalism and the Narration of a Sufi Past. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. La Loubère, Simon de. 1969. The Kingdom of Siam. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Le Roux, Pierre. 1998. “To Be Or Not To Be . . . The Cultural Identity of the Jawi (Thailand).” Asian Folklore Studies 57 (2): 223–55. Leman, Johan. 2000. The Dynamics of Emerging Ethnicities: Immigrant and Indigenous Ethnogenesis in Confrontation. 2nd ed. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Loos, Tamara. 2006. Subject Siam: Family, Law, and Colonial Modernity in Thailand. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Madaman, Umar. 1999. “Kan sueksa priapthiap khwam chuea lae kan patibat khong klum toriko sufi nai prathet thai” [A comparative study of Sufism in Thailand]. PhD diss., Mahidol University. Mamdani, Mahmood. 2012. Define and Rule: Native as Political Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Marcinkowski, Christoph. 2004. From Isfahan to Ayutthaya. Contacts between Iran and Siam in the 17th Century. Singapore: Pustaka Nasional. McCargo, Duncan J. 2011. “Informal Citizens: Graduated Citizenship in Southern Thailand.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (5): 833–49. McCarthy, John. 1900. Surveying and exploring in Siam. London: J. Murray. Mohamed Yusoff Ismail. 1993. Buddhism and Ethnicity: Social Organization of a Buddhist Temple in Kelantan. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Moor, John Henry. 1837. Notices of the Indian Archipelago and adjacent countries: being a collection of papers relating to Borneo, Celebes, Bali, Java, Sumatra, Nias, the Philippine Islands, Sulus, Siam, Cochin China, Malayan peninsula, etc. London: Cass. Mudmarn, Seni. 1994. “Social Science Research in Thailand: The Muslim Minority.” In Muslim Social Science in ASEAN, edited by O. Farouk, 21–41. Kuala Lumpur: Yayasan Perataran Ilumu. Mulyati, Sri. 2002. “The Educational Role of the Tarlqa Qidiriyya Naqshbandiyya with Special Reference to Suryalaya.” PhD diss., McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Mustafa, Riyad T. 2011. “The Making of a Cosmopolitan Muslim Place: Islam, Metropolis, State, and the Politics of Belonging in Ban Krua Community, Bangkok.” PhD diss., University of Oxford. Narongraksakhet, Ibrahim. 2010. “Shaykh Daud al-Fatani Jawi Textbooks and the Malay Language.” In Reclaiming the Conversation: Islamic Intellectual Tradition in the Malay Archipelago, edited by Rosnani Hashim, 1–15. Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press. Nathan, Julius Ernest.1921. The Census of British Malaya, 1921. London: Dunstable and Watford. Newbold, Thomas John. 1839. Political and Statistical account of the British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca viz. Pinang, Mallaca, and Singapore; with a history of the Malayan States on the Peninsula of Malacca. Vol. 2. London: John Murray. Nishii, Ryoko. 2000. “Emergence and Transformation of Peripheral Ethnicity: Sam-Sam on the Thai-Malaysian Border.” In Civility and Savagery: Social Identity in Tai States, edited by A. Turton, 180–200. London: Curzon Press.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Nonini, Donald Macon. 1992. British Colonial Rule and the Resistance of the Malay Peasantry, 1900–1957. New Haven, CT: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies. Osborn, Sherard. 1861. My Journal in Malayan Waters: Or the Blockade of Quedah. 3rd ed. London, New York: Routledge, Warne, and Routledge. Pauzi Haji Awang. 2001. Tariqah Ahmadiyyah: History and Development. Petaling Jaya: Persatuan Ulama Malaysia/Intel Multimedia and Publication. Pinto, Fernão Mendes. 1989. The Travels of Mendes Pinto. Trans. by R. Catz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rahimmula, Perayot. 1990. “The Pattani Fatawa: A Case Study of the Kitab Al-Fatawa Al-Fataniyyah of Shaykh Ahmed bin Muhamad Zain bin Mustafa Al-Fatani.” PhD diss., University of Kent, Canterbury. Rappa, Antonio L., and Lionel Wee. 2006. Language Policy and Modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Vol. 6. New York: Springer. Renard, Ronald D. 2006. “Creating the Other Requires Defining Thainess against which the Other Can Exist: Early-Twentieth-Century Definitions (Redefining ‘Otherness’ from Northern Thailand).” Tonan Ajia Kenkyu 44 (3): 295–320. Reynolds, Craig J. 2002. National Identity and Its Defenders: Thailand Today. Rev. ed. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books. ———. 2011. “Rural Male Leadership, Religion and the Environment in Thailand’s Mid-South, 1920s–1960s.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 42 (1): 39–57. Ricci, Ronit. 2011. Islam Translated: Literature, Conversion, and the Arabic Cosmopolis of South and Southeast Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rivoal, Isabelle, and Noel B. Salazar. 2013. “Contemporary Ethnographic Practice and the Value of Serendipity.” Social Anthropology 21 (2): 178–85. Roff, William R. 1985. “Islam Obscured? Some Reflections on Studies of Islam and Society in Southeast Asia.” Archipel 29:7–34. Royal Gazette. 1939 [2482], 1940 [2483]. Ratthaniyom no. 1, vol. 56 (1939): 810; Ratthaniyom no. 3, vol. 56 (1939): 1281; Ratthaniyom no. 9, vol. 57 (1940): 78; Ratthaniyom no. 10, vol. 57 (1940): 151.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Saheb, Shaik Abdul Azeez. 1998. “A ‘Festival of Flags’: Hindu-Muslim Devotion and the Sacralising of Localism at the Shrine of Nagore-e-Sharif in Tamil Nadu.” In Embodying Charisma: Modernity, Locality, and Performance of Emotion in Sufi Cults, edited by P. Werbner and H. Basu, 55–76. London: Routledge. Scupin, Raymond. 1998. “Muslim Accommodation in Thai Society.” Journal of Islamic Studies 9 (2): 229–58. Sedgwick, Mark J. R. 2005. Saints and Sons: The Making and Remaking of the Rashidi Ahmadi Sufi Order, 1799–2000. Leiden: Brill. Shamsul, Amri Baharuddin. 1996. “Debating about Identity in Malaysia: A Discourse Analysis.” Tonan Ajia Kenkyu 34 (3): 566–600. ———. 2004. “A History of an Identity, an Identity of a History: The Idea and Practice of Malayness in Malaysia Reconsidered.” In Contesting Malayness: Malay Identity across Boundaries, edited by T. P. Barnard, 125–48). Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. Simmonds, Edward Harold Stuart. 1963. “The Thalang Letters, 1773–94: Political Aspects and the Trade in Arms.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 26 (3): 592–619. Simpson, Andrew, and Noi Thammasathien. 2007. “Thailand and Laos.” In Language and National Identity in Asia, edited by A. Simpson, 391–414. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skeat, Walter William. 1953. “Reminiscences of the Expedition, by the late W. W. Skcat, leader of the Expedition.” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 26, no. 4 (1953): 9–147. Skinner, Cyril. 1985. The Battle for Junk Ceylon: The Syair Sultan Maulana. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Smithies, Michael. 1995. Descriptions of Old Siam. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Sombat Plainoi. 1973. Chao tang chat nai prawatsat thai [Foreigners in the history of Thailand]. Bangkok: Prae Phitthaya. Sternstein, Larry. 1985. “‘Low’ Maps of Siam.” Journal of the Siam Society 73 (1): 132–57.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


———. 1990. “Low’s Description of the Siamese Empire in 1824.” Journal of the Siam Society 78 (1): 8–34. Streckfuss, David. 1993. “The Mixed Colonial Legacy in Siam: Origins of Thai Racialist Thought, 1890–1910.” In Autonomous Histories, Particular Truths: Essays in Honor of John R. W. Smail, edited by L. Sears, 123–53. Madison: University of Wisconsin Center for Southeast Asian Studies. ———. 2010. “The Spring of Thailand’s Ethnic Discontent.” Wall Street Journal, 24. ———. 2012. “An ‘Ethnic’ Reading of ‘Thai’ History in the Twilight of the Century-Old Official ‘Thai’ National Model.” South East Asia Research 20 (3): 305–27. Surin Pitsuwan. 1985. “Islam and Malay Nationalism: A Study of the MalayMuslims of Southern Thailand.” PhD diss., Harvard University. Suthiwong Phongpaibun. 2008. “Ties of Brotherhood: Southern Thai-Malay Cultural Roots.” In Thai South and Malay North: Ethnic Interactions on a Plural Peninsula, edited by M. J. Montesano and P. Jory, 327–35. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. Swichart, K. 1997. Islamic Culture and Life Style of Muslims in Ayutthaya Province. Bangkok: National Culture Commission. Tadmor, Uri. 2004. “Dialect Endangerment: The Case of Nonthaburi Malay.” Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 160 (4): 511–31. Tanabe, Shigeharu 1977. “Historical Geography of the Canal System in the Chao Phraya River Delta.” Journal of the Siam Society 65(2): 23–72. Thongchai Winichakul. 2000. “The Others Within: Travel and Ethno-Spatial Differentiation of Siamese Subjects 1885–1910.” In Civility and Savagery, Social Identity in Tai States, edited by A. Turton, 38–62. Richmond: Curzon Press. ———. 2009. “Revisiting Thai Nationalism and Its ‘Ethno-’, ‘Royal-’, and ‘Hyper-’ Elements.” Paper presented at the Phantasm in Southern Thailand: Historical Writings on Patani and the Islamic World conference, Chulalongkorn University, December 11–12. ———. 2011. “Siam’s Colonial Conditions and the Birth of Thai History.” In Southeast Asian Historiography, Unravelling the Myths: Essays in Honour of Barend Jan Terwiel, edited by V. Grabowsky, 21–43. Bangkok: River Books.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Terwiel, B. J. 1989. Through Travellers’ Eyes: An Approach to Early NineteenthCentury Thai History. Bangkok: Duang Kamol. Turner, Bryan S. 2010. “Revisiting Weber and Islam.” British Journal of Sociology 61 (1): 161–66. Turton, Andrew, ed. 2000. Civility and Savagery: Social Identity in Tai States. Richmond: Curzon. van Bruinessen, Martin. 1994. “Origins and Development of the Sufi Orders (tarekat) in Southeast Asia.” Studia Islamika 1 (1): 111–23. ———. 1995. “Shari’a Court, Tarekat and Pesantren: Religious Institutions in the Banten Sultanate.” Archipel 50:165–99. ———. 2000. “Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani and the Qadiriyya in Indonesia.” Journal of the History of Sufism 1–2: 361–95. Vella, Walter F. 1978. Chaiyo! King Vajiravudh and the Development of Thai Nationalism. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai‘i. Wazir Jahan Karim. 2009. “The Ethnogenesis of Straits Malays in Penang: An Early Civil Society in Formation.” In Straits Muslims: Diasporas of the Northern Passage of the Straits of Malacca, edited by Wazir Jahan Karim, 15–66. Penang: Areca Books. Wheatley, Paul. 1961. The Golden Khersonese: Studies in the Historical Geography of the Malay Peninsula before AD 1500. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Winyu Ardrugsa. 2012. “‘Stranger’ / ‘Home-Land’: Muslim Practice and Spatial Negotiation in Contemporary Bangkok.” PhD diss., Architectural Association Graduate School, London. Winzeler, Robert L. 1985. Ethnic Relations in Kelantan: A Study of the Chinese and Thai as Ethnic Minorities in a Malay State. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Wright, Arnold, and Oliver. T. Breakspear, eds. 1908. Twentieth Century Impressions of Siam: Its History, People, Commerce, Industries, and Resources, with which Is Incorporated an Abridged Edition of Twentieth Century Impressions of British Malaya. London: Lloyd’s Greater Britain Publishing Company.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34


Wright, Arnold, and T. H. Reid. 1912. The Malay Peninsula, a Record of British Progress in the Middle East. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Yoneo, Ishii. 2012. “A Note on the Cham Diaspora in the Ayutthayan Kingdom.” In Anthony Reid and the Study of the Southeast Asian Past, edited by G. Wade and L. Tana, 241–45. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Yusuf, Imtiyaz. 2007. Faces of Islam in Southern Thailand. Washington DC: East-West Center in Washington. Zarif, Mohamed Mustaqim Mohamed. 2008. “Hadith Scholarship in the Nineteenth Century: A Comparative Study of the Adaptions of Lubab al-Hadith Composed by Nawawi of Banten (d. 1314/1897) and Wan Ali of Kelantan (d. 1331/1913).” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh.


2/6/2560 BE 13:34