Talk:Silat (Malaysian martial arts)

message: Today, the external link does not work. I will check it again next week, if it is still not working, I'll remove it.
--zeno 17:19, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken link

message: The history of Pencak Silat is like what Indon write and the history of SILAT is like what Iijam write --User: St07003603.
What exactly is the history of Pencak Silat? How was it created? --User:Angie Y.
There is no single art and so no single history as "Silat" properly refers to any fighting art indigenous to Indonesia. I'll skim through the ancient history of the movement of people into the archipelago in the first place (as it would be entirely speculative anyway) prefeace by pointing out that we are talking about millions (hundreds of millions) of people over a very geographically diverse region of spice islands which rarely had anything resembling a single government. 
Out of these often unconnected villages, tribes, and kingdoms thousands of martial arts evolved... though there are some points that could be made (I need cites).
Realize that even the term "Silat" is not universally applied. There are many different languages and conventions throughout Indonesia, and two people in bascially the same art may not use the same names. That said, I've commonly heard Silat divided into three groups.
- Cultural arts (Pentjak Silat)
- Combative arts (Pukilan Silat)
- Mixed-Chinese arts (Kuntao)
The usage of these terms varies *heavily* and I don't think that nay noe side is correct over another.
The Cultural arts vary from extremely combatively effective to extremely ceremonial. As an example of the latter: Don Dreager mentions in [i]the Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia[/i] (cited from memory, feel free to fact-check) a style of silat used to ritually challenge a groom at a wedding for his bride (the challenger is supposed to loose). 
Generally Indonesia was populated by isolated villages that alternately traded with / killed and ate members of other villages. As such, many of the Silat styles are village arts intended to be useable by both young and old, and with weapons normally carried (short and medium blades). This would be contrasted to, for example, Japanese arts which were often focused on a warrior caste (Samurai).
Though the region has been occupied by many foreign powers, the two most notable seem to be the Chinese and Dutch. The Chinese in particular settled in large numbers and brought with them fighting styles from Southern China. Over the years and generations, these were hybridized with the indigenous styles and there is a distinct group of Chinese-Indo styles of silat.
I'll see if I can expand later, someone feel free to clean this up --Tensin 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Silat's history

message: Are there diagrams for any of the certain moves in Silat? Angie Y. 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moves

message: Now I'm looking for information on the weapons. Angie Y. 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons in Silat

message: This article suffers from significant linkfarmitis, with most of the external links being nothing more than advertisements for individual Silat schools, offering little in terms of supporting information for the article itself.  If someone else has the time to sort through them and delete the ones that fit this description, great.  If not, I intend to do so when I get a chance. -Erik Harris 00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I removed some. The rest of them seem to have useful information. 141.154.151.37 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkfarm

message: Since there is a belt system for other martial arts, is there a belt system for Silat as well? And if so, which colors—from lowest attainable rank to highest attainable rank—are used in the system? Angie Y. 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ranking systems vary from system to system.  Though there's some degree of standardization in Japanese and Korean arts, the same isn't true in Indonesian arts.  Some schools may use belts.  Others may use sashes.  Others may use some other or no outwardly-visible indicator of experience. —Erik Harris 12:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I get it. So the sashes can be worn like belts. Angie Y. 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belt system in Silat? 

message: There should be an infobox. :) Angie Y. 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Would someone tell me why so much notable information has been removed since I last edited this article? It would have been better to at least mention it here first if anyone had a problem with it.Morinae 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Is there a specific way of showing dasar pasang, langkah, and djurus? What are some of the positions and attacking techniques that a pesilat can use? What are they called? Angie Y. 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dasar pasang, langkah, and djurus

message: Silat is very lovely. Check out this beautiful video I found on YouTube!
Angie Y. 02:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The beauty of Pencak Silat

message: I have been checking these issues for a month. What can I say most of the Ijam works is based on the valid articles.  I understand with Indon argument. But what can I see both of you have made this really works! For me, as Silat and Penchak Silat is two separate entity, it is better if both are you to concentrate on Silat (Iijam) and Pencak Silat(Indon). This is because no matter about publication, but based on my experience most of Pencak silat handbooks in early fifties until seventies is not a good publication materials, bBut still people referred to this publication as their sources. I have checked all Iijam sources and it’s all from good publication. And for you Indon some of your sentence you should write from where you get the information. — St07003603 (reply) — 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that the genre of martial arts, most commonly known as Pencak Silat in Indonesia or Silat in Malaysia share a common ancestry going back to the 7th century and they retain many similarities to this day. While it may be the case in Malaysia the term Silat refers to a particular form, Silat Melayu, more broadly in the English language and even in Indonesia this is not the case. The term Silat does not unambiguously refer to a Malaysian form of Silat. What you are doing is trying to force a particular Malaysian interpretation of the term Silat into the global context, and that doesn't work. The book I quoted from uses the term Silat as a general term for the martial arts from both Indonesia and Malaysia. In Indonesia the term Pencak Silat has only been used since 1948, and it was chosen because Pencak and Silat were the two most commonly used terms for self-defense techniques in Indonesia. In Indonesia today, the term Silat is still used and has a specific meaning. What we really need, and what we had until recently, is a general article which contains an overview of various martial arts in the region which can be (and are) described as Silat in the English language. If you want to also create sub-articles that cover the specific aspects of Silat Seni Gayong or Silat Melayu or whatever, this is fine, but they can't replace this general overview article. (Caniago 09:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I see what you mean but in today's culture, the term Silat is rarely used by Europeans. They call their art, no matter which aliran it may be from as Pencak Silat. And more often than not, it is from Indonesia. So forcing a particular Malaysian interpretation of the term Silat into the global context is not what i am doing. Besides that, I am just trying to clear up a misunderstanding and misconception that has been running for so long, that Pencak Silat and Silat are the same. Despite all this, i would like to apologize if i offended anyone. Either way, can you show me your souces for share a common ancestry going back to the 7th century. With no offence to anyone, i would like to suggest that the book you are quoting from may be biased towards Pencak or its own aliran. The writer i quoted from is a well-known figure in Malaysia who has great credibility and had written vastly about silat. P.S: Silat Seni Gayong and Seni Gayung Fatani are two different and separate froms of silat. They have no ties whatsoever except for the slight similarity in name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iijam (talk • contribs) 01:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides, even if you read the current article, the divide between Pencak Silat and Silat are apparent. Why not just create another article under the title pencak silat? It has its own history, terminology and styles. I do believe pencak silat has its own separate cultural identity, from its music to its spirituality and costumes. For the current article, we can leave the introduction as it is and the terminology section will explain the divide. The article before this was a biased article which only referred to pencak silat, it's customs, aspects and culture including IPSI and all that. Saying that it was a general overview is nonsense unless you are only acquainted to pencak silat. It is a misconception that has repeated itself thousand of times over the internet and this may be the point where we may break the misconception. Iijam 16:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: if anyone can contribute to the culture section in the new pencak silat article, please do so. I am only familiar to Silat and not Pencak. thanks 60.50.152.27 04:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited View 

message: i try to post some articles of Pencak Silat, my object is to give balance between Indonesian and Malaysian perspective. I respect both Indonesian and Malaysian style practioners.Salam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castromariachi (talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Shall we propose collab at WP:SEASIA? — Indon (reply) — 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  let's work together 

message: After some discussion above, it turns out that Malaysian editors insist to have silat as the article name to explain all forms of Malay martial arts, while others tend to have silat as a general article. To accommodate the Malaysian's POV,  has created a fork for Malaysian Malay martial art form. Thus, the result of merge discussion as follows:
# Silat is a general umbrella term for martial arts coming form Southeast Asia. All other derivatives, such as Kuntao Silat (Chinese fusion), perisai diri (East Javanese form), Lanka Silat (Philippines' form), Silat Seni Gayong (Malaysian's form), Seni Gayung Fatani (another Malaysian's form), etc., should be briefly presented as described in WP:SUMMARY and give links to them from this article.
# As for the Malaysian Malay martial arts, the detailed article is Silat (Malaysian martial arts).
# As for the official term for Indonesian's silat, the article remains as Pencak Silat.
Thank you for all editors that have contributed in the discussion. The discussion above will be put in the Talk:Silat article as reference. — Indon (reply) — 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kindly be careful of what Malaysian POV is. The "Malaysian" opinion here is expressed by a Malaysian and is hardly representative of "Malaysian" POV. __earth (Talk) 05:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't like to use the "POV" word because of WP politics of WP:NPOV, but honestly it is literally said as Malaysian editor's view of what silat is. The discussion has expressed that and even an editor insists to use sources only from Malaysia. — Indon (reply) — 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why wasnt this article named Silat Melayu? I think its a simpler title. kawaputratorque 08:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather to choose that name also, but I'll let the decision of the name taken by editors who know about this. — Indon (reply) — 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support it to be called Silat Melayu, according to the official website I posted before. --Zack2007 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge result 

message: I also firmly brlieve that there should be a disambiguation page for this as well. Angie Y. 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation page 

message: For various reasons there has been a sort of rivalry between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia dating back to the time of their independence from European colonialism. This is particularly so with the Malays of Malaysia and Indonesia which were supposed to be negara serumpun (nations with one root). As a result, all these countries have tried in their own ways to prove that they are distinct from one another. This is common among countries which share the same or similar cultures such as India and Pakistan. Those acquainted with modern Asian history will be familiar with the Islamic Revival which was a political call for Muslim-dominant countries to adopt a stricter, more fundamentalist from of Islamic rule. It didn't hit South or Southeast Asia until the 1980s but it has now affected Muslim communities even in countries where they are the minority. A good example is the origin of silat. During the 60s and 70s Malaysians would avoid association with Indonesia by tracing their silat styles to some Chinese or Indian martial art. Today it's fashionable for Malaysian pesilat to claim that their master's cousin's sister's husband is half Arab. Whether it's true or not they say it so their style has a Middle Eastern/ Islamic connection and no link to icky places like Indonesia or China.
The rivalry between Malaysia and Indonesia is thought to be one of the many factors for why the Islamisation movement was more easily accepted in the former than the latter. Today Malaysians seem to have forgotten what Malay culture is and filled in the gaps with Islam to make themselves unique. Putrajaya for example utilizes Arab style architecture because a Malay design would look too Indian, too Minangkabau, too Thai. Compare that to the building's Indonesian equivalent. And while Indonesians are proud of such Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms as Majapahit and Mataram, Malaysians only ever trace their history back to 15th century Melaka partly because it became a Muslim sultanate soon after its founder's death. Ask an Indonesian what was their traditional script before the English alphabet arrived and they'll probably say Javanese or the Sanskrit-based Kawi. Pose the same question to a Malaysian and they'll unhesitatingly answer Jawi, avoiding the fact that even Melaka continued to use the old Indian script long after Islam dominated. Politics had an even bigger role in promoting this way of thinking but I won't get into that. Keeping all this in mind, it was inevitable that sooner or later the effects of Islamisation and polarisation between the Malay cultures would show up in the Wikipedia articles. The prime example here is the split of the Silat article into three but that is by no means the only case.
When the Malaysia article reffered to the country's ancient kingdoms, it previously read "these were probably originally Hindu or Buddhist" as if there was ever any doubt of their religion (the word "probably" has since been removed). I can give many, many other examples but I'm trying to get to the silat articles at hand. In the Silat article there are a number of mistakes written in the part on history. One sentence says that silat was originally practiced only by men in the suraus and the art was spread along with Islam. I don't think any historian would agree with this. Let's make it clear that silat was created before Islam arrived in Southeast Asia so it couldn't have spread entirely via the religion. The association between martial arts and places of worship would have come to the Malay peninsula from the Indians or Chinese. It's most likely that silat was taught within the temples as part of a child's education, the same as in the rest of Indo-China. Even after Islam became widespread, it merged with instead of replacing traditional Malay culture (the opposite of what's happening today). It would be logical that after suraus took the temples' place, they still served as educational centres where martial arts would likely have been taught. But this doesn't change the fact that silat was practiced in the Hindu-Buddhist temples before any mosques or suraus were built on Malay soil at all. 
And the claim that women originally didn't practice silat is a downright lie. It's a controversial fact that Islam changed the role women previously had in Southeast Asian society. It was common for Hindu-Buddhist women to rule a country and, just as in Angkor, they were in charge of the family businesses. The latter is still practiced in some communities like the Minangkabau whose society was traditionally matriachal. It goes without saying that these women were also allowed to practice martial arts just as in India and China from where Malay culture was derived. In fact ancient Indonesian legend says that silat was created by a woman. It's common in many styles that there are certain aspects of training where women and men must be separated. Even today in Chinese Taiji for example although men and women train together, a female practicioner generally does not practice tuishou (pushing hands) with a male simply for practical reasons and not because of religion. This could easily apply to silat especially if training took place in a gender-segregated surau. However, Malay women have always practiced silat and even as recently the 70s you could find kampung (villages) where almost everyone practices the local form of silat regardless of gender. The exponents would all train together but sparring was usually between members of the same sex.  
Iijam previously tried to show the difference between silat's spirituality in Malayisa and Indonesia by saying that pencak silat has elements of Hinduism and Buddhism but silat Melayu is more Muslim and compliant with the syariah (interestingly he said that Malaysian silat was "tainted" by the Hindu-Buddhist influence). This article also has a paragraph taken from The Malay Art Of Self Defence stating that spirituality in silat is based on Islam and in some regions may have influences from Hinduism, Buddhism and Kejawen. This isn't really a regional difference but a generational one. Not too long ago there wasn't a very noticeable difference between silat's spiritual side in Malaysia or Indonesia. After all, many silat styles practiced in Malaysia came from Indonesia. As has been mentioned, Islam had to carve itself a niche in an already well-established Malay culture so the people originally absorbed the new religion into their own culture sphere. This was possible because the traditional Asian faiths (Hinduism, Daoism, etc) are actually more similar to life philosophies than religions in the western sense. Back when people actually lived their own cultures, they saw nothing contradictory about being a Muslim while following Buddhist principles for example (although most Malays today would probably consider this deviant). Therefore it would be more accurate to say that silat philosophy is based on traditional faiths with Muslim undertones.
After the Islamic revival, a lot of silat masters tried to Islamise their art to make it more marketable. It must also be remembered that most styles of silat practiced today aren't that old. This is understandable since the Malay archipelago was colonised for centuries. A lot of the newer styles were created or at least passed on by a generation growing up in the 80s who are more used to seeing Malay girls wearing the tudung (headscarf) than their parents are. They imbue the styles with more Islamic elements because they can't tell the difference between what is Malay and what is Muslim. Rural forms of silat usually have more history and Silat Pattani is considered one of the oldest and most authentic styles of silat Melayu. What was the Pattani sultanate is now split between northern Malaysia and southern Thailand. There was always a large Buddhist population here and this would have its influence on silat. Unfortunately, the PAS government forbids any un-Islamic elements in Malay culture which has forced traditionalists to abandon such practices as meditating in the lotus position which is still done in Indonesia. So the reason for Muslim influence on some Malaysian silat styles is not their land of origin but their age. I think we should stick to what are traditional aspects of the art and keep modern interpretations to a minimum so as not to confuse anyone. And on the above mention of headscarves, they're more common in Malaysia than Indonesia. I imagine that one day someone will claim the tudung to be a traditional part of Malay attire and cite it as an example of the difference between Malaysian and Indonesian clothes even though it is not customary in either country.
I'm not trying to fan the fires of rivalry between countries or to denounce Islam and I certainly am not trying to insult anyone here but I just thought people should be aware of where these articles are heading so they can be improved. Morinae (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polarisation and Islamisation of silat