Hindus created Malays

induism in the region for the duration of 1500 years did not arrive by itself. Someone brought it over. In fact, records show that the Gujerati’s brought them over. The Indians were not known to “colonize” They were mere traders. But fact is, the Indians were here at 2AD. And with them, was the introduction of Hinduism. I’m sorry if I did not make that clear.

To address “Sejarah Melayu” That was not even its original name. I was merely going by its current “tag” for ease of understanding and reference. I believe the original name was “Asal0Usual Raja-Raja” or something to that effect.

And not to forget that it was written circa 1623, 200years AFTER the demise of Parameswara. And 100years AFTER the demise of Malacca. It is also amazing that it contains many “unbelievable” bits, such as the story of Sri Badang lifting the stone about the size of a bus, or that “my great-granfather ruled for 370years, my grandfather, for 170 years and so on. (I’m using the MBRAS version)

Also, in my opinion, Pasai was a far superior entreport as compart to the pit-stop called Mallacca. We do know that Parameswara’s son was the first Muslim (Sultan) convert when he wanted to marry the princess of Pasai. Tungku Halim got it wrong, when he wrote about how Parameswara travelled to China and married Hang Li Poh, whom he also claimed was the Daughter of the Ming Emperor. She was no princess. No Ming Dynasty Emperor had a “Hang” last name. They were all Tzu (pronounce Choo)

Next, to address Borrobudor, typically classified as Hindu, but it contains a carving of Ganesan holding on to a Keris (wavy sword/ knife). This suggests that there were indeed forms of Hinduism influence as well. Perhaps, (just consider this), it was as volatile as the continuously flipping of Hinduism and Buddhism and so forth just like Angkor Watt? It’s just a thought. Because when I was visiting Angkor, I saw both traces within the same temple. Sometimes on directly carved over the other.

Lastly, there is now an ongoing discussion, as to whther the current site of Malacca is the actual site. Some Historians are pointing to Muar as the original “Malacca” as opposed to the current City. Muar river is much much larger, and seems to be the “connecting” river that (erroneously) flows throught the Peninsular as found in many 17th century maps. The connecting point is actually at Bahau, where it is dragged over land to the Pahang River. I’m working with Prof Peter Borschberg on this theory. Otherwise, there seems to be no other logical explaination for the “connecting” river across the Peninsular.

In conclusion, I’m now examining the Portuguese Records to see if the “Whoever controls Malacca, has its hand on the throat on Venice” is a mere false construct to “siphon” Portuguese funds for Military use (or otherwise). Towards the end, even the VOC went bankrupt because Malacca was no match for Pasai, or its many neighbours.