Tuesday, October 14, 2008

THAILAND NEVER BEEN COLONISED?



Direct male descendent of Khalifah Syarif Abu Bakar Syah titled Boromoraja Ekathat V, formerly Mahadamayaza of Burma (when still young) is Tuanku Nai Long Kassim Nai Long Ahmad. he knows their history which was passed doen to him by the tip of his finger. He speaks fluent Siamese, not thai.

Know your History.

They said that Thailand was the only country in SEA that was never colonized. I wonder who are these ‘they’ today? If Thailand has such a strong history one wonder why it was not named Siam land instead of Thailand?

Did they ever give a thought why thai becomes Thailand and Malays becomes Malaysia?

Have they been eating too much 'Tom Yam' soup in the mid noon heat?

Is the ‘Le majeste’ laws holding them back, from revealing the truth? I think so.

Ever wondered why the Malaysian King is rotated among the Malay Sultan state in Malaysia every 5 years? Its the same formula used in Ayutthaya. No wonder of the 33 kings (actually deputy kings) who ruled Ayutthaya only 3 are buried there. What happen to the rest? Well it is simply because they return to their state after reigning, died and buried in Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia.

What about their title? well they are also known as Syah Alam Yang Maha Mulia as stated in the Kedah Laws, same title used by the moslems Monggol Kings of India.

Have their researchers studied the Malay manuscript, The Laws of Kedah, confiscated by the British colonist in 1876 and finally returned to Malaysia in the year 2003?

The manuscript was then published by the Malaysian Government printing agency, Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka in 2005. Only then was it made available to the Malaysian public.

We think it is about time history should be studied regionally, not nation by nation.




This is not just a map of Siam in the year 1686 from French records. This is the map of BENUA SIAM as stated in the Kedah Laws. Since when did the tais concquered jawa and Acheh in Sumater? They never did. They existed and ruled in Siam from 1767 onwards and Rama I Buddha Yotfa Chulalok was the first Buddhist King. The country is still known as Siam BUT with a different king and religion, until today. This map was from the time Muslims Siamese Kings, known to all of us today as the Malays were ruling the empire from Ayutthaya. This map is clear evidence that escaped the eye of the conspirators of history. Click the map for a larger image.

'Benua Siam' or Siamese Continent as stated in the laws, the previous name for Thailand is a Muslim Kingdom. It was attacked by the Sukhothai from Burma and Lancang in 1767.

Taksin or Mokhtar Hussain (an apostate and traitor to the last Muslims king, Boromoraja Ekataat V, Syarif Abu Bakar Syah) the army general ruled for awhile before he was finally murdered for ridiculous reasons.

Syarif Abu Bakar Syah titled Boromoraja Ekataat V was never killed during the attacked as recorded by Thailand’s history. In fact he returned to Nakhon Si Thammarat and ruled there as Raja Nambang. In fact his name was mentioned in the Hikayat Patani as Raja Bakar. In the Laws of Kedah, his name was also mentioned as Syarif (pg 43)

It was here that he appointed his grandson Syed Alang Alauddin as the ruler of Singgora. Ban Nai Lang close to Songkhala today refers to him, meaning Village of Syed Alang

Rama I is the first Buddhist ruler of Siam, earlier an army general after Thaksin (now the ex general) becomes king through self appointment.

Before the attacked, Siam was a Muslim Kingdom from 1350 until 1767. This further justified why tributary was sent by the Malay sultans to the kingdom and why Patani was a Muslim Kingdom until today.

In the malay 'Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa' it is clearly stated that siam was opened by Sayyidina Jamalul Alam Badrul Munir the prince of Raja Merong Mahawangsa. Earlier Raja Merong Mahawangsa was titled as Sultan Muzaffar Syah I.

The said war with the Burmese in the south after 1767 is actually the war with the former Siamese king armies and soldiers defending their southern territories. No wonder Patani is a muslim state till today.

Watching a recently released movie of Siam, it is surprising to see the warriors wielding the ‘kris’, the malay traditional weapon of self defense, known as 'Kris Siam'.

Before shooting the movie, researched conducted by the producers in the Thailand Kings historical vault in Bangkok were surprised to see old manuscript written in jawi, the old Malay text.

These text depicting the history of muslims Siamese kingdom were confiscated during the attacked on Ayutthaya in 1767 by the Sukkothai of Burma (Myanmar). Not all documents were burned by the invading Burmese.

In 1821. Boromoraja Ekataat V Syarif Abu Bakar Syah was murdered by the thai armies in an ambush at his palace 'Kota Meang Kuang' (large country) under directives from Rama II. The Tai King from the Chakri dynasty finally had their revenge.

Siam history was then set to be rewritten by his predecessor Rama V Chulalongkorn. Same goes with Sultan Abdul Hamid of Kedah(who married Chulalongkorn relatives) then commissioned Pak Wan Hassan a palace official to rewrote Kedah's History in "Al Tarikh Salasilah Negeri Kedah" with no references. Same ambition, same strategy.

Today, the Thai kings are themselves the colonist of Siam. As colonizers they are hiding behind the truth, changing historical records according to their whim and fancies. The King of Siam and the King of Thai is not the same entity. No wonder there's so much chaos in Bangkok today, the people knows.

Futher proof can be obtained by reading the Malay manuscript, ‘The Laws of Kedah’.

8 comments:

LEKIR said...

Assalamualaikum,

Mari kita flagkan blog pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com dan surind.blogspot.com kerana Allah

Izzan said...

Penulisan dan Pengisian blog yg begitu mengagumkan! Perjalanan penulisan yg mengujakan. Semoga dapat dijadikan panduan dan bimbingan berguna bagi pengajian saya dalam bidang pendidikan sejarah... Mohon keberkatan dr Ilahi.

mknace said...

hebat research bro
teruskan usahamu

lali said...

ye ker bro? aku pun hairan ngape name siam dh x pakai ganti thailand. maklumat mesti betul. siam adlh name lame thai @ tai'. yg bmaksud bebas, siam berbeza dgn melayu. pada masa dulu byk krajaan kecil yg wujud skitar sgenting kra. melayu memang byk loghat n dialek tp x bmaksud mereka siam. aku ulang siam adlh name lame thai. krajaan patani jatuh ke tangan siam melalui perjanjian anglo siamese selain name anglo bangkok, siamese ni mrujuk kpd thai. siamese twin, pkataan siamese tu mrujuk kpd thai n bukan melayu. siamese cat, pkataan siamese tu jgk mrujuk kpd thai. cube ko type forum antare bangse yg mbincangkn bangse kt asia tenggara trutamanye bangse khmer, indochina, thai @ siam, burma ko akan tau siapa tai'/thai/siam. ko jgk bleh type kt you tube 'preah vihear' ko bleh bace komen dorg trutama dr khmerserey. ko akan tau siape siam/thai/tai'. ayuthaya pernah jd kerajaaan islam bukan sbb di perintah siam islam ttp kerajaan siam n kota pemerintahan lamanye iaitu ayuthaya tlah dijajah n di tawan patani raya iaitu krajaan melayu islam. kbetulan siam mase tu lemah tambahan lg slalu diserang oleh burma. kmudian siam bangkit balik n mbalas dendam terhadap org melayu shingga patani terjajah smpi skang. x heran la sbb pnulisan ko ni pnyebab melayu kt malaysia hanye mnutup mate kt keadaan di slatan thailand. aku kaji sbb ape org utara malaysia (kedah, perlis, utara perak n klantan) sanggup ckp dorg asal siam @ thailand, antare sbbnye ialah ptame, org melayu kn suke hine bangse sndiri, malu mngaku melayu n sanggup mnumpang bangse lain dgn bangge mngatakn mereka kturunan tu la.. keturunan ni la... snang cite x suke jd melayu. kerajaan siam dulukan kuat jd mereka mnganggap mereka siam/thai @ berasal dr thailand. sbb kedua melayu kn suke mlupekn sejarah. tanye melayu, tau kerajaan patani? tau kerajaan champa? memang gerenti geleng kpale. blum lg bbrape kerajaan lame yg lain. kite kene faham kerajaan melayu di sekitar segenting kra hingga ke utara tanah air tlah dijajah lbih kurang 100 tahun hingga ke beberapa ratus tahun oleh tai', kemudian tukar jd siam kmudian tukar jd thai. kite dh lupe tang tu. jd bile dorang tau nenek moyang dorg dtg dr kawasan situ n skang kawasan tu plak telah dijajah n mereka sdia maklum plak x tau sejarah, maka merekaa ckp mereka org siam n dr thailand. byk buku sejarah n maklumat yg aku bace mereka mnyebut siam adlh tai'/thai n bukan melayu especially melayu patani. nape aku ade bace sejarah singapura die ckp mayat tun jana khatib telah 'berpindah' ke singgora n aku bace byk maklumat sejarah menyatakn singgora ni tempat org melayu n bukan siam. ko tau singgora tu ape skang name die? name die skang ialah songkhla. begitu jgk dgn krajaan bukit@ujung salang adlh kaw, melayu n bukan siam. skang bukit/ujung salang tlah mnjadi phuket. aku ade membe asal patani n die sgt bbangge die org siam. tahun lps die balik kampung kt sane lps tu die balik plk kt malaysia. die jpe aku n bborak. antare kami borakkn ialah die ckp die bukannye siam @ thai tp adlh melayu patani yg sbnarnye. aku x tau sbb ape tp ape yg pnting die dh mulai sedar.. igt sejarah n jgn mnumpang bangse org lain. aku jgk byk cari maklumat tai'/thai/siam mngikut maklumat sebelah thailand @ pihak berkecuali. aku x pnah jpe pn yg die ckp siam adlh melayu. siam adlh thai/tai'. siam adlh name lame mereka sblum diubah mnjadi skang ni thai. x pnah jgk di sebut ade kerajaan siam islam kt sane yg bpusat di ayuthaya kecuali mcm aku cite sblum ni yg melayu patani pernah mnakluk ibu kota siam iaitu ayuthaya n mmerintah kt sane selama tempoh tertentu sblum diserang smule.

Don Balon said...

Menarik tunku nai.. :)

Ligor @ Nakornsri said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
مڬت سري راما said...

Ni sejarah merapu, kaki tengok DVD ni

Nai Cau said...

aku gila kuasa...hahaha...