Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:26:24.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Islamic Revivalism in Minangkabau at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Christine Dobbin
Christine Dobbin
Affiliation:
The Flinders University of South Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The revivalist movements which developed in so many Muslim communities at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries are well known to students of Islamic history. The Fulani jihād of Usuman dan Fodio, the Sanūsīyah movement in Libya, the rise of the Wahhābīs in Arabia, the reforms instituted among the Volga Tatars, the Mujāhidīn movement in Northern India and the Fara'idis of Bengal have all been the subject of study to a greater or lesser extent. Scholars have pointed out that movements which aimed initially at internal reform in a particular Muslim community often developed the added dimension of attack on what was conceived as an external, generally foreign, threat to that community, this being most clearly the case with the Wahhābīs and the Mujāhidīn. A contemporary movement which has features in common with all those mentioned above, that of the Padisr among the Minangkabau of West Sumatra, has on the contrary received scant scholarly attention. This is all the more surprising since a European state—the Kingdom of the Netherlands—became involved in a war with the Minangkabau while the Padri movement was still in its full vigour; but although Dutch records and memoirs deal more than amply with this war, they have remained ignored for what they can tell us about the Padris themselves. This is not to deny that scholars who have attempted a brief characterization of the Padri movement have recognized that its complexity goes beyond the mere epithet ‘Islamic revivalism’, and the more perceptive have tried to link it to certain changes taking place within Minangkabau society, depicting the movement as ‘a social revolution’, ‘a coup d'étai’ or, by implication, as a revolt of the intellectuals. In the later stages of the movement, after European intervention had gathered momentum, a French scholar has characterized the war fought by the Padris as a ‘war of independence’.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , May 1974 , pp. 319 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Waldman, M. R., ‘The Fulani fihād: A Reassessment’, Journal of African History, vi, 3 (1965);Google ScholarZiadeh, N. A., Sanūsīyah. A Study of a Revivalist Movement in Islam (Leiden, 1958);Google ScholarEvans-Pritchard, E. E., The Sanusi of Cyrenaica (Oxford, 1949);Google ScholarZenkovsky, S. A., Pan-Turkism and Islam in Russia (Cambridge, Mass., 1960);Google ScholarAhmad, Q., The Wahabi Movement in India (Calcutta, 1966);Google ScholarKhan, M. A., History of the Fara'idi Movement in Bengal (1818–1906) (Karachi, 1965); the Wahhābīs themselves have not been the subject of recent study.Google Scholar

2 Schrieke, B., ‘Bijdrage tot de Bibliografie van de huidige godsdienstige beweging ter Sumatra's Westkust’, Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde (hereinafter TBG), lix (1920), 251–2, 260.Google Scholar

3 Willinck, G. D., Het Rechtsleven bij de Minangkabausche Maleiërs (Leiden, 1909), p. 301.Google Scholar

4 Mansoer, M. D. et al. , Sedjarah Minangkabau (Djakarta, 1970), p. 20;Google Scholar Schrieke, op. cit., pp. 252, 260.

5 Cuisinier, J., ‘La guerre des Padri (1803–1838–1845)’, Archives de Sociologie des Religions, vii (1959), 72.Google Scholar

6 Malacca Observer, January 1827, in Moor, J. H., Notices of the Indian Archipelago, and Adjacent Countries (Singapore, 1837), p. 112;Google ScholarFrancis, E., ‘Korte beschrijving van het Nederlandsch grondgebied ter Westkust Sumatra, 1837’, Tijdschrift voor Neêrland's Indie (hereinafter TNI), ii (1) (1839), 32.Google Scholar

7 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20 in Exh[ibitum] 24 August 1826, no. 41, Ministerie van Koloniën (hereinafter MK) 513, Algemeen Rijksarchief (hereinafter ARA), The Hague; Moor, op. cit., pp. 112–13; Francis, op. cit., p. 132.

8 Marsden, W., The History of Sumatra, 3rd ed. (London, 1811), p. 337.Google Scholar

9 Anon., ‘Het Inlandsch bestuur ter Westkust van Sumatra’, TNI, ii (1) (1839), 116.Google Scholar This article is based on a reply by J. van der Linden, dated 26 July 1833, to a query by the Resident of Sumatra's West Coast. The original is in the van den Bosch Papers 394, ARA. The article was subsequently published as van der Linden, J., ‘Het Inlandsch Bestuur in het Gouvernement van Sumatra's Westkust’, TBG, iv (1855).Google Scholar Parts of it were incorporated in works by other contemporaries, such as Francis, E. and Müller, S.. Nahuijs, H. G., Brieven over Bencoolen, Padang, het Rijk van Menangkabau … (Breda, 1826), pp. 141–2;Google Scholar‘Uittreksels van een verslag over Sumatra's Westkust’, Indisch Magazijn (hereinafter IM), ii (2) (1845), 97.Google Scholar The latter was originally published in 1829.

10 J. Maetsuyker et al. to Heren XVII, 31 January 1670, in Coolhaas, W. Ph. (ed.), Generate Missiven van Gouverneurs-Generaal en Raden aan Heren XVII der Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (hereinafter Generale Missiven…) (The Hague, 1968), iii, 727.Google Scholar

11 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20, op. cit.; Francis, op. cit., pp. 136–7; Couperus, C. Th., ‘De Instellingen der Maleijers in de Padangsche Bovenlanden’, TBG, iv (1855), 2.Google Scholar

12 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20, op. cit.; Francis, op. cit., p. 132. Both these sources omit the Mangkudum, who seems to have been the least important of the four. See also Moor, op. cit., p. 113.

13 Moor, op. cit., p. 113.

14 The best discussion of the Minangkabau negeri, although written much later, is Westenenk, L. C., De Minangkabausche Nagari, 3rd ed. (Weltevreden, 1918).Google Scholar The multiplicity of terms and the vagueness of the Minangkabau themselves should be noted; see de Josselin de Jong, P. E., Minangkabau and Negri Sembilan: SocioPolitical Structure in Indonesia (The Hague, 1952), p. 49.Google Scholar

15 Couperus, op. cit., p. 19; de Jong, op. cit., p. 79.

16 De Stuers to Elout, 10 July 1829, no. 1 in Exh. 29 December 1829, no. 53, MK 721; Francis, op. cit., pp. 109–10; van der Linden, op. cit., pp. 265, 267; ‘Uittreksels …’, IM, ii (2) (1845), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

17 De Stuers to Elout, 15 January 1827, no. 10 in Exh. 29 May 1827, no. 97, MK 558.

18 De Stuers to Elout, 10 July 1829, no. 1 in Exh. 29 December 1829, no. 53, MK 721; Anon. (van der Linden), op. cit., p. 113; van der Linden, op. cit., pp. 257–8, 267–8.

19 Adat was undoubtedly influenced by Islam from the coming of that religion, and this is indicated by the different forms of adat; however, the process is impossible to date. The earliest Dutch mention of the principle ‘adat bersendi sjariat, sjariat bersendi adat’ (adat is based on the sjariat, the sjariat is based on adat) is by van der Linden, 26 July 1833, van den Bosch Papers 394, but this is at least 30 years after the start of the Padri reforms.

20 Anon. (van der Linden), op. cit., pp. 116, 122; van der Linden, op. cit., p. 262.

21 ‘Uittreksels …’, op. cit., p. 90; van der Linden, op. cit., pp. 257–8.

22 Francis, op. cit., p. 110; van der Linden, op. cit., pp. 263–4; Burger, H., ‘Aanmerkingen Gehouden op eene Reize door Eenige Districten der Padangsche Bovenlanden’, Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen (hereinafter VBG), xvi (1836), 191–2;Google ScholarStapel, F. W., ‘Een verhandeling over het onstaan van het Menangkabausche rijk en zijn Adat’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië (hereinafter BKI), xcii (1935), 463–4.Google Scholar

23 Anon. (van der Linden), op. cit., p. 119; van der Linden, op. cit., p. 264; de Jong, op. cit., pp. 13, 75. The 1715 manuscript reproduced in Stapel, op. cit., p. 464, is incorrect in designating Agam as largely Koto Piliang.

24 Leyds, W. J., ‘Larassen in Minangkabau’, Koloniale Studiën, x (1) (1926), 392–3;Google Scholar Stapel, op. cit., p. 464.

25 Leyds, op. cit., p. 395; de Jong, op. cit., pp. 74–5.

26 An original view of the role of conflict in Minangkabau is presented in Abdullah, Taufik, ‘Adat and Islam: An Examination of Conflict in Minangkabau’, Indonesia, ii (1966).Google Scholar

27 Lijn, Van der et al. to Heren XVII, 15 01 1647, Generale Missiven …, ii, 302.Google Scholar

28 Von Erath and van der Stengh to Alting, 30 January 1791, par. 46, Koloniaal Archief (hereinafter KA) 3853, ARA.

29 De Stuers to Elout, 10 July 1829, no. 1 in Exh. 29 December 1829, no. 53, MK 721; Dagboek … in de jaren 1832 en 33, 12 July 1832, Vermeulen Krieger Papers 3, ARA.

30 Van der Linden, op. cit., pp. 258–9.

31 V. d. H., ‘Oorsprong der Padaries’, TNI, i (2) (1838), 113;Google Scholar ‘Uittreksels …’, op. cit., pp. 90–1.

32 Leyds, op. cit., p. 394.

33 Nahuijs, Brieven …, pp. 148–9; Anon. (van der Linden), op. cit., p. 118; van der Linden, op. cit., p. 263; Couperus, op. cit., p. 20.

34 Dagboek …, 12 July 1832, Vermeulen Krieger Papers 3.

35 Couperus, op. cit., p. 3; van der Linden, op. cit., p. 264.

36 Consideratie, Nopens den Handel … op Sumatras West Cust … 22 December 1789, par. 61, KA 3800.

37 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20 in Exh. 24 August 1826, no. 41, MK 513.

38 Leyds, op. cit., pp. 390–3.

39 The discussion above applies chiefly to the darat; in the rantau, the area adjacent to Minangkabau proper, there were some variations.

40 Tiku, a trading port for Gujaratis, was one of the first places on the west coast to be Islamicized. Cortesâo, A. (ed.), The Suma Orienal of Tomé Pires, 2 vols, The Hakluyt Society (London, 1944), vol. i, p. 161; vol. ii, p. 248.Google ScholarCh. Schefer, (ed.), Le Discours de la Navigation de Jean et Raoul Parmentier de Dieppe (Paris, 1883), pp. 62–4, 69Google Scholar; I am indebted to Dr A. J. S. Reid for this reference. Hamka, , Sedjarah Islam di Sumatera, 2nd ed. (Medan, 1950), p. 11.Google Scholar

41 Ja'kub, Ismail, Sedjarah Islam di Indonesia (Djakarta, 1956), p. 22.Google Scholar

42 van Ronkel, Ph. S., ‘Een Maleisch Getuigenis over den Weg des Islams in Sumatra’, BKI, lxxv (1919), 364–5.Google Scholar

43 Rizvi, S. A. A., Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Agra, 1965), pp. 62–4;Google ScholarTrimingham, J. Spencer, The Sufi Orders in Islam (Oxford, 1971), pp. 97–8.Google Scholar

44 Gibb, H. A. R. and Kramers, J. H. (eds), Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam (Leiden-London, 1953), p. 146;Google ScholarJohns, A., ‘Dakā'ik al-Hurūf by 'Abd al-Ra'ūf of Singkel’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1955), pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar

45 de Hollander, J. J. (ed.), Sjech Djilâl Eddîn: Verhaal van den Aanvang der PadriOnlusten op Sumatra (hereinafter Hikajat Djalaluddin) (Leiden, 1857), p. 47.Google Scholar This is one of two accounts we possess written by Minangkabau who took part in the reform movement. I am grateful to Mrs Soewito-Santoso of Canberra for transliterating the text from Djawi, and providing me with a first translation.

46 Ronkel, Van, ‘Het Heiligdom te Oelakan’, TBG, lvi (1914), 218;Google ScholarRinkes, D. A., Abdoerraoef van Singkel. Bijdrage tot de kennis van de mystiek op Sumatra en Java (Heerenveen, 1909), p. 25.Google Scholar

47 Van Ronkel, ‘Het Heiligdom …’, pp. 286–8; Rinkes, op. cit., p. 42. For suggestions concerning writing see Rinkes, op. cit., p. 28; van Ronkel, ‘Het Heiligdom …’, pp. 289–90, 295.

48 Francis, op. cit., p. 134; Parvé, H. A. Steijn, ‘De Secte der Padaries (Padris) in de Bovenlanden van Sumatra’, TBG, iii (1855), 264–5.Google Scholar

49 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 6. Hamka's contention that Kota Tua and its environs were a centre of the Naksjabandijah tarekat and opposed to Ulakan cannot be supported; see Hamka, , Ajahku. Riwajat Hidup Dr H. Abd. Karim Amrullah dan Perdjuangan Kaum Agama di Sumatera, 3rd ed. (Djakarta, 1967), pp. 23–4.Google Scholar

50 Tuanku was the title given to an important religious teacher; even more important than the tuanku was the sjech.

51 Van Ronkel, ‘Het Heiligdom…’, p. 294, n. 15.

52 Van Ronkel, ‘Een Maleisch Getuigenis …’, p. 369.

53 However, some Naksjabandis continued to follow Ibn al-Arabī; see Rizvi, op. cit., pp. 208 ff., esp. 258–9, 330, 333; Spencer Trimingham, op. cit., pp. 92–6.

54 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 5, claims that Abdurrauf studied under al-Jilānē, an impossibility since the latter died in A.D. 1166; Ronkel, van, Rapport Betreffende de Godsdienstige Verschijnselen ter Sumatra's Westkust (Batavia, 1916), p. 14;Google ScholarArcher, R. L., ‘Muhammadan Mysticism in Sumatra’, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, xv (2) (1937), 108.Google Scholar

55 Willinck, op. cit., p. 305.

56 Rizvi, op. cit., pp. 6–7, 42; van Ronkel, Rapport…, pp. 18–19.

57 Rinkes, op. cit., pp. 32–3.

58 Rizvi, op. cit., pp. 54–6.

59 Ibid., pp. 176–8, 188.

60 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 5–7.

61 Ibid., p. 6.

62 Leading tuankus were usually called by their place of residence, or by some personal characteristic; for the meaning of Minangkabau gelar see Hamka, Ajahku…, p. 24 n. 1.

63 Van Ronkel, Rapport…, pp. 12, 14.

64 De Radicale Beschrijving van Sumatra's West Cust, par. 8, Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Leiden, H. 167.

65 Marsden, op. cit., p. 346; Nahuijs, Brieven…, p. 187.

66 Couperus, op. cit., p. 7; Willinck, op. cit., p. 291.

67 Couperus, op. cit., p. 8; Willinck, op. cit., pp. 295–6, 298–9; Anon. (van der Linden), op. cit., p. 123.

68 Out of 100 penghulus, perhaps two would be able to read and write; de Stuers to Elout, 10 July 1829, no. 1. in Exh. 29 December 1829, no. 53, MK 721.

69 Willinck, op. cit., pp. 218, 296–7.

70 Hurgronje, C. Snouck, The Achehnese, 2 vols (Leyden, 1906), ii, 23.Google Scholar

71 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 25–6.

72 Ibid., pp. 7–8; Steijn Parvé, op. cit., p. 252.

73 Steijn Parvé, Ibid., p. 252. Nahuijs, Brieven…, pp. 173–4, reports in 1824 that the tuanku's grave was much venerated.

74 Steijn Parvé, op. cit., p. 252.

75 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 8; von Erath and van der Stengh to Alting, 30 January 1791, par. 46, KA 3853; Francis, op. cit., pp. 138–9.

76 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 7.

77 Consideratie, Nopens den Handel … 22 December 1789, pars 215–17, 219–21, KA 3800.

78 De Jong, op. cit., p. 9.

79 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 9.

80 Een ambtenaar op Sumatra [Steijn Parvé], ‘De Secte der Padaries in de Padangsche Bovenlanden’, IM, i (1) (1844), 22.Google Scholar

81 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 8–9.

82 Ibid., p. 16.

83 Ibid., p. 9.

84 Steijn Parvé, ‘De Secte …’ TBG, pp. 252–3.

85 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 10–11.

86 Ibid., p. 13.

87 Ibid., pp. 11, 27.

88 Ibid., p. 13.

89 Ibid., pp. 15–17, 47.

90 The one definite date we have is the birth date of the renowned Imam Bondjol, 1772. Since he studied under Tuanku Nan Tua, the old tuanku was probably teaching in the late 1780s and the 1790s.

91 V. d. H., op. cit., p. 113; Veth, P. J., ‘De geschiedenis van Sumatra’, 4, De Gids, xiv (1) (1850), 19.Google Scholar

92 Van Ronkel, ‘Het Heiligdom …’, p. 283 n. 1; van Ronkel, ‘Een Maleisch Getuigenis …’, pp. 370–1.

93 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 19.

94 Burger, op. cit., pp. 193–4; Nahuijs, Brieven …, p. 185.

95 This problem has also been dealt with by students of other contemporary Islamic revivalist movements; see Ahmad, op. cit., pp. 21–2; Khan, op. cit., pp. xxxix, xlvi, l–li; Ziadeh, op. cit., pp. 127–9; Evans-Pritchard, op. cit., p. 9.

96 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 20.

97 Schrieke, op. cit., pp. 252–5; Kielstra, E. B., ‘Het Ontstaan van den PadrieOorlog’, Indisch Militair Tijdschrift (1887), pt 2, p. 227 n. 1.Google Scholar

98 Gibb and Kramers, op. cit., p. 618; Burckhardt, J. L., Notes on the Bedouins and Wahábys, 2 vols (London, 1831), ii, 105;Google ScholarO'Kinealy, J., ‘History and Doctrines of the Wahhábis’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, i (1874), 69, 79.Google Scholar

99 O'Kinealy, op. cit., p. 73.

100 O'Kinealy, op. cit., p. 73; Gibb and Kramers, op. cit., p. 618.

101 Burckhardt, op. cit., ii, pp. 96, 113–14, 166.

102 Ibid., pp. 108–9.

103 Ibid.., pp. 114–15, 128.

104 O'Kinealy, op. cit., p. 70.

105 Burckhardt, op. cit., pp. 176, 187–91.

106 Ibid., p. 99.

107 Ibid., pp. 117–19, 131, 135–6, 139.

108 Ibid., pp. 195, 205.

109 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 13–14.

110 V. d. H., op. cit., p. 114; Moor, op. cit., p. 133.

111 Moor, op. cit., p. 133; Steijn Parvé, ‘De Secte …’ TBG, p. 254.

112 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 21.

113 Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’ TBG, p. 254–5.Google Scholar

114 Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’ IM, p. 26;Google ScholarParvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’ TBG, pp. 253, 266.Google Scholar

115 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 11.

116 Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, IM, p. 22;Google ScholarParvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, pp. 253, 268;Google ScholarLange, H. M., Het Nederlandsch Oost-Indisch Leger ter Westkust van Sumatra (1819–1845), 2 vols ('s Hertogenbosch, 1852), i, 9.Google Scholar

117 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 25–6, 27.

118 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 36–7; v. d. H., op. cit., pp. 115–16; Steijn Parvé, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, pp. 253, 255–6. Their opponents called them the ‘harimau nan selapan’ (eight tigers).

119 Ibid., p. 257.

120 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 20–1.

121 Ibid., p. 30.

122 Ibid., p. 23; Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, pp. 262–3.Google Scholar

123 Ibid., pp. 258–61; Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 33; B.. d., ‘De Padries op Sumatra’, IM, ii (1) (1845), 168–9.Google Scholar

124 Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, pp. 262.Google Scholar

125 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 38.

126 Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, pp. 265, 266–7;Google Scholar van Ronkel, ‘Het Heiligdom’, pp. 282–3.

127 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 38–9; Jazid was the Ummayad caliph execrated as the enemy and indirectly the slayer of the Prophet's grandson Husain. B..d., op. cit., p. 169; Steijn Parvé, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, p. 266.

128 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20 in Exh. 24 August 1826, no. 41, MK 513; Steijn Parvé, ‘De Secte …’, IM, pp. 26–8; Steijn Parvé, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, pp. 268–70; B.. d., op. cit., pp. 170–1. It was to cock-fighting that the Padris objected most strongly, although it was not only a diversion leading to gambling, but formed part of the ritual of Minangkabau life, having a place at marriages, house-building, feasts, etc.; see de Jong, op. cit., pp. 78–9.

129 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 31–2.

130 Ibid., p. 24.

131 Ibid., p. 41.

132 Ibid., p. 28.

133 Ibid., pp. 32–3; B.. d., op. cit., pp. 171–3; Lange, op. cit., i, p. 11.

134 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 34–5, 41; B.. d., op. cit., pp. 171–3.

135 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 41.

136 Lange, op. cit., i, p. 21; Leyds, op. cit., p. 394.

137 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 41.

138 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20 in Exh. 24 August 1826, no. 41, MK 513; Moor, op. cit., p. 134; Steijn Parvé, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, p. 275.

139 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20, op. cit..

140 Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, pp. 273–4.Google Scholar

141 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20, op. cit.; McGillavry to De Kock, 20 November 1829, LaH in Exh. 15 September 1830, no. 6/A, MK 767; Steijn, Parvé, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, p. 273Google Scholar; Burger, op. cit., p. 194.

142 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20, op. cit.; Moor, op. cit., p. 134; B.. d., op. cit., p. 172; Lange, op. cit., i, p. 12.

143 De Stuers to Elout, 27 September 1826, no. 4b in Exh. 17 March 1827, no. 41, MK 547; Dagboek … 24 July 1832, Vermeulen Krieger Papers 3.

144 Schrieke, op. cit., pp. 262–3.

145 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 39.

146 Batuah, A. D. and Madjoindo, A. D., Tambo Minangkabau dan Adatnja (Djakarta, 1965), p. 44.Google Scholar

147 Hikajat Djalaluddin, pp. 39–40.

148 Ibid., pp. 40–1.

149 Ibid., pp. 47–8.

150 Ibid., p. 48. They subsequently ambushed Tuanku Nan Tua outside Kota Tua and killed all his sons (ibid., p. 51).

151 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20 in Exh. 24 August 1826, no. 41, MK 513; Moor, op. cit., p. 135; Francis, op. cit., p. 139.

152 Marsden, op. cit., pp. 335–6.

153 Leyds, op. cit., p. 393.

154 Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, p. 277.Google Scholar

155 Raffles, to Dowdeswell, , 12 August 1818, Sumatra Factory Records vol. 47, India Office LibraryGoogle Scholar; v.d.H., op. cit., p. 127.

156 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20, op. cit.; Steijn, Parvé, ‘De Secte …’, IM, pp. 32–3Google Scholar; v.d.H., op. cit., p. 127; Francis, op. cit., pp. 139–40.

157 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, LaE no. 20, op. cit.; Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, IM, p. 35;Google Scholar v.d.H., op. cit., pp. 127–8; Francis, op. cit., pp. 140–1; Lange, op. cit., i, pp. 20–1; Malacca Observer, January 1827, in Moor, op. cit., p. 113. Not all of the Minangkabau notables perished. The office of the last Radja Adat seems to have been vested in the Radja Ibadat c. 1802 and the Radja Ibadat died in 1817, leaving a son who claimed both titles and who became converted to the new teaching. A book widely circulated in Indonesia, Pané, Sanusi, Sedjarah Indonesia, 7th ed. (Djakarta, 1965), ii, p. 90,Google Scholar considers this meeting at Kota Tengah to have been highly unlikely, and probably invented by the Dutch to slander the Padris.

158 Malacca Observer, January 1827, in Moor, op. cit., p. 113; Francis, op. cit., p. 141. Francis states it was a daughter of the last Radja Alam.

159 Moor, op. cit., pp. 112–13; Westenenk, , ‘Opstellen over Minangkabau. I.’, TBG, lv (1913), 241.Google Scholar

160 Moor, op. cit., p. 113.

161 Raffles, S. (ed.), Memoir of the Life and Public Services of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, 2 vols (London, 1835), vol. i, p. 425.Google Scholar

162 Francis, op. cit., pp. 141–2; v.d.H., op. cit., p. 128; Raffles, op. cit., i, p. 404.

163 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 14; Steijn, Parvé, ‘De Secte …’, TBG, pp. 276–7Google Scholar.

164 Tuanku Nan Tua was known as ‘the conqueror of negeri Taram’ Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 15.

165 Ibid., pp. 17–19.

166 Ibid., p. 31.

167 Lange, op. cit., i, p. 12.

168 Also the two laras were not as sharply differentiated as in the other two luhaks in their customs and forms of government; Couperus, op. cit., p. 3.

169 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 52; Moor, op. cit., p. 113. European claims that the Padris had brought Minangkabau trade to a standstill should be read with caution; see de Stuers to Elout, 10 July 1829, no. 1 in Exh. 29 December 1829, no. 53, MK 721.

170 Von Erath and van der Stengh to Alting, 15 January 1789, pars 24–32, KA 3800; van den Bosch to Baud, 16 November 1832, in Exh. 5 June 1833, no. 70 k/m geheim, MK 4230.

171 Burger, op. cit., pp. 204, 216.

172 Ibid..G, pp. 215–16.

173 Ibid..

174 De Stuers and Verploegh to van der Capellen, 30 August 1825, La no. 20 in Exh. 24 August 1826, no. 41, MK 513.

175 De Stuers to Elout, 27 September 1826, no. 4b in Exh. 17 March 1827, no. 41, MK 547.

176 De Stuers to Elout, 27 September 1826, no. 4b, op. cit.; McGillavry to van Gobbelschroy, 23 April 1830, no. 316 in Exh. 15 September 1830, no. 6/A, MK 767.

177 Moor, op. cit., pp. 112, 135; Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, IM, p. 32;Google Scholar v.d.H., op. cit., p. 124.

178 Hikajat Djalaluddin, p. 24; Schrieke, op. cit., p. 272.

179 Ridder De Stuers, H. J. J. L., De Vestiging en Uitbreiding der Nederlanders ter Westkust van Sumatra, 2 vols (Amsterdam, 1849–1950), ii, app. B, p. 227.Google Scholar For my translation of and introduction to these memoirs see Dobbin, Christine, ‘Tuanku Imam Bondjol, 1772–1864’, Indonesia, xiii (1972).Google Scholar

180 Moor, op. cit., p. 113; Parvé, Steijn, ‘De Secte …’, IM, p. 36;Google Scholar ‘Uittreksels …’, op. cit., p. 92. One of the earliest Dutch visitors to Minangkabau in 1824 was told by Dutch officers that it was untrue that Padris killed the penghulus of conquered negeris; Nahuijs, Brieven …, p. 189.

181 Ronkel, Van, ‘Inlandsche getuigenissen aangaande den Padri-oorlog’, De Indische Gids, xxxvii (2 ) (1915), p. 1107.Google Scholar