Dictionary:

slave |slāv|
noun chiefly historical
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
• a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation : by the time I was ten, I had become her slave, doing all the housework.
• a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something : the poorest people of the world are slaves to the banks | she was no slave to fashion.
• a device, or part of one, directly controlled by another : [as adj. ] a slave cassette deck. Compare with master 1 .
• an ant captured in its pupal state by an ant of another species, for which it becomes a worker.
verb [ intrans. ]
work excessively hard : after slaving away for fourteen years, all he gets is two thousand.
• [ trans. ] subject (a device) to control by another : should the need arise, the two channels can be slaved together.
ORIGIN Middle English : shortening of Old French esclave, equivalent of medieval Latin sclava (feminine) ‘Slavic (captive)’ : some South Slavic peoples had been reduced to a servile state by conquest in the 9th cent.

the malay word 'hamba' implies that very clearly. but 'tuan hamba" is used in two context: 1. like the english "master" or "mister" in terms of household, learning institution, etc. to mean respect; and 2. literally "my master" i.e. you who possess my service.

Abdi in malay is derived from the arabic word 'abd, which means servant. In other words they are linguistically equivalent. But the usage is different. Abdi as used malay means slaves, because in the arabic 'abd was used in Jahili times to mean slaves: as properties that can be bought and sold.

Sultans of the past possess hamba because of the protection and sustenance their "lowly" subjects enjoy. These subjects address themselves as 'hamba', but none that I know off sell or bought slaves. And in Kelantan the use of that word survives to this day to refer to oneself is an act of humility not to offend others being addressed in a conversation.

Abd Allah as in the slave of God or servant of God is precise in meaning because we do not own our own selves: God the Creator, gave us our souls, our existence, thus He owns us. Therefore, we must serve Him without question, preferably out of love of Him and not being force to do so by other than He.

technically this is incorrect. because the minorities enjoy rights and privileges not enjoyed in their native lands. their lives are better here, and they do not want to leave here because there is no such rights and privileges in their native lands; e.g. China or India. Unlike what happened to the Jews and the Blacks or other minorities in other parts of the world, like the Malays in Singapore. Their history is completely rewritten and they are sytematically reduced from being the "master" of their land to living at the mercy of others.


en masse slavery like what happened to the Jews under the Babylonian Kings, and Egytian Pharoahs; the African slaves in the Americas, NO, there is not such a thing here in this part of the world.

Slavery was common place during the heyday of the Greeks and the Romans. Ironically, the Greek philosophers talk about democracy but women during their times were treated like slaves: they can be bought and sold like property.

the arabs in pre-Islamic times, Jahili period, never force anyone to become a slave to pay off debts. THis is economically unsound. Why force for free service and having to provide for shelter and sustenance when you can get economic gain albeit over a long period from anyone? In fact the abolition of the riba system called riba jahiliyah during the Prophet's Farewell pilgrimage is precisely to do away with oppressive debts, but the Arabs never enslave anyone for that. A whole tribe used to be indebted to another tribe because of riba jahiliya. If they do take slaves, they are from those not of the Arab blood, case in point Bilal, the first muazzin in Islam. Previously he was a slave and was tortured because he excercises his will to choose Islam against his non-Muslim master's choice.

in islamic times, slavery was replaced with wali and mawla, master and servant. The compensation or renumeration can be argued; however this arrangement is entered into voluntarily, for protection and sustenance purposes.

it is true that the closest thing to slavery here is during the japanese occupation. but they called it forced labor.

Cerita p.ramlee if you referring to Ali baba Bujang lapok and others with arab themes in them, p.ramlee was juxtaposing in a creative and "imaginative" way themes from Arabic folktales, since a lot of Malay cerita-cerita came from Arabic folktales. Tiga Abdul, for example, is a story based on a famous generous icon in Middle East folklore called Hatim Tai...

But we are not going to analyze P.Ramlee's movies.

As for the wikipedia source, Birch as British Resident who interfered in the running of the state by the then ruler. British Resident was "given" power to 'advise' the ruler then, and with British might behind them, "it was said that they interfered in the implementation of the Rulers' prerogative."

I have not heard of Birch trying to emancipate orang asli. Or is this a new effort at rewriting history in the hope of trying to make them moral victors, which I think they were not. And I suspect that very much since the British were the ones responsible for bringing the Indians and Chinese minorities here for cheap labor.

Watch Amistad or Roots ( or something to that effect) and I think we can all feel what it is like to be uprooted, transplanted and beaten to work and treated like animals in a foreign land only to be forced to practice a religion and way of life not your own and forced to call it your own because you do not know any other.

---

Added on October 3, 2008, 12:57 pmCerita p.ramlee if you referring to Ali baba Bujang lapok and others with arab themes in them, p.ramlee was juxtaposing in a creative and "imaginative" way themes from Arabic folktales, since a lot of Malay cerita-cerita came from Arabic folktales. Tiga Abdul, for example, is a story based on a famous generous icon in Middle East folklore called Hatim Tai...

But we are not going to analyze P.Ramlee's movies.

As for the wikipedia source, Birch as British Resident who interfered in the running of the state by the then ruler. British Resident was "given" power to 'advise' the ruler then, and with British might behind them, "it was said that they interfered in the implementation of the Rulers' prerogative."

I have not heard of Birch trying to emancipate orang asli. Or is this a new effort at rewriting history in the hope of trying to make them moral victors, which I think they were not. And I suspect that very much since the British were the ones responsible for bringing the Indians and Chinese minorities here for cheap labor.

Watch Amistad or Roots ( or something to that effect) and I think we can all feel what it is like to be uprooted, transplanted and beaten to work and treated like animals in a foreign land only to be forced to practice a religion and way of life not your own and forced to call it your own because you do not know any other.

This post has been edited by zuth: Oct 3 2008, 12:57 PM

THis fact in wikipedia is worth examining further.

After 1300 years, following the opinion above, Islam in the Malay lands must have been in reverse for us to believe that Raja Abdullah of Perak in 1800s still resort to slavery. Parameswara 1400s, no case of slavery. Sultans of Melaka, before they vanished, no report of selling slaves. Kedah Sultanate, not slavery, Terengganu no slavery.

Why Perak, Sultan Abdullah, a remote report of slavery? And Birch trying to emancipate slaves? Something fishy, I'd say.

I think the Colonisers who transported masses people from their native lands and forced them as cheap labor are more guilty of slavery.

I would not be too quick to accept wikipedia on this matter.

But as opinions go, they are mere opinions.