Sultans, Shamans, and Saints: Islam and Muslims in Southeast Asia. by Howard M

BOOK REVIEWS Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article/78/1/290/759120 by guest on 27 September 2021

Sultans, Shamans, and Saints: Islam and Muslims in Southeast Asia. By Howard M. Federspiel. University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. 297 pages. $57.00. To my knowledge, four of Howard M. Federspiel’s works have been published so far, three in English and one in the Indonesian national language. His earliest work entitled Persatuan Islam: Islamic Reform in the Twentieth Century Indonesia was published in 1970 in the Monograph Series, Modern Indonesian Project, Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. The Indonesian name Persatuan Islam (Islamic Association) was a small Indonesian Muslim association promoting Islamic modernism among the Muslims in Indonesia from 1923 to 1957. Islamic modernism in Indonesia and Malaya during those years had its origins in Islamic modernism of Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905) in Egypt. Federspiel’s second work, Islam and Ideology in the Emerging Indonesian State: The Persatuan Islam (Persis) 1923 to 1957, was published by Brill Academic Press in 2001 and spans 365 pages. This work is clearly an enlarge- ment, addition, or extension to his earlier work. The same work was published later in the Indonesian language in Jakarta in 2004 and it has 479 pages with the Indonesian title Labiran Ideologi Muslim: Pencarian dan Pergulatan Persis di Era Kemunculan Negara Indonesia (1923–1957). In 2006, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore published his small book of sixty-six pages entitled Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals of the Twentieth Century. His latest work, Sultans, Shamans, and Saints: Islam and Muslims in Southeast Asia, is about Islam and Muslims in Southeast Asia. This book has five chapters, and four of them are chronologically oriented. The four chapters are the histories of Islam and Muslims in Southeast Asia starting from 600 to 2000 CE. Federspiel’s study is based on “two premises: (1) Islam is a dynamic religion that has been adapted to time and place by its followers and (2) Islam in any region can be measured for orthodoxy, not simply against the Middle East, but against the general norms of Islam throughout the world” (3). He examines “Islam in Southeast Asia in terms of four large periods: the time of

Journal of the American Academy of Religion, March 2010, Vol. 78, No. 1, pp. 290–315 © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] Book Reviews 291

Islam’s arrival (up to 1300); the first flowering of Islamic identity (1300 to 1800); the era of imperialism (1800 to 1950); and that of independent nation- states (1950 to 2000)” (3). Adhering to his four major historical periods, Federspiel’s first chapter is about “Muslim Wayfarers (600 A.D.–1300).” According to Federspiel, “This first era was merely introductory with respect to Islam in Southeast Asia … . Only a few converts to Islam were made … . At most, only a few thousand con- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article/78/1/290/759120 by guest on 27 September 2021 verts were made … and those were connected directly to the traveling Muslim groups” (21). The introduction of Islam to the inhabitants in Southeast Asia and the small number of conversions to Islam during this first era of 600 up to 1300 CE are in line with earlier studies on the history of Islam and Muslims in Southeast Asia. Federspiel’s second chapter is on “The Emergence of a Hybrid Muslim Culture (1300–1800).” This chapter elaborates on “three substantial develop- ments involving Islam in the Southeast Asian Muslim Zone in the thirteenth to eighteenth centuries” (86). The first development is the establishment or founding of the Muslim kingdoms in the Southeast Asian Muslim Zone, where the Muslims were more dominant and able to form the states or kingdoms and to rule them accordingly. The earliest Muslim kingdoms in Southeast Asia were Melaka (Malacca) (1400–1511), Brunei (1426–1515), Ternate (1530– 1660), and Tidore (1378–1605). Whereas the later Muslim kingdoms in Southeast Asia were Aceh (1500–1663), Banten (1626–1682), Mataram (1588– 1729), Makassar (1605–1669), Sulu (1768–1876), and Maguindanao (1640– 1775). Federspiel classifies these Muslim kingdoms into three political systems, namely “the vassal system, the hierarchy system, and the community model. … In all three systems[,] trade and entrepreneurship were highly regarded, and association with Islam and its proselytization was regarded as beneficial” (86). The differences among the three systems of Muslim kingdoms are merely in the ways that the Muslim kings ruled their kingdoms, such as autocratic, paternalistic, consultative, or dictatorial. These Muslim kingdoms encountered the Western nations that ventured into Southeast Asia for business, political, social, and religious goals. For example, the Portuguese defeated the Muslim kingdom in Malacca in 1511, the Dutch defeated the Portuguese in Malacca in 1641, and the Dutch expanded their powerful control and domination over other Muslim kingdoms in the Indonesian islands, such as Java and Sumatra and Riau, and the British dominated the Malay Muslim kingdoms in the Malay Peninsula. The second development in the Southeast Asian Muslim Zone was the hybrid Muslim customs and mores as the original and local customs and mores were still influential. In addition, the western colonizers also directly or indirectly introduced their customs and mores into the Muslim kingdoms under their political and economic controls. In the same period, the Muslim intellectuals and scholars began to develop a hybrid literature “incorporating Islamic themes and values that took their place alongside an older Indic literature” (87). 292 Journal of the American Academy of Religion

The third chapter is on “The Emergence of New Muslim Institutions (1800 to 1945).” The emergence of these new institutions was due to the western colonization of the Muslim kingdoms in Southeast Asia. This chapter is devoted to the Dutch, British, French, Spanish, American, and Japanese colonial systems in particular periods and particular areas in Southeast Asia. Due to the western colonial systems imposed on the Muslim kingdoms, their rulers or sultans had no real political, economic, and administrative rights and Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article/78/1/290/759120 by guest on 27 September 2021 powers. In Java and Sumatra, some Muslims and their leaders in particular periods and areas resisted the western colonizers for many years, but they were unable to win them over. The new Muslim institutions in 1800 up to 1945 were the institutions permitted by the western colonizers to exist or to continue to exist in the Muslim kingdoms under the direct or indirect control or super- vision of their colonizers. The Muslims were able to survive during the colonial systems and colonial period in Southeast Asia, although they were weakened and marginalized politically, economically, and culturally. The fourth chapter is on “Nation-States and Civil Values (1945–2000).” This chapter focuses on the Muslim kingdoms in Malaya, Indonesia, and Brunei. After the Japanese occupation was over, the Muslims began their struggle for independence from their colonizers, namely the British in Malaya and the Dutch in Indonesia. The British granted independence to Malaya on August 31, 1957, and later on Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore formed the Federation of Malaysia and attained independent status from the British in November 1963. In 1965, Singapore became independent from the Federation of Malaysia. The Indonesians proclaimed their independence from the Dutch on August 17, 1945, and formed the Republic of Indonesia. However, the Dutch transferred their sovereignty to the Indonesians in 1950. Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia are the Muslim-majority states after their independence from their western colonizers. Indonesian government and the constitution of 1945 prescribe civil values such as “belief in God the Only One,”“national- ism,”“democracy,”“humanitarianism,” and “social justice” (170). Malaysia also has those same civil values. The fifth chapter is on “Themes of Southeast Asian Islam.” It covers “Nine historical institutions relating to the Muslim Zone of Southeast Asia. … These institutions were chosen because they are most representative of a wider range of institutions that existed historically in the Muslim Zone” (241). The nine historical institutions in this chapter are the Sultanate, the judges and the law, shamanism, life-circle events, the cleric, the propagator, the mosque, the religious schools, and literature. This chapter also describes Islam and its contri- butions and accommodations, including indigenous, Middle Eastern, Asian, and Western influences. The three words “Sultans,”“shamanism,” and “saints” that form the first part of the book title are the main historical institutions among the Muslims in Southeast Asia. These three institutions are explained in the last chapter of the book. This book is very informative and useful, and Federspiel successfully supports his two premises, namely “Islam is a dynamic religion” and Islamic Book Reviews 293 values and norms have some direct influence upon Muslims. Scholars and students of Islam and Muslims in Southeast Asia welcome this book (3). It seems, however, that the book does not strictly adhere to the translitera- tion system of Arabic names according to the Library of Congress. For example, the book writes the Arabic names sirat al-mustaqin (64) and dai’ (247) without their diacritical marks. There are some inaccuracies in the book. For example, Federspiel writes, “In 1962[,] an independent Malaysia was Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaar/article/78/1/290/759120 by guest on 27 September 2021 formed, consisting of the Federation of Malaya, and three British Crown colonies—Sabah, Sarawak[,] and Singapore” (178). The correct date is 1963. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfp077 Ibrahim Abu Bakar (retired) Advance Access publication January 7, 2010 National University of Malaysia

Witnessing Suburbia: Conservatives and Christian Youth Culture.By Eileen Luhr. University of California Press, 2009. 269 pages. $19.95.

Luhr, an Assistant Professor of history at California State Long Beach, has written an important contribution to studies of evangelical culture and politics entitled Witnessing Suburbia: Conservatives and Christian Youth Culture. Her ambitious book examines the resonances among political evangelicalisms, suburban conservatism, post-1960’s youth (sub-)cultures, and identities crafted through resistance. Part of a growing literature that takes into account an “expanded understanding of political action” (171), Luhr’s text contends that “an interrogation of political inventions over public space tells only part of the story of how believers sought to protect their surroundings” (161). In substan- tiating these claims, Luhr takes in a great deal of material. Although some of her claims would have benefited from greater comparative and theoretical depth, the book is nonetheless an innovative and compelling contribution to the field. Luhr begins her account by noting the elision of two types that are central to the American imaginary (the maverick and the square, Elvis and Pat Boone). The emergence of rock itself, she claims, both solidified and challenged a certain normative model of (suburban) community, one in which conservative evangelicalism was transformed following the 1950s. Yet aside from oft-studied subjects such as Cold War domesticity and religious “influences” in popular culture, what compels Luhr are the appropriations of pop strategies of style and subculture in a broader “conversion mission to American society” (5). Although Luhr rightly notes (citing R. Laurence Moore and Colleen McDannell) that similar strategies have a long history in the United States, she carefully defines the way in which successive gener- ations of evangelical activists—working in between demonological and quietist positions—have met and wrestled with popular culture on its own ground. Her first chapter charts the fascinating history of Christian critics of rock music, beginning with the Peters brothers and the waves of record burnings