This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Silat (Malaysian martial arts) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Today, the external link does not work. I will check it again next week, if it is still not working, I'll remove it. -- zeno 17:19, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art
Are there any keikogi-style uniforms for practicing Silat or can you wear any outfit? -- User:Angie Y.
Actually the most common uniform for silat is the costume commonly worn by Malay men in the 16th century. This includes trousers that traditionally reach the shins (today it usually reaches the ankles) and a round-collared, long-sleeved shirt with a plunging neckline. A waistband called the kain sampin is tied around the mid-section. This is a cloth tied to one side and can either be worn straight so it almost touches the knees, or folded up so it resembles a belt. The costume is completed with traditional Malay headgear. The costume is usually dark-colored in shades of red, blue or black but sometimes it comes in yellow or bright green. In modern times the trousers usually have rings near the bottom of the pants and an ugly vest (with or without sleeves) is sometimes worn over the shirt. The whole thing has a stiffer, almost starchy feel. The kain sampin is sometimes striped these days too. Yes, it was traditionally also practiced by women and they usually dressed the same way.
The history of Pencak Silat is like what Indon write and the history of SILAT is like what Iijam write -- User: St07003603.
What exactly is the history of Pencak Silat? How was it created? -- User:Angie Y.
There is no single art and so no single history as "Silat" properly refers to any fighting art indigenous to Indonesia. I'll skim through the ancient history of the movement of people into the archipelago in the first place (as it would be entirely speculative anyway) prefeace by pointing out that we are talking about millions (hundreds of millions) of people over a very geographically diverse region of spice islands which rarely had anything resembling a single government.
Out of these often unconnected villages, tribes, and kingdoms thousands of martial arts evolved... though there are some points that could be made (I need cites).
Realize that even the term "Silat" is not universally applied. There are many different languages and conventions throughout Indonesia, and two people in bascially the same art may not use the same names. That said, I've commonly heard Silat divided into three groups.
- Cultural arts (Pentjak Silat) - Combative arts (Pukilan Silat) - Mixed-Chinese arts (Kuntao)
The usage of these terms varies *heavily* and I don't think that nay noe side is correct over another.
The Cultural arts vary from extremely combatively effective to extremely ceremonial. As an example of the latter: Don Dreager mentions in [i]the Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia[/i] (cited from memory, feel free to fact-check) a style of silat used to ritually challenge a groom at a wedding for his bride (the challenger is supposed to loose).
Generally Indonesia was populated by isolated villages that alternately traded with / killed and ate members of other villages. As such, many of the Silat styles are village arts intended to be useable by both young and old, and with weapons normally carried (short and medium blades). This would be contrasted to, for example, Japanese arts which were often focused on a warrior caste (Samurai).
Though the region has been occupied by many foreign powers, the two most notable seem to be the Chinese and Dutch. The Chinese in particular settled in large numbers and brought with them fighting styles from Southern China. Over the years and generations, these were hybridized with the indigenous styles and there is a distinct group of Chinese-Indo styles of silat.
I'll see if I can expand later, someone feel free to clean this up -- Tensin 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Are there diagrams for any of the certain moves in Silat? Angie Y. 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm looking for information on the weapons. Angie Y. 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can pull something at least a little authoratative from Dreager's research. In the mean-time...
In modern useage, the most commone weapon is the knife. Most Silat styles are very focused on the short blade. Traditional weapons include the spear, medium blade, and short-bow. The arts are generally very inclusive, and I've seen "official" adaptations for Japanese Katanas and firearms. -- Tensin 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This article suffers from significant linkfarmitis, with most of the external links being nothing more than advertisements for individual Silat schools, offering little in terms of supporting information for the article itself. If someone else has the time to sort through them and delete the ones that fit this description, great. If not, I intend to do so when I get a chance. - Erik Harris 00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign; timestamp wrong)
What's a kipas? Angie Y. 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Since there is a belt system for other martial arts, is there a belt system for Silat as well? And if so, which colors—from lowest attainable rank to highest attainable rank—are used in the system? Angie Y. 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The belt system comes from Japan and traditionally other styles never used it. So, no, silat doesn't use belts but some modern schools colour the sash worn around the waist for the purpose of rank. I don't know what order the colours come in but I really don't think it's worth mentioning. Morinae 09:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In silat, it is more common to use a 'bengkung' which would be more like a sash as this would enable the item to be used as a weapon in combat (cindai, chendai) but most systems have belts to show how advanced the student is in the respective arts. Iijam 12:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
True, but the bengkung, belt or cindai as a ranking system is not a traditional part of silat. It's just a modern influence from Japanese and Korean styles. Morinae 08:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be an infobox. :) Angie Y. 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure whether the information about Silat in NL is correct since I live in the Netherlands and even though I practise Pencak, it is generally unknown and certainly not as popular or known as Karate. So I am not sure about what to do next. Is there a reference for that particular statement? -- Chingchuanchiu 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Would someone tell me why so much notable information has been removed since I last edited this article? It would have been better to at least mention it here first if anyone had a problem with it. Morinae 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a specific way of showing dasar pasang, langkah, and djurus? What are some of the positions and attacking techniques that a pesilat can use? What are they called? Angie Y. 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Silat is very lovely. Check out this beautiful video I found on YouTube!
Angie Y. 02:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of people who've only heard of but never seen silat get the idea that it's some kind of primal jungle style but that's just not the case. Even Tom Clancy's Net Force says at one point that "silat isn't pretty" but the Indian and Chinese martial arts that influenced silat were beautiful so it's only natural that the end result was too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.52.228 ( talk) 04:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to address the issue of pencak silat and silat here. Pencak or pentjak silat and Silat are different. Pencak Silat is the name of thousands of martial arts that hail from Indonesia. As for Silat, it is specifically for traditional martial arts that hail from the Malay Peninsula which is now Southern Tahiland and Peninsular Malaysia. I would like to ask for the original Silat article to be returned and re-named as Pencak Silat as that is the most appropriate title for it and the current Silat article be retained. Iijam 12:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
These are excerpts of articles written by Tuan Haji Anuar bin Haji Abd. Wahab, who from his Wikipedia page you can see, is the Grandmaster of Seni Gayung Fatani which has been acknowledged to be an original school of Silat Melayu or Silat by the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage of Malaysia. He been involved in silat for more than 20 years and developed the Kurrikulum Silat Melayu or Malay Silat Curriculum which was a general complete silat curriculum in all aspects which could be practiced by any school of silat in Malaysia.
Sulawesi is one of the four larger Sunda Islands of Indonesia and is situated between Borneo and the Maluku Islands. Thus a martial art hailing from here would be more aptly named as pencak silat. Even in the excerpt you provided it is stated that pencak or pentjak is more commonly used in Indonesia while seni or seni silat is more commonly used in Malaysia. The term Pencak Silat is more commonly used or heard as the art is more popular. This is due to the fact that there are thousands of aliran hailing from Indonesia, even in Malaysia and these styles are aptly named Pencak Silat.... depending on the style and pencak silat has expanded worldwide.
I believe that the proof i have given above is quite sufficient to demonstrate that Silat is a martial art form that hails from the Malay Peninsula where it is also known as Silat Melayu while Pencak Silat is a name to thousands of martial arts hailing from Indonesia. I hope that you will reconsider my earlier request to restore the Pencak Silat article. Iijam 08:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been checking these issues for a month. What can I say most of the Ijam works is based on the valid articles. I understand with Indon argument. But what can I see both of you have made this really works! For me, as Silat and Penchak Silat is two separate entity, it is better if both are you to concentrate on Silat (Iijam) and Pencak Silat(Indon). This is because no matter about publication, but based on my experience most of Pencak silat handbooks in early fifties until seventies is not a good publication materials, bBut still people referred to this publication as their sources. I have checked all Iijam sources and it’s all from good publication. And for you Indon some of your sentence you should write from where you get the information. — St07003603 ( reply) — 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is totally bias. The source is only taken from Malaysian publications and worse that they cannot be verified. I'm sure there are thousands of verifiable-and-reliable publications about Silat or Pencak Silat. Using only a few sources from limited geographical boundary will only provide limited view of the article. I put the tag while I'm trying to find other sources to ensure the neutrality and balance view. — Indon ( reply) — 08:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The sources are completely Malaysian becuse the martial art comes from the Malay Peninsula. If there are sources outside Malaysia that refer to Silat instead of Pencak Silat that you know of, they would be greatly welcome. Iijam 09:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope so. Although in my opinion the words "silat" and "pencak silat" refer to same discipline of a martial art form in malay archipelago.We can't deny the fact that both Indonesian and Malaysian people have its own perspective on it. -castromariachi-
i try to post some articles of Pencak Silat, my object is to give balance between Indonesian and Malaysian perspective. I respect both Indonesian and Malaysian style practioners.Salam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castromariachi ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
sure thing :) bro -castromariachi-
User Iijam unilaterally separated this article with Pencak Silat while others are trying hard to combine these two article which are actually referring the same. The limited view of Iijam from Malaysian POV brings this article into non-neutral encyclopaedia article, which confuses general readers. We need consensus about this. I propose to merge the two articles. — Indon ( reply) — 07:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: I would just like to repeat, for the benefit of those who have recently joined the discussiond and have not read this:
These are excerpts of articles written by Tuan Haji Anuar bin Haji Abd. Wahab, who from his Wikipedia page you can see, is the Grandmaster of Seni Gayung Fatani which has been acknowledged to be an original school of Silat Melayu or Silat by the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage of Malaysia. He been involved in silat for more than 20 years and developed the Kurikulum Silat Melayu or Malay Silat Curriculum which was a general complete silat curriculum in all aspects which could be practiced by any school of silat in Malaysia.
Pencak Silat and Silat have different histories as can be seen in both articles. They both contributed to nationalism in their respective countries. Besides that, original styles from the Malay peninsula have similar traits and conform (to a certain extent) to an overall curricula that defines their persona, such as clothes, (all styles from here wear the baju melayu, samping, tengkolok and bengkung) music, (all styles from here have the gendang as silat music) and the performance of silat pulut (a.k.a silat tari, silat cantik, silat jatuh, gayung pulut). All true and original styles from the malay peninsula have the above whilst pencak silat styles are diverse and have a variety of costumes, use the gamelan or saluang and do not perform silat pulut. Despite the vast range of silat styles in pencak, they too conform to common traits such as country of origin, absence of silat pulut and silat music used. Thus, one can see that these two may come from the same source but are individual arts with regards ro their cultural traits and history. I believe this warrants for a split in the articles and that my above quotes provide the reason as to why the style from the malay peninsula is called silat whilst the style from Indonesia is called pencak silat (as approved by the indonesian govt.) Iijam 13:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
After some discussion above, it turns out that Malaysian editors insist to have silat as the article name to explain all forms of Malay martial arts, while others tend to have silat as a general article. To accommodate the Malaysian's POV, Caniago has created a fork for Malaysian Malay martial art form. Thus, the result of merge discussion as follows:
Thank you for all editors that have contributed in the discussion. The discussion above will be put in the Talk:Silat article as reference. — Indon ( reply) — 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I also firmly brlieve that there should be a disambiguation page for this as well. Angie Y. 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess that a disambiguation page wouldn't be a bad idea but I think it's important for this article to be renamed Silat Melayu. Morinae 10:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For various reasons there has been a sort of rivalry between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia dating back to the time of their independence from European colonialism. This is particularly so with the Malays of Malaysia and Indonesia which were supposed to be negara serumpun (nations with one root). As a result, all these countries have tried in their own ways to prove that they are distinct from one another. This is common among countries which share the same or similar cultures such as India and Pakistan. Those acquainted with modern Asian history will be familiar with the Islamic Revival which was a political call for Muslim-dominant countries to adopt a stricter, more fundamentalist from of Islamic rule. It didn't hit South or Southeast Asia until the 1980s but it has now affected Muslim communities even in countries where they are the minority. A good example is the origin of silat. During the 60s and 70s Malaysians would avoid association with Indonesia by tracing their silat styles to some Chinese or Indian martial art. Today it's fashionable for Malaysian pesilat to claim that their master's cousin's sister's husband is half Arab. Whether it's true or not they say it so their style has a Middle Eastern/ Islamic connection and no link to icky places like Indonesia or China. The rivalry between Malaysia and Indonesia is thought to be one of the many factors for why the Islamisation movement was more easily accepted in the former than the latter. Today Malaysians seem to have forgotten what Malay culture is and filled in the gaps with Islam to make themselves unique. Putrajaya for example utilizes Arab style architecture because a Malay design would look too Indian, too Minangkabau, too Thai. Compare that to the building's Indonesian equivalent. And while Indonesians are proud of such Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms as Majapahit and Mataram, Malaysians only ever trace their history back to 15th century Melaka partly because it became a Muslim sultanate soon after its founder's death. Ask an Indonesian what was their traditional script before the English alphabet arrived and they'll probably say Javanese or the Sanskrit-based Kawi. Pose the same question to a Malaysian and they'll unhesitatingly answer Jawi, avoiding the fact that even Melaka continued to use the old Indian script long after Islam dominated. Politics had an even bigger role in promoting this way of thinking but I won't get into that. Keeping all this in mind, it was inevitable that sooner or later the effects of Islamisation and polarisation between the Malay cultures would show up in the Wikipedia articles. The prime example here is the split of the Silat article into three but that is by no means the only case. When the Malaysia article reffered to the country's ancient kingdoms, it previously read "these were probably originally Hindu or Buddhist" as if there was ever any doubt of their religion (the word "probably" has since been removed). I can give many, many other examples but I'm trying to get to the silat articles at hand. In the Silat article there are a number of mistakes written in the part on history. One sentence says that silat was originally practiced only by men in the suraus and the art was spread along with Islam. I don't think any historian would agree with this. Let's make it clear that silat was created before Islam arrived in Southeast Asia so it couldn't have spread entirely via the religion. The association between martial arts and places of worship would have come to the Malay peninsula from the Indians or Chinese. It's most likely that silat was taught within the temples as part of a child's education, the same as in the rest of Indo-China. Even after Islam became widespread, it merged with instead of replacing traditional Malay culture (the opposite of what's happening today). It would be logical that after suraus took the temples' place, they still served as educational centres where martial arts would likely have been taught. But this doesn't change the fact that silat was practiced in the Hindu-Buddhist temples before any mosques or suraus were built on Malay soil at all. And the claim that women originally didn't practice silat is a downright lie. It's a controversial fact that Islam changed the role women previously had in Southeast Asian society. It was common for Hindu-Buddhist women to rule a country and, just as in Angkor, they were in charge of the family businesses. The latter is still practiced in some communities like the Minangkabau whose society was traditionally matriachal. It goes without saying that these women were also allowed to practice martial arts just as in India and China from where Malay culture was derived. In fact ancient Indonesian legend says that silat was created by a woman. It's common in many styles that there are certain aspects of training where women and men must be separated. Even today in Chinese Taiji for example although men and women train together, a female practicioner generally does not practice tuishou (pushing hands) with a male simply for practical reasons and not because of religion. This could easily apply to silat especially if training took place in a gender-segregated surau. However, Malay women have always practiced silat and even as recently the 70s you could find kampung (villages) where almost everyone practices the local form of silat regardless of gender. The exponents would all train together but sparring was usually between members of the same sex. Iijam previously tried to show the difference between silat's spirituality in Malayisa and Indonesia by saying that pencak silat has elements of Hinduism and Buddhism but silat Melayu is more Muslim and compliant with the syariah (interestingly he said that Malaysian silat was "tainted" by the Hindu-Buddhist influence). This article also has a paragraph taken from The Malay Art Of Self Defence stating that spirituality in silat is based on Islam and in some regions may have influences from Hinduism, Buddhism and Kejawen. This isn't really a regional difference but a generational one. Not too long ago there wasn't a very noticeable difference between silat's spiritual side in Malaysia or Indonesia. After all, many silat styles practiced in Malaysia came from Indonesia. As has been mentioned, Islam had to carve itself a niche in an already well-established Malay culture so the people originally absorbed the new religion into their own culture sphere. This was possible because the traditional Asian faiths (Hinduism, Daoism, etc) are actually more similar to life philosophies than religions in the western sense. Back when people actually lived their own cultures, they saw nothing contradictory about being a Muslim while following Buddhist principles for example (although most Malays today would probably consider this deviant). Therefore it would be more accurate to say that silat philosophy is based on traditional faiths with Muslim undertones. After the Islamic revival, a lot of silat masters tried to Islamise their art to make it more marketable. It must also be remembered that most styles of silat practiced today aren't that old. This is understandable since the Malay archipelago was colonised for centuries. A lot of the newer styles were created or at least passed on by a generation growing up in the 80s who are more used to seeing Malay girls wearing the tudung (headscarf) than their parents are. They imbue the styles with more Islamic elements because they can't tell the difference between what is Malay and what is Muslim. Rural forms of silat usually have more history and Silat Pattani is considered one of the oldest and most authentic styles of silat Melayu. What was the Pattani sultanate is now split between northern Malaysia and southern Thailand. There was always a large Buddhist population here and this would have its influence on silat. Unfortunately, the PAS government forbids any un-Islamic elements in Malay culture which has forced traditionalists to abandon such practices as meditating in the lotus position which is still done in Indonesia. So the reason for Muslim influence on some Malaysian silat styles is not their land of origin but their age. I think we should stick to what are traditional aspects of the art and keep modern interpretations to a minimum so as not to confuse anyone. And on the above mention of headscarves, they're more common in Malaysia than Indonesia. I imagine that one day someone will claim the tudung to be a traditional part of Malay attire and cite it as an example of the difference between Malaysian and Indonesian clothes even though it is not customary in either country. I'm not trying to fan the fires of rivalry between countries or to denounce Islam and I certainly am not trying to insult anyone here but I just thought people should be aware of where these articles are heading so they can be improved. Morinae ( talk) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Silat (Malaysian martial arts) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Today, the external link does not work. I will check it again next week, if it is still not working, I'll remove it. -- zeno 17:19, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_martial_art
Are there any keikogi-style uniforms for practicing Silat or can you wear any outfit? -- User:Angie Y.
Actually the most common uniform for silat is the costume commonly worn by Malay men in the 16th century. This includes trousers that traditionally reach the shins (today it usually reaches the ankles) and a round-collared, long-sleeved shirt with a plunging neckline. A waistband called the kain sampin is tied around the mid-section. This is a cloth tied to one side and can either be worn straight so it almost touches the knees, or folded up so it resembles a belt. The costume is completed with traditional Malay headgear. The costume is usually dark-colored in shades of red, blue or black but sometimes it comes in yellow or bright green. In modern times the trousers usually have rings near the bottom of the pants and an ugly vest (with or without sleeves) is sometimes worn over the shirt. The whole thing has a stiffer, almost starchy feel. The kain sampin is sometimes striped these days too. Yes, it was traditionally also practiced by women and they usually dressed the same way.
The history of Pencak Silat is like what Indon write and the history of SILAT is like what Iijam write -- User: St07003603.
What exactly is the history of Pencak Silat? How was it created? -- User:Angie Y.
There is no single art and so no single history as "Silat" properly refers to any fighting art indigenous to Indonesia. I'll skim through the ancient history of the movement of people into the archipelago in the first place (as it would be entirely speculative anyway) prefeace by pointing out that we are talking about millions (hundreds of millions) of people over a very geographically diverse region of spice islands which rarely had anything resembling a single government.
Out of these often unconnected villages, tribes, and kingdoms thousands of martial arts evolved... though there are some points that could be made (I need cites).
Realize that even the term "Silat" is not universally applied. There are many different languages and conventions throughout Indonesia, and two people in bascially the same art may not use the same names. That said, I've commonly heard Silat divided into three groups.
- Cultural arts (Pentjak Silat) - Combative arts (Pukilan Silat) - Mixed-Chinese arts (Kuntao)
The usage of these terms varies *heavily* and I don't think that nay noe side is correct over another.
The Cultural arts vary from extremely combatively effective to extremely ceremonial. As an example of the latter: Don Dreager mentions in [i]the Weapons and Fighting Arts of Indonesia[/i] (cited from memory, feel free to fact-check) a style of silat used to ritually challenge a groom at a wedding for his bride (the challenger is supposed to loose).
Generally Indonesia was populated by isolated villages that alternately traded with / killed and ate members of other villages. As such, many of the Silat styles are village arts intended to be useable by both young and old, and with weapons normally carried (short and medium blades). This would be contrasted to, for example, Japanese arts which were often focused on a warrior caste (Samurai).
Though the region has been occupied by many foreign powers, the two most notable seem to be the Chinese and Dutch. The Chinese in particular settled in large numbers and brought with them fighting styles from Southern China. Over the years and generations, these were hybridized with the indigenous styles and there is a distinct group of Chinese-Indo styles of silat.
I'll see if I can expand later, someone feel free to clean this up -- Tensin 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Are there diagrams for any of the certain moves in Silat? Angie Y. 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm looking for information on the weapons. Angie Y. 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can pull something at least a little authoratative from Dreager's research. In the mean-time...
In modern useage, the most commone weapon is the knife. Most Silat styles are very focused on the short blade. Traditional weapons include the spear, medium blade, and short-bow. The arts are generally very inclusive, and I've seen "official" adaptations for Japanese Katanas and firearms. -- Tensin 19:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This article suffers from significant linkfarmitis, with most of the external links being nothing more than advertisements for individual Silat schools, offering little in terms of supporting information for the article itself. If someone else has the time to sort through them and delete the ones that fit this description, great. If not, I intend to do so when I get a chance. - Erik Harris 00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign; timestamp wrong)
What's a kipas? Angie Y. 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Since there is a belt system for other martial arts, is there a belt system for Silat as well? And if so, which colors—from lowest attainable rank to highest attainable rank—are used in the system? Angie Y. 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The belt system comes from Japan and traditionally other styles never used it. So, no, silat doesn't use belts but some modern schools colour the sash worn around the waist for the purpose of rank. I don't know what order the colours come in but I really don't think it's worth mentioning. Morinae 09:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In silat, it is more common to use a 'bengkung' which would be more like a sash as this would enable the item to be used as a weapon in combat (cindai, chendai) but most systems have belts to show how advanced the student is in the respective arts. Iijam 12:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
True, but the bengkung, belt or cindai as a ranking system is not a traditional part of silat. It's just a modern influence from Japanese and Korean styles. Morinae 08:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be an infobox. :) Angie Y. 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure whether the information about Silat in NL is correct since I live in the Netherlands and even though I practise Pencak, it is generally unknown and certainly not as popular or known as Karate. So I am not sure about what to do next. Is there a reference for that particular statement? -- Chingchuanchiu 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Would someone tell me why so much notable information has been removed since I last edited this article? It would have been better to at least mention it here first if anyone had a problem with it. Morinae 09:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a specific way of showing dasar pasang, langkah, and djurus? What are some of the positions and attacking techniques that a pesilat can use? What are they called? Angie Y. 02:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Silat is very lovely. Check out this beautiful video I found on YouTube!
Angie Y. 02:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of people who've only heard of but never seen silat get the idea that it's some kind of primal jungle style but that's just not the case. Even Tom Clancy's Net Force says at one point that "silat isn't pretty" but the Indian and Chinese martial arts that influenced silat were beautiful so it's only natural that the end result was too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.52.228 ( talk) 04:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to address the issue of pencak silat and silat here. Pencak or pentjak silat and Silat are different. Pencak Silat is the name of thousands of martial arts that hail from Indonesia. As for Silat, it is specifically for traditional martial arts that hail from the Malay Peninsula which is now Southern Tahiland and Peninsular Malaysia. I would like to ask for the original Silat article to be returned and re-named as Pencak Silat as that is the most appropriate title for it and the current Silat article be retained. Iijam 12:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
These are excerpts of articles written by Tuan Haji Anuar bin Haji Abd. Wahab, who from his Wikipedia page you can see, is the Grandmaster of Seni Gayung Fatani which has been acknowledged to be an original school of Silat Melayu or Silat by the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage of Malaysia. He been involved in silat for more than 20 years and developed the Kurrikulum Silat Melayu or Malay Silat Curriculum which was a general complete silat curriculum in all aspects which could be practiced by any school of silat in Malaysia.
Sulawesi is one of the four larger Sunda Islands of Indonesia and is situated between Borneo and the Maluku Islands. Thus a martial art hailing from here would be more aptly named as pencak silat. Even in the excerpt you provided it is stated that pencak or pentjak is more commonly used in Indonesia while seni or seni silat is more commonly used in Malaysia. The term Pencak Silat is more commonly used or heard as the art is more popular. This is due to the fact that there are thousands of aliran hailing from Indonesia, even in Malaysia and these styles are aptly named Pencak Silat.... depending on the style and pencak silat has expanded worldwide.
I believe that the proof i have given above is quite sufficient to demonstrate that Silat is a martial art form that hails from the Malay Peninsula where it is also known as Silat Melayu while Pencak Silat is a name to thousands of martial arts hailing from Indonesia. I hope that you will reconsider my earlier request to restore the Pencak Silat article. Iijam 08:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been checking these issues for a month. What can I say most of the Ijam works is based on the valid articles. I understand with Indon argument. But what can I see both of you have made this really works! For me, as Silat and Penchak Silat is two separate entity, it is better if both are you to concentrate on Silat (Iijam) and Pencak Silat(Indon). This is because no matter about publication, but based on my experience most of Pencak silat handbooks in early fifties until seventies is not a good publication materials, bBut still people referred to this publication as their sources. I have checked all Iijam sources and it’s all from good publication. And for you Indon some of your sentence you should write from where you get the information. — St07003603 ( reply) — 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is totally bias. The source is only taken from Malaysian publications and worse that they cannot be verified. I'm sure there are thousands of verifiable-and-reliable publications about Silat or Pencak Silat. Using only a few sources from limited geographical boundary will only provide limited view of the article. I put the tag while I'm trying to find other sources to ensure the neutrality and balance view. — Indon ( reply) — 08:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The sources are completely Malaysian becuse the martial art comes from the Malay Peninsula. If there are sources outside Malaysia that refer to Silat instead of Pencak Silat that you know of, they would be greatly welcome. Iijam 09:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope so. Although in my opinion the words "silat" and "pencak silat" refer to same discipline of a martial art form in malay archipelago.We can't deny the fact that both Indonesian and Malaysian people have its own perspective on it. -castromariachi-
i try to post some articles of Pencak Silat, my object is to give balance between Indonesian and Malaysian perspective. I respect both Indonesian and Malaysian style practioners.Salam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Castromariachi ( talk • contribs) 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
sure thing :) bro -castromariachi-
User Iijam unilaterally separated this article with Pencak Silat while others are trying hard to combine these two article which are actually referring the same. The limited view of Iijam from Malaysian POV brings this article into non-neutral encyclopaedia article, which confuses general readers. We need consensus about this. I propose to merge the two articles. — Indon ( reply) — 07:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: I would just like to repeat, for the benefit of those who have recently joined the discussiond and have not read this:
These are excerpts of articles written by Tuan Haji Anuar bin Haji Abd. Wahab, who from his Wikipedia page you can see, is the Grandmaster of Seni Gayung Fatani which has been acknowledged to be an original school of Silat Melayu or Silat by the Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage of Malaysia. He been involved in silat for more than 20 years and developed the Kurikulum Silat Melayu or Malay Silat Curriculum which was a general complete silat curriculum in all aspects which could be practiced by any school of silat in Malaysia.
Pencak Silat and Silat have different histories as can be seen in both articles. They both contributed to nationalism in their respective countries. Besides that, original styles from the Malay peninsula have similar traits and conform (to a certain extent) to an overall curricula that defines their persona, such as clothes, (all styles from here wear the baju melayu, samping, tengkolok and bengkung) music, (all styles from here have the gendang as silat music) and the performance of silat pulut (a.k.a silat tari, silat cantik, silat jatuh, gayung pulut). All true and original styles from the malay peninsula have the above whilst pencak silat styles are diverse and have a variety of costumes, use the gamelan or saluang and do not perform silat pulut. Despite the vast range of silat styles in pencak, they too conform to common traits such as country of origin, absence of silat pulut and silat music used. Thus, one can see that these two may come from the same source but are individual arts with regards ro their cultural traits and history. I believe this warrants for a split in the articles and that my above quotes provide the reason as to why the style from the malay peninsula is called silat whilst the style from Indonesia is called pencak silat (as approved by the indonesian govt.) Iijam 13:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
After some discussion above, it turns out that Malaysian editors insist to have silat as the article name to explain all forms of Malay martial arts, while others tend to have silat as a general article. To accommodate the Malaysian's POV, Caniago has created a fork for Malaysian Malay martial art form. Thus, the result of merge discussion as follows:
Thank you for all editors that have contributed in the discussion. The discussion above will be put in the Talk:Silat article as reference. — Indon ( reply) — 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I also firmly brlieve that there should be a disambiguation page for this as well. Angie Y. 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess that a disambiguation page wouldn't be a bad idea but I think it's important for this article to be renamed Silat Melayu. Morinae 10:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For various reasons there has been a sort of rivalry between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia dating back to the time of their independence from European colonialism. This is particularly so with the Malays of Malaysia and Indonesia which were supposed to be negara serumpun (nations with one root). As a result, all these countries have tried in their own ways to prove that they are distinct from one another. This is common among countries which share the same or similar cultures such as India and Pakistan. Those acquainted with modern Asian history will be familiar with the Islamic Revival which was a political call for Muslim-dominant countries to adopt a stricter, more fundamentalist from of Islamic rule. It didn't hit South or Southeast Asia until the 1980s but it has now affected Muslim communities even in countries where they are the minority. A good example is the origin of silat. During the 60s and 70s Malaysians would avoid association with Indonesia by tracing their silat styles to some Chinese or Indian martial art. Today it's fashionable for Malaysian pesilat to claim that their master's cousin's sister's husband is half Arab. Whether it's true or not they say it so their style has a Middle Eastern/ Islamic connection and no link to icky places like Indonesia or China. The rivalry between Malaysia and Indonesia is thought to be one of the many factors for why the Islamisation movement was more easily accepted in the former than the latter. Today Malaysians seem to have forgotten what Malay culture is and filled in the gaps with Islam to make themselves unique. Putrajaya for example utilizes Arab style architecture because a Malay design would look too Indian, too Minangkabau, too Thai. Compare that to the building's Indonesian equivalent. And while Indonesians are proud of such Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms as Majapahit and Mataram, Malaysians only ever trace their history back to 15th century Melaka partly because it became a Muslim sultanate soon after its founder's death. Ask an Indonesian what was their traditional script before the English alphabet arrived and they'll probably say Javanese or the Sanskrit-based Kawi. Pose the same question to a Malaysian and they'll unhesitatingly answer Jawi, avoiding the fact that even Melaka continued to use the old Indian script long after Islam dominated. Politics had an even bigger role in promoting this way of thinking but I won't get into that. Keeping all this in mind, it was inevitable that sooner or later the effects of Islamisation and polarisation between the Malay cultures would show up in the Wikipedia articles. The prime example here is the split of the Silat article into three but that is by no means the only case. When the Malaysia article reffered to the country's ancient kingdoms, it previously read "these were probably originally Hindu or Buddhist" as if there was ever any doubt of their religion (the word "probably" has since been removed). I can give many, many other examples but I'm trying to get to the silat articles at hand. In the Silat article there are a number of mistakes written in the part on history. One sentence says that silat was originally practiced only by men in the suraus and the art was spread along with Islam. I don't think any historian would agree with this. Let's make it clear that silat was created before Islam arrived in Southeast Asia so it couldn't have spread entirely via the religion. The association between martial arts and places of worship would have come to the Malay peninsula from the Indians or Chinese. It's most likely that silat was taught within the temples as part of a child's education, the same as in the rest of Indo-China. Even after Islam became widespread, it merged with instead of replacing traditional Malay culture (the opposite of what's happening today). It would be logical that after suraus took the temples' place, they still served as educational centres where martial arts would likely have been taught. But this doesn't change the fact that silat was practiced in the Hindu-Buddhist temples before any mosques or suraus were built on Malay soil at all. And the claim that women originally didn't practice silat is a downright lie. It's a controversial fact that Islam changed the role women previously had in Southeast Asian society. It was common for Hindu-Buddhist women to rule a country and, just as in Angkor, they were in charge of the family businesses. The latter is still practiced in some communities like the Minangkabau whose society was traditionally matriachal. It goes without saying that these women were also allowed to practice martial arts just as in India and China from where Malay culture was derived. In fact ancient Indonesian legend says that silat was created by a woman. It's common in many styles that there are certain aspects of training where women and men must be separated. Even today in Chinese Taiji for example although men and women train together, a female practicioner generally does not practice tuishou (pushing hands) with a male simply for practical reasons and not because of religion. This could easily apply to silat especially if training took place in a gender-segregated surau. However, Malay women have always practiced silat and even as recently the 70s you could find kampung (villages) where almost everyone practices the local form of silat regardless of gender. The exponents would all train together but sparring was usually between members of the same sex. Iijam previously tried to show the difference between silat's spirituality in Malayisa and Indonesia by saying that pencak silat has elements of Hinduism and Buddhism but silat Melayu is more Muslim and compliant with the syariah (interestingly he said that Malaysian silat was "tainted" by the Hindu-Buddhist influence). This article also has a paragraph taken from The Malay Art Of Self Defence stating that spirituality in silat is based on Islam and in some regions may have influences from Hinduism, Buddhism and Kejawen. This isn't really a regional difference but a generational one. Not too long ago there wasn't a very noticeable difference between silat's spiritual side in Malaysia or Indonesia. After all, many silat styles practiced in Malaysia came from Indonesia. As has been mentioned, Islam had to carve itself a niche in an already well-established Malay culture so the people originally absorbed the new religion into their own culture sphere. This was possible because the traditional Asian faiths (Hinduism, Daoism, etc) are actually more similar to life philosophies than religions in the western sense. Back when people actually lived their own cultures, they saw nothing contradictory about being a Muslim while following Buddhist principles for example (although most Malays today would probably consider this deviant). Therefore it would be more accurate to say that silat philosophy is based on traditional faiths with Muslim undertones. After the Islamic revival, a lot of silat masters tried to Islamise their art to make it more marketable. It must also be remembered that most styles of silat practiced today aren't that old. This is understandable since the Malay archipelago was colonised for centuries. A lot of the newer styles were created or at least passed on by a generation growing up in the 80s who are more used to seeing Malay girls wearing the tudung (headscarf) than their parents are. They imbue the styles with more Islamic elements because they can't tell the difference between what is Malay and what is Muslim. Rural forms of silat usually have more history and Silat Pattani is considered one of the oldest and most authentic styles of silat Melayu. What was the Pattani sultanate is now split between northern Malaysia and southern Thailand. There was always a large Buddhist population here and this would have its influence on silat. Unfortunately, the PAS government forbids any un-Islamic elements in Malay culture which has forced traditionalists to abandon such practices as meditating in the lotus position which is still done in Indonesia. So the reason for Muslim influence on some Malaysian silat styles is not their land of origin but their age. I think we should stick to what are traditional aspects of the art and keep modern interpretations to a minimum so as not to confuse anyone. And on the above mention of headscarves, they're more common in Malaysia than Indonesia. I imagine that one day someone will claim the tudung to be a traditional part of Malay attire and cite it as an example of the difference between Malaysian and Indonesian clothes even though it is not customary in either country. I'm not trying to fan the fires of rivalry between countries or to denounce Islam and I certainly am not trying to insult anyone here but I just thought people should be aware of where these articles are heading so they can be improved. Morinae ( talk) 09:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)