The mistake by researchers on Pattani and Ayutthaya is that they always thought that Thais are descendent of the Siamese and all Thais themselves today think they are Siamese. In terms of people to country relationship this is correct but in term of monarchy to country relationship this is not so. The ruling Thai monarchy only came into power when Rama I, a Buddhist general was nominated as King after the attacked by Burmese Alaungphaya in 1767. Before this date, Siam was a Muslim empire ruling from Ayutthaya to the tip of peninsular Malaya and from Cambodia to Acheh. It form part of the Muslim Monggol Empire in India which is tributary to the Emperor of China (see map below, "Empire of the Great Monggol,1744")
Today, the Malays of peninsular Malaysia especially in the northern state of Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Pattani in Thailand are the descendent of that Siamese Kingdom, before Ayutthaya was attacked. Siamese language, not thai is still spoken in this state, up to Haadyai in Thailand. Meanwhile, the Thai's originate from Lannathai where the Sukhothai Kingdom, led by their king, Alaungpaya (and later on by Prince Hsinbyushin) was allowed to set up their small kingdom within Ayutthaya borders as a tributary state to Siam. They then attacked the Toung Oo Kingdom (in Burma) which is tributary to Siam in 1758, then in 1767 invade Ayutthaya from Burma. Historically today, the Burmese takes the blame for attacking Ayutthaya in 1767.
During the invasion, they burnt all documents, art treasures, the libraries and its literature, and the archives housing its historical records pertaining to Muslims Ayutthaya and claim the Ayutthaya Kingdom to be Theravada Buddhist simply because the Siamese Muslim history started much earlier in Kedah (pls. refers to Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa). From Burma they purchased weapons from the British through an agreement in 1760.
With these new weapons they then attacked Muslims Ayutthaya in 1767. Therefore after 1767, the Siamese should be address as Thai because Sukhothai (the invaders of Siam), are Theravada Buddhist. Thaksin or Mukhtar Hussin (governer city of thak, hence thaksin) the Ayutthaya Muslim military tactician and strategist, sided with Alaungpaya and ruled for a few years in Lopburi. He was soon killed in the years to come for ridiculous reasons and replaced by the Chakri Rama I, Yot Fa Chula Lok, the first Buddhist King of Siam, of Sukuthai descendent. In Siamese (not Thai) Chula Lok carries the meaning 'son of a minister'.
Historical records have shown that religious tolerance in administration in a multi religion and multi culture society only existed in Muslim Ayutthaya (during Narai tenure as King) but not in Buddhist Thailand under the Chakri Kings. If they do exist, like in Muslim Malaysia today, then the situation in Pattani will not be like it is today. Human Right’s Watch claimed that Thai police and armies practice ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Pattani. Theres nothing new about this tactics because the same technics were used much earlier when attacking Kedah, Patani and Kelantan, the northern state of peninsular Malaysia in 1821, 1832 and 1876.
Since 1992 Thailand HRW has consistently been reporting to the Geneva-based UN Commission on Human Rights, 34 cases of disappearance, excluding Somchai’s, the human right lawyer disappearance. This tactic is not new to the Thais when they came down to Kedah in 1821, under Rama II instruction to hunt and killed the last King of Ayutthaya, Boromoraja Ekataat V, Sultan Sharib Shah Monggol, and his relatives in order to finish off his bloodline. He was ruling as the Raja of Ligor from 1767 to 1821. Durind the attacked, even innocent children and pregnant women in Kedah were not spared and brutally massacred (Read Sherrard Osbourne, "My Jounal in Malayan Waters: Blockade of Quedah", 1861).
On the Ayuttahaya Kingdom,
MAHA TAMMARAJA II
“Siamese King Chau Pija Si Thammarat, Sultan Sarib Shah Monggol, Siamese King , render of Islamic Emperor Pasai Siam which is in Siamese language known as Cau Pija Si Thammarat, Sultan Sarib Shah Monggol, Hereditary from Raja Siam of Dynasty Pija Maha Zin Tadhu Toung Oo Siam and Raja Ayu The Ya India, Sultan Bahador Shah Monggol, Son in law of Raja Siam Toung Oo Siam”. The Islamic Siamese King started from 1350 - 1767 - , An Assumption Of Prof D.G.E Hall,“A HISTORY OF SOUTH EAST ASIA”, 1955 by Datuk Ismail Salleh, Kedah Historian.
In 1876 the Thai’s invaded Kedah again and murdered Ekataat’s grandsons, Sultan Jaafar Mad Azam Syah (then ruling in Nagara Kedah) and his younger brother, Tengku Nai Long Abu Taha and they ruled Kedah for 5 years until 1881. During the 5 years period of ruling Kedah, they demolished not less than 15 palaces belonging to the King of Siam, their ancestors palaces, carted away furniture’s, documents and valuables possessions belonging to the King and murdered his relatives in order to stop his bloodline. All this happens under the nose of the British who did nothing but support the slaughter. Conspiracies such as this should be expose not hidden from the knowledge of current generations.
Sultan Jaafar Mad Azam Syah or better known as Long Jaafar descendent today is Tuanku Nai Long Kasim ibni Tuanku Nai Long Ahmad, the last surviving Muslim King of Siam. Meanwhile the descendent of Tuanku Nai Long Abu Toha (Raja of Bagan Serai), the younger brother of Sultan Jaafar Mad Azam Syah is non other than the current Malaysian Prime Minister, Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Seeing on local TV, Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s official visit to Thailand in early 2007 and meeting up with King Bhumiphol Adulyadej, I wonder who should bow down to whom. Some of the royal Siamese families in the 1800’s survived by changing their names and become a commoner, living out of fear whether their identities have been discovered. The King’s tomb is now located in Kedah, well taken care by his ancestors and so is the sword and Crown of Ayutthaya with Islamic writings inscribed around the crown.
Meanwhile, the people of Pattani are not of Thai’s origin but actually Muslims Siamese just like the Malays of Kedah, Kelantan and Perlis. With the British propaganda in Malaya all Siamese, Minang, Bugis, Banjar, Javanese are known as one common race that is Malays or Melayu. Hence the people of Patani is also known as Melayu while in fact they are also Siamese like their cousins in the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia. The Patani people clearly state that they do not want to be ruled by the Buddhist Chakri kings and prefers and autonomy Muslim state. It is their right to do so because historically they were a tributary state under ‘The Muslim Empire of the Siamese Continent of Kedah Pasai Ma’.
Local and foreign historical researchers making claims that Thai are Siamese are the same simply shows their blatant disregard and insight into the actual fact of history. The Siamese people still exist today in the northern state of peninsular Malaysia. They are just like the Malays of other Malay states who have Javanese, Bugis or Achenese ancestors. The Siamese language which is spoken daily is totally different from the Thai language although it sounds almost similar to the ear. The writings have however, disappeared.
The Siamese in Kedah, Kelantan and Perlis were not forced to change their cultural identity through the 'Phibul Songgram' and‘Rathaniyom Policy’ of one race, one language, as what happen to the people of Pattani who doesn’t speak Siamese anymore (they speaks thai) but maintain their Muslim’s religion. Until today certain culture of the Siamese like washing their feet before going to bed, taboo to touch one’s head, yellow attire for the ruling Sultan’s is still practiced in Malaysia.
Meanwhile upon completing these policies, the country of Siam was change to Thailand, ‘land of the free’. With the killing in Pattani today, the international nation of the world wonder how does the government of Thailand today define the word free. The muslims cannot even use their Muslims names, unlike in Malaysia where non Muslims can use their own names. According to a former British officer of the Colony negotiating independence in the 1950’s,
“If the affairs in this world were settled by common sense and equity, I personally have no doubt what ever that Patani ought to be seperated from Siam (read as thai) and become part of Malaya. The inhabitants are 90% Malays and 90 % Mohamedans (in a Buddhist county). All their connections are with the south, and particularly with Kelantan, and the Siamese (read as Thai) record in Patani is one of dreary mis-rule interspersed with sporadic outbursts of actual tyranny. There is no doubt that where the wishes of the inhabitants lie, and a fair plebiscite (if one could be arranged) could only have one result. In the complex affairs of international politics, however, mere practical considerations of this mind do not find much place”.
Marcinkowski, M. Ismail, wrote,
“Apparently there exist other fragments of Thai chronicles which survived the sack of the Ayutthaya in 1767 at the hands of Burmese invaders but to which the present author has had no access”.
In “Kidnapping Islam? Some Reflections on Southern Thailand's Muslim Community between Ethnocentrism and Constructive Conflict-Solution”, Marcinkowski, M Ismail also wrote,
“Today, more than 50 mosques are still extant in Ayutthaya and its environs. Although the Muslim population in that region seems to be nowadays entirely Sunnite, the existence of such a large comparatively number of mosques in that area bears witness to the importance of Ayutthaya for the Muslims in the past”.
The Ayutthaya Siamese King history has to be revealed because their bloodline has strong relationship with the ruling Raja of Perlis, Sultan of Kedah (queda), Perak (beruas), Selangor, Johor (klangkeo), Pahang (paham), Terengganu (talimgano)Kelantan, Riau (banqa), Acheh, Pattani, Brunei, Sulu, Persian, Rome, the Monggol of India and the Emperor of China. No claims over any territory is necessary. Furthermore without the revealation, history of countries in the Malay Archipelago seems unfinished.
The history of Ayutthaya in Thailand and History of Malaysia should be rewritten in a truthful and sincere manner.
List of references
Farouk, Omar. "Shaykh Ahmad: Muslims in the Kingdom of Ayutthaya," in: JEBAT Journal of the History Department of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 10 (1980-81), pp. 206-14.
The Muslims of Thailand, vol.1: "Historical and Cultural Studies" (Gaya, Bihar/India: Centre for South East Asian Studies, 1988).
Muhammad Rabi‘ Ibn Muhammad Ibrahim. The Ship of Sulayman, transl. J. O’Kane (New York NY: Columbia University Press, 1972).
Kraus, Werner. "Islam in Thailand. Notes on the History of Muslim Provinces, Thai Islamic Modernism and the Separatist Movement in the South," in: Journal of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, vol. 5, no. 2 (July 1984), pp. 410-25.
Marcinkowski, M. Ismail. "Persian Religious and Cultural Influences in Siam/Thailand and Maritime Southeast Asia: A Plea for a Concerted Interdisciplinary Approach," in: Journal of the Siam Society, vol. 88, pt. 1-2 (2000), pp. 186-94.
Pipes, Daniel. The Hidden Hand. Middle East Fears of Conspiracy (Houndsmills and London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1996).
Wyatt, David. K. Thailand. A Short History (Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books, 1999, reprint).
T.N.L Kasim, T.N.L. Ahmad, Islamic Epigraphy, Historical Reality of Kedah,2006