Talk:Minangkabau people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

"Islam now is so deeply rooted in their culture that being un-Islamic is equal to being un-Minang to them." is not an objective statement. Please provide examples in the article of how this is so, and how it applies today.

It does seem a particularly odd statement given the matriachal nature of Minangkabau society - ie, some might say that that is Un-islamic. Yes, i too question the value of it. --Merbabu 08:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what with it(matriarchal)? Look at this example: they have their own kind traditional 'headscarf', so almost all my minang friend (of course the girl) is using headscarf/hijaab(not the traditional style) at daily life. I think their un-islamic nature(gambling & alcohol) was drove out from their culture, except their matriarchal nature(if you consider being matriarchal is un-islamic).Aditthegrat 10:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
from http://kcm.co.kr/bethany_eng/p_code/1541.html : "The Minangkabau are 99% Shafiite Muslims. They are among Indonesia's most devoted Muslims, with many holding important positions in leadership. There are currently eight christian missions agencies targeting the Minangkabau; however, little progress has been made among them. The New Testament, the Jesus film, and Christian radio and television broadcasts are available in their language. Yet, there are only about 1,000 known believers. The Islamic religion is very difficult to penetrate.". I think that being a Christian missionary in West Sumatra could be a very dangerous job given that some Minang people have become violent in the past to rid the area of non-Islamic practices (see Padri War). The post-Padri war view of Minang culture/adat is "adat basandi syara', syara' basandi Kitabullah" - tradition founded upon Islamic law, Islamic law founded upon the Qur'an. (Caniago 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Minangkabau people are very devoted muslims but they will not become violent if someone wants to talk to them about christianity or any other faith. Minangkabau are not violent people. You cannot compare the time of the Padri wars (1821 - 1837) with present time, that's ridiculous. Besides, what makes you say Minangkabau adat is "post-Padri"? Could you give me a citation? Your citation of the adat (adat basandi syarak, syarak basandi Kitabullah) is nothing but an explanation where Minangkabau adat comes from. It is tradition founded on an islamic basis, which in turn comes from the book of God (Kitabullah), i.e. the Qur'an (maybe you confused syarak with sharia?). Matrilineal/matriarchal practices still exist (albeit in a less obvious way), there's nothing un-islamic about them.
To Aditthegrat: I don't know what kind of traditional headscarf you mean. Could you elaborate on that? In my personal experience, Minang girls either wear headscarfs (like the ones everyone else in Indonesia wears) or they don't. The traditional ones are only worn during festivities like weddings and such.
About the phrase at the top: Islam is so much part of Minangkabau culture that it probably is unthinkable to most Minangkabau that anyone who calls him/herself Minang would not be a muslim. MartijnL 11:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that for the most part Minang people are non-violent, as are most Indonesians, however there are some Minang with more extreme Wahhabist influenced views, just as there are in other parts of Indonesia. The Padri war is just the first instance of violence, there are plenty of other cases in Minang history of violence whether for religious reasons or not. My Minangkabau sources tell me that some Christian missions have been driven out of West Sumatra using violence in the last 20 years. There are even some references available for this on the web, for example "the pastor of the Padang congregation of Bethany Church, West Sumatra, paid with his life when his church was burned down." [1]. Even some local governments in West Sumatra, notably Padang, have been introducing laws over the last few years which display an intolerance toward people of non-Islamic religions, if only for political purposes. I did not say that the Minang adat did not exist pre-Padri war, indeed it existed even before Islam arrived in Sumatra. My understanding is that until the Padri war Minang adat was not based upon Islam (see [2]). (Caniago 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible religious bias[edit]

From the section "Adat and religion" (emphasis mine):

In this belief system, people were said to have two souls, a real soul and a soul which can disappear called the semangat.

This seems like it might be the view of the writer, not the view of the believers. Would adherents to these beliefs have called one of the souls a "real" soul, in contrast to the other one? I can't easily check the source.

I hope it's not being stated that there are such things as souls, as that is very much a disputed claim.

— Misha

216.254.12.114 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that there is no claim in the article about souls being real or not, the article is only intended to reflect the beliefs of the Minang people.

The use of the word "real" is indeed somewhat disputable. It seems to me that the "real" soul and the soul that can disappear are both very real to the Minang people. It is impossible to explain the different kind of souls from Islam as they come from the traditional beliefs from Indonesia. (It is not an opinion but a a fact that Islam was never able to completely root out the Indonesian traditional beliefs, hence the God Garoeda being the National Symbol of Indonesia and the name of the National Airline.)

In the traditional beliefs The Sengat, or Semengat is the human soul which can enter the dreamworld, together with the soul of physical objects and other beings. In the dreamworld the human soul can be attacked by the Antu, a form of spirits that are often, but not always, hostile to humans and that can cause sickness, death of the loss of wealth.

The traditional beliefs know 5 types of souls and also various kinds of gods and spirits. In the Adat (which is also not an islamic word, but a word that translates best to "tradition") these gods, are/were used in myths to explain nature and life in general.

-Peter- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.77.150.18 (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for suggesting some corrections: Sengat means sting (as in bee). It is not similar to Semangat (not Semengat), which means passion/zeal, i.e. the spirit to win challenges/tasks, not a soul. Garuda (Garoeda is the old spelling) has never been considered as god. It is just a vehicle animal of the Hindu God Vishnu. I agree that especially in the rural areas, the Indonesian traditional beliefs have not been rooted out completely by the coming of Islam, but for sure they are diminished. As for the name of the ghostly spirit, Hantu maybe is the more common spelling than Antu. I am a native Indonesian of Minangkabau descent. Rgds, XoXo (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuang people[edit]

It's incredible, the Zhuang look exactly like the Minangkabau, from costume, attire to houses. Do some researcj anyone. --79.67.219.244 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Minang were traveling people that estblished an empire along the shorelines of Asia and Africa. Minang culture and buildings can be found from Madagaskar to China. It is quite possible that the Minang were also (co)responsible for introdusing Islam into Indonesia, as they also had settlements in the Arab regions. The Minang were probably colonials that like, the Dutch later in history, had strongholds everywhere.

-Peter- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.77.150.18 (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without academic references, it is hard to believe the above comments. Their similarities are quite debatable. Rgds, XoXo (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notable Minang.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Notable Minang.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Nomination[edit]

There are a couple of citation needed tags on this article that have been present for a while (since 2007). I would suggest fixing those as soon as posible or it could be quickfailed. AIRcorn (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know how to add new section in talk, since that's my second wiki edit in 10 years, but i changed the captions between the pictures. It should be obvious why (men - and two boys - were captioned "people", women were captioned "girls") 89.75.190.235 (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minangkabau people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minangkabau people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On languages spoken: "Indonesian, Malay"? "Indonesian, Malaysian"?[edit]

I'm pretty sure "Indonesian" is on the same status as "Malaysian" being both variants of the same Malay language according to the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, the language regulatory board for Malaysia; thus, the labels of "Indonesian and Malay [languages]" are incorrect - which I believe exhibit a more nation-centric bias (The concept of an "Indonesian language" only existed after the Sumpah Pemuda of the 1920s, many centuries after the migration of Minangkabau to the Malay Peninsula) and not from neutrally lingusitic and anthropological standpoints.

Take this from a Malaysian user with some actual Minangkabau lineage myself...we do exist, and I hope Indonesian editors acknowledge this aspect.

--Anumengelamun (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flag for ethnic group[edit]

Hi @OmarOHiggins:. In your recent edits to this article, you have indicated in the summary that "The picture in the box must be the flag or coat of arms of an ethnic".
The reason that I have chosen to stick to photos that represent the ethnic group especially if it portrays them in their cultural settings instead of using flags or coat of arms because not all ethnic groups in Indonesia have their own flag or coat of arms.
Secondly, for the sake of uniformity within the scope of the Indonesian ethnic groups based articles, it be best to stick to the photos that closely represent the ethnic group culturally and anthropologically.
Thirdly, the photos that I've placed in the template are at the "|image=". If you really insist on using flags in the infobox, you may still do so with "|flag=" and "|flag_caption=" as seen in Template:Infobox ethnic group. You may also check that it is the same parameters that is used to place a flag in Germans and Czechs articles. Hence, no reasoning for the removal of the photo at "|image=".
Fourth, I have yet to see a wiki rule that specifically states that it is a must to only use flags or coat of arms for ethnic group based articles. As seen in the Template:Infobox ethnic group, there appears to be a distinction between "|image=" and "|flag=" with the example shown there. Also, nowhere coat of arms is mentioned in Template:Infobox ethnic group.
Fifth, based on the examples that you've given in the summary, the Germans and Czechs articles are also generally mono-ethnic nations (for the lack of a better term), although it could be too sketchy to get into the details of its specific demographics. Basically, an ethnic group with a set of culture, language, etc that also have their own country. Another example would be Japanese people. At present, the Minangkabau people do not have this status.
These are some of the points that I can think of at the moment. I look forward to your justification on using of the flag instead of a photo of the Minangkabau people themselves in the article. If there is no response, then I assume we should revert back to what it was previously. Thanks. -Jeblat (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC) [updated: Jeblat (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Population[edit]

Must be Minangkabau people. Don't count. Because it's obvious. Lots. Just count what you can.( Muhammad Nurfadhillah Iqbal.)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minangkabau_people&oldid=1205725022"