User talk:About the Sultan
United Alliance comment
[edit]UNITED ALLIANCE TO LIBERATE SABAH & PROTECT THE SPRATLYS!
Motto: Unity, Solidarity, Success, Prosperity (USSP)
Dear Friends, Noble Patriots and Protectors welcome to our group and be informed of our noble advocacy to liberate Sabah and to protect the Spratly Islands.
We present hereto the history of the unquestioned ownership of Sabah, Palawan and Spratly Islands Group since the year 1658 to this day that will benefit the Tausugs, the Filipinos and all natural justice loving peoples of the world.
Short History of The Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu and Why We Own Sabah and Spratlys Today?
Our Royal Patron is: His Majesty Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I, The Sultan of Sulu & The Sultan of Sabah, Head of Sultanate and Head of Islam, the 35th Reigning Sultan of Sulu and Sabah.
As from 2004 His Majesty Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I recognized as the true Sultan of Sulu and Sabah by the Moro National Liberation Front ("MNLF"), which today including reservists number over 300,000 troops, and on 30 January 2009, HM Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I also jointly recognized by His Majesty Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei and by H.E. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines.
On 15 June 2011, Sulu Governor H.E. Sakur Tan and the Sulu Provincial Board and Sulu Provincial Government also recognized and supported HM Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I as the legitimate Sultan of Sulu and Sabah.
The Royal Sultanate of Sulu is known to the world as “The Unconquered Kingdom” of the original Tausug Filipinos.
The Tausugs and the Filipinos own Sabah, Palawan and Spratly Islands as from 1658 to this day and we must and should recover Sabah from the illegal occupation by Malaysia and protect the Spratly Islands Group as they rightfully belong to all Filipinos and to no one else.
We say this because history and our legal rights as property owners are on our side.
The territorial rights of the Philippines are undeniably linked to the glorious and proud history of the Royal Sultanate of Sulu and Sabah that established the legal fact that Sabah, Palawan and Spratly Islands belonged to the Royal Sultanate of Sulu since 1658 to this day.
The Royal Sultanate of Sulu was founded by King Baguinda of the Tausugs in 1405 in Jolo, Sulu, from the remnants of the old Tausug kingdom of Butuan in Mindanao that rose to prominence in Mindanao at beginning of the 11th century and lasted up to end of 14th century that fell due to depletion of their commerce and trade.
The Tausugs of Butuan migrated to Sulu where they settled and founded their Tausug kingdom that became known as “The Unconquered Kingdom” of the original Filipinos.
The Tausugs never surrendered to the brutal genocidal Spanish conquest for over 377 years (1521 to 1898) of Muslim Philippines by the King of Spain and the Inquisition, that killed most Muslim men, women and children in their murderous conquest till the Muslims today only occupied a tiny portion of Mindanao.
In reality for hundreds of years before the successful conquest by a Basque nobleman Don Miguel Lopez Dux de Legazpi from Zumarraga, Guipozkua, Euskadi Herria, arrived in Muslim Philippines in 1564 after Magellan’s ill fated 1521 expedition, the Islamic Brunei Sultan ruled Luzon and Palawan, while the Visayas and Mindanao were ruled by the Islamic Sultan of Sulu (except at a later stage the sultanates of Maguindanao and Buayan).
In 1457 the Kingdom of Sulu became a sovereign Sultanate (Islamic Kingdom) nation state patterned after the Islamic sultanates in the Middle East.
We remind you that the Royal Sultanate of Sulu was the very first in the whole world in 1457 that installed the Tri-partite Form of Government with the Sultan (Islamic King) as Head of State, the Ruma Bichara as Congress or Legislature, and the Supreme Qadi as the Islamic Supreme Court Justice of the kingdom copied by the USA in 1776, the Philippines in 1946, and many other sovereign nations today.
For 493 years (from 1405 to 1898) the Kingdom of Sulu was a sovereign kingdom nation state the envy of the world, with a very strong economy, peace and order secured under the reign of the Sultan, with strong and powerful army, navy and marines without equal in the fields of battle.
That was why the Brunei Sultan asked his Royal cousin the Sulu Sultan who sent his over 2,500 battle tested Royal Tausug Army Expeditionary Force in 1658 to help end revolt in Brunei in exchange for gifts eternal to the Sulu Crown of SABAH and PALAWAN (including the SPRATLY ISLANDS being only 163 miles away from Palawan) which the Sultan of Sulu obliged successfully that made these two (2) dominions of Sabah and Palawan the properties of the Sulu Sultan to this day.
ALSO these gifts eternal from the Sultan of Brunei to the Sulu Crown made possible the ownership of the Sulu Sultan of the lands of Sabah and Palawan, and of course SPRATLY Islands Archipelago, because Palawan is a mere 163 miles away from Spratlys, while China is 800 miles away (glaringly outside the maximum 200 mile limit set by the Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ as prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), of which China was a signatory.
Malaysia’s claims on Spratlys are spurious and without basis as Malaysia’s stay in Sabah is illegal because Malaysia unlawfully occupied Sabah our precious land since 1963 to this day.
As a sovereign kingdom nation state for centuries recognized by other nations the Royal Sultanate of Sulu signed most favored nation treaties with foreign nations i.e. China, UK, Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, Malayan sultanates, Royal Sultanate of Brunei, Indonesian principalities, USA (two treaties), plus other kingdoms in Southeast Asia and had unbroken exchanges of diplomatic relations with these nations and kingdoms for centuries.
So we say without argument that the Tausugs knew effective governance as they alone was the first to invent the democratic form of government we all enjoy today.
The Tausugs also valiantly fought and did not surrender to the might and power of Spain (the superpower at the time) for over 377 years without surrender though other parts of the Philippines surrendered and were controlled by Spain from 1521 to 1898.
The courageous Tausugs of the Royal Sultanate of Sulu defied the US occupation in 1898 for years.
Thousands of Muslim Tausug of men, women and children were massacred by the US Army troops of Gen. Leonard Wood in 1906 in Bud Dajo, and under Brig. Gen. John J. Pershing in Bud Bagsak in 1911 (the first to use the .45 caliber pistols) against the Tausugs in a genocidal and brutal exercises as policy of the US Government, against an inferior group of people with their American superior guns and cannons that made the kris and spears of the Tausug warriors, obsolete.
On July 4, 1946, the USA added and annexed the Royal Sultanate of Sulu without referendum or plebiscite to the newly created independent Republic of the Philippines and it became a part of the Philippines as from 1946 to this day.
China is 800 miles away from the Spratly Islands proving China is outside the EEZ of the UNCLOS and thus has no legal rights to claim the Spratly group of islands.
Therefore, as per UNCLOS and the historical diplomatic and trade relations between China and the Royal Sultanate of Sulu for centuries established the unquestionable facts that the Spratlys belong to us since the year 1658, a total of 353 years of uninterrupted ownership up to the year 2011, of Sabah, Palawan and Spratlys by the Royal Sultanate of Sulu and the Philippines.
Nonetheless, the ownership of the Royal Sultanate of Sulu of its land of Sabah, Palawan and Spratly Islands in the year 1658 predated any spurious claims today of China, Malaysia, Vietnam and other nations.
These are some reasons why the Tausugs and the Filipinos own Sabah and Spratlys today and no one else.
Therefore it is our duty and of all peace loving peoples who believe in justice and fairness to recover and liberate Sabah from the illegal occupation of Malaysia from 1963 to this day, and it is our God given duty to protect our unquestioned ownership of Spratly Islands for the benefits of the Tausugs, of all Filipinos and mankind.
God is with us. God Defend the Right. Dieu Defend le Droit. Allahu Akbar!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.113.44 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I have redirected the article you have worked on to Sulu Sultanate. It is not usually good practice to just copy a web page (even one you might be the owner of) onto Wikipedia. Most often, that web page does not meet one of Wikipedia's core policies, include Verification, no original research, and neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, the type of information that you inserted must be accompanied by reliable sources, preferably books, journal articles, newspaper articles, etc, or the article could be in violation fo Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of living people. There are lots of rules here, and it can be overwhelming to figure them out in the beginning. I'd recommend you start by reading some of the policies I've linked, and then ask questions if you need to at the noticeboard for Biographies of Living People. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Changed reference sources in Philippines article
[edit]Today you changed the reference source [1] to The Unconquered Kingdom in the article on the Philippines. The information in the article came from the first source, not the second source, so I have restored the first source as the reference. If you want to place the second source in the article, you should consider providing some relevant new information in the article and give the second source as the reference. Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view policy and does not want to have fights over legitimacy in the general article. Questions as to which branch is the legitimate ruling family, are better dealt with in a separate section on that exact topic in the Sultanate of Sulu article. You could then cross reference that section in the Philippines article if you wish. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Gubernatoria! I do not mind if you use sorces from different family branches regarding the Sultanate of Sulu in the history of the Philippines. What I worry about is, that several of the historic facts given on the website you cite as source are not based on historic facts. The point of view of the last hundred years mentioned there, does not go confirm with the historical records and is not supported by Philippine or Malaysian authorities, both being the legitimate successor and holder of the royal and sovereign rights of the Sultanate. Furthermore there are errors in the ancient history, as, for example, no ancient Sultan has ever founded Royal Orders of knighthood as there is no record of this. The website is mixed of historic facts and propaganda.
- What do you think of this source, instead? http://www.seasite.niu.edu/Tagalog/Modules/Modules/MuslimMindanao/historical_timeline_of_the_royal.htm It comes from the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University and is correct, but just contains the history up to 1900. As you see, some statements are different to that of Fuads homepage. --About the Sultan (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did not use any source in that article. I did not input any information into that article. I am not aware of the validity of the competing claims of the royal family of Sulu. I am only pointing out that you cannot remove a reference which cites the source of the information, whether you agree with the political position of that source or not. That source is where the information came from, and you should not delete the name of the source, unless you can provide more accurate relevant information from another source. Citation is a requirement of Wikipedia. All information should be referenced showing where the information came from. If you put your re-written version below, including your reference [1], then I would be happy to look at both the current version and your new version. But I do not want to get involved in any argument about which is the legitimate branch of the royal family. On the other hand, that could be a good sub-article on the sultanate page, provided both sides of the claim are presented, if you wish to write it. Have a good day now, hear. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay! I understand your point. Thanks! Wishes --About the Sultan (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Invitation
[edit]Hello! I noticed some of your edits on List of sultans of Sulu, but I am very sad to inform you that I restored the original article as before. The paragraphs you inserted seems to be too POV and referenced into websites that belongs to the people involved in the pretenders section. If this is the case, as the sultan lineage is a very serious issue, I encourage you not to add references from such websites, but from legitimate news sources instead. Furthermore, you can join the discussion I opened on the article's talk page. Thanks.--JL 09 q?c 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Favonian (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]Message added 16:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Favonian (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
"Ending the Confusion"
[edit]I just wanted to make sure you understood why I am removing your edits to a number of talk pages. As per Wikipedia:Talk_page
- "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." --Brian Z (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)