Talk:Tun Habib Abdul Majid

Contentious points
Noticed Druumbowe made three edits to the "descendants" sections which seperates Sultan Ali of Johor from the "house of Bendahara". He made the following points, from my observations of his edits:


 * Sultan Mahmud Muzaffar Shah was the Sultan of the Johor-Riau empire. Based on sources in google books as well as a few books which I personally have from the google book collection, Muzaffar Shah was the de jure head of the original empire, for by the Dutch and British who intervened in the Singapore founding had broken it up into two. See . A History of Johore, by R.O Winstedt, provides a genealogical tree in pg 185 showing Muzaffar Shah as the "Sultan of Lingga". By practice he has authority over Lingga and not over the other parts of the original empire.


 * Seperated Sultan Ali of Johor from the section of "House of Bendahara (Johor)]]. While Sultan Muzaffar was also descendewd from the Bendahara Sultans of Johor-Riau, it was Sultan Hussein who obtained the Johor regalia and hence the legitimacy as the head of the House of Bendahara (Johor). I admit that there was contention between Hussein (later his son Ali) with Muzaffar, as stated in . But again, it was with Sultan Hussein, rather than Muzaffar whom he ruled Johor. By then it was Temenggong Abul Rahman and not the Sultan who had power over Johor-Singapore , but the Temenggong swore allegiance to Hussein and not Muzaffar.


 * As for Sultan Ali of Johor, while Temenggong Ibrahim increasingly took power from the Sultan, but between Sultan Ali and Sultan Muzaffar it was Ali who seen as the legitimate ruler of Johor. As far as I see from the sources, Sultan Muzaffar, was not the head of the House of bendahara (Johor). Also, your edit to claim that "Sultan Ali" as the pretender was not substantiated. I did a book search, and sources explicitely saying that he had no powers was not proven. He did have a little power, and it was with the British which Sultan Ali and not Muzaffar issues dealings with. []

By matter of info, I would sincerely urge that you may be willing to discuss contentious issues so as to resolve any misunderstandings as a matter Assume good faith through discussion talks, so that we can create an article based on accountable facts Citing sources. I appreciate your reply, if you find it necessary. Thank you! Mr Tan (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Added more citations to clarify dubious points, with a partial rewrite of the section. Please consult me before making any factual ammendments so that we can jointly clarify conceptual misunderstandings and doubts. Thanks. Mr Tan (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe this will be of interest to you (added into citation): "Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (1936) ...Mahmud Muzaffar Shah, deposed by the Dutch from the throne of Lingga, appeared in Pahang in 1858, claiming to be the lawful ruler of that State and of Johor, as his ancestors had been before the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824. " Mr Tan (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
I have reedited the following paragraph:

'''The royal regalia was given to the Lingga-based Tengku Abdul Rahman who was supported by the Bugis nobles. After the affairs in Singapore, Bendehara Ali gave his legitimacy to this branch. The sultan later died in 1830 and was succeeded by his son, Mahmud Muzaffar Shah. . It was valid until its deposition in 1857. '''

'''Singapore treaty seem to split the Johor-Riau empire and its royal houses into two factions: as seen by the British, but it is not so in reality, Bendahara Ali's reply to Sultan of Johor, Sultan Mahmud Muzaffar in 1855 especially about the signed agreement between the Temenggung and the "Sultan Ali" reaffirmed Temenggung's hold on his fiefdom. This led to further British intervention in Pahang as the Bendahara is seen to be a hindrance to British imperial motives. '''

Firstly, the use of "Sultan Ali" should not be used as I had cited further sources that he had effective control and legitimacy over Johor as compared to Muzaffar. In citation 28, this source gives as follows, with the paragraph quoted:

Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (1936) "...Mahmud Muzaffar Shah, deposed by the Dutch from the throne of Lingga, appeared in Pahang in 1858, claiming to be the lawful ruler of that State and of Johor, as his ancestors had been before the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824." That said, Bendahara Ali may have given his support for Muzaffar as Sultan of the Johor Riau empire but in practice, he is not the Sultan. Now what do you mean by "legitimacy" here--please explain.

Secondly, please abide by the style consistency as per Mos, considering that the section uses bullets, please do not break the format of the article for consistency reasons.

Thirdly, this article is dedicated to Tun Habib and not to the legitimacy of the ruling houses over these dates. We have to abide by Summary style over limits on relevancy of topics. This disputes do not involve Tun Habib, but the descendants. If you might want to discuss the legitimacy issue during the 1850s, then by all means start a new articl, say, Disputes over the Johor throne in 1819 or any name which you might deem fit.

Looking thru citations which I have provided above, Muzaffar Shah is just a claimant to the Johor throne. We also have to assume a policy of NPOV. Especially for your sentence "It was valid until its deposition in 1857.", what do you mean by valid? Go to Google books and check again. How is the "valid" "legitimate"? Even if you were to say that the Bendahara's recognition provides legitimacy (by principle) to Muzaffar, can you prove that he is the soverign ruler? A Sultan who is granted approval of legitimacy to his rule but does not hold power still makes one a claimant and not a soverign. He is merely a Pretender; let me make this clear. In this case, Muzaffar was the soverign ruler of Lingga but not of Johor. To add on, speaking about Bendahara Ali, he did give co-recognition to Sultan Hussein Shah a few years after 1819. . Even if you were to insist your argument that Bendahar Ali recognition authority if rulers were paramount--which you did not provide any citations in Bendahara, doesnt that answer to your doubts of the split of the House of Bendahara? Take a look at the quoted long paragraph in my edit and if you think I am still wrong, then PLEASE explain to me why so.

Also, I mentioned "effectively split" which meant that the empire split into empire by practice, but not by name, which is exactly the case--as you had mentioned, but failing to meet Summary style guidelines. Citing, . Im afraid your refusal to explain is putting me in a difficult position.

I sincerely persuade you to discuss matters with me if you find that I am wrong in anycase, rather than insisting on your points through edits--I have yet to see any samples of your sources (in scanned pages, web scans or typed phrases), which on my part I showed samples to you on the contrary. Wikipedia policies demands that Dispute resolution any contentions, or conflict of understandings should be resolved by means of dialogue and discussions, not silence and revert wars over insistence of facts. After all, wikipedia is a place for knowledge exchange, not ignorance to a problem and forcing your way through without consensual dialogues. Admins have the authority to ban users if users show continued deliberate and conscious violations of policies. Mr Tan (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)