Prang sabi

Properties2
tagsconcept, achehnese, religious, military, resistance, doctrine, acheh, islam, war, atjeh, aceh-war, 19th-century, colonial, islamic, aceh, prang-sabil, jihad, religion, parliament, 1897, event, political, acehnese, muslemin, holy-war, jakeuet, ulama, conflict
aliasesPrang Sabil, Perang Sabil, the Atjehnese holy war, holy war (Atjeh), sabil, sabililah, jihad, Acehnese holy war, de prang sabil, war of the sabil, heilige oorlog, Holy War, Heiligen Krijg, Heiligen Oorlog, geloofsoorlog, djihad, fi sabil Allah, Sabil Allah, Sabilillah, Prang sabil as understood in the Tweede Kamer (1897), prang sabil in the 1897 debate, heilige oorlog Atjeh 1897, the holy war of Atjeh in Dutch parliamentary debate, Holy War against the Dutch, Jihad against the Dutch, Sabilullah, Holy War in Acheh, Holy War (Jihad) against the Dutch, Heiligen-oorlog Atjeh, Holy War Atjeh, Jihad Atjeh, Atjeh Jihad, Prang sabi (Holy War), Sabi war, Sab'il Allah, War in the way of God, Sabilbenden

23 min read

Prang sabi (Atjèhnese, from the Arabic fi sabil Allah, “in the path of God”; English “holy war”) is the Atjèhnese term for the religious duty, incumbent on every Muslim in time of conflict with the infidel, of taking up arms against the kaphé (unbeliever) — a duty that, in Atjèh, attained a prominence and an intensity “to a higher degree inherent in the Acehnese than in most of their co-religionists elsewhere, who, taught by experience, have set it aside as no longer of this time.” The doctrine is the central religious concept of Atjèhnese resistance — the thread that runs from the Atjèh War of 1873–1904 through the Bakóngan uprising and the Lhóng action of 1933 to the Japanese invasion of 1942 — and the reason the colonial army could not, by arms alone, end the resistance.

The hikajat prang sabi

The religious duty of prang sabi was inculcated through the hikajat prang sabi — the prose-poetic “incitement to holy war so notorious from the Aceh War period.” Piekaar records a characteristic verse: “If we do not reconcile with the unbelieving Dutchmen, they are our hereditary enemies for all time.” The text, “published by Damsté and translated in the Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië (volume 84, p. 545 ff.), had apparently lost none of its old persuasive power and still formed the primary means to incite the believers to become fighters on God’s path.” Its recitation was a capital instrument of religious mobilisation, and was accordingly forbidden by the Japanese from 1942.

The doctrine: scope and intensity

For the Atjèhnese, prang sabi was “a pious duty imposed by Islamic law.” Panglima Polem of Seulimeum — the great resistance leader — considered “the acceptance of the authority of the infidel (Atj. kaphé) … an abomination and the conduct of the holy war (Atj. prang sabi) a religious duty.” The fighter who fell in its performance became a sjahid (Arabic shahīd, “witness of faith”): the badge of honour that the Tiriō family and their followers claimed in each generation.

G. W. T. Dames, in Oom Ambon van het K.N.I.L., registers the doctrinal nuance: “Het is wel volgens de Koran aan te tonen, dat er in de hele Atjeh-oorlog geen sprake is geweest van een werkelijke heilige oorlog” — by the Koran it can be shown that there was no true holy war in the whole Aceh War — “maar Tgk. Sjech Saman di Tiri was wel van die mening geweest.” The distinction is between the doctrinal question of whether the war as a whole qualified as prang sabi and the lived conviction of the Tiriō family and their followers that it did.

The doctrine in action: the refusal of submission

The doctrine made the Tiriō bende uniquely hard to break. When, at Generaal Swart’s request, the three voornaamste Atjehse hoofden — two Sultans-family members and Panglima Prang Polim — wrote urging submission, the Teungkoes “bespraken de brief, doch besloten tot het einde te vechten; hen zou geschieden naar Allah’s wil.” The religious resisters would not accept the authority of the Sultan’s former army commander to override their doctrine of prang sabi: political authority had no standing against religious conviction.

When the widow of Teungkoe Asan Oeleë Toetooë went into the bergen to urge the young Tgk. Tjhi Ma’at to submit, the boy refused: “Zijn Vader was als geloofsgetuige gevallen, hij zou in diens voetstappen treden. Allah’s wil zou geschieden.” The doctrine of prang sabi made submission not just dishonourable but sinful: the boy’s father had fallen as a geloofsgetuige, and the boy would follow in his footsteps.

The sjahid and the paradijs

The doctrine of prang sabi is paired with that of sjahid — the martyr of the faith — and the paradijs (paradise). When Tgk. Tjhi Ma’at was killed on 3 December 1911, the book frames it: “Hier had Tgk. Tjhi Ma’at het lot van zijn Vader, zijn ooms en zovele andere verwanten gedeeld; hij was sjahid, geloofsmartelaar in de heilige oorlog geworden.”

The widow of Teungkoe Asan Oeleë Toetooë put the doctrine to luitenant Schmidt directly: her husband “in de heilige strijd was gevallen door zijn eigen vrije wil; u was slechts het werktuig in Allah’s hand, dat hem het paradijs deelachtig deed worden.” Schmidt, on this doctrine, was merely the instrument in Allah’s hand by which her husband had been granted the paradijs. The widow did not hold Schmidt responsible; the doctrine absorbed the responsibility and made the death a gift.

The relics at Tangsé

When the corpse of Tgk. Tjhi Ma’at was carried out to Tangsé, “de bevolking van Tangsé liep uit naar de begrafenis. Het verband en de doeken, waarin het lijk was gewikkeld, werden in honderden stukjes gescheurd en meegenomen als heilige reliquiën.” The tearing of the relics is the book’s quiet acknowledgement that the boy’s death, far from extinguishing the doctrine, made it a permanent feature of the country’s religious memory. The sjahid’s relics would protect their bearers; the doctrine of prang sabi had passed from the living resisters into the material culture of the bevolking.

Prang sabi and the Japanese invasion

In 1942 the duty of prang sabi was reawakened across Atjèh. The Japanese occupation was hailed with “kaphé ploeëng, daja taniOng” — “the unbelievers have fled, the anti-Christ has arrived.” Yet the Japanese, “completely unfamiliar with the country and people … would come into conflict with the same Atjèhnese religious fanaticism that had been their ally in driving out the Dutch infidels.” Already in August 1942 a recitation of the hikajat prang sabi in the subdistrict Lhó’ Soekón triggered the first serious encounter between Japanese authority and Atjèhnese religious fanaticism — the precursor of the Bajoe rising suppressed in blood in November 1942. The occupation regime repeatedly attempted to suppress the prang sabi idea; the hikajat prang sabi was banned from 1942; but “the Acehnese nature was not denying itself.”

Significance

Prang sabi is the central religious concept of Atjèhnese resistance. It explains why the colonial army could not, by arms alone, end the resistance: it had to wait for the last heir of the doctrine to fall. The generational arc of the Tiriō family — from Teungkoe Sjech Saman di Tiri to the boy Tgk. Tjhi Ma’at, an infant when his father fell in 1896 and the last leader of the bende when he died in 1911 at fifteen — is the human face of the doctrine. The tearing of the relics at Tangsé is the book’s quiet acknowledgement that the doctrine, far from being extinguished by the killing of its last heir, was made permanent in the country’s religious memory.

Account from Schets eener parlementaire geschiedenis (1955)

The following account is drawn from the parliamentary history of the Dutch Second Chamber as narrated by Vermeulen in the colonial section of the 1955 fourth revised edition of Rengers’s *Schets*.

Prang Sabil — Acehnese: prang sabil, “holy war” — is the Atjehnese doctrine of religious war against the infidel invader, invoked in the Vermeulen-period parliamentary debates principally by Rutgers van Rozenburg (lib.) in his 1904 defence of the conduct of the Atjeh-oorlog ([[1873-1904)|Atjeh-oorlog]]. The prang sabil doctrine was, in the Idenburg-Snouck Hurgronje reading, the religious frame within which the Atjehnese resistance was organised; its neutralisation was, accordingly, a principal political aim of the pacificatie.

The Rutgers van Rozenburg reference

In the 1904 Tweede Kamer debate on the expedition of Van Daalen Rutgers van Rozenburg (lib.) defended even the cutting-in-two of slain Atjehnese as a means to disarm the prang sabil preaching of the Atjehnese priests:

“Wanneer een officier, een hoofdofficier of zelfs de gouverneur-generaal, om aan de Atjehse priesters hun voornaamste wapen bij het prediken van de prang sabil (heilige oorlog) uit de hand te slaan, last geeft gesneuvelde Atjehers in tweeën te deelen, ten einde de overlevenden te doen inzien, dat zij met het vechten vóór hun priesters en tégen de kompanie nog niet zeker zijn van hun entree in de Turkse hemel, ja dan is het te betreuren … dat het daartoe komen moest, doch … dan is dit niet alleen verschoonbaar en misschien gewettigd, maar kan het door ‘s lands belang en nooddwang geboden, kan het zelfs plicht zijn”.

The prang sabil doctrine is, in this argument, the principal religious weapon of the Atjehnese resistance; the cutting-in-two of slain Atjehnese is the brutal counter-measure by which the doctrine’s hold on the Atjehnese imagination is broken.

The Idenburg-Snouck Hurgronje reading

Idenburg (a.r.), minister of Colonies — following the argument of Snouck Hurgronje — maintained in the same 1904 debate that Islam forbade the faithful to submit to any authority that had not proven its “onwrikbare overmacht” — unshakeable superiority. The prang sabil doctrine was, on this reading, the religious expression of this refusal. The women and children who sacrificed themselves during the Van Daalen expedition had done so under the influence of religious fanaticism: Van Daalen, it was argued, had made the futility of the struggle clear in advance.

Significance

The prang sabil doctrine is, in the Vermeulen retrospective, the religious frame within which the Atjehnese resistance was organised. Its neutralisation — either by the brutal counter-measures advocated by Rutgers van Rozenburg or by the demonstrative “overmacht” advocated by Idenburg-Snouck — was a principal political aim of the pacificatie.

Account from De onderwerping van Atjeh (Van Heutsz, 1893) — the prang sabil as religious-political apparatus

Van Heutsz’s 1893 tract treats the sabil — sabililah in the full Arabic form, in the Acehnese war-formula prang sabil (“war of the sabil”), in Van Heutsz’s tract also written sabil and rendered in Dutch as the heilige oorlog — as the conceptual hinge on which the religious-political apparatus of the Acehnese resistance turns. Invoked from the Koran by Tengkoe di Tirou — the Sjech Saman di Tiro who, after the Concentratie of 1884, gradually placed himself at the head of the Groot-Atjeh resistance — the prang sabil supplied the religious-political apparatus by which the war-party sustained the resistance after the Van der Heijden conquests of 1878–1879 had been reversed and the Koran’s injunction against submission to an unbeliever became, in Van Heutsz’s diagnosis, the religious predicate the post-1884 cajoleering-decade had failed to overcome.

Tengkoe di Tirou’s appointment as gevolmachtigde van den sultan

The prang sabil is, in Van Heutsz’s narrative, the religious office Tengkoe di Tirou came to exercise after the 1884 Concentratie. The institutional form of the office was Tengkoe di Tirou’s appointment as gevolmachtigde van den sultan — plenipotentiary of the sultan — for “alle zaken den godsdienst betreffende” — all matters touching religion — which included the prang sabil. Van Heutsz records the appointment on page 97 of the 1893 tract:

“Na onze concentratie is Tengkoe di Tirou (ik bedoel hier Sjech Saman, niet de eerste Tengkoe di Tirou-Sjeeh Abdoel Salem bin Djaäli, opvolger van Sjech Marabahan), zooals men weet er door zijne energie en onvermoeide werkzaamheid in geslaagd, om zich geleidelijk aan ‘t hoofd van het gansche verzet op Groot-Atjeh te stellen en de meeste bendehoofden aan zijne algemeene leiding te doen gehoorzamen, terwijl zijne daarop gevolgde aanstelling tot gevolmachtigde van den sultan om alle zaken den godsdienst betreffende, ook de prang sabil dus, in diens naam te regelen, hem tevens als ‘t ware een wereldlijke vlag in handen gaf, vooral tegenover ons”.

The appointment is, in Van Heutsz’s diagnosis, doubly significant. First, it places the prang sabil — the conduct of the holy war — under the religious authority of a single gevolmachtigde whose authority derived from the sultan and whose office was, in form, a religious and not a territorial one. Second, the appointment gave Tengkoe di Tirou what Van Heutsz calls a wereldlijke vlag — a worldly flag — against the Dutch: the religious authority to command the resistance was, in the Acehnese constitutional order, also a political authority, and the prang sabil was the form in which the two converged. The post-1884 resistance in Groot-Atjeh was, in this sense, a resistance unified under the prang sabil’s religious-political authority, and Tengkoe di Tirou was its gevolmachtigde.

The Koranic justification: the geloovige against the ongeloovige

The prang sabil is, in Van Heutsz’s diagnosis, the religious predicate sustained by the Koran’s own injunction against submission to an unbeliever. Van Heutsz records the invocation on page 40 of the 1893 tract, in the catalogue of the post-1884 cajoleering-decade’s failures:

“in weerwil, dat vooral Tengkoe di Tirou met den koran in de hand de geloovigen met succes aanspoorde tot volharding in den strijd tegen den ongeloovigen indringer, vooral nu deze allerwegen blijk had gegeven van zwakte en onmacht; in weerwil, dat — wat de Regeering toch wel weten zal — de koran zelf voorschrijft, dat een geloovige zich nooit anders aan een ongeloovige mag onderwerpen, dan genoodzaakt door dwang”.

The invocation is doubly grounded. First, Tengkoe di Tirou, met den koran in de hand — with the Koran in hand — exhorted the geloovigen — the faithful — to volharding in den strijd tegen den ongeloovigen indringer — perseverance in the struggle against the unbeliever invader — with succes, because the Dutch had everywhere given evidence of zwakte en onmacht — weakness and impotence. Second, the koran zelf — the Koran itself — prescribes that a geloovige — a believer — may never submit to an ongeloovige — an unbeliever — except when genoodzaakt door dwang — compelled by force. The prang sabil is, in this double grounding, both an active invocation (the geloovigen are exhorted to persevere) and a passive prohibition (the geloovige may not submit): the war is, in the Acehnese ulama’s reading, both a duty of perseverance and a prohibition of submission, and the two together constitute the religious-political apparatus by which the resistance was sustained.

The Dutch response, in Van Heutsz’s diagnosis, must therefore be the operational counter-predicate: the dwang — compulsion — that the Koran itself names as the only legitimate ground of submission. The dwang is, in Van Heutsz’s prescription, the scheepvaartregeling-cum-closure that would, by cutting the toevoer of rice, arms, and opium to the interior, produce the nood — the necessity — that the Koran itself authorises as the ground of submission. The prang sabil’s religious-political authority is, in this sense, the predicate the scheepvaartregeling-cum-closure was designed to overcome: not by religious counter-argument but by the operational dwang the Koran itself recognises — the same “onwrikbare overmacht” (unshakeable superiority) Idenburg would invoke in the 1904 Tweede Kamer debate.

Religious authority and the unity of the resistance

The prang sabil’s authority is, in Van Heutsz’s diagnosis, the unifying religious office that held the post-1884 Groot-Atjeh resistance together under a single command. The bendehoofden — the band-leaders — who commanded the onze linie omringende sagi’s en moekims — the Sagi’s and mukims surrounding our line — were, in Van Heutsz’s catalogue on page 97, drawn from the XXII, XXVI, XXV and VI Moekims, and were unified by the algemeene leiding — general leadership — of Tengkoe di Tirou. The unity was, however, a religious unity, not a territorial one: the bendehoofden obeyed Tengkoe di Tirou as the sultan’s gevolmachtigde for “alle zaken den godsdienst betreffende, ook de prang sabil dus”, and the prang sabil was the form in which their obedience was constituted.

The unity was, in Van Heutsz’s narrative, broken by Tengkoe di Tirou’s over-reach into the worldly authority of the panglima sagi XXVI. Van Heutsz records the breaking on page 98:

“Na den dood van Tengkoe di Tirou, die plotseling overleed, niet lang nadat hij zich had laten verleiden om, sterk als hij zich voelde, in te grijpen in het wereldlijk gezag van den panglima sagi XXVI, door het gewapenderhand steunen van het weerspannige hoofd van Boengtjala tegen diens wettig moekimhoofd T. Atoe en zijn panglima sagi T. Lamreng, was de algemeene band verbroken, en moeten de verschillende bendehoofden sedert ieder voor zich handelen”.

The prang sabil’s religious unity was, in this over-reach, transmuted into a worldly intervention — the armed support of the weerspannige hoofd of Boengtjala against his wettig moekimhoofd — and the algemeene band of the resistance was broken. The post-Tengkoe-di-Tirou resistance was, in Van Heutsz’s diagnosis, the fragmented form the religious-political apparatus of the prang sabil could no longer sustain.

The fanatieken and the priesters

The prang sabil’s operational form, in Van Heutsz’s diagnosis, was the fanatieken — the fanatics — who were opgezweept door priesters — driven on by priests — and formed into the benden — bands — that attacked the Dutch line. Van Heutsz records the form on page 97: “Het is een samenraapsel van allerlei gelukzoekers, menschen zonder vast verblijf of werk, voorts fanatieken, die zich door priesters laten opzweepen en ook doet hier en daar de gewone bevolking mede”. And on page 63: “Ontstaat ergens verzet, dan zijn het niet de wettige hoofden met de kustbevolking, maar fanatieken, opgezweept door priesters en tot eene bende gevormd”. The fanatieken were, in this diagnosis, the operational form the prang sabil took on the coast: not the wettige hoofden with the kustbevolking but the fanatieken the priesters had opgezweept and formed into benden.

The Dutch response, in Van Heutsz’s prescription, was therefore to separate the fanatieken from the wettige hoofden: the scheepvaartregeling-cum-closure was to coerce the wettige hoofden into co-operation against the fanatieken, by making the hoofden’s revenues dependent on Dutch-controlled trade. The prang sabil’s religious-political authority was, in this sense, the predicate the scheepvaartregeling-cum-closure was designed to dissolve: not by religious counter-argument but by the fiscal leverage that would convert the wettige hoofden from the fanatieken’s passive supporters into their active opponents — the political complement of the religious dwang the Koran itself authorises.

Significance of the Van Heutsz account

The sabil’s significance in the Aceh Wiki History record, in Van Heutsz’s 1893 diagnosis, rests on four things: it was the Islamic concept of holy war by which the Acehnese ulama, led by Tengkoe di Tirou after the 1884 Concentratie, rallied the geloovigen against the Dutch “ongeloovigen indringer” — and so the religious-political apparatus by which the post-1884 resistance was unified under a single religious command; it was the concept whose Koranic justification — “de koran zelf voorschrijft, dat een geloovige zich nooit anders aan een ongeloovige mag onderwerpen, dan genoodzaakt door dwang” — fixed the Dutch response as the operational dwang of the scheepvaartregeling-cum-closure, the only ground of submission the Koran itself authorises; it was the concept whose religious unity was broken by Tengkoe di Tirou’s over-reach into the worldly authority of the panglima sagi XXVI — the over-reach whose effect was to shatter the unified command of the post-1884 resistance and to fragment the bendehoofden into their separate commands; and it was the concept whose operational form — the fanatieken opgezweept door priesters — fixed the Dutch prescription as the separation of the wettige hoofden from the fanatieken by the fiscal leverage of the scheepvaartregeling. The sabil is, in Van Heutsz’s narrative, the religious-political predicate the twenty-year policy oscillation had failed to overcome, and the operational counter-predicate — the dwang the Koran itself authorises — the 1893 tract prescribes.

Account in Hooijer’s De verlaten posten in Groot-Atjeh (1897)

Prang sabi — the holy war, whose adherents formed the Sabilbenden or sabil bands of Dutch usage — was the religious framework of Achehnese armed resistance in Groot-Atjeh, invoked throughout De verlaten posten in Groot-Atjeh as the motive of the Moslemin.

The sabil bands

G. B. Hooijer recorded that the 2,400 auxiliaries assembled under Toekoe Djohan on 2 November 1893 were to drive de Sabilbenden out of the XXVI Moekims, and that the kampong (village) of Hoengtjala was die voorraadschuur en veilige wijkplaats der sabilbenden — the storehouse and safe refuge of the sabil bands — before it was given over to plunder and fire.

Leadership and self-devotion

The spiritual leader of the Achehnese in den heiligen strijd was, in Hooijer’s account, the oelama Teungkoe di Tiro, succeeded by his son Mad Amin. The most striking instance of self-devotion he recorded was at Senelop, where the sister of the late Habib Samalanga held the command and zich met 15 andere fanatieke vrouwen ten dood had gewijd — had devoted herself to death with fifteen other fanatical women.

At Anagaloeng the defenders were led in their last defence by champions excited by opium, shrieking and leaping like madmen. Hooijer acknowledged, in describing the fighting at Kroeng Kali and Kota Toeankoe, that the Achehnese defended himself behind his walls met mannenmoed en doodsverachting — with manly courage and contempt of death.

Account from H. F. Meijer (1883) — prang sabil in the year of the Habib’s return

H. F. Meijer, in Atjeh van 26 December 1875 tot 4 September 1876 (1883), records the holy war in the making, in the year after the Habib’s landing: Prince Toengkoe Bintara Kamangan of Gigiëng, after his outward peace had begun to fail, invited the heads of his realm to collect money for the prang sabil against the Netherlands — a report brought to the Dutch by the well-disposed moekim head Toekoe Imam of Gigiëng and one of the foundations of the breach of 19 August 1876.

The same account shows the war’s preacher at the meetings of Groot-Atjeh: the Habib’s written declarations, taken from the chiefs of the three Sagis in 1876 and confirmed by oaths, expressly framed the continuance of resistance as duty.

See Also

Account from Land en Volk van Atjeh Vroeger en Nu

Acehnese term for holy war; proclaimed in July 1896 against the Dutch. Oelamas preached itinerantly, whipped up the population, and collected income portions from co-religionists for the war chest. The Gajo’s supported the war party by contributing rice for the prang sabil.

Source: J. Jongejans, Land en Volk van Atjeh Vroeger en Nu (Baarn: Hollandia Drukkerij N.V., c. 1938), pp. 357, 371, 402.

Sources

Atjèh and the War with Japan, by Dr. A. J. Piekaar, translated from the Dutch original Atjèh en de oorlog met Japan (1949) (‘s-Gravenhage/Bandung: N.V. Uitgeverij W. van Hoeve; English edition), Glossary, Chapter I § 1, Chapter III § 3, Chapter VII § 2, Chapter IX.

Oom Ambon van het K.N.I.L., by G. W. T. Dames, Maj. Inf. K.N.I.L. b.d. (‘s-Gravenhage: Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 1954), chapter “De colonne Schmidt.”

Schets eener parlementaire geschiedenis van Nederland van 1849 tot 1901, by Mr W. J. van Welderen baron Rengers, 4th rev. ed., Vol. IV: Oost-Indië 1891-1918 by Dr W. H. Vermeulen (‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1955), pp. 271-272, 277.

De onderwerping van Atjeh, door J. B. van Heutsz, Majoor der Infanterie, gewezen Chef van den Staf in Atjeh en Onderhoorigheden. ‘s-Gravenhage: De Gebroeders van Cleef; Batavia: G. Kolff en Co., 1893, esp. pp. 40, 63, 92, 97, 98. OCR-filename: 20260718_105749_DLP-107-De_onderwerping_van_Atjeh_Nemotron-OCR-v2_OCR.txt. Atjeh, door H.C. Zentgraff. Gedrukt bij Drukkerij “De Unie”, 1938, Batavia. OCR-filename: 20260709_002148_DLP-81-Atjeh_OCR.txt. ATJEH ‘96, door A. Kruisheer, Kapitein der Infanterie O.I.L., met 2 kaarten en 4 portretten (Weltevreden: N.V. Boekhandel Visser & Co, 1913). Instituut Kern, Leiden. OCR-filename: 20260715_163243_DLP-89-Atjeh_96_Met_2_kaarten_en4_DOORA_KRUISHEER_Kapiteinder_Infanterie_nemoretriever-ocr-v1_OCR.txt, pp. 45, 231. Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer: Debatten bij de behandeling der begrooting van Nederlandsch-Indië voor 1898, uitgave van de Sociaaldemokratische Arbeiderspartij in Nederland (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897). Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Br P95-178, pp. 11–12, 23, 42, 57. Acknowledgement of sources. This article combines material from the publications cited above; the material newly added derives from Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897) and Een strijd in Atjeh (Rotterdam: N.V. Drukkerij Korteweg for the Vereeniging „SIMAVI”, 1934). Dutch passages are quoted in the original with an English rendering. The Achehnese, Vol. I, by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, translated by A.W.S. O’Sullivan, indexed by R.J. Wilkinson. Leyden: E.J. Brill, 1906. De Islaam in Indonesië (in het bijzonder op Java), by Drs. R. L. Mellema. Mededeling No. LXXVII, Afd. Volkenkunde No. 25. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Vereniging “Indisch Instituut,” 1947. “De zakaat, de 3e zuil van de wet,” pp. 34–36; and Register, s.v. oelama “(wetgeleerden in Atjeh).” De Atjeh-Oorlog: Kort Overzicht van Oorsprong, Verloop en Gevolg, door J. A. Kruijt. ‘s-Gravenhage: Loman & Funke, 1896. Chapter V (the Habib Abdul Rachman return), Chapter VIII (the 1881 preaching), Chapter IX (the Muslemin constitution), Chapter XI (Snouck Hurgronje’s diagnosis). OCR-filename: 20260716_140310_DLP-101-De_Atjeh_oorlog_Nemotron-OCR-v2_OCR.txt, pp. 22, 41, 49, 62.

De verlaten posten in Groot-Atjeh, door G. B. Hooijer, Gep. Luit.-Kolonel O. I. Leger, met 24 platen (Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn; Batavia: G. Kolff & Co., 1897). Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Centrale Boekerij, Amsterdam. OCR-filename: 20260719_140140_DLP-134-De_verlaten_posten_in_Groot_Atjeh_Nemotron-OCR-v2_OCR.txt, pp. 32, 36, 48, 53.

Acknowledgement of sources. This article is a single consolidated account combining the material previously held in this entry with the account given in De verlaten posten in Groot-Atjeh (1897) by G. B. Hooijer. Dutch terminology has been rendered in English, the original Dutch being retained only in direct quotations and in bibliographic citations.

Land en Volk van Atjeh Vroeger en Nu, by J. Jongejans, Oud-Resident van het Gewest Atjeh en Onderhoorigheden, with a foreword by Dr. H. Colijn (Baarn: Hollandia Drukkerij N.V., c. 1938), pp. 357, 371, 402.

Graph View

Backlinks