Of course, the Malay race is not mentioned in the Holy Koran or the other holy books. They are only found in the books written by the anthropologists and historians and now used by politicians.
In fact, there is also no such a thing called MALAY. There are only MELAYU. And there is no Malay Language, but Bahasa Melayu.
And it doesn’t matter where this word came from – a village in Riau, Sumatera called Kampung Melayu, as what he had asserted.
Did he conduct any research to find if the Kampung Melayu in Riau preceded the description of the Malay race, or vice-versa?
There are many other Kampung Melayu throughout the Malay Peninsula or Semenanjung Tanah Melayu.
After all the Chinese and Indian races are from the words, ‘Chin Dynasty’ and ‘Indus Valley’ in India.
By right the Chinese and Indians must be described as a race according to the language or dialect they speak in such as Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien and Tamil, Hindustan, Telugu, Malayam, Punjabi and so on.
But with the independence of these two countries, the peoples of different ethnicities were conveniently grouped together.
This is now happening in Europe with the establishment of the European Union, so the people who are in this continent can also be described as Europeans although they may be Spanish, Dutch, German and so on.
Therefore, the Malays like the other races, evolve over time and they were influenced by where they are and how they go about doing their daily activities, all of which are now being influenced by the countries they reside in, language they speak and religion the observe, etc.
They are not bound by the dictates of the anthropologists and historians who like to use them merely for their entertainment.
We have to be realistic, and this is my advise to Michael, so that he is not confused by the demands of anthropology and history, and fail to take into accounts the many interesting and influential factors that help to shape any particular race.
He might as well go further back in time and just admit that all human beings are descendants of apes, as what Charles Darwin had tried to convince everybody.
Michael doesn’t seem to care about the feelings of a proud people, a race in the new concept and rush his way to try and use facts which can be challenged in such haste that it often leaves us wondering what the fuss is he trying to make.
He talks as though ‘anthropology’ is a sacred study. It is nothing but a western invention that they had used to study humankind, i.e. from their own perspective.
Michael has made some glaring facts that leave me wondering if he and those who had conducted studies on how and especially when the Javanese converted to Islam.
It is definitely not from 1947 as they claimed, but much earlier and it was not because of Karakatoa but because they were disheartened by the religions of their ancestors and themselves.
Obviously Michael and the other western researchers had failed to look at ‘Sejarah Melayu’ and the ancient manuscripts which described how the whole of Java Island had embraced Islam during the time of the Majapahit rulers in the Fourteenth Century.
This was also the effort to propagate the religion by the ‘Wali Songgo’ or the ‘Nine Saints of Java’.
As for those in Bali who still remain Hindu, the reason was because the Javanese who refused to convert fled from Java to go to the island which was at that time inhabited, where a small group of animists were living and there they could live their lives again.
And because of that, they also reshaped Hinduism into their own brand of Hindu-Bali which is almost nothing compared to the Hinduism many Indians know of. Hindu-Bali has elements from animism, Islam as well as Chinese cultural practices.
Go to the city in the north of Bali Island and there is a small group of Balinese who are Muslims as well as another group of Balinese Hindus who do not consume port. They are called by the Balinese as ‘Islam-Kafir’, meaning they practice Hinduism but do not consume pork like the Balinese Hindus do.
I do not think Michael has got what it takes to undertake such a strenuous study on who and what are the Malays.
He has failed to talk about the Filipinos, who used to proudly call themselves Malays, and the Republic of the Philippines as the First Malay Republic and their national hero Jose Rizal as a Malay leader.
Unfortunately, even the Filipinos are not making it a big deal anymore because they know that to be described as Malay these days one also has to be Muslim like all the Malays in Malaysia are.
So they just describe themselves as Filipinos like it is a new race, which it can be since they are large in numbers and are totally different than the other races around them.
But because the Philippines were dominated and controlled by the Spanish for so long, the whole of the country became a Catholic one, with most of the people having converted to this religion leaving the islands in the south which are still dominated by the Malays who are Muslims.
And the Catholic as well as the Christian conquerors of the countries in this region with the aid of their priests, had forced many locals to convert to their religion. They went to the interiors because they faced hindrances with their conversion efforts in the cities.
Therefore, those who claim that Muslim groups in Malaysia are forcing anyone to convert to Islam, to please study at how their ancestors had converted to Catholicism and Christianity, if they were not forced to do it.
And as late as the Nineteenth Century, even some Chinese who had converted to Christianity were killed by other Chinese who did not like what they had done. And it happened in Singapore. But this episode is never discussed by any researcher or historian in Singapore, as being the first religious strife to have happened in the country.
Everybody liked to talk about the Natra Riots of the 1960s because it was between the Muslims and Catholics.
Michael ought to realize that his study on the history or origin of the Malays has its flaws. He is too dependent on what the western anthropologists have said or written and exerted.
Please bear in mind that the study of anthropology is inherently biased. It does not take into account what is written in the Holy Koran which does not subscribe to the way the anthropologists describe the different peoples of the world.
The Koran describes the Arabs and Jews and other races which are now conveniently lumped into the Caucasoid.
He then goes on to say that according to anthropology there are only five distinct people in the whole world. They are the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, The Dravidic, and the Austronesian.
(Michael say the Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids, The Dravidics and the Austronesians, when they are just Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, The Dravidic and Austronesian. There is a difference between the two types of descriptions, which is that they are not of the races but groups such as the Caucasoid group and its members are not Caucasoids, etc.)
For heaven’s sake, who and what and who are they? Are they described in the Koran? Or the Bible and other holy books?
No, they are not. They are only descriptions made by the anthropologists who use their own methodologies to come up with their outrageous pronouncements which they can to consider to be sacred and are facts.
They know better than anyone else. They reject what the Holy Koran and the other holy books say on the same matter.
What I find most outrageous is when Michael keeps on harping on his research methods and where he says he got his facts from.
Yes, he can quote all those people and the smart anthropologists, but bear in mind also, that there had already been books written about the human race in the Koran and the other holy books and he cannot exclude that from coming up with his findings.
The descriptions of the five races in the world are made by the anthropologists. It is for their own convenience.
And this is just for academic purposes.
As for the Malays, we have the right to call whoever we like, just as the Indians and Chinese, too, have the right to call themselves by this description as their races, although these words were not found in the ancient texts, but were also given by western anthropologists and historians who like to play god.
The word ‘Chinese’ comes from the words ‘Chin Dynasty’, while ‘Indian’ comes from the Indus Valley in India.
Over time, they had generally accepted these descriptions. But these descriptions, as well as the Malays, have added significance and meanings. And the demarcation of the areas into independent states has caused large groups of people to call themselves a different race than the others.
If Singapore is large enough, sooner or later, they can also become a race, like the American race, which started as a nationality.
The Siamese are now conveniently called Thais. And it is their race.
Therefore, I hope Michael will practice a bit of tact when dealing with matters, especially if he wants to use western anthropological and historical findings to come to his weird conclusion by excluding the Malays as being a distinct race.
The errors that he had made in his essay are too glaring for anyone not to take notice of how good his essay is.
There are many Malays who have other ancestries, but that doesn’t mean that we cannot be Malays who have such ancestries?
There is no sub-race of Sino-Malay or Malay-Chinese or Malay-Indians or Malay-English or Anglo-Malay.
One considers oneself to be of a certain race based on one’s personal preference and acceptance and not by the demands of the western anthropologists and historians or politicians.
In the end, the study on the history and origin or the Melayu or Malay can be as exquisite as the study of the history and origin or the English or any other, who had also taken into their culture and life influences from other races around them.
So what the Malays had done is nothing unusual.
The English language like Bahasa Melayu also evolved over time.
Singapore Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew describes those who are in China as THE CHINESE like he is also not Chinese.
His ancestors used to be Chinese, but after they left China to live in Malay and then, Singapore, they ceased to be Chinese but Singaporeans.
Even those in Hong Kong and Taiwan do not call themselves Chinese, but Hong Kongers and Taiwanese.
Chinese has become a national description of a people as opposed to a race.
This results in the ‘Chinese’ and ‘Indians’ in Malaysia to be ‘displaced’ for they cannot call themselves by these two descriptions anymore since they are not citizens of these two countries.
Legally, the ‘Chinese’ and ‘Indians’ in Malaysia are often referred by the international community as Malaysians with Chinese or Indian ethnicity.
So if there are Chinese and Indians in Malaysia, they are the tourists, expatriates and other workers.
But as for the Malays, the race is still dominant even if they are Malaysians or Indonesians.
There is a trend now to downgrade the close rapport between the Malays in Malaysia and Indonesia by forcing them to think that they are not of the same race.
The orientalists and Zionists had succeeded in disuniting the Arabs by calling them names, which forced them to fight with each other.
Is this what people like Michael are trying to do with the Melayu race so they are seen to be smaller, meeker and not of the same race?
The Blogs 
I am a proud stock of the Malay Race, but I am not a Muslim and because of that I am not, by definition of politics, not a Malay. That is in confrontation with today's definition, but why should I care. And you, Melayu-lah, would you dare to call yourself a Malay had you not been a Muslim? I think this is something to think about.
I am not anti-rerligion etc, but let a Malay be a Malay, regardless of religion; won't that make you very very proud?