Pandai Sikat Analysis

three leaders could not figure and run as smoothly as expected as they were not able to convince Tuanku Nan Tua, a religious leader who used to be friend in trading before leaving for the Holy Land, on religious patterns that he would develop. Haji Miskin also had been involved in Tuanku Nan Tua’s moderate local revivalist movement before leaving for Mecca.
So he went to Enam Kota, and stay in the Pandai Sikat. In Pandai Sikat, Haji Miskin became the client of one of the penghulu of Pandai Sikat, Datuk Batuah who on his own initiative was trying to support reforms in the community so that the newly growing trade of Pandai Sikat could be issue to appropriate guideline. Despite all Haji Miskin’s preaching, here he was not so successful reforming, and was forced to flee to the Kota Lawas. After experiencing some difficulties, finally, Haji Miskin with The Padri successfully introduce their reformations. Then, they got the entire Enam Kota including Kota Lawas and a stronghold of the Padri of Pandai Sikat, after setting a fire to the city hall in Lawas. The Padri movement was initially
In Abd A’la point of view, he agrees that the Padris was the reincarnation of Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula especially in both movement attitudes that were against the Tasawuf. The Padris considered the notion that obstruction to their movement was being stimulated up by those who remained loyal to the Syattariyah order. To show their hatred for the order, they burnt down the village of Paninjauan which was the earliest Syattariyah hubs in the highlands with huge population of religious students. The Padris viewed the Tasawuf as misleading and must be forbidden as it was not according to Sharia. For the Padris, whatever had been introduced after the third generation from Muhammad was considered as bid’ah (innovation, i.e. heresy) and therefore