The second week of October, Amina Rasul and I were in Washington DC to participate in an International Conference that included among others two former Prime Ministers (UK and Norway), Muftis, Ministers and people with right honorable and right reverend before their names.

We were there to bridge the imperatives of the historical document, Common Word, and actions.

It all started two years ago, when 138 Muslim scholars, prominent leaders, and learned men and women wrote a letter entitled “the Common Word between Us and You” addressed to all Christian leaders of the world.

The letter‘s title echoes a Quranic chapter with the same title.

It attempts to retrieve the prophetic exhortation in the midst of the vast gap and differences between Muslims and followers of the others books, specifically the Christians.

The love of God and the love of neighbors are the two unifying teachings of Islam and Christianity. These two great commandments should characterize the relationship between Muslims and Christians.

Yet, through the centuries, war, prejudices, discrimination, and intolerance have marred the relations between Islam and Christianity.

The letter echoes the refreshing spirit of the second Vatican Ecumenical Council that exhorts all to forget and forgive each other and become partners as we journey forward in shaping a new world.

In the Philippines, particularly in the South, the interreligious gap and misunderstanding has a long history.

It dates back from the period of colonialism when the Philippines was annexed by Spain in the 16th century and later by the US at the turn of the 1900.

The period during the American period was also characterized by war, only this time, by military victory that put an end to the once powerful Sultanates in Mindanao and their annexation to the Philippines.

This annexation paved the way for the programs of pacification and assimilation which included among others the opening of Mindanao for migration from the Luzon and the Visayas.

These historical facts have given rise to three significant realities that continue to haunt Muslim-Christian relations in the Philippines, even today. To wit:

1. The lingering suspicion and lack of trust that continue to characterize the relations between Christians and Muslims;

2. The sense of injustice on the part of the Bangsamoro and the Indigenous peoples for their lost ancestral domain. After years of migration, they have found themselves a minority in their traditional homeland. The Muslims are now majority only in five provinces out of the 24 in Mindanao; and

3. Poverty and neglect that led to, among others, the highest in mortality, illiteracy rate, lowest in access to basic services, especially health and education.

This context calls for an urgent new interface of Christianity and Islam in the Philippines.

The ‘interface’ or ‘dialogue’ would distance the face of our faith traditions from the stereotypes of rebels/terrorists, on the one hand and oppressors and the government troops as army of occupation, on the other.

In the early 70’s, Christians and Muslims of goodwill, specifically bishops, ‘ulama, priest and lay leaders stood for justice and respect for human rights even during the height of battles between the Philippine regular army and the Moro National liberation Front.

The provinces of Cotabato and Sulu, the lands of many battles, have witnessed examples of solidarity of people of goodwill from Christianity and Islam who continued to stand for justice and human rights.

The first association of Christian-Muslim Religious Leaders in Mindanao began in 1973 few months after the declaration of Martial law.

Then following the Peace Agreement in 1976, a more formal national conference involving leaders of Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims began to address the problems of the South and to bring these issues to the attention of the national government.

Again, following the 1996 Final Peace between the Philippine Government and the Moro national Liberation, the Bishop-Ulama Forum was formed to support the peace process in the Southern Philippines and the implementation of the said accord.

Interreligious dialogue has a particular and peculiar history in the Philippines both in the local and national level given the situation of the war in Southern Philippines.

In this light, the ‘Common Word’ becomes an invitation to all people of goodwill to set aside the prejudices and hostilities of the past and venture into anew relationship based on the love of God and love of neighbor.

I wish to echo the late Pope John Paul II’s message in Damascus at the Great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, 6 May 2001.

“It is my ardent hope that Muslim and Christian religious leaders and teachers will present our two great religious communities as COMMUNITIES IN RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE, NEVER MORE AS COMMUNITIES IN CONFLICT.

“It is crucial for the young to be taught the ways of respect and understanding, so that they will not be led to misuse religion itself to promote or justify hatred and violence. Violence destroys the image of the Creator in his creatures, and should never be considered as the fruit of religious conviction.”

In the letter, the ‘Common Word’, the Quranic verse on tolerance is quoted: “Had God willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. “Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ” (Al-Ma’idah, S. 5:48).

In time, this letter can create an opening and a greater convergence on the more delicate issues of religious freedom, the absolute value of human rights, the relationship between religions and society and the use of violence.

These are the current issues that worry all believers in our world today.

All UN member states are meeting in New York this month to discuss security and disarmament.

Members of International Arms Network on Small Arms (Iansa), the global movement against gun violence, are campaigning for a treaty that will ban transfers of arms or ammunition if they will:

+ be used for serious violations of human rights or war crimes;
+ undermine development or involve corruption;
+ provoke or worsen armed conflict;
+ contribute to violent crime; and
+ risk being diverted into acts of terrorism

The decision of the United States to join the negotiations for a comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty was welcomed this week by campaigners against gun violence.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, announced that the US is committed to “actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty” containing “the highest possible, legally-binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.”

This is a major policy reversal.

The previous US administration consistently opposed the effort to create a treaty.

“The US decision to support strong global controls on the arms trade is great news for countries in Asia like the Philippines where arms proliferate,” said Jasmin Nario-Galace, member of the Philippine Action Network on Small Arms (Philansa).

No doubt, the proliferation of arms in the Philippines, particularly in Southern Mindanao contributes greatly to the rates of injury and death, human rights, and international humanitarian law violations as well as armed conflicts.

Philansa believes that the sale and supply of small arms and ammunition must be strictly controlled.

States should pursue an arms trade treaty that would require the refusal of transfers when there is a clear risk that the arms will intensify armed conflicts and derail development initiatives.

The shift of US policy on small arms as articulated by Hilary Clinton is great news and a fresh wind for campaigners across the world.

The US is the world’s largest arms exporter. To read Hillary Clinton’s statement, please click here.

In the Philippines, the campaign on the control of small arms is lead by Philansa.

It is a network of 14 organizations and networks across the Philippines. They all work to address the complex issue of supply and control of small arms in the country.

Philansa is a member of Iansa, the global network that addresses the proliferation of small arms and it leads the campaign at the UN for an International Treaty on Small Arms.

The havoc of the uncontrolled sale and supply of small arms is deeply felt in conflict areas, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

In Southern Mindanao, violence and conflicts show their ugly faces in the form of widespread supply of small arms. Government troops, rebels, warlords, bandits, and terrorists have access to small arms beyond belief.

An international Treaty on Small Arms will, definitely, seek to control the transfer, sale and possession of small arms.

Over 90 percent of deaths in conflict areas are caused by small arms that include among others M 16 and M 14, the standard issue for combatants, warlords’ army and bandits, terrorists, and militias.

The staggering statistic of violent deaths related to small arms makes it imperative for all people of goodwill to muster their resources and capitalize on the new and fresh wind coming from Washington DC for a new push for intensive lobby on a comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty with strict enforcement standards at the level on the United Nations.

If you desire to join the campaign contact:

PHILANSA c/o Jasmin Galace on +63 906 465 2744
IANSA c/o Alastair McKay on +44 (0)20 7065 0870

By all standards, kidnapping is a heinous crime against humanity.

The recent abduction of Fr. Michael Sinnott of the Columban Fathers, once again, has accented the terror that the peoples of the Southern Philippines face daily.

No one is exempted and all religions condemn the crime. Why kidnapping pays and goes on with impunity is a mystery to all.

Yet, people believe that the crime is perpetrated by few people who continue to elude the law for years.

There are places in Southern Philippines that are prone to kidnapping. These places are identified.

Foreigners are not allowed to visit them and their respective embassies give them appropriate advisory.

Foreign missionaries are often told of this danger and the real possibility of kidnapping. Yet, their faith and their ‘mandate’ hold strong that their presence continues notwithstanding the danger.

With the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, I have, since 1996, counseled our major superior to pull out foreign missionaries from those identified places and assign them in relatively ‘safe’ places. Local missionaries are not exempt from kidnapping.

Who are the perpetrators of this crime?
They bear many and different names. The labels are a plenty. They identify them as ‘al Qaeda or Abu Sayyaf Groups (ASG) or Jama'a Islamiyya (JI) or Pentagon groups, etc.

They are, perhaps, few in number but the government's continued failure to stop kidnapping make people ask the hard question whether there are collusions between some government law enforces and lawless elements or between the kidnappers and the liberation fronts.

To cite some examples, many believe that the leaders of the latest kidnapping of the ICRC are (or were one time) so-called 'assets' of the very people in charge of security and law enforcement in the area.

The government keeps declaring an all-out war against these lawless elements and keep claiming that their numbers are decimated yet kidnapping continues with impunity.

Since 1996, the government has estimated their numbers to be below 500. The all-out war against these criminals has been going on since 1996.

And there is no relief in sight.

The government appears impotent; the liberations fronts are mum about it; and the government security forces make bold claims with no results.

No doubt, kidnapping, killing and other lawlessness directly affect the Christian-Muslim relations, especially in building an atmosphere of trust which is the glue for any social cohesion required for any peace agreement in Southern Philippines.

The ordinary Muslims and Christians are against this lawlessness. They cannot understand why these crimes continue with impunity.

Both the Muslim and Christian inhabitants dream and aspire for a community without these crimes. The tragedy is when religion is cited as a reason for these crimes. No one shall kill or kidnap in the name of God!

These crimes are perpetrated by a few people and by people with agenda whether political or economic.

In times of crisis, kidnapping is a lucrative business. The going price for release of the kidnapped victims goes from one million to P15 million for the locals and one to five million US dollars for foreigners (meaning Caucasian).

People fear that as Election Day nears (May 2010), kidnapping can be lucrative source of campaign chess for some unscrupulous candidates.

Why some of the leaders of kidnapping become assets?

It is claimed that they become ‘informants’ for the so called international terrorists – peoples identified with the likes of al Qaeda or JI. This is one of the ‘accidental’ fruits of the big bounty placed by US government on the heads of the so called foreign terrorists. They become ‘assets’ with the objective of bagging the big bounty.

With payments of five million dollars or ten million dollars, who would not be tempted?

In the Southern Philippines, missionaries are open targets and foreign missionaries are more targets than their local counterparts.

The Oblates of Mary Immaculate who are assigned in Cotabato, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi have an ample share of martyrs in the last ten years in the Archipelago of Sulu.

Bishop Benjamin de Jesus was shot in front of the Jolo Cathedral in February 1998; Fr. Benjamin Innocencio was shot at the back of the Jolo Cathedral on Dec. 28, 2000, Fr. Reynaldo Roda, OMI was brutally murdered in Tabawan, Tawi-Tawi on January 14, 2008.

The Claretian Fathers has one martyr, Fr. Rhoel, in Basilan. The Italian Missionaries (PIME) has several missionaries kidnapped with Fr. Bossi being the last one (hopefully).

Fr. Michael Sinnott is the 3rd among the Columbans. The first attempt was with Fr. Rufus who resisted his kidnappers and shot in Malabang, Lanao del Sur. And the third one was the former Prelate of Marawi, Fr. Desmond Hartford.

The kidnapping will continue until the government and the liberation fronts decide, with seriousness and determination, to put an end to this tragic phenomenon.

I also believe that the government and the liberation fronts (MNLF and MILF) have the wherewithal to put an end to this crime and other lawlessness in Mindanao.

A no-nonsense LGU in place is a strong deterrence to kidnapping.

Here I will cite the case of the once notorious places of Buldon, Barira, and Matanog.

With strong and determined LGUs in place and with the help of both the government forces and the Liberations Fronts, peace has been established.

The three LGUs have also established a Council of Religious Leaders to mediate the family and clan feuds (rido) that often disturb the peace.

For quite sometime now, there has been no report of kidnapping in these areas. This only shows that kidnapping can be stopped!

Eph’pheta, that is, “Be Opened”! This phrase is taken from the Gospel of St. Mark.

“And they brought to him a man who was deaf
and had an impediment in his speech;
and they besought him to lay his hand on him.
And taking him aside from the multitude privately,
he put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue;
and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him,
“Eph’phata”, that is, “Be opened.”
And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.” (Mk. 7: 32-35)

In a plural society, a preferred trait toward a good neighborliness given the diversities of culture and education is OPENNESS.

This demands a basic openness of mind and heart to accept and respect our differences in faiths and cultures.

There are three basic attitudes that will help us walk this new path of openness. They are as follows:

The recognition that our life, future and destiny are intimately linked to each other.

No, we cannot espouse a politics of separatism, a culture of exclusivism, and nor can we act as sole proprietors of the land.

Second is to be open, that is, Eph’pheta/Iftah, to each other –learning not only from each other but more so to live and work as partners in shaping our common lives and destiny in peace, justice and care of the earth. Yes, we must not be afraid or hesitate to accept, to trust, and to work with each other as partners.

Third is our commitment and involvement in the promotion and guarantee of the rights and dignity of every person regardless of faith, gender, culture, and color within our society/community.

The basis of this commitment is our belief that all peoples even though they belong to different religions, nations, etc. form ONE human family, created by the ONE and same God, living in the same world/community, and destined for a common end.

For emphasis, I take a portion of the late Pope John Paul II’ s address at Casablanca Morocco on 18 August 1985.

“People do not accept their differences.
They do not know each other sufficiently.
They reject those who have not the same civilization.
They refuse to help each other.
They are unable to free themselves from egoism and from self-conceit.
But God created all equal in dignity,
Though different with regard to gifts and talents,
Mankind is a whole where each one has his/her part to play.
The worth of the various peoples and of the diverse cultures must be recognized.
The world is as it were a living organism.
Each one has something to receive from the others and has something to give to them.”

Pope John Paul II presented to the world his dream and hope for Christianity and Islam as they journey together into the new millennium.

In his last Addresses to Muslims and Christians in Syria at the Great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus on 6 May 2001, he said:

“It is my ardent hope that Muslim and Christian religious leaders and teachers will present our two great religious communities as COMMUNITIES IN RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE, NEVER MORE AS COMMUNITIES IN CONFLICT.”

It is crucial for the young to be taught the ways of respect and understanding, so that they will not be led to misuse religion itself to promote or justify hatred and violence.

Violence destroys the image of the Creator in his creatures, and should never be considered as the fruit of religious conviction.”

“Better mutual understanding will surely lead to a more objective and comprehensive knowledge of each other’s religious beliefs at the practical level, to a new way of presenting our two religions NOT IN OPPOSITION, as it happened too often in the past, BUT IN PARTNERSHIP FOR THE GOOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.”

Openness is NOT a universal element in human relations. It has to be slowly, patiently and sometimes painfully built through time.

To achieve peace in the Philippines, we must steadily school ourselves to prefer openness to fanaticism; trust to hostility; and respect to intolerance.

We begin by being living witnesses of this openness to each other by accepting and respecting our differences.

More than seventy years ago, the late missionary bishop Luis del Rosario, SJ heard of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate that has been known in the Church as specialists in the most difficult missions.

The bishop was thinking of his frontier territories down south also known as the Moro Provinces – the empire province of Cotabato and there entire archipelago of Sulu.

This discovery prompted him to visit the OMI General House in Rome during his ad limina visit to the Holy Father. He spoke of the most difficult missions and the dangers of Cotabato and Sulu that melted the heart of the OMI Vicar General.

In 1939, the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, or OMI for short, accepted the challenge to mission in Sulu and Cotabato (as big as the entire central Luzon).

The first batch of the OMI Missionaries arrived in Manila on the 25th September of the same year after more than 40 days of boat travel from New York.

The second batch arrived a month after. The 7 OMI pioneers coming from USA were only given a week to pack their bags and sail for the Philippines.

None of them knew where the Philippines was, thus after their talk with their superior, they scampered to the library to search for information about the Philippines.

The seven pioneers became legends in Cotabato and Sulu. They were Frs. Gerard Mongeau (Superior of the new Philippine Mission), Francis McSorley, George Dion, Emile Bolduc, Egide Beaudoin, Joseph Boyd and Cuthbert Billman.

In OMI history, these pioneers were also known as the ‘Magnificent 7’ of the OMI Mission in the Philippines.

Fr. Gerard Mongeau, who became the first bishop of the empire province of Cotabato and Sulu, became known not only for establishing parishes and Notre Dame Schools in the empire province of Cotabato but for his innovative social action projects and media ministry.

Fr. Francis McSorley became a friend of General Paulino Santos and together planned the settlement of South Cotabato.

Where General Santos established his new municipality, Fr. McSorley established the parish and the school.

And later when Fr. McSorley became the first bishop of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, he began his deep friendship with Moro leaders and developed the Notre Dame College of Jolo as first rate tertiary education for the Muslims.

Fr. George Dion, who also became bishop of Sulu, was associated with the first Catholic commercial broadcast media in the Philippines. His name was so much linked to DXMS (Cotabato), DXND (Kidapawan), DXMM (Jolo) and DXGD (Bongao). He also became director of Radio Veritas.

Fr. Cuthbert Billman was the writer in the group.

He immediately got involved in the National Catholic Paper, the Sentinel, and Commonweal.

He was responsible for the training of young journalists, the likes of Max Soliven, Emil Jurado, and Nelly Sindayen. These journalists were so well trained that they, too, got Fr. Cuthy’s mannerism and colorful expletives.

Fr. Billman was the founder of the first local newspaper in Mindanao, the Mindanao Cross that began printing in 1948, and the Sulu Star.

Fr. Joseph Boyd was the great liaison and procure man for the mission. He stayed in the Diocese of Manila and became a close friend to Archbishop Michael O’Doherty and his young Secretary, Mons. Rufino Santos.

Fr. Boyd was able to secure the pastoral responsibility from the Diocese of the former ‘friar’ land called Grace Park (a name taken from the Archbishop’s title, ‘His Grace’) north of Manila.

Fr. Emile Bolduc became the first Oblate Pastor in Sulu. He became famous not for his construction and projects but for his prayer life and spirituality.

He also became pastor in Grace Park and from there moved to the OMI Novitiate to become the towering symbol of religious and missionary life to young Filipino Oblates in formation.

At his funeral, Archbishop Mongeau gave credit to Fr. Bolduc for the success and the achievements of the OMI missions in Cotabato and Sulu. To the pioneers, Fr. Bolduc was the soul of the mission through his prayers and hours before the Blessed Sacrament.

There was not much said about the 7th pioneer, Fr. Egide Beaudoin.

He became the first Oblate Pastor in the whole territory now known as North Cotabato based in Midsayap. All the pioneers were interned at the UST Concentration Camp throughout World War II until the liberation of Manila in 1946. The harsh conditions of the concentration camp wrought havoc to his health that he had to go back to the US for recuperation.

They were actually three waves of OMI pioneers to mission in Cotabato and Sulu.

The first wave arrived in September and October 1939.

The second wave of seven came a year after in September 1940 (Frs. George Baynes, Edward Gordon, Emile Laquerre, Joseph Quinn, John Sheehan, Paul Drone and Bro. Michael Braun).

The third and last wave of pioneers consisted of four OMIs from the US Irish Province, and arrived in September 1941, few months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor (Frs. James Burke, Edward McMahon, Robert Sullivan & Bernard Clancy).

Not much credit and focus were given to the second and third waves and their names are hardly remembered yet they, too, were giants in the missions in Sulu and Cotabato.

In fact, the first blood shed for the mission belonged to these last two waves. Frs. Paul Drone, Edward McMahon and Bro. Michael Braun were beheaded by the Japanese during the war.

Seventy years ago, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate dared to accept the Church mission in Cotabato and Sulu. Through the years, the OMI’s have never been lacking in courage and generosity in building these frontier territories.

They have become all sorts to all people – builders, carpenters, farmers, educators, pastors and peacemakers.

The OMI Mission in 1939 has now become a robust Province that sends missionaries to Japan, Thailand, Korea, and China in Asia; Bolivia and Argentina in Latin America; and Canada and US in North America.

The OMIs have had their share of martyrs in their 70 years in the Philippines. The first martyr was election-related.

Fr. Nelson Javellana and his volunteers of the first Philippine movement for clean elections were ambushed near Tambunan, Cotabato on November 3, 1970.

Three martyrs shed their blood in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi – Bishop Benjamin de Jesus on February 4th, 1997, Fr. Benjamin Inocencio on December 28th, 2000 and Fr. Jesus Reynaldo Roda on January 15th, 2008.

Though painful and sorrowful, the OMIs take pride in their martyrs who paid the ultimate price for the values and beliefs close to their hearts.

They were not brave men, but because of the love for their people and the trust in God, they were able to muster enough courage to silence the fears in their hearts.

Today, as the OMIs celebrate the 70th anniversary of their presence in the Philippines, specifically in the remote islands of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi archipelago, they recognize their mission partners and friends as they look back with thanksgiving for what God has wrought through their various ministries.

They pray that God will continue to journey with them as they dare to move forward.

Everybody is gearing up for the resumption of the peace talks between the GRP and the MILF. Some say that the talks will take place the week post Ramadhan or early October.

Whichever is the case, the people on the ground are watching for signals of the impending resumption with renewed hope as they await eagerly for this to take place soon.

There are several questions they would like to ask on the eve of this impending resumption of peace talks.
The first question is the issue of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP).

While the SOMO [Suspension of Military Operations] and the SOMA [Suspension of Military Action] generally hold and the IDPs are relatively experiencing ‘peace,’ the primary question behind their minds is the rebuilding of their homes and livelihood in places of their origin.

No doubt, most of the temporary shelters provided by multi-donors during the crisis look much better than the homes destroyed or abandoned in their remote places. Yet, the critical issue is livelihood.

Their continued stay in the ‘temporary’ settlement areas means that their agricultural farms are abandoned.

They can go back to the places of origin when ‘peace’ is more or less ensured by the two protagonists in the peace talks.

Some had sold their working animals and rebuilding their livelihood and homes would take a lot of assistance and assurance both from the LGU and military.

But in the long run, the return to their farmlands will be the preferable option to remaining in the temporary shelter located along the national highways or in new semi-urbanized towns.

The former would mean literally rebuilding their homes and farm, while the latter would mean continued dependence on aid and become the new ‘urban poor’ in these town centers that provided the ‘temporary shelters.’

The second major question is directly addressed to the conduct of the peace process.

The people continue to ask whether with the resumption of the peace talks, there will be guarantees for transparency, consultation, and accountability.

The three major stakeholders – the LGUs, the IPs, and the private sector – raise the issue of more than transparency and consultation but participation in the peace process.

The lessons of the MOA-AD had been traumatic experience for them that they are on ‘guard’ and they will measure the peace process on the basis of the above.

The present Chair of the GRP Peace panel negotiating gives the assurance of transparency and consultations, particularly of the LGUs and the IPs within the territorial coverage of the talks.

In fact, Ambassador Rafael Seguis has been visiting and holding talks with the governors and the mayors of the affected provinces and cities, including the leadership of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

With the various consultations, round table discussions, and focus group discussions on the ground, both the GRP and the other stakeholders, including the MILF and the MNLF may, hopefully, get the real pulse of the people whom they all claim to represent.

The third question post MOA-AD is the ‘magic’ formula that may shape the relations between the Bangsamoro and the national government without ‘walking’ through the constitutional ‘flaws’ enumerated in Supreme Court Decision.

While all these concerns may sound legalistic, the real crux of the matter is the willingness of the major stakeholders in Mindanao and in the national level to agree to a formula that is based on TRUST and on our cherished principles and values.
I consciously put the word ‘magic’ to the formula to describe the paradigm of modus vivendi for Muslims, Christians, and Indigenous peoples.

There is, yet another difficulty in arriving at the said ‘magic formula’ and that is the issue of a common platform for the various ‘gate keepers’ of the Bangsamoro people.

The three more prominent claimants to speak for and in behalf of the Bangsamoro peoples are the MNLF, the MILF, and the traditional leaders who now have almost complete control of the LGUs in places where the Muslims are the majority population.

Some of my friends do tease me that the search for such a ‘magic formula’ is akin to the search of the Golden Fleece.

The fourth question is the issue of facilitator of the peace process.

Malaysia is the present ‘facilitator’ of the peace talks between the GRP and the MILF.

The Philippine government has made known to the Malaysian Government that there is a growing perception and cry that Malaysia is partisan to MILF and it is not neutral, because of the Sabah issue.

At this stage, it is good to make specific distinction that the role of Malaysian government in the talks is one of facilitation and NOT mediation, though in the ordinary use these two words are often confused or ambiguous.

The MILF has a vote of confidence in the Malaysian facilitation.

The Philippine government welcomes a broader facilitation involving other countries.

For the resumption of the peace talks, Malaysia remains the ‘facilitator.’

There can also be a distinction between the government of Malaysia and the person actually doing the facilitation. I thought that the objections may be against the person of Datu Othman, a Minister in the Prime Minister Office of Malaysia.

But judging from my attendance of the Senate public hearing held in Zamboanga City in the last week of August, it appears that the objection is on Malaysia also.

The fifth question is the issue of international ‘guarantors.’

Lately, the term officially being used is ‘international contact group’ or ICG. Are they simply international ‘friends’ of the peace process? There are varying positions on the issue.

No doubt, more discussion and debate are needed to arrive at a common understanding of the ICG or ‘guarantors.’

This issue is important to understand in order to remove the suspicion of ‘foreign ‘interventions in the peace process.
In our globalized world, peacebuilding as well as reconstruction are not domestic issues.

Worldwide, peacebuilding and reconstruction are affairs of all.

The peace process is not something isolated in the southern Philippines.

NO! It is a local issue, no doubt! But it is also a NATIONAL and REGIONAL as well. In fact, it is also an international issue hence the presence of the multi donor countries, the UN in the work of relief and reconstruction.

I am happy that the prospect of resumption of the peace talks is now real.

In fact, you can now smell in the air. I see this as an important ‘grace’ and ‘blessing’ of the Ramadhan. There are so many ambiguities on the ground.

While there are still remaining few mechanisms, particularly the CCCH and the BDA, that are still in place, their terms of reference need to be reviewed; and definitely there is a need of injecting new dynamism and blood in the process.

I am confident that the MOA-AD has brought home some hard lessons that should guide the paths of the peace process on what is achievable, at least in our own lifetime.

The willingness of the protagonists to go back to the negotiating table inspires confidence.

It will not be easy, definitely!

We pray that we shall find a formula that is a balance between the demands of the constitution and a magic that inspires confidence that whatever agreement is achieved in the future will be, in some degree, honored and kept.

Alignment of political forces is shaping up and the playing field is becoming crowded by the day. Everybody seems to enjoy projecting himself/herself as the hope of the motherland.

Though there are positive developments in the playing field of candidates, the electoral system by which we will elect leaders of this country remains very shaky.

To date, the automated electoral system or AES is the chosen mode by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to use in the May 2010 elections.

The contract has been signed with Smartmatic, Inc. and its local partner to not only to deliver the machines (Optical Mark Reader or OMR) but also provide and train personnel to run the machines.

Though there is a standing petition in the Supreme Court to nullify the contract on the grounds of non compliance with the existing computerization law of elections, the issuance of the ruling on the matter is anybody’s guess.

Against the AES mode of electoral processes is the Open Electoral System or the OES.

The main contention of the proponents of this system is the limited preparation, shortness of time, the staggering cost and the lack of personnel to manage the machines, among others.

The OES camp would go for a partial computerization of the May 2010 elections. This would mean we still go manual in the precincts, yet the canvass and transmission will be computerized.

Until today even after the Comelec’s signing of the contract with Smartmatic, the AES and OES continue to be loggerheads.

I am no expert in the two systems yet, when briefed on both systems, I do not see that this should be a case of an either/or… AES or OES!

I see the two systems as complimentary if only the ‘faces’ behind the two modes would be able to distance themselves from the seeming colliding modes of electoral systems.

For the May 2010 elections under the AES, Smartmatic will deliver 80,000 OMR machines and field them in 42,000 voting centers nationwide.

You would need at least 42,000 OMR technicians to be fielded in all voting centers. The Department of Science and Technology (DOST) will certify each OMR machine before fielding them in voting centers.

Many consider the simple delivery certification of 80 thousand machines coupled by fielding and training of 42 thousand technicians as a logistical nightmare.

The other nightmare associated with AES is the real possibility of great or gargantuan voters’ error beyond the tolerable limit during the actual elections that would put in doubt the ‘winners’ in May 2010.

The size of the ballot, the number of names in the ballots, the small oval space to be filled by the voters, and the lack of familiarity by voters in the new election mode are real factors for voters’ error in the actual date of elections.

What is the tolerable voters’ error? Is it 20 percent or 30 percent? In the real score, a 20 percent or 30 percent of voters’ error nationwide is a wide margin?

We have barely nine months before Election Day.

The 80,000 OMR machines are still to be delivered.

The DOST has, to date, nothing to certify.

Whether DOST has the capacity to do in a limited period is yet another debatable issue.

Smartmatic under the Comelec’s supervision still has to get contractors to recruit and train 42,000 technicians.

In the meantime, Comelec still has to educate and familiarize the voters on the new system.

At this stage, I cannot simply imagine that this would all be possible.

The either/or option is truly mind boggling, to say the least or ‘nightmarish’ at its worst.

However, a combination of AES and OES may still be possible at this stage to have credible and relatively ‘fast’ elections in May 2010.

But the peoples behind the systems are at loggerheads.

It may be possible if we remove the ‘faces’ associated with the two systems.

We all need to be concerned, because the specter of failure of elections becomes a real possibility.

The argument that OMR has already been tested in the last ARMM elections in 2007 is a debatable issue.

The machine supplier is NOT the same; the program to be used may not be the same; the number of names in the ballots is a big difference.

In the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), people were only voting for one Governor, one Vice Governor, and three Assemblymen per districts.

In the actual contest, there were practically few names in all the offices ‘contested’ since there was actually ‘no contest’ in real terms.

The law states that the system is to be piloted in at least two provinces and two cities.

The other issue involved is the fact that the electoral program needs to be vetted by interested parties. How is this done and who are the ‘interested parties’?

I join the call that the Senate before it concludes its present session and before it goes on recess before May 2010 elections must elect a Senate President that is not among the expiring 12 senators.

In case of failure of elections in May 2010, everybody becomes ‘illegals,’ except for the barangay chairs and council and the 12 senators who cannot elect a Senate President nor come to a proper session for the lack of quorum.

The 12 senators with no quorum is ‘inutile’. Oh what a nightmare!

It is very important to weave the experiences and lessons of religious leaders' participation in building peace in Southern Philippines. There are many and varied experiences of peacebuilding that involve religious leaders of all faiths.

This has become more important, because both violent and peaceful people continue to use religious images and passages from the Scriptures or Holy Books to “justify” their acts and actuations that either promote conflicts and violence or build peace.

The peoples of Mindanao are witnesses to these two strands.

They have seen both the violence and bloodshed in war and rehabilitation and reconstruction in peacebuilding. War, piracy, and kidnappings have always marred, from the very beginning, the encounters between Islam and Christianity in Southern Philippines.

It is often said that the Southern Philippines has really not known peace. What we, sometimes, experience are fleeting truces that allow peoples to build anew their homes and livelihoods until war erupts again and send them back to evacuation centers.

It is said that Christianity and Islam are, indeed, physically adjacent.

Yet, for all their nearness, the relations between these two faiths and their respective followers are largely shrouded in mutual suspicion and darkness. There are exceptions on either side to rise above the general ignorance and suspicion. But these are few.

When faiths and religious traditions confront each other, it is for the most part, with "fixed sentinels."

In the Southern Philippines, Christianity and Islam have always been presented as two competing faiths for the same geographical area.

Wittingly or unwittingly, the recent spate of lawlessness like kidnappings, terrorism, and plain and simple banditry is read along the understood "separateness" between Christianity and Islam.

All these are familiar enough and part of our present problem.

Often, they exercise tyranny over our spirits.

They have produced a culture and a habit of suspicion and confrontation that make inter-religious collaboration and dialogue, truly, a very difficult task.

It requires a commitment and determination to steadily school ourselves to resist and reject our habit of preferring suspicion to trust; our instinct to prefer the familiar confrontation to a new relationship of partnership in the world that is in difficult transition.

In the past as well as today, there is an ever-growing awareness of common territory and affinity between Islam and Christianity.

The Qur'an in Chapter 5 verse 82 unequivocally encourages Muslims to cooperate with Christians. “Thou wilt surely find the nearest of them in love to the believers are the ones who say, 'We are Christians'; that because some of them are priests and monks, and they wax not proud” (S.5:82).

The Second Vatican Council document, Nostra Aetate, clearly articulates the common territory and affinity between Christianity and Islam.

“Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims. The Sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.” (NA3).

Muslim-Christian Partnership

There are a few religious leaders in the Southern Philippines who have understood the importance of Muslim and Christian understanding to attain a lasting peace and sustainable development. There are difficulties, frustrations and pains, yet, they are transcended as they continue to learn how to live as neighbors.

These attempts now constitute the examples of religious leaders' participation in building peace in Southern Philippines. I will outline four traditions of Muslim-Christian leaders' involvements in peace building.

The first tradition was the continuing attempts to bridge the education and development gap in the Southern Philippines due to long years of government neglect.

In the then empire province of Cotabato and the Archipelago of Sulu, OMI's began the Notre Dame School System that brought quality education to the Moro peoples long before the establishment of the Mindanao State University.

The Notre Dame School system has generated so much social capital that educated Moro people and the leadership both in the rebel front and in local government easily point to their experiences in the Notre Dame campuses all over the Southern Philippines as examples of harmony and unity between Muslims and Christians. This was also true in the island province of Basilan with the Claret Schools under the Claretians.

The second Tradition was the struggle for justice and human rights, particularly during the dark years of Martial Law.

Arbitrary arrests and detentions, Military “zoning” (military encirclements of a community where all males were lined up in the public square and houses were searched and ransacked usually at nights), cases of “salvagings” (killed or liquidated and later the bodies were dumped into the river) and disappearances led to the formation of the first Christian-Muslim Leaders Association of the Philippines.

Prominent personalities in this struggle were Bishop Antonino Nepomuceno, OMI, Episcopal Bishop Constacio Manguramas, and Sheik Omar Bajunaid.

This group conducted capacity building for dialogue and monitoring human rights violations for priests, Imams and Pastors. They were able to forge Muslim-Christian solidarity that witnessed to the common tradition of trust, friendship, and hospitality amid the legacies of suspicion, anger, and hatred.

The third tradition is the path personified by Bishops Bienvenido Tudtud (Lanao del Sur) and Benjamin de Jesus, OMI (Sulu).

Both Bishops were gentle, jovial and friends to all, but most especially to the poor and the vulnerable sectors of Philippine society.

Their passionate commitment to the poor and dialogue of life led them to venture in a humble and non-threatening friendship with the Muslims in the Vicariate of Sulu and the Prelature of Marawi. They wanted to be the humble and compassionate servants of the peoples of Sulu and Lanao del Sur.

This path is now enshrined in the universally accepted dialogue of life that translates into everyday life the desired friendship that should characterize the relationships between and among neighbors. It is a path that continues, in daily living, to break down the walls (both visible and invisible) that separate Muslims and Christians.

The fourth tradition is the pioneering peace education and advocacy began by the OMI run Notre Dame University (NDU).

It is the first institution of higher learning that has integrated peace education in its curriculum where both Muslim and Christian students are required to take peace studies.

The University's peace advocacy has led to mediation and conflict resolution efforts of the citizens (Muslims and Christians) in Southern Philippines. The first experiences of civilian peacebuilding began at NDU following the signing of the cessation of hostility between the GRP and the MILF in 1997.

These traditions show concrete Muslim-Christian collaboration on the ground that indicates the heart of dialogue and peace building.

Like politics, peace building is local. They are rooted in “being” with the people, especially the poor and the vulnerable sectors of society.

It is a “rootedness” that is shaped and fashioned by a shared living, sympathy and solidarity. This becomes the well-spring of active participation in all human endeavors, economic, political and cultural, always in favor of the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. Oftentimes, this kind of witnessing is clearer and more eloquent than any signing of agreement.

Muslim-Christian collaboration is not something abstract. It is a human activity which involves our total life experience.

It takes place in the individual as well as communal lives as peoples of differing faiths live out their faiths and conviction according to the living traditions.

No doubt, the partnership, and collaboration depend upon a bridging leadership that enhances mutual trust and understanding.

It demands respect for the identity as well as the integrity of the other. It rests on the conviction that God who is all merciful and compassionate desires to draw all peoples and the whole creation into a relationship of love and peace.

I am writing this blog to introduce a forthcoming book on the life of Fr. Jesus Reynaldo Roda, OMI, the martyred priest of Tabawan.

More than a year has passed since the country was shocked by the brutal killing of an Oblate Missionary in Tabawan — one of the islands in the Tawi-Tawi Archipelago.

The first book launch will be held at Notre Dame University on August 13th, Thursday at 4 pm.

We are also making an arrangement to have a book launch at Loyola House of Studies (Ateneo de Manila University Campus), Fr. Rey's alma mater for his friends, classmates and friends of the OMI's in the National Capital Region also during the month of September.

There were three cases of bloody murder of OMI Missionaries in the Vicariate of Jolo within the last ten years — the Vicar, Bishop Benjamin de Jesus, OMI on February 4, 1997, Fr. Benjamin Inocencio, OMI on December 28, 2000, and Fr. Jesus Reynaldo Roda, OMI on January 15, 2008.

To the eyes of the world, these deaths may appear senseless and incomprehensible. But to people who believe in the ministry of presence, the lives and deaths of these three missionaries are, indeed, not in vain and not without meaning.

Linguistically speaking, presence is a noun, not a verb. It connotes a state of being, not doing. States of being are not highly valued in a culture which places a high priority on doing.

Yet, true presence or ‘being with’ another person carries with it a silent power, that is, to bear witness to a passage, to help carry an emotional burden or to begin a healing process. In it, there is an intimate connection with another that is perhaps too seldom felt in a society that strives for ever-faster ‘connectivity.’

To the three OMI martyrs of the Vicariate of Jolo, it was not their ‘doing’ that had, in a sense, precipitated their murders in the hands of the lawless elements of the Provinces of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. It was their ‘being with’ their people and communities that had become a powerful witnessing beyond words and actions.

Bishop Ben in the whole Vicariate of Jolo, Fr. Benjie in the islands of Mapun and Jolo and Fr. Rey in Tabawan journeyed with their people with endearing smile, innocence, and passionate love.

Often these values were clearly revealed in their testimony of fidelity to their religious call that is often translated in simply “just go, just be there and just live with your people.”

In the book, we focus on a particular journey of ‘being with’ as exemplified by the most recent OMI Martyr, Fr. Jesus Reynaldo Roda, OMI of Tabawan.

Fr. Rey, during his formative years, already thought of becoming a missionary in the Muslim countries of Asia.

This wish was realized at the last lap of his life passing through the circuitous road of ministry to the oppressed and the marginalized in the Diocese of Kidapawan in North Cotabato and formation work in Thailand.

When his wish came true, it was not in Malaysia or some islands in Indonesia, but in the Archipelago of Tawi-Tawi in the southernmost part of the Philippines.

It began in the island of Batu-Batu and would end in the island of Tabawan. It was a presence among the poor Sama people. Often, it was a powerless presence with his community for whom he could “do” nothing.

He walked, sat and ate with friends. There were times that he was pulled by the urge to do more than be, yet repeatedly struck by the lack of resources.

Paradoxically, it was during these times of powerlessness that he discovered the healing power of connection created by being fully there in the quiet understanding of another. In it, no one is truly alone.

Every night, he sat in the small chapel of the rectory and felt the presence of Him who had called him to become a priest and a missionary. There, too, in the presence of the Lord, he journeyed and sat with his confreres, particularly missionaries living alone in the other islands of the archipelago of Tawi Tawi and Sulu.

In that silent and lonely island, Fr. Rey painstakingly discovered the power of presence that was not a one-way street, not only something missionaries give to others.

It is said by the old missionaries in the archipelago that the islands and the communities always change them, and always for the better.

In Tabawan, there are two powerful witnesses of this mutual transformation and enrichment.

The first was the ‘Bapa’ of Tabawan, Fr. Leopold Gregoire, OMI who lived and journeyed with the Sama people for nearly 20 years and second was Fr. Jesus Reynaldo Roda, OMI who walked and sat with his Sama friends for nearly ten years. Both missionaries were changed and definitely, it was for the better.

The life of Fr. Rey amid the Sama people was a witness of being with the weak, the poor, and the marginalized.

He found this the hard way, often, in turmoil questioning over and over again: why the poor continue to suffer not only of man-made disasters but also natural ones, why the poor are often the victims of almost total neglect by the ‘powerful’ and by seemingly endless calamities.

Their anguish and the cry of the poor DO NOT reach God!

Tabawan that led to a disclosure that God is NOT the all powerful one that he was taught from catechism to the liturgies. The God revealed to him in the island, especially in the night of his murder, was all weak, so helpless and so poor.

But was this not the message both of the manger and the cross?

Yes, God is not only so poor and weak, but also a suffering one and dying on the cross.

Is this not the real meaning of Emmanuel — his presence, God's birth into the world? God is NOT the all powerful one! Much less is He the all TRANSCENDENT One.

Definitely, the God revealed by Jesus in the Manger and the Cross is NOT a sort of a SUPERNATURAL DEITY!

This message Fr. Rey, OMI heard while sitting in the chapel in the company of the Lord who invited him to live a radically different life from what the world offers.

It was an invitation to live a life of simplicity and at the service of the poor and all who were on the fringes of society.

These so called unclean, unwanted, unacceptable people, the pagans, the sinners, the prisoners, and the lepers are now the number one in the roll call of Jesus of Bethlehem and of Golgotha.

These were the people through whom God chooses to reveal Himself.

Allow me to write something personal about President Cory. In 1986 when the possibility of changing our society was almost futile and the only option left was revolution, the specter of snap election was floated with Cory being pitied against the astute and schemer dictator.

I was not a believer in the possibility of change at the start of the electoral debate.

But when I first met her, the strength and nobility of her character ‘converted’ me to the snap election option. I took a strong stand for snap elections during the raging debate over boycott or participation among the progressive left who after the bloody debates opted for boycott.

This option for participation in the snap elections was the beginning of my NAMFREL involvement and fascination with Cory Aquino.

In Mindanao, particularly within the then autonomous Region XII, to prepare for clean and honest elections was nearly impossible. But Cory inspired people to do the impossible. I thought then that she believed in the God who does the impossible!

She lost the elections in Mindanao, particularly in the two autonomous Regions IX and XII — the balwarte ng dayaan. Yet the anomalies were exposed and this, in many ways, contributed to the feeling of national shame that resulted in wanton electoral cheating.

True to her word and promise, she sought out the “rebels” and more specifically the MNLF Chair Nur Misuari to begin a real dialogue for peace.

It was not important whether she succeeded or not. In fact she was a failure in terms of achieving any peace settlement with the rebels.

But her strength was in trail blazing the peace talks and in walking the phenomenal ‘extra mile’ in dealing with her ‘enemies.’ She went to Jolo and met Prof. Nur Misuari — a meeting that remains a symbol of peace making.

The present structure of the ARMM is her legacy. She had no illusion that it was anything but an imperfect structure of autonomy.

Yet to her mind it was the beginning of the long process of people empowerment.

She started the direct consultation with the people through the Regional Consultative Assembly that debated territory, self-governance, and resource sharing. She just hoped and prayed that government and Moro fronts with the ARMM could craft a better structure in the years to come.

On a personal note, I regarded her with great friendship and devotion.

She gave me a Presidential Citation in February 1988 at Malacanang for the outstanding community services rendered to Region XII when NAMFREL, post Snap Elections, reinvented itself to monitor community projects, especially the one-million emergency employment program in the countryside.

Cory, to the peoples of Mindanao, stood tall in believing in ourselves to effect change. She exuded courage and a belief in our common humanity. She had no pretensions about solving all of our problems but she would be there to accompany us on the journey. This companionship on our journey as nation had become the hallmark of her life and advocacy post-presidency.

In many ways, it was this message that she wanted to communicate to the present power holders that there is a wonderful life post presidency.

Life is much bigger than any position, no matter how lofty and mighty the position may be. The important lesson is to journey onward. She has joined the father and has finally arrived in the kingdom.

The advances in Science and Technology and the leveling of frontiers and boundaries have all contributed to a greater awareness of the pluralism of faiths, culture and peoples not only in the world but also in our own community.

Today, people everywhere have begun to be aware that they live amid many and diverse faiths, and cultures. Though many and different peoples are, they need not be hostile nor indifferent to each other. In fact, these diversities invite all sundry to make a shift in paradigms from hostility to partnership; from indifference to involvement; and from being close to being open to one another.

This new relational paradigm teaches us that notwithstanding our differences and diversities we all live on this earth, in fact, on this piece of land. The bottom line is the affirmation that we are together in the journey through life. For better or worse, we are neighbors and we hope and believe that as neighbors, we can be partners in building not only of a better world but more so of a friendlier community where you and I, and our children live as brothers and sisters.

For this to happen, there are three basic steps that we need to pursue in season and out of season.

o The first step is to take our pluralism seriously. We are different yet there is that ‘kind redness’ that need to seriously experience. This is the common bond in our humanity.

o The second is to be open to each other and learn to live with each other in tolerance and respect. This will only happen when we begin to accept, to trust one another and to live together as good neighbors.

o Third, is our commitment to guarantee the rights and dignity of every person regardless of faith, gender, culture and color within our society/community.

The basis of this commitment is our belief that all peoples even though they belong to different religions, nations, etc. all form ONE human family, created by the ONE and same God, living in the same world/community, and destined for a common end.

In interreligious relations there is one WORD that can describe our efforts and endeavors - TRUST! Trust is NOT a universal element in human relations. It has to be slowly, patiently and sometimes painfully built through time.


One of the giants in interreligious relations is the late Pope John Paul II. In his visit to the Grand Mosque of Damascus (May 2001), his message to Muslims and Christians calls for a new relationship between these two great religions.

“It is my ardent hope that Muslim and Christian religious leaders and teachers will present our two great religious communities as COMMUNITIES IN RESPECTFUL DIALOGUE, NEVER MORE AS COMMUNITIES IN CONFLICT”. It is crucial for the young to be taught the ways of respect and understanding, so that they will not be led to misuse religion itself to promote or justify hatred and violence. Violence destroys the image of the Creator in his creatures, and should never be considered as the fruit of religious conviction.”

“Better mutual understanding will surely lead to a more objective and comprehensive knowledge of each other’s religious beliefs at the practical level, to a new way of presenting our two religions NOT IN OPPOSITION, as it happened too often in the past, BUT IN PARTNERSHIP FOR THE GOOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.”

“Many serious obstacles remain, yet the first step towards peace must be a steadfast conviction that a SOLUTION IS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE PARAMETER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS. I appeal once more to all the peoples involved and to their political leader, to recognize that confrontation has failed and will always fail. Only a just peace can bring the conditions needed for the economic, cultural and social development to which the people of the region have a right."

No doubt, you and I can spell the difference in making the Southern Philippines a genuine zone of peace and partnership between and among Christians, Muslims and Indigenous peoples. As the talks of resumption of peace negotiation hang in the air, this new partnership and involvement in the peace process should shape the social cohesion that should characterize the relations between Christians, Muslims and the Indigenous peoples.

There is a lingering suspicion and fear that exist between the “Western” World (secular) and the world of Islam. Because of some “extremist” groups, there are places and cultures where suspicion and fear have actually become antagonism and hostility. The depressing fact, nay tragedy, is that, despite globalization and the rapid advances of technology and mass communications, the misunderstanding between the Western world and the World of Islam continues. Distrust, fear and even hostility continue to persist.

The many and varying peace processes as well as “democratization” in many hot spots are very remarkable and encouraging events. A new man in the White House has given peace processes in the Middle East hope for new life. The “return” to democracy of Indonesia, considered the “largest Islamic” country, is a positive development in a new and growing perception about Islam. The surge of the protest movement in Iran over what is perceived as a blatant poll manipulation victory of the entrenched hardliners is also seen as a ‘refreshing new wind’ of moderate Islam versus its extremist and ugly face.

The suspicion and fear, even hostility, are deeply rooted in history. People claim that the “rootedness” of misunderstanding is also to be found in the very “psyche” of the two cultures and two worlds. The history is marred by conflict. The history of the relationship between the Western World and the World of Islam has given rise to that enduring tradition of fear, distrust and hostility, because the two worlds have so often charted collision and contradictory courses. The history of crusades, the Spanish re-conquista, the fall of Constantinople, the Ottoman expansion to Europe in 1529 and 1683, Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt in 1798, the Western colonial expansion embracing almost the entire world of Islam, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire are few examples of the historical “rootedness” of the fear, distrust and hostilities.

Yet, for all the fear, distrust and hostilities between the two worlds, there are interesting, nay wonderful convergences or “kindredness” between the Western world and the world of Islam. First and foremost, Christians, Muslims and Jews are all “Peoples of the Book.” Judaism, Christianity and Islam share a common monotheistic vision. In the language of Vatican II: “They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to people” (Vat. II, NA, No. 3). In fact, the same Council recognizes the quarrels and dissensions between Christians and Muslims over the centuries and (it) “now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values” (ibid.).

Moreover, Christians and Muslims share many key values in common like respect for knowledge, justice, compassion towards the poor and underprivileged, the importance of family life, respect for parents and elders and consensus in the determination of societal/community affairs.

These days, there is a growing myopia not only in our common attitude towards each other, but also in the way we understand the roles of religions and the religious in society. It is a tragedy that our attitudes and understanding have been temporarily hijacked by the extreme and the superficial versions of Christianity and Islam. Many Christians view Islam in terms of the tragic wars in the Balkans, the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and the extreme developments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. No doubt, the extremes exist in both Islam and Christianity, and they must be dealt with. But when used as a basis to judge a people and society, they lead to distortion and unfairness.

Oftentimes, our judgment of each other has been grossly distorted by taking the extremes to be the norm. This is a serious mistake! It is like judging the quality of life in a community by the existence of murder, rape, drug addiction, etc. We have to school ourselves to see that the extremes are rarely practiced and the extremists are, indeed, a very small minority. By highlighting the extremes, we are actually engaged in peddling those thoughtless prejudices. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex.

Moreover, in the cases of the world of Islam, there is the urgent need to distinguish the religion of Islam from the practices of some Islamic States. We do not judge Islam by the practices of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the “fundamentalists” in many countries today. We must not succumb to the temptation to believe that extremism is in some way the hallmark and essence of Islam and/or Muslims. In the first place, extremism is not the monopoly of Islam. Religions and ideologies including Christianity have their share of extremism. The good news is the fact that the vast majority of Christians and Muslims are moderates in their politics. Theirs is the religion of the “middle way” or moderation. Thus, if we are to understand each other, we must learn to distinguish clearly between the vast majority of believers who are moderates and the terrible violence of a small minority who are known as “Extremists”.

The challenge to us today is to learn to understand each other, and to educate our children – a new generation, whose attitudes and cultural outlook may be different from ours – so that they understand too. We have to show trust, mutual respect, and tolerance, if we are to find the common ground between us and work together to find solutions to the many and varied issues that divide us. We can no longer afford the absence of a common effort to solve our common problems of “unpeace” and lack of development.

Understanding and movement towards peace has to be two-way. Each of us needs to understand the importance of peace, reconciliation, development, and reflection. There is the necessity to open our minds and unlock our hearts to each other. The Arabic word for this is “TADABBAR”!

This write up is meant to contextualize the debates on the status of non-Muslims living under “Islamic rule.” In the world today, there are few claimants to Islamic rule and governance. And in the few countries that claim Islamic rule, there are degrees of differences on the interpretation of the Shari’a, particularly on the applications of some of the “medieval” practices related to criminal offenses. To begin with, Islamic rule is, often, understood as the complete implementation of the Shari’a on both individuals and society as well. Any group or Liberation Front that insists on Islamic rule and government, need to spell out in clear terms the status of non-Muslims in such a situation.

The articulated MILF position is that the Islamic government shall ensure that the citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims, enjoy freedom, justice, equality and democracy and their human rights. The MILF points to the fact that the people of the book are considered “protected people” (ahl-dhimma). But a simple reference to the concept of dhimma does not capture the essence of the concept and the praxis of the dhimma through the centuries.

What we attempt to do is to look at the concept of dhimma as understood and practiced through the centuries and codified in variety of caliphal decrees and legal texts that contribute to the present corpus on the concept and praxis of dhimma.

The concept of dhimma evoked the idea of protection/covenant during the time of the prophet. The prophet took upon himself and the Islamic government the “protection” of the people of the book beginning with the Christians of Najran.

The people of the book (ahl - al – kitab) are the Christians, Jews and Sabaeans. They are guaranteed life, liberty and, in a modified sense, property. They are called dhimmi (ahl dhimma) or protected/covenant people.

In return for the “protection” accorded the people of the book, they have to accomplish
the following:
1. Each adult sane male must pay a poll-tax (djizya);
2. Non-Muslims must distinguish themselves from believers by dress, not riding on horseback or carrying weapons;
3. Non-Muslims are not allowed to join the Islamic armies but they pay for the maintenance of Islamic armies;
4. They must always have a respectful attitude towards Muslims; and
5. They are also under certain legal disabilities with regards to testimony in courts.

On the praxis of dhimma, one can look at the praxis during the times of the Caliphs and
Sultans from the 7th century to the time of the Ottomans. The 1st example of dhimma
praxis is handed over by “Umar ibn Khattab, the 2nd Caliph and companion of the prophet
after Abu Bakr. The 7th Century Pact of Umar is still extant.

The 7th Century Pact of Umar shows what the non-Muslims should do in exchange for the
“protection” to be accorded to them by the Islamic State. This consists in the following:

1. They must not build new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks’ cells. No repairs in the existing ones if they fall in ruins;
2. There shall be no public manifestation of religion nor convert anyone to it;
3. They must have always respect towards the Muslims and seats must be given to the Muslims;
4. They shall not mount on horseback, nor they shall gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on their persons;
5. There shall be no selling of fermented drinks or forbidden food; and
6. There shall be no public display of crosses.

This pact was further refined in the 8th and 9th centuries as written in al-Shafi ‘ i ’s Kitab al Umm. Briefly the refinements are summarized in the following principles:

1. The non-Muslims shall be subject to the authority of Islam and to no contrary authority;
2. They shall not refuse to carry out any obligation that the Islamic State sees fit to impose upon them by virtue of this authority;
3. If anyone of them speaks improperly of Muhammad. My God bless and save him, the Book of God or of his religion, he forfeits the dhimma (note: This is the basis of the Blasphemy Law of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran)


The status of non-Muslim in Islamic State have remained the same until the coming of
Modern Islamic political thought during the 18th and 19th centuries reform by the so-
called “Young Turks” Revolution of 1908. The idea of freedom came into the scene in
the 18th and early 19th century Ottoman Empire patently due to European influence.

Similarly, General Napoleon Bonaparte upon his arrival in Egypt introduced the French
understanding of freedom on the basis of French revolution’s slogan “Liberty, Equality
and Fraternity”.

All these movements led to the reform edict of 1839, the 1st Ottoman Constitution in
1878 and the Young Turk Revolution of 1908. Freedom took roots during that period.
This referred to individual freedom as well as societal political, social, economic and
religious freedom. The people of the land, Muslims and non-Muslims, became co-
citizens enjoying the same rights and privileges. Nationality became the basis of unity
and nationhood. Practically the entire Muslim world adopted this model with few
exceptions. The dhimma was totally rejected since its concept and praxis put the non
Muslims in inferior positions. As a matter of fact, the dhimmis were never considered
citizens. The reform and the subsequent struggles for national freedom participated by all
citizens (Muslims and non-Muslim alike) gave birth to a new nation of citizens on the
basis constitution or charter.

There is an often-repeated Qur’anic obligation imposed on Muslims “to enjoin good and
forbid evil” (al-amr bi’l - ma’ruf wa’l ‘an al-munkar). By this injunction, a Muslim is
required not merely to do good and avoid evil but also to enjoin good and forbid evil. To
fulfill this obligation, it requires the exercise of authority. And this has become the basis
of the necessity that a Muslim has to be the head/chief of a community/state and the
enforcement of Islamic Law. In short, it has to be in order to qualify as an Islamic State!
This movement is popularly labeled as “Fundamentalism”. Adherents of this movement
struggle for the restoration of a truly Islamic society governed by Islamic Law and ruled
by a Muslim leader. To them, this is the only true path to salvation and God.

The Islamic State is a community of believers. Allah is the Sovereign of the state, the
Qur’an is the Constitution and the Shari’a is the law of the land. The political and
religious leadership is vested in God’s “anointed” who serves as political and religious
leader of the Islamic community/state.

The “return” to Islam movement is the paramount “cry” of the ‘Islamists‘. This
movement holds that Islam is the ultimate norm in regulating public, social and
individual life of both the individuals and community. The Qur’an and the Shari’a shall,
once again (as in Medina), be the organizing principles of society. How this is to be done
remains to be seen, since the ‘Islamists’ do not give “model” of what they want as an
Islamic State. There are two elements/ingredients in their version of Islamic State. First
is the rule of Shari’a in all things and second is the principle that leadership in Islamic
State is in the hands of Muslims. What needs to be discussed in the said Islamic agenda
are the role and status of non-Muslims in governance, civil society and the religious
freedom and practices.

For years, policy makers in education have been seeking ways to integrate the madrasah education (plural: madaris) into mainstream Philippine Education. The issue is a continuing concern. Personally, I believe that the word “integration” is at the crux of the madaris issue. Once gain, the word “integration” brings to memory the bad experiences of attempts towards “national integration of ethnic minorities into Philippine society. Integration connotes, in Philippine setting, “assimilation” at worst and “containment” at best.

The Peace Agreement between the GRP and the MNLF on September 02, 1996 introduces a refreshing vocabulary when it speaks of the madaris system. The document explicitly says that the Madaris system shall be recognize as a subsystem of Philippine educational system. But this is easier said than done. The paramount issue confronting educators is the understanding of madaris as well as the operation of the said system in Southern Philippines.

Recognition is different from the two prevailing trends on the issue of madaris. The first trend is the “madrasa-fication” of the public school system and the second is the “government-ification” of the Madaris. Both trends are destructive of the madaris system and the public school system, as well. Both must be avoided at all cost to preserve and develop the madaris as a unique and specific educational system of our Muslim brother and sisters.

The first trend will eradicate the difference between the public school system and the madaris system. The former is state controlled while the latter is intimately linked to the mosque or a religious man or group. Once the difference is removed, the pupils and students will go to the public school system that will, in time, undermine the madaris system. Both trends reveal total ignorance of the issues involved and the destructive consequences that they will inflict on the madaris system and the public school system, both in short and long terms.

Historians are in some doubt about the history of the madrasa. Nizam al Mulk is given credit of having founded it, but some historians point out that madaris were already in existence before him. Next to Nizam al Mulk, Salah al-Din has the greatest reputation as a builder of madaris. From the very beginning the Madaris system is intimately connected to the Mosque.

In fact, even before the introduction of madaris, the mosques had served as schools. During the time of the Umayyads, there were rooms attached to the mosques for lectures on the fiqh and hadiths. When particular room was set apart for teaching purposes in a mosque, this was called a madrasa. The madaris were also built close beside the big mosques, so that they practically belonged to them.

In the beginning, the principal subjects in the madaris were the Qur’an and the Hadith to which was added the study of the Arabic language. However, as the system developed, other subjects were added. During the time of Nizam al-Mulk and Salah al-Din, two divisions of Islamic studies were noted by the survey made by ibn Khaldun in his famous Mukaddima. They were the ‘ulum taba’iya and ‘ulum nakliya. The former was based on observations of the senses and deduction, while the latter was dependent on revelation and was therefore based on special transmission.

‘Ulum nakliya therefore comprised all branches of knowledge which owed their existence to Islam, i.e., Qur’an and Tafsir, hadith, al fiqh and al-kalam. The ‘ulum taba’iya or ‘akliya was classified into seven main sections: al-mantiq (logic) which was the foundation of all others; al-arithmatiki (arithmetic), including hisab, al-handasa (Geometry), al hai’a (astronomy), al-musiki, the theories of tones and their definition by numbers, al tabi’iyat (physics, that is, the theories of bodies at rest and motion - heavenly, earthly, human, animal, plan and mineral), and al falaha (agriculture).

In Southern Philippines, the madaris system is intimately linked either to a mosque or a teacher. It follows its ancient roots, which focuses on Islamic studies and Arabic. The method of teaching is learning by heart. The lack of instructional facilities as well as financial support to teachers contributes to low level of standards.

The present trend of “integrating” the madaris system into mainstream Philippine educational system requires a serious examination. First, there is a need of a radical change in both our terminology and approach. The best word is “streaming” the madaris into the varied and plural educational systems in Philippine society. One way of streaming the madaris is a radical reform in the said system as done by Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Libya and in SEA by Malaysia and Indonesia. No doubt, there is the urgent need to reform the curriculum. While preserving the religious studies, there is the urgent need as realized in the past of integrating other subjects like mathematics, sciences, and technology, including agriculture. Second, accelerated teachers’ training is needed, with special focus on methods of teaching. And third, there is the urgent need to develop instructional facilities including libraries and laboratories in the madaris system.

There are enough examples of reforms of the madaris system. These examples can be systematized as learning models in our own desire to introduce developments in the madaris system of education. Teachers’ Colleges in the Southern Philippines, especially those with experience in accelerated teachers’ training can be tapped in capability building of the personnel in the said system. Donors from oil rich emirate and kingdoms can be accessed for special capital builds up to source the necessary financial assistance of the madaris system (FAME?).

The madaris system can be a real instrument of peace and development for the Southern Philippines. But for this to become a reality, two things are needed: first, a reform of the madaris system and second, the support system to make the madaris real centers of learning for our Muslim pupils and students. Both requirements need a strong political will and a leadership that shows the way in the maze that prevents people to see…

As an educator for many years in Southern Philippines, let me reiterate my strong beliefs and conviction vis-a-vis the issue of madaris…

First, the Philippine educational system is not monolithic. We have many and varied educational traditions and systems.

Second the Madaris system like the Catholic or Protestant educational system is a specific and valid educational system of our Muslim brothers and sisters. The madaris system is private, sectarian and intimately linked to a mosque or religious person or group.

Third, I firmly believe that the state has the primary duty to educate its citizens. It is obligated to support all educational systems recognized by the states. In the final analysis, the end users of these systems are the society and good education redounds to the benefit of the society. The state shall not make any distinction between and among the educational systems it has recognized as valid and fulfilling its duty to give quality education to its citizens.

Fourth, the Madaris system needs to be supported, “streamed” and recognized through curricular reforms, teachers training, and development of facilities and assistance to their students through an expanded Government Assistance to Students in Private education or the GATSPE Law.

Fifth, do not, never integrate, assimilate, digest, and absorb the madaris into our public school system. This would spell not only disaster but and eradication of a rich heritage of our Muslim brother and sisters. Don’t, never make our public schools appear as madaris. They will compete with the genuine madaris and with the present state of our madaris they cannot survive the competition.

Sixth, if we are not familiar with the history, development and identity of the madaris system, don’t dare do anything. The current trend at the DECS, including in the ARMM is a manifestation of ignorant enthusiasm to banner the madrasa. But this good intention if pursued shall spell disaster for the Madaris system in the long term. The trend will remove the madaris moorings and identity as private, sectarian and religious.

The Mindanao Conflict is not a new invention of our times. In fact, the present realities of war in Mindanao are fruits of various attempts at the assimilation and integration of the ‘minorities’ with differing goals and emphases usually set by the central government.

Historically, the establishments of Fort Pilar in Zamboanga City, the naval station at Polloc in the present province of Maguindanao, the “intramuros” (within the walls) in the town of Jolo and the military stations/forts along the Rio Grande de Mindanao from Taviran to Reina Regente were few examples of “containment” program to build “peace” in the southern Philippines.

The so-called Moro problem haunted the Spanish government in Manila for more than three centuries and half. The northern Mindanao and some parts of western and northern Mindanao were successfully brought to the mainstream politics by way of settlements beginning the second half of the 19th century. But in southern Mindanao, including the islands of Sulu, Tawi Tawi, and Basilan, the Spanish presence was limited to military stations and garrisons, except for pockets of civilian settlements in the present city of Zamboanga and Cotabato City.

During the Spanish time, the Moro populace was, largely, left on their own. They lived under their sultans and datus and were governed according to their laws and traditions. The Spanish government interfered in the Moro affairs by way playing politics in several succession issues in the Sultanate of Sulu and in the two dominant Sultanates in the mainland Mindanao (Buayan and Maguindanao). However, the Moro people always rejected any Spanish ‘anointment’ of their Sultan.

The political and economic configurations in Southern Philippines were radically altered during the American occupation. Paradoxically, the “new life” began with a peace pact known as Bates Treaty of 1899, with the Sultan of Sulu recognizing the sovereignty of the USA over Mindanao and the Archipelago of Sulu. This was the real beginning of the systematic program to integrate/assimilate the Moro people into the mainstream body politics of the whole Philippines.

At the end of the Philippine-American War (from 1898 to 1902) with the defeat of the nascent Philippine Republic, the Americans unilaterally abrogated the Bates Treaty. And with the far superior army the Americans quashed all Moro resistance to the American rule.

To put the peace in Southern Mindanao on a more solid footing, several “peace programs” were unfolded, again from the perspective of the central government in Manila.

First was the creation of the Moro Province that would, in time, evolve/mutate into different government structures. It was a “de facto” autonomous government within the insular colonial administrative bureaucracy that ensured fast and effective governance of the Moro peoples and the Indigenous peoples.

Second, the Moro Province looked into the economic development of Mindanao’s fertile land. Corporate plantations were opened and major trading posts in Zamboanga, Cotabato, Jolo, and Iligan.

Third, Mindanao was opened to settlement of landless Filipinos from Luzon and the Visayas. It began with the establishment of the agricultural colonies in the fertile plains of the then empire province of Cotabato. This was followed by a massive and a well planned settlement programs during the Commonwealth period that continued unabated in the post war era during the subsequent administrations of Presidents Roxas, Quirino, and Magsaysay. (In time, the various settlement programs resulted to the ‘minoritization’ of the Moro and Indigenous peoples in Mindanao.

Another pillar of the integration program was the establishment of educational system in the whole Southern Philippines. The two salient features of this ‘peace program’ were the “universal” public school system and the “pensionado” (scholarship) program for the children of Moro ruling families. From the latter would emerge the “new” Moro leaders (the Piang brothers, Pendatum, the Sinsuat’s, the Alonto’s, Lucman, Dimaporo, Kiram, etc.) who, with few exception, had served the Philippine government faithfully and advocated for the full integration of the Moro people into Philippine body politics.

During the past 100 years, Mindanao has seen a dramatic shift in population and landownership that has contributed to the Moro rebellion. In 1900 the Muslim population in Mindanao made up more than 90% of the island’s inhabitants, but by 1970, the Muslims constitute barely 20% of the population of Mindanao. The population shift came about through policies that gave the settler population from Luzon and the Visayas incentives to migrate to Mindanao. The new immigrants cleared the vast plains in Central Mindanao for agriculture and soon new towns and provinces were established.

The inevitable “minoritization” of the Moro and Indigenous peoples was compounded by what was then conceived as a “policy of neglect” or the failure by the Manila Government to deliver the basic social services and infrastructure for development of southern Mindanao. By the late 1960, the Moro peoples’ “groaning” and resentment reached a fever pitch that eventually led to the formation of the Moro National Liberation Front under the leadership of Prof. Nur Misuari.

At the beginning of the Moro rebellion in the early 70’s, the MNLF espoused the politics of separatism. The conflict in Mindanao in the early 70’s was a secessionist war with a vision to establish a separate Moro homeland and Republic. However, through peace negotiation between the MNLF and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines under the auspice of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the separatist war would be toned down to a fight for genuine self rule in local affairs in a sort of ‘autonomous arrangement’. This autonomous set up was the very core of the peace agreement signed in Tripoli, Libya on December 23, 1976. In a queer way, the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 has put an end to the politics of separatism in Southern Philippines.