Religious “fundamentalism” is a major issue and concern for both Muslims and Christians in their attempts to build partnership for peace in Mindanao. The rise of a new wave of fundamentalism both in Islam and Christianity in our contemporary times has made the task more difficult and complex. Coupled by the tragic legacies that have marred our relationships, the question of Muslim and Christian partnership has remained elusive and a challenge in our age. Biases and prejudices are as strong as ever if not stronger. Often our perception of each other is shaped more by historical memory and the mass media than actual knowledge and factual experience.

In Islam, religious revivalist movement is much wider and broader. Muslims themselves like their Christian counterparts do not accept the label “fundamentalism” to describe the present religious re-awakening in Islam. For one thing, religious re-awakening differs from country to country. In fact, it is as complex as the very relations between Muslims and Christians.

As in Christian re-awakening movement, the Islamic one is a desire and the determination to a “return” to the perceived basics of the religious tradition. There are those who are inspired by the ancient religious grandeur and want to replicate in our present time the institution and praxis of the so-called “golden era” (the Meccan Era). On the other hand, there are those who attempt to recapture the dynamism of religion and reconcile it with the exigencies of a modern and technological era and the condition of globalization in which old rules cannot possibly remain unaltered (the Modernist School beginning with Sheik Muhammad Abdou). Then there are those who embrace the new wave religious re-awakening simply to oppose the increasing secularizing trends of the contemporary society.

There are four basic common characteristics of the current religious revivalism. First, there is the accepted “blueprint” of society as well as individual life. God gives this blueprint in the revelation. The blueprint is completed and/or nearing completion. The members of the movement are called upon to either reproduce or hasten the realization of the said blueprint in our times.

Second is the fact that religious revivalism is a reaction to the contemporary secularizing trends that are perceived as menace to the faith of the individuals and the community. The adherents of this movement believe that this new “Modernism” and the perceived moral and social “corruption” threaten to destroy the very fiber of the traditional mooring of the individuals and societies. Revivalism, in this sense, is a strong reaction to the present social and moral order that is perceived as a new “paganism”.

Third, religious revivalism gives answer to individual’s needs for healing and identity. No doubt, the “woundedness” and injustice, particularly the structural violence that reduces the greater number of people to poverty, seeks healing and redress. The religious re- awakening movements focus on this individual and communal “brokenness” and the necessity of healing by way of strict adherence to the imperatives of faith as given at the beginning or in “illo tempore”.

In the same vein, the growing alienation of people in our contemporary world surfaces the need for identity and belonging where lines and parameters are clearly defined and delineated. Often, these parameters are also God-given thus cannot be changed or modified at all times. The religious revival movements give “security” and identity as well as belonging to individuals and groups who are considered “saved” or “redeemed” constituting the new “Holy Nation”.

Fourth, the new revivalism is seen as an alternative vis-à-vis the growing arrogance of the state to think and decide for all. The imposition of a uniform economic and social order in this era of globalization threatens to destroy the specific character of peoples, nation and individuals. The new revivalist movements take this power from the state and business and restore it to God.

There is, today, a strong belief that the new surge of religious revivalism in the world is the single factor that erodes the inter-religious dialogue and collaboration that have gained currency in the post Vatican II era. Religious re-awakening both in Islam and Christianity as in other religions has taken an “exclusivist” form that views all others as “foreign” bodies and source of contamination and defilement.

It is, often, said that the past exacts heavy toll on the present. The bitterness and pains of past relationships do shape attitudes of peoples as well as their psyche. This is very true to Christian-Muslim relations not in Southern Philippines but also elsewhere. The challenge is the question whether we shall allow our past relationships often marred by conflict and wars continue to exercise tyranny over our spirits. Are we doomed to find ourselves always posed as competing communities over the same place and resources?

The painful past begins with the memory of historical supercession of Christian faith in the East & North Africa by the expansion of Islam in the 7th & 8th Century. The heartland of Tertullian, Cyprian & Augustine passed to Islam. And what we have now are titular bishoprics/sees to remind all sundry that these places were once upon a time Christian territories.

At the heart of territorial claim is the Holy City of Jerusalem (al-Quds). The Haran al- Sharif in Jerusalem and the calligraphy at the grand Mosque (many believe still the finest) is about Jesus as if serving notice by its splendor and motifs that the Holy City is at the heart of this dispute.

Then we have the person of Jesus always present in our common discourse. It is ‘Isa vs. Yasu' - one & yet not the same! The duality of the names deepens into the stress and tension of the prophet/savior dichotomy and of the non-Incarnational and the Incarnational understanding of the person Jesus Christ.

The Qur’an disallows the suffering and death on the cross of Jesus and with it the elimination of the Eucharist and the whole structure of Christian worship, as well as the whole theological form of Christian faith.

While Islam cites its long tradition of tolerance of the churches and their faith, this tolerance is defined in terms of a freedom to remain only and not the freedom to recruit. In fact conversion is one way, that is, from other religions to Islam. The freedom of movement of belief within the Islamic Empire or territory is only into Islam. The other crucial issue in this relationship is the “dhimmi” status of the Christian minorities (the status of the protected people).

On the other hand, the memory of the Crusades during the Medieval Ages is still very much alive in the Muslim psyche. The Christian kingdoms of Europe banded together and with the sign of the cross went to war against the Islamic Empire. The legacy of that war continues to shape Muslims’ attitude towards the west notwithstanding the total fiasco of the venture, except for the first crusade.

The real “coup de grace” that broke the “esteem” of the Muslim kingdom and Empire is the more recent history of the Christian involvement in that Western dominance of Muslim peoples and territory - politically & economically. Islam sees this phenomenon beginning with colonialism and the abolition of the Caliphate as a kind of aberration from the true course of Islamic history where power must always be in the hands of Muslims.

We have to acknowledge the reality that there are lingering resentments and injustices that are deep in the psyche of our relationship. With some few exceptions, there is no mutual openness between the two faith traditions. What we have is only survival within supercession and conquests. Generally, there is only the steady accumulation of the instinct by which both faiths develop a sort of exclusivism of culture and identity drawing all things into a calculated otherness from which we now struggle so hardly to escape.

All those legacies are familiar enough and part of our problem. Is there a way to escape from their tyranny over our spirits? Is it possible to steadily school ourselves to resist and reject the habit of preferring suspicion to trust; the instinct of preferring the familiar confrontation to new relationship?

I believe that notwithstanding these legacies of enmity and “otherness”, there is a common spiritual territory that can shape new relationship. It is important to point out that Islam and Christianity, for all their historical antipathy, have profound community in truth.

Since Vatican II, a new approach is taking shape in the Churches’ attitude vis-à-vis peoples of other faiths. The same can be said with the directives coming for the World Council of Churches (WCC). Believers recognize the tragic legacies of the past. The Sacred Council and the WCC invite all people of goodwill to turn a new page in our relationships. We can work together as partners in building a new and better world order.

We face a far more urgent problem of development, of economic imbalance, of commercial exploitation that weighs down humanity which makes our tragic past irrelevant. This is the reason why I believe that our dialogue cannot achieve anything unless it is closely related to the "criticism of the earth” rather the mysteries of heaven.

In our modern times, it is often said that religions divide. Maybe secularism, at least in operative terms, is what alone can unite us? But this approach is neither Islamic nor Christian.

The crux of the matter lies in our credibility as believers! If believers are true and honest, their creed and rituals are inseparable from their concrete practical liabilities. Islam has always understood itself as set for "Peace under God". It stands for a human order under the divine authority. On the other hand, Christianity has understood itself in that self-emptying of Jesus – the kenosis. It stands for the divine stake in our humanity in one who "does not scorn to be servant" - the eternal son whose cross and passion redeem us all.

There is the usual assumption that the elimination of economic inequality for certain ethnic group in multiethnic societies will eventually greatly reduce ethnic tensions. Our neighbors, Malaysia and Indonesia, give us two differing examples of multi-ethnic societies with potential for social conflicts. Although in both countries, the Chinese minority population has suffered from discrimination and intermittent violence, Malaysia, over the long haul, has a better record of managing ethnic conflict than Indonesia.

A study of two countries (James V. Jesudason, 2001) shows that economic explanations such as greater wealth of the Chinese and cultural explanations, such as religious divide between the groups, do not fully account for the ethnic conflict. Instead, it is necessary to consider the internal relations within the ethnic group in explaining conflict.

In both Malaysia and Indonesia, the government’s capacity for group mediation in society, especially the way political leaders respond to challenges of politics of inclusion affects the nature and outcome of conflict. Ethnic peace is to a significant degree dependent on government’s responsiveness to the root causes of the social cleavages in the community.

A responsive government creates an environment in which individuals enjoy mobility. People regardless they belong to the majority or minority population can obtain decent jobs, and they are able to meet their basic educational, medical and housing needs. The state has an important role in changing discrimination and injustice that the minority population feels and perceives perpetrated by members of the majority. Wherever the state responsiveness has been weak, segments of the majority group as in Malaysia and Indonesia, have perceived the state as a tool of the Chinese, leading to attempt to scapegoat and attack the minority group.

The countries in the region that have experienced the sharpest drops in growth are those with divided societies and weak institutions for managing conflicts. Conflicts have in recent years, been a major obstacle to development in Asia and the Pacific. Sad to note that the Philippines is now considered a classic case of divided society and weak institution notwithstanding the slogan of “strong republic”.

In many respect, conflict is the result of poor governance. If all sections of society can participate in decision-making and development, and if institutions for such participation are in place, emergence of violent conflicts can be significantly reduced. It is true that the roots of conflict can be traced back to history during the formation of states, but the way various social and ethnic cleavages are managed, and the way natural resources are divided spell the difference between manageable conflicts and explosive ones.

We need not re-invent the wheels in dealing with our social cleavages, particularly in Southern Philippines. There are well-established measures that respond well to societal cleavages. The top in the list is good governance through improved accountability, predictability and transparency. These are key elements that empower the state to resolve differences in ways that are both fair and seen to be fair.

Second are the participatory processes that are important in building social cohesion. Definitely, there is a need to expand participation of all stakeholders not in peace making but also in projects that promote constructive interfaces between public and private sector. A classic example of non-participatory peace process is the peace talks in Southern Philippines. While Government and MILF trade accusations of reneging commitments as embodied in the consensus points on ancestral domain, the stakeholders are practically blank on what are those consensus points.

Third is the urgent need to decentralize decision and policy making in the country. With the National Capital Region as “de facto” the Republic of the Philippines, the other regions are inevitably relegated to the margin. The operative words are “decentralization” and “subsidiarity”. We have a LONG way to go, because NCR and the highly centralized government do NOT surrender their perks and prerogatives without a struggle.

Fourth is the cooperation and partnership between and among Government, Civil Society and the Private Sector (business sector). These three, no doubt, are key players in the management of the social cleavages in the society.

The question often asked in many fora on social cleavages is the social cost of the conflict. Conflicts can have high economic and social costs. Everybody recognizes the tremendous negative impact of conflict on development. Conflicts have drained the country’s funds and energy that should have been devoted to the improvement of public welfare and economic development.

The roots of conflict are multifaceted and complex, involving not only ethnic and religious opposition, cultural differences, colonial history and ideology, but also economic factors such as poverty and issues of governance due to inexperienced or distorted administrative and judicial institutions. Social scientists have identified three major sources of conflict: poverty, political exclusion and inequality. These three causes are also the underlying issues in the lack of social cohesion in society.

Tragically, the Philippines is a text book case of what NOT to do when confronted by management of social cleavages. By the standard of the well-established measures, the Philippines is nearing the level of a “basket case”! Tsk Tsk Tsk!