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.

Years back, we have established a consensus that our peacebuilding to be sustainable need to adopt the community approach. This has led to the adoption of the three-prong approach that speaks of a community based peacemaking; community based peacekeeping and community based peacebuilding.

A community based approach has many strains. Essentially it is to establish a good relation with your neighbors. Neighbors refer to religious communities other than your own. This good relation will, in time, build a partnership based on common “stakeholdership” between and among religious communities. Neighborhood bears fruit in common actions for the benefits of the community like building farm to market roads or other local infrastructures. In rural communities, this common action is akin to our Bayanihan work in moving or building houses, digging canals or management of potable water, repairing local school and health facilities, etc.

Nowadays, a community based approach requires developing local communities’ capacity for immediate humanitarian interventions across faith frontiers and boundaries. This refers to any actions that quell fire, provide shelters, food and clothing for refugees/displaced, accompaniment of the displaced to return to their home and assistance in the rebuilding of their homes and livelihood.

There is the need to build the capacity of local leaders, especially religious and civic leaders as MEDIATORS. The local parish priest, pastor, Imam, school principal and teachers are natural peace mediators. It is a great challenge to harness these “occupational” qualities in peacebuilding and peacemaking at the grass root.

More than ever, in the Philippines, there is the call to transform local churches, mosques, schools, convents and madaris as places of healing and reconciliation. These are actually ‘sacred‘ places where people, especially victims, can tell their stories, their pains and traumas. The ’sacred’ people in these places are also empowered to ’ritualize’ forgiveness, show care for the victims and become instruments of restoration and indemnification.

Harnessing these community potentials for peace and healing remains a great task. No doubt, religious people, health workers and teachers can serve as a ‘force’ to move forward in peacemaking and peacebuilding. Their voices need to be heard as strong call for cessation of hostilities and care for the victims. They can use their moral suasion to pressure the warring parties to go back to the negotiating table.

Definitely, there is the need for greater involvement of the communities and their leaders in peacemaking and peacebuilding, especially in building consensus on issues that continue to divide our peoples. They can also serve as bridges between individuals and communities in the discussion of any peace agreement or any political settlement. This is the meaning of a community based peacemaking and peace building.

The peace process is far too important to be left alone to the adversaries on either side to work out. It is the concern of all stakeholders and the people. In fact this is the basis for citizens’ active participation in the peace process. After all, it is the core rationale for the phenomenon of peace advocacy and activism.

In the country, particularly in Southern Philippines, there is the need to build and institutionalize mechanisms for citizens’ participation in peacemaking and peacebuilding as well as in peacekeeping. This includes among others, coming up with people’s agenda for peace, popular consultations, civil society’s participation in the actual peace talks, and community based and people–initiated monitors of the actual implementation of the agreements between the “warring” parties.

Empowering people and communities is not simply calling them to the streets to become the ‘voice’ of dissent or support for a set of political demands that they hardly understand beyond the rhetoric of their leadership. Empowering people and communities is based on the belief that the people and the communities are sovereign and they need to exercise sovereignty not only during elections or when they come to streets like in EDSA 1 and EDSA 2. They should continue to exercise this by intervening in actual governance through many and varied institutional mechanisms as well as by engaging in non-government and no-party initiatives. But for this to happen, they need basic self-organization and more institutional arrangements like people’s councils, citizens-arm, consumers’ watch, etc.

Ultimately, they are the real stakeholders in their communities, thus they must also address economic issues such as management, ownership and distribution of the basic resources and issues affecting their environment. At the core of the question is the reality that political empowerment of people and communities essentially includes economic empowerment that uplift the living condition and livelihood of the masses. In some sector, empowerment is understood as the dynamic process of transferring political and economic power from one center to another and/or the creation of new centers of power complimentary to or in competition with the traditional centers.

Translated into more understandable language, it means building a strong civil society or the self-organized section of society. This refers to voluntary associations freely formed by citizens not for profit but to advance group interests or the common good. They are known to us as the politically active popular sector: non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs), cause-oriented groups and sectoral and multi-sectoral political formations. Collectively, they form the organized base of citizen’s movements pushing a reform agenda into the mainstream of public policy or re-organizing society around a progressive alternative vision.