Reflections on the Bangsa Moro

While browsing through my computer files, I saw the reviews I made of two articles by two Moro UP professors. I uploaded them to my moroland website.

The experience of creating this blog made me decide to revive my MOROLAND webpages. It’s at http://bangsamoro.0moola.com

While before I uploaded mostly my articles from the Philippine Post, now I will upload mostly the research works I did on Media and the Bangsa Moro.

I still regularly write for national publications, but they are on different subjects and unrelated to the Bangsa Moro.

I will upload a photo gallery there, too. So, you are welcome to take a look.

AP INTERVIEW: MILF hopes for peace deal with government this year

I think I would refrain from commenting on this news. The government is now in such a mess, I don’t think it would really matter. I would, however, wish both parties good luck.

Symposium Clarifies Situation in Mindanao

On June 27, 2000, a symposium entitled "'War' in Mindanao: Situation and Solution" was held at the C.M. Recto Hall, Faculty Center, UP Diliman. It was organized by three UP groups - the UP Christian Youth Movement (UPCYM), the UP Muslim Students Association (UPMSA) and the Movement for Muslim-Christian Dialogue (MMCD) - all promoting Muslim-Christian cooperation.

The guest speakers were Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, Col. Jaime Canatoy representing AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Angelo Reyes, Mr. Abraham Iribani, former MNLF spokesperson, Ambassador Abul Khayr Alonto, former MNLF vice chair, Dr. Samuel Tan of the Mindanao Studies Program and Atty. Macapanton Abbas, Jr., chair of the Islamic Directorate of the Philippines.

My brother, Atty. Abbas, Jr. could not make it as he was suddenly invited to be part of the official MNLF delegation to the Organization of Islamic Conference’s (OIC) Foreign Ministers Meeting in Kuala Lumpur. Since he had already drafted the speech, he asked me to deliver it for him. The speech turned out to be quite fiery and anti-military. With a former AFP Chief of Staff, and a colonel representing the present AFP Chief of Staff among the guests, I was sure the speech would not go down well with them. In fact, even Mr. Iribani is now working with the military and will soon be inducted as a reserve officer with the rank of Lt. Colonel as soon as he finishes his course at the National Defense College.

Mr. Rommel Romato, president of the UPMSA, gave the opening remarks. He noted that the symposium is held in order to know and clarify the situation in Mindanao.

The first speaker was Mr. Iribani, who gave the historical overview. He noted that President Aguinaldo proposed that the Moros in the South be included in a Philippine federation. However, the Malolos congress delegates insisted that the Philippines must be a “Christian nation.” Mr. Iribani quoted Mr. O.D. Corpus, who wrote “the cultural bias and neglect of the Christian Filipinos would not have been possible had the Malolos delegates appreciated Aguinaldo’s proposal for a federation.”

Col. Canatoy spoke next. He said that the military understands that the problem is complex and multi-disciplinary but that “it’s better to address the war now instead of later.” “Addressing the war” means waging war against the MILF, whose forces had grown form 5000 in the 1980s to about 15,000 as of January 2000. For him, the AFP has to stop this increasing number of MILF forces.

After his speech, there was an audio-visual presentation by the AFP’s Civil Relations Service. The presentation stressed that “behind the conduct of the Peace Process”, the MILF increased its strength in firearms and manpower. (Ergo, the peace process is wrong?!) It also showed the location of the various MILF camps that the military had taken over.

Then came my turn. My speech (my brother’s, actually) insisted that the military had no reason whatsoever to attack the MILF along the Narciso Ramos highway. Less than a day before the attack, the MILF and the Government Peace Panel had signed an Aide Memoire in which the MILF agreed to pull back and allow the Philippine National Police (PNP) to patrol and secure the highway. There are several points in the speech.

First, it is useless to have further agreements with the government because it never fully implemented any of the previous pacts like the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 and the Jakarta Accord of 1996 or the Organic Act for Muslim Mindanao.

Second, the costs of this war are gargantuan. If one were to include property damage, collateral damage and social costs, the amount would be staggering.

Third, the end of this war is nowhere in sight.

Fourth, federalism wherein the states enjoy various powers nd rights, could be the solution to the conflict.

Fifth, the Bangsa Moro must be asked what it wants in a plebiscite/referendum because the Bangsa Moro enjoys the inalienable right of self-determination as embodied in various U.N. covenants.

It ends by saying that “there is no need to shed blood. The establishment of a genuinely autonomous Bangsa Moro state / region may put an end” to this war and that “the coming millenium may yet be one of peace and harmony for us all.”

Amb. Abul Khayr Alonto noted that the Spanish-era policy of war and hatred is still being followed today. He mentioned unfair laws from the American era such as the Public Land Act of 1909 which allowed Christians to register lands in Mindanao up to 24 hectares but limits the Muslims to 10 hectares per family. He stressed that the Spanish, American and Filipino policies promoted the idea that “a good Moro is a dead Moro.” Today, he said, that old slogan has a new variation: “A man is presumed innocent unless proven Muslim.”

Senator Biazon then took to the stage. He was very animated and looked younger in person than on TV. His thesis was that Filipinos, both Muslims and Christians, belong to one race, one nation and one republic. He went on to mention that the Philippines was peopled by waves of migration — the Negritos (whom he called the aborigines), the Indonesians (whom he called the Indons) and the Malays. (I did not have the heart to mention to the old senator that the Wave Migration theory had been debunked by archaeologists and other scholars some time ago.)

He pointed at the tapestry adorning the hall. The design had a Crescent and a Cross on top and people in Moro and Indio costumes. It was a perfect depiction of the Filipino nation, according to the senator except that one figure was holding a weapon — a kris. I thought that the kris was essential to any depiction of the Moro.

In the open forum, Sen. Biazon noted that federalism should be studied and considered. He suggested that there is no need to change the Constitution, ARMM’s power can be expanded to include almost anything.

Finally, it was the turn of the academe. Dr. Samuel Tan, a respected scholar and historian, said that one must “bring out from history the answer to the Bangsa Moro problem.” Conflict, he said, characterized the Bangsa Moro’s colonial relationship with the rest of the Philippines. He stressed that the historical root of the problem lies in the fact the Moros are actually seeking “the recovery or retrieval of their historical losses to colonialism.” The Muslims were politically, economically and socially dominant. The Moros of today; therefore, are seeking to recover such dominance. I agree with him, although I would add that at this stage, the Moros are already fighting for mere survival.

Dr. Tan concluded that the military may be able to reduce the Bangsa Moro’s capacity to resist, but it can never remove the Bangsa Moro’s will to resist. Lastly, he said that although many would disagree, he had to say that to a large extent, Christianity is to be blamed. The colonial prejudice brought by Spanish Christianity is so much at fault. He mentioned studies that showed the level of prejudice of the Christians towards the Muslims are so much greater than vice versa. And today, the level of prejudice has increased even more.

More information and ideas came out during the open forum. To my pleasant surprise, the audience seemed to be quite apprehensive of the military and was all against a military solution to the conflict.

Published in the Philippine Post July 14, 2000

As a writer and journalist (and journalism lecturer), I truly appreciate blog writing. I used to have websites, but they are tedious to maintain. Blogs, on the other hand, are so simple.

Also, for Moro writers, the ‘Net may be the only venue for their works. I have tons of manuscripts gathering dust in my shelves or forgotten in various diskettes.

This reminds me of the time I won the Gawad Kalinangan Journalism Award 2001, the prestigious annual journalism awards by the Manila Rotary Club. Below is the acceptance speech I gave and a couple of photos of the event.

* * * *

‘Assalammu ‘aleikum. I would just like to say a few words about Moro writers and the Moro problem.

The semanticist Wendell Johnson stressed that no matter what we try to talk about or symbolize, we inevitably talk about ourselves. Corollary to this, he emphasized that no two people perceive reality in the same way.

Today’s headlines once again highlight the so-called Moro Problem. I believe that the Moro Problem is not a military problem, it is a communication problem.

Throughout the history of the Philippines, from the Spanish to the American and to the present regime, most of the stories about the Moros were written by non-Moros; i.e., the non-Moros talking about themselves — their own perception of the Moros, which may have nothing in common with the Moros’ perception of themselves. Christians writing about Moros may even foster simply more misunderstanding.

Words are all that journalists and writers have. But words are not mere things; they are symbols. One word may mean one thing to one person, and may mean a totally different thing to another. The word Filipino for example means differently to a Tagalog and to an ordinary Maranao.

I believe we can solve this problem only through a real understanding of the issues involved. And the best people who could be instrumental in fostering such understanding would be the Moro writers.

The Moro writers simply have to write about themselves – their values, aspirations, beliefs, etc. And the non-Moro readers can try to empathize and truly understand these sentiments without making any inferences or judgments.

For more than 400 years, the Spaniards and the Americans have inculcated in the minds of generations of Filipinos that “a good Moro is a dead Moro.” Such a conviction cannot simply be denied or swept under the rug of history. The Christian majority must exert an honest-to-goodness effort to understand the feelings, sentiments, biases, ideals, prejudices, customs, traditions and historical experience of the Bangsa Moro, as enunciated and articulated by the Moros themselves.

Sad to say, there are only a handful of Moro writers, not for lack of talent, but for lack of opportunity and access to media organizations.

But this prize means that the Communication Gap is getting narrower. So there is hope. The Rotary Club of Manila’s Journalism Awards that focus on Culture is indeed a great idea. I’d like to thank the Rotary Club of Manila, the UP College of Mass Communication and most especially to Ms. Llita Logarta, my editor at The Philippine Post, for her sincere desire to learn more about the Moros and see my articles published.

Thank you.

In September 2000, I was invited to deliver a speech/lecture on the Social Impact of the Moro Conflict at the University of the Philippines in Los Banos. Later, I uploaded the speech in my website and in one web forum I joined. Later, I found out that this speech has been linked and/or re-printed in various websites and web fora. Since I don’t maintain my websites anymore, I suppose I better upload it in this blog. Here it is:

*********** ************* ************

A few years ago, I visited my girl friend’s house. Her septuagenarian Visayan grandmother was visiting them at the time. Upon seeing me, the grandmother fled the room. She knew that her granddaughter was going out with a Moro. But meeting a Moro in person seemed to be too unnerving for the old lady. She is not an illiterate barrio folk. She is a retired schoolteacher, her nephew (i.e., her brother’s son) is a governor and all her children are degree-holders, two of them are lawyers.

I had a sexagenarian office mate who told me that when he was growing up in Bicol, the kids’ parents usually scare the children off by shouting “the Moros are coming!” That announcement usually made the kids run immediately to their houses for safety.

These two anecdotal samples illustrate the social impact of the Mindanao conflict – not of the present MILF/Abu Sayyaf crisis nor of the MNLF wars in the 1970s. These were the effects on the intermittent warfare between the Moros and the Spanish from the 16^th to the 19^th century. Although the Spanish have gone for more than a hundred years now, the effects on the collective psyche of the Filipinos remain.

The social impact of the present Mindanao conflict will simply be a reiteration or reinforcement of the impact of the Moro conflict since the arrival of the Spanish to these Islands. The social impact of the Mindanao Conflict today is more or less the same as the social impact of the late 60s to early 70s conflict between the AFP-supported Christian vigilante groups led by the notorious Ilagas and the various Moro private armies like the Baracudas, Blackshirts, PUSA, etc. The social impact of today’s Mindanao conflict is more or less the same as that of the MNLF wars in the ‘70s. And for some of the parties concerned, the social impact of the present Mindanao conflict is the same as that of the Moro Wars during the American and Spanish eras. When it comes to Mindanao, some things never change. There are of course variations, relating to present conditions.

Perhaps what is needed now is to truly understand the Moro Problem, from the viewpoint of the Moros. And only a thorough understanding of history can give light to this issue. However, the Filipino majority is reluctant to talk about history. They always claim that the past should be buried and that everyone should be forward-looking. During every crisis in Mindanao, the Christian Filipino talk, write and generally disseminate their ideas on supposed causes of the conflict and give various solutions to the conflict – greater access to education, more infrastructures, coddling Moro leaders, peace negotiations, etc.

The Moros who call everyone’s attention to historical past are called obscurantists, obstructionists or simply rabble-rousers. But the adage “he who forgets his past is sure to repeat it” cannot be truer when applied to the so-called Moro Problem. No solution can be found if the underlying causes are not considered. The Moros, unlike the Christianized Filipinos, have a living culture, or as the French say, culture vivant. This culture is steeped in history. For example, the greatness of a man is not measured by how much money he has in the bank, but for the most part, his bloodline – i.e., who his father, mother, grandparents and ancestors were. Former US President John Quincy Adams in his defense of the “Amistad” African prisoners declared that “Who we are is who we were.” For the Moros, that statement is almost sacrosanct.

THE MYTHS ABOUT MORO-PHILIPPINE HISTORY

The Filipinos as ONE nation since time immemorial

It must be emphasized and acknowledged that the Moros and the Indios (the Christianized Filipinos) never constituted a nation and that it was only in 1946, upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic that the Moros and the Indios became part of one nation-state.

The World Maps

The earliest world map that included “the Philippines” is on display at the Malacanang Museum. But lo and behold, the Philippines was not on the map, only Mindanao and Palawan were there. It is proof positive that before the Western world ever heard of the Philippines, they already knew Mindanao and Palawan.

In a 1716 map, a group of Islands was labeled I. Philippinae (Philippine Islands, plural) But Mindanao Island was also labeled. This could be construed as indicating that Mindanao Island was not part of the Philippine Islands. In an 18^th  European century map, North Borneo was labeled as “Territories belonging to the Sultan of Sulu.”

The Myth of the Spanish Conquest of Moroland

The Christian majority in the country propagates the myth that although the Moros fought, they were nevertheless conquered by the Spaniards. History books call the Moro wars as rebellions that were answered by Spanish punitive expeditions.

Going back to history, a look at the views of the other Europeans would give a more objective conclusion. Let us see what the Europeans themselves thought. The 14th Dutch governor of Moluccas, Simon Cos, brushed away Spanish claims on Mindanao arguing that if such claims were based on raiding villages, then the Maguindanaons had much more territory to claim than the Spaniards. On May 16, 1658, Gov. Cos wrote to his superiors:

 " The Muslims have the Spanish settlements burning and blazing every year and
take some 500 captives per raid, while the Spaniards got only one Maguindanao
last year."

When the French led by Admiral Cecille blockaded Basilan in 1845, the Spanish governor protested alleging that Basilan had recognized Spain’s sovereignty just the year before, in February 1844. (This alone is telling. This means that after almost 200 years in the Philippines, the Spanish admitted that Basilan was still not under their control.) The French answer was to force the Basilan datus to sign a document affirming the "absolute independence of Basilan vis-a-vis Spain" on January 13, 1845 aboard the steamer Archimede. And on February 20, 1845, France forced the Sulu Sultan to formally cede Basilan Island to France in exchange for 100,000 piastres or 500,000 French francs. The French Admiral totally ignored Spanish protests. However, the French King, Louis Philippe decided against taking Basilan although the French Cabinet already approved the annexation, even allocating the budget for Basilan for that year. In fact, France has more right than Spain to claim Basilan since they got a formal cession from the Sultan of Sulu as well as formal written agreement from the Basilan datus.

In answer to Spanish claims that the Moros were mere pirates, the British Earl of Denby’s instruction to Consul Palgrave on Aug. 25, 1877 stated:

"Her Majesty’s government has never regarded the Sultan of Sulu as a pirate;
they never admitted the claim of Spain to sovereignty over the archipelago;
and in the interests of British trade, they never have been disposed to regard
with favor any extension of Spanish authority or influence in the Sulu waters…"

And what did the Spanish themselves think? In a letter by Spanish Captain-General Marquma to the King of Spain in the late 18th century, he wrote:

 " From this time…these Moros have not ceased to infest our colonies.
Innumerable are the Indios they have captured, the ranches they have destroyed
and the vessels they have taken. It seems as if God has preserved them for
vengeance on the Spanish that they have not been able to subject them in in 200
years in spite of the expeditions sent against them, the armaments spent every
year to pursue them. In a very little while, we conquered the islands of the
Philippines, but the little islands of Sulu, parts of Mindanao and other islands
nearby, we have not been able to subjugate to this very day."

Scanning through the various Spanish reports and other official documents — bandos y circulares, cartas, cedularios, memorias ,etc.– one could see the pain and destruction suffered by the Spanish masters and their Indio subjects at the hands of the Moros. The Moros regularly raided Spanish settlements in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The report of Spanish Governor-General Manuel de Arandia to the King of Spain dated May 24, 1755 enumerated the losses suffered by the Spanish from the Moros, who attacked with impunity most of the Spanish settlements in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao which brought the Islands practically to its knees ("en el deplorable estado y fatal sistema").

Even the Americans belittled Spanish claims in Mindanao. In his Foreword to his book, Swish of the Kris: The Story of the Moros, Vic Hurley wrote:

"The close of the unsuccessful Spanish conquest of Moroland marked the beginning
of the end of one of the most remarkable resistance in the annals of military history.
The Moslems has staged a bitter and uninterrupted warfare against the might of Spain
for a period of 377 years. It is doubtful if this record has been equaled in the
whole bloody history of military aggression. The Dons, accustomed to the easy
conquests of Peru and Mexico, met their match and more in the jungles of Mindanao."

Historical records show that the Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan were never conquered by Spain and therefore the Treaty of Paris in 1898 was void ab initio with regards to Mindanao. The US had no right to take over Moroland, except through the law of Conquest.

The Myth of Socio-Economic-Political Backwardness

The Filipino also insist that it was Spain that brought civilization to the Philippines. The former President Fidel Ramos once declared that before the coming of Spain, the natives of the country had nothing but a crude political system known as barangays. The political and economic systems of the sultanates were certainly more complex than the Indios’ barangay systems. The Dutch anthropologist Ruurdje Laarhoven has this to say about the Maguindanao sultanate in the 17^th century:

 "The Maguindanao rulers must be credited for their astuteness in utilizing their
strategic position between the Spanish-controlled Philippines and the
Dutch-controlled Moluccas. They were able to mobilize the rivalry of these
European powers to neutralize each other while successfully maintaining
its independence and advancing its own political development. Even factional
struggles within the Mindanao confederacy can be seen positively as indicators
of political evolution towards a supra-tribal state able to harness all  human
and ecological resources within its territory for higher political goals, able to
operate as a state in a larger political arena defined by the presence of other
state-organized powers such as the Dutch, English and Spanish operating in
Southeast Asia." (The Maguindanao Sultanate in the 17th Century: Triumph
of Moro Diplomacy, New Day Publishers, Q.C. :1989, p. 181)

James F. Warren, in his book, The Sulu Zone, wrote:

"The source of Sulu’s hegemony after 1768 was its role as a regional emporium
in the commerce between European traders, southeast Asian realms and China.
The increasing magnitude of this external trade made regional distribution the
dominant pattern of the economy of the Tausug state and established its
ascendancy in the region."

The Sultanates of Maguindanao, Sulu and Buayan entered into several treaties with European powers like Netherlands, England and even Spain. European powers never entered into treaties with barangay datus. Blood compact was the preferred mode of the Europeans when negotiating with barangay chieftains.

The Filipino people were united in their desire for Independence from the US.

During the American Occupation, the great majority of the Moros fought for independence through peaceful and even violent means. And they repeatedly communicated their desire for Independence. And if they could not have Independence, they would rather be with the Americans than with the Filipinos. The Wood-Forbes Commission Report of 1922 stated:

“The Moros are a unit against independence and are united for continuance of American control and, in case of separation of the Philippines from the US, desire their portion of the Islands to be retained as American territory under American control. The pagans and non-Christians, constituting 10% of the population, are for continued American control. They want peace and security, These the Americans have given them.”

Countering Filipino propaganda that the Americans simply wanted to grab the lands of the Moros, Datu Gumbay Piang of  Buayan declared in a speech in 1926 that the Moros “would be between two fearful and objectionable daggers – American at the one side and Filipino at the other. As a defenseless people they would have no alternative but choose which dagger would be less injurious. And, funny to say, they have already, since long ago, chosen the American dagger.”

With the intensified fight for Philippine Independence led by Manuel L. Quezon, the Moros sent various petitions to the US President and the US Congress. On June 9, 1921, the Moros of Sulu sent a petition to the US government which stated:

“We are independent for 500 years. Even Spain failed to conquer us. If the
 U.S. quits the Philippines, and the Filipinos attempt to govern us, we will fight.”

On February 4, 1924, another petition to the US Congress was signed by more than 100 datus led the Maguindanao Sultan Mangigin. The petition in part reads:

“…In the event that the United States grant independence to the Philippine Islands without provision for our retention under the American flag, it is our firm intention and resolve to declare ourselves an independent Constitutional sultanate to be known to the world as Moro Nation….”

The Moros found sympathetic ears in the US Congress. On May 6, 1926,  Congressman Robert L. Bacon of New York gave a stirring speech in support of the Moros. He said:

“Their (the Moros’) so-called representation in the Philippine Legislature is a farce and a mockery. They are deliberately denied any share or participation in the government. They have no elective representatives…They have no magistrates, no judges, no public prosecutor drawn from their own people. And the guardians of law and order in their region – constabulary – are practically drawn from the ranks of their hereditary enemies – the Filipinos. The Filipinos are their lawmakers, their governors, their judges, their persecutors and their policemen. To these conditions the Moros respond by giving nothing but hate and unwilling submission.”

            Some 75 years later, and the Moros find themselves still with no representation in the Senate, very few judges, and the guardians of law and public order – the military and police– are still practically drawn from the ranks of the Filipinos. Congressman Bacon added:

“The Philippine Islands are divided into two very distinct areas – the Christian provinces and the Mohammedan territory….These two regions belong to different and opposed civilizations  — the Christian world and Islam.”

Congressman Bacon sponsored a bill that would retain Mindanao and Sulu in the event of Philippine independence. Other similar bills –  the Roger, Cooper and Kies bills – were also deliberated in the US Congress.

During the deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional Convention, 189 ranking Maranao datus sent an appeal to the US Government through the Governor-General that stated:

“…With regard to the forthcoming Philippine independence, we foresee that the condition will be characterized by unrest, suffering and misery…

One more discriminatory act of our Christian Filipino Associates is shown in the recent constitution of the Philippine Commonwealth. In that constitution, no provision whatsoever is made that would operate for the welfare of the Moros…the (provision of the) constitution are all for the welfare of the Christian Filipinos and nothing for the Moros. As proof of this, our delegate did not sign the constitution.

We do not want to be included in the Philippine Independence (for) once an independent Philippines is launched there will be trouble between us and the Christian Filipinos because from time immemorial these two peoples have not lived harmoniously. …It is not proper for two antagonizing peoples live together under Philippine Independence.

The Dansalan Declaration, as it came to be known went on to say that the Maranaos would rather “drown in the lake” than be included in the Philippine Independence.

The Honeymoon Years

Unfortunately for the Moros, World War II came about. When the US granted Philippine independence after the war, the Moros neither had the resources nor inclination to fight another war. Thus the “honeymoon” with the Philippine Republic began, with very few troubles like the Kamlon rebellion.

But in 1969, with the discovery of the Jabidah massacre, the Moros realized that the honeymoon was over. From then on, up to the present, the Moro fight continues.

The Present Conflict

It must be very clear to everyone that the Moro conflict today did not begin in 1969. It did not begin with Misuari, Salamat or Abbas, Jr. In 1969, they were the Young Turks but the independence movement was led by the elders – Congressman Lucman, Senator Pendatun and other Moro leaders.

In 1972, President. Marcos told OIC officials that the Moros were not united and could never unite, that Maranaos hate Maguindanaos and both hate the Tausugs, etc., and that the Nationalistas would not sit with a Liberal, etc.

The OIC then challenged the Moro community to refute Mr. Marcos’s allegation. Thus was born the Islamic Directorate of the Philippines (IDP). The founding directors included Maranao, Tausug, Maguindanao, Nationalista and Liberal Party leaders. For the first time political rivals Lucman and Dimaporo, Sinsuat and Pendatun, and other Moro leaders like Anni, Abubakar, Sen, Tamano, Sen. Alonto and a host of others including the Young Turks – Abbas, Jr., Misuari and Salamat joined together in one organization to prove to the Islamic countries that the Moros were united. The founding chair of IDP was Dr. C. Adib Majul, then the Dean of the UP College of Arts and Sciences. Abbas, Jr. was the Secretary-General.

The present conflict in Mindanao does not pertain to only the MILF and the Abu Sayyaf, although they are the only ones fighting now. The MNLF cadres are still very much there. The Islamic Command Council is newly-formed but composed of former MNLF commanders. The MNLF-Reformists can regroup anytime. There are still thousands of armed Moros simply waiting for the most opportune time.

An all-out war against the MILF is indeed ill-advised because the repercussions might be far worse. An all-out war between the AFP and the MILF will surely expand to an all-out war between the AFP and all Moro armed groups, which could very well escalate into a full-scale civil war between the Moros and the Indios.

Time for Peace

Wars will only bring more wars. The Bangsa Moro enjoys the inalienable right of self-determination. The 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations states:

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

It is high time that the Bangsa Moro be asked on what it really wants. Does it want to remain in the present set-up? Do the Moros prefer an autonomous region within the Republic? Do they want a federal form of government? Or do they want independence? A clean and honest referendum can give the answer, and everyone should abide by the outcome.

Social Impact of the Present Conflict

The present conflict has already shown the negative impacts on the communities. The degree of intolerance by both communities towards each other has dramatically increased. The popularity of an “all-out war” policy among the Christian population is evident as shown by the surge in the popularity rating of President Estrada.

A more serious effect is the apparent success of the Abu Sayyaf and the apparent failure of the MILF. This means that more Moros would now be inclined to go the way of terrorism instead of a semi-conventional warfare as practiced by the MILF.

But there are interesting effects, too. Many Christian intellectuals are now seeing the practicality in Moro separatism. More Moro wars would create greater havoc on the economy of the whole country. Dan Mariano, Executive Editor of the Philippine Post wrote in his column of  May 13, 2000 the ff.:

If only they would be honest about it, the ordinary Filipinos — the so-called Christians — feel little kinship and affinity for those whom they perfunctorily refer to as "Muslim brothers." There is a great deal of discrimination and prejudice against the Moros that is expressed officially, as in the disenfranchisement of entire Muslim communities from the body politic, and unofficially, as in chauvinistic jokes that portray Moros as crude, opportunistic yokels.

The Moros are a people that have been set apart from the Filipino nation by history, faith and culture. Their integration into the Philippine Republic was a fabrication of colonialism. The creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao merely acknowledged this fact, but it did not go far enough to rectify a centuries-old mistake.

The creation of a homeland that the Moros can truly call their own is the only intelligent solution to the Mindanao problem. When this comes to pass, only then can Filipinos and Moros learn to live in peace — as good neighbors.

_________________________

Speech delivered by Datu Jamal Ashley Abbas at the University of the Philippines in Los Baños, Laguna on 5 Sept. 2000

_________________________ 

SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHY
 

BLAIR, EMMA HELEN   and James Robertson (eds.)      The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898 , Cleveland: 1904
 

DERY, LUIS CAMARA        The Kris in Philippine History: A Study of the Impact of Anti-Colonial Resistance, 1571-1896 self-published : 1997

HURLEY, VIC   Swish of the Cross, The Story of the Moros, E.P. Dutton &  Co.,  USA: 1936

GEORGE, T.J.S.  Revolt in Mindanao: The Rise of Islam in Philippine Politics,                      Oxford Univ. Press, Kuala Lumpur: 1980

GOWING, PETER G.  Mandate in Moroland: The American Government of Muslim Filipinos 1899-1920, UP Press, Q.C.: 1977

JUBAIR, SALAH      A Nation Under Endless Tyranny, 2nd ed., Lahore: 1997

LAARHOVEN, RUURDJE     Triumph of Moro Diplomacy, The Maguindanao Sultanate in the 17th Century, New Day, Q.C.: 1989
 

MAJUL, CESAR ADIB           Muslims in the Philippines, 3rd edition, UP Press, Q.C.: 1999
 

MAN, CHE W. K.                    Muslim Separatism: The Moros of Southern Philippines and  the Malays of Southern Thailand,  Ateneo de Manila Press, Q.C.: 1990

NARDIN, DENIS                    France and the Philippines: From the Beginning to the End of  the Spanish Regime, translated by Ma. Theresa Cruz, National Historical Institute: 1989

PIGAFETTA, ANTONIO        Magellan’s Voyage Around The World, 1906 edition

RASUL, JAINAL D.                The Philippine Muslims: Struggle for Identity, Nueva Press, Manila: 1970

SALEEBY, NAJEEB MITRY   Studies in Moro History, Law and Religion ,Manila: 1905

TAN, SAMUEL K.                  The Filipino Muslim Armed Struggle 1900-1972, Filipinas Foundation, Q.C. 1977

THOMAS, RALPH                   Muslim But Filipino: The Integration of Philippine Muslims, 1917-1946, PhD dissertation GSAS, Univ. of Pennsylvania: 1971

Located thirteen kilometers from Tinaka Point, the southernmost tip of mainland Mindanao, is a beautiful island called Sarangany. It is accessible by ferry from Davao City or by banca from my hometown, Malita in Davao del Sur. From the Sarangany town proper, one can take another banca ride to go to Maluku (Moluccas) Beach with its white sand and clear water.

Today, Sarangany Island (I’m keeping the old spelling to distinguish it from the newly created Sarangani province) is one of the poorest and most neglected municipalities in the country. Yet once upon a time, it was the seat of a powerful Principality that held dominion over the east coast of Mindanao (up to Tandag), the Sarangani Bay, the Butuan Gulf (now Davao Gulf) and even in the Sangirese Islands in Northern Moluccas.

The natives of Sarangany and its “twin”, Balut Island, belong to the Sangil or Sangir ethnic groups. According to anthropologists, the Sangils are autochthonous to the Davao area. They speak the Sangil and/or Sangir languages. Sangir is also spoken by some 200,000 Sangirese in Moluccas.

Most Filipinos do not even know that Sarangany Island exists. Yet skimming through the pages of history, one would realize that this obscure island and its people were quite known and respected by other nations, including European powers.

In 1535 the Portuguese Governor of Ternate Tristao d’Atayde sent his trusted lieutenant, Pinto, to explore the Mindanao area. The Datu of Sarangany welcomed him and sealed their alliance with a blood compact. Pinto invited the Saranganies to come to his ship. As soon as they came on deck, the Portuguese crew threw them into the hold to take them as captives and be sold as slaves.

Luckily, one Sarangany warrior escaped. The Datu of Sarangany immediately gathered his men and gave chase to the Portuguese. The Saranganies attacked furiously, and only a heavy storm saved the Portuguese. Pinto barely escaped to Ternate in the Moluccas. The Portuguese were thus warned never to return to Mindanao.

After the debacle in Mactan in 1521, Spain’s Carlos I sent 4 more missions to conquer “Las Islas del Poniente” (i.e., the Philippines). The last mission was led by Ruy Villalobos, who landed in Sarangany island in1543. The Saranganies gave stiff resistance and laid siege to the Spanish. The Spanish were forced “to eat cats, dogs and rats, gray lizards and unknown plants” in order to survive.

Incidentally, on their way home, the Spaniards passed by Samar and Leyte. A member of the crew, Bernardo de la Torre named these two islands Las Filipinas in honor of then Crown Prince Philip.

In 1575, the powerful Sultan Bajang Ullah of Ternate made a mutual defense pact with the Datu of Sarangani / Rajah of Candahar, whose capital was in Balut Island.

With the fall of Ternate to the Dutch, Sarangany’s strategic location made its leaders the natural Moro ambassadors to the Dutch in Ternate. In 1619, the Datu of Sarangany went to Ternate in behalf of the Rajah of Buayan to ask for Dutch aid against Maguindanao. At the same time, Katchil Suleiman, the rajah muda of Maguindanao went to Ternate to ask for Dutch help against Buayan. A couple of years later, the Prime Minister of Sarangany visited Ternate. He was probably the first Ambassador of a “united Moro front”. He brought with him letters from the Rajahs of Sarangany and Buayan as well as from the Sultans of Maguindanao and Sulu. The Moros proposed a joint Moro-Dutch assault on two small Spanish settlements in Mindanao.

In 1628, the Dutch finally sent a mission to Mindanao under Fiscal Daniel Ottens. He met with Sultan Qudarat of Maguindanao, Rajah Amoncaya (Datu Maputi) of Buayan, Datu Mangada of Sarangany and other Moro rulers.

Datu Mangada claimed that he could easily muster a war force of 2000 Saranganies, 2000 alforeses ( now called lumads by some writers), 200 Badjaos plus the help of several negeris (districts/counties) under his dominion; namely, Malita, Bagobo, Canatig, Djabo, Mateau, Sommeleg and Leyne (villages along Mindanao’s southern and eastern coasts). The Sarangani datu also claimed to have a naval force of 10 fully armed caracoas ( a typical Moro war vessel).

In comparison, Sultan Qudarat claimed he could immediately raise an army of 10,000 while the Buayan datus boasted that they could easily gather 100 fully armed caracoas, 60 of them armed and manned by Buayanens and 40 by vassal negeris.

During this time, Ternate was beset by dynastic quarrels. Sultan Mudaffar died and there were three pretenders. Hamza, who had Spanish support, eventually succeeded Mudaffar.

The Datu of Sarangany openly protested Hamza’s coronation. On the other hand, Buayan supported Hamza. To emphasize Buayan’s support of Hamza, the Buayan rajah gave the Ternatan sultan the right to appoint Buayan’s Raja Laut (Lord of the Admiralty). Maguinadanao was presumably against Hamza.

The “Hamza affair” showed quite clearly how the Mindanao and Moluccan politics were intertwined. At that time, Moro and Moluccan natives called Mindanao Maluku Besar (Great Moluccas), perhaps to distinguish it from Maluku (Moluccas proper).

A few months ago, there were reports that Indonesians (Moluccans) were residing illegally in the newly formed Sarangani province. Perhaps these Moluccans did not realize that after World War II, the idea of nation-states is considered sacrosanct and that the boundaries of the new nation-states are inviolable.

In the past, Maguindanao’s, Buayan’s, Sarangany’s, Candahar’s and Sangir’s rulers were practically one family. For example, in the latter half of the 17th century, the children of Datu Buisan of Sarangany a.k.a. the Rajah of Candahar were all over the region. His sons included Kudjamu, the Rajah of Buayan; Samsialam and Makabarat, co-rulers of Buayan who later chose to live in Ternate; and Pandjalang the Prime Minister of Tabukan in North Sangir. His daughters were married to Sultan Barahaman and Katchil Bakaal of Maguindanao, and the Sultan of Tabukan. His favorite daughter Lorolabo, who was married to the Tabukan sultan, had a son, Joannes Calambuta, whom Buisan chose to succeed him as Rajah of Candahar. Rajah Buisan was the son of Datu Buisan of Davao.

If Rajah Buisan of Candahar were alive today, I wonder what passport would he use. The Dutch considered him a Sangirese /Moluccan ruler, yet he was the son of Datu Buisan of Davao and was born and reared in Sarangany Island.

For centuries, Sarangany was an autonomous principality. Historical records show that it took part in numerous Moro expeditions against Spanish settlements in Luzon and Visayas.

The end came in the early 1900’s when Sarangany became part of the Moro Province under the Americans. In 1946, it became part of the Philippine Republic. The once proud datuship of Sarangany was reduced into a mere municipality of Davao del Sur.

Former President Ramos created a new province named Sarangani. This new province is settled and ruled by people who came from afar, even as far as China. They will now carry the name of Sarangani while the real Saranganies will be left further in oblivion.

Their days of glory may be over, but the people of Sarangany Island can take heart from the words of the great American president John Quincy Adams. He said, “Who we are is who we were.” Nobody can take away the Sarangany people’s proud history and heritage.

Published in the Philippine Post on June 3, 2000

At Christmastime, the world remembers Jesus Christ. The Muslims revere him as a great prophet, the equal of Muhammad, Abraham and Moses (may peace be upon them all.) And his mother Mary has quite a special place in the hearts of Muslims. A look at the story of the Virgin Mary as depicted in the Qur’an will show that whatever Islam is, it is not blindly patriarchal as some critics suggest. The Qur’anic Mary could very well be an icon of the feminist movement. Among all women, Mary receives the most attention and praise in the Muslim holy book, the Qur’an. While the Bible praised the House of David and traced Jesus’s lineage through Joseph, his adoptive father, the Qur’an praised the House of Aaron (brother of Moses and son of Imran), to which Mary and her cousin Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist) belonged. The Qur’an says: “God did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham and the family of ‘Imran above all people…” (III: 33)

In the Qur’an, the birth of Mary was quite an occasion: “Behold, a woman of ‘Imran said: ‘O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me for Thou hearest and knowest all things.” (III : 35) When Hannah (Anne), the mother of Mary gave birth, she prayed: ” O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!’ …And nowise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, The Rejected.” (III:36)

God accepted Anne’s prayer and :”He (God) made her (Mary) grow in purity and beauty: To the care of Zakariya (the priest Zacharias, husband of Elizabeth) was she assigned. Every time that he entered her chamber to see her, he found her supplied with sustenance. He said: ‘O Mary! Whence comes this to you?’ She said: ‘From God: for God provides sustenance to whom He pleases, without measure.’” (III : 37) For the Islamic Mary, miracle was practically a daily occurrence.

The Qur’an has one chapter (surah), which contains 98 verses, entitled Maryam (Mary). This chapter tells the stories of God’s messengers and their personal relationships– John with his father Zacharias; Moses with his brother Aaron; Abraham with his father; and Jesus with his mother Mary. It also mentioned the prophets Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, and Idris (sometimes equated with the biblical Enoch). If this surah (chapter) were a movie, it would be considered “star-studded” with Mary having the title role. In contrast, Mary only had a cameo role in the Bible. Joseph, her husband, even had a bigger role.

On the other hand, Joseph was not mentioned at all in the Qur’an. Apparently, Mary had no need for a man — “And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit, and we made her and her son a Sign for all peoples.” (XXI : 91)

In pregnancy and even in childbirth, she was with no man: “So she conceived him (Jesus), and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree” (XIX :22 - 23) While feeling all alone and crying in pain, “…(a voice) cried to her from beneath (the palm tree): ‘Grieve not! For thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee: ‘And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. So eat and drink and cool thine eye.’” (XIX: 25-26)

The Qur’anic version of Christ’s nativity is a stark contrast to the biblical account. For Muslims, Mary was all alone by a tree trunk in a remote village. There was no Joseph, there were no stars, there were no magi and their gifts. There was only God.

When Mary finally brought the baby to her home, everyone was naturally shocked and demanded to know the truth behind the babe. Mary simply pointed to the child. The crowd was incredulous, “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?” And the infant Jesus spoke: “He said: ‘I am indeed a servant of God: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be …; (He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So Peace is on me, the day I was born, the day that I die and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again).’” (XIX :29-33)

Thus, in the Qur’an, the first miracle of Jesus happened some 30 years before his first miracle as recorded in the Bible. Interestingly, that miracle happened in the presence of Mary, too. It could even have been instigated by Mary herself. It was in a wedding at Cana and “At a certain point the wine ran out, and Jesus’ mother told him, ‘They have no more wine’.” (John 2:3) Jesus’s answer was quite enigmatic: “Woman, how does this concern of yours involve me? My hour has not yet come.” (John 2:4) Jesus’s reply puzzled biblical scholars. In light of the Qur’anic description of Mary being provided sustenance by God since childhood, could Jesus have meant that since providing sustenance (food and drink) was a “regular miracle” for Mary, it was therefore “her concern” and not his? At any rate, Mary knowingly “instructed those waiting on table, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’” (John 2:5) And so Jesus turned water into wine, his first recorded miracle in the bible.

While the bible refers to Jesus as the Son of Man or the son of David, the Qur’an usually refers to him as the son of Mary.

Mary was not just a mother of a great prophet. There were other great prophets (Moses, Abraham, Noah and Muhammad, among others), all of whom had mothers. But in the Qur’an, no woman was given more attention than Mary. She was set out as an example for the people of the world to follow. The Muslim holy book says: “And God sets forth as an example to those who believe–….Mary, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity….and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of his revelations, and was one of the Devout.” (LXVI : 12)

Significantly, the Arabic word used for devout (Qaanitiin) was not in the feminine gender, which according to Islamic scholar Yusuf Ali, “implies that the highest spiritual dignity is independent of sex (gender).”

For the Muslims, Mary’s obedience and devotion to God is an example for all peoples, for all ages. In a heavily patriarchal time and place, Mary had no need for men. God was her provider. And as God said in the Qur’an: “We made her and her son a Sign for all peoples. Verily this Brotherhood of yours is a single Brotherhood, and I am your Lord and Cherisher”. (XXI : 91-92)

Published in The Philippine Post on Dec. 26, 1999