Talk:Islam in the Philippines

I added warning templates. This article needs serious rework in order to meet Wikipedia standarts like NPOV.

Proposed Link

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=30 concerning The MILF peace process. Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 01:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

Most of the material is from the Library of Congress as cited at the bottom. What is not accurate? --Jondel 01:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

What are the points/issues of contention?--Jondel 01:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The article seems a bit pro-muslim. There is no discussion of islamic terrorism.

Please be bold and add factual information'.The first step in order to solve a problem, is to understand and study it! Doctors don't spend their time condeming the evil of cancer. Please also don't be biased and understand that there are mature, peace-loving, prodemocracy muslims who also condemn terrorism. We don't want to categorize or typecast them in the wrong way.--Jondel 02:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be informed Doing any party which Islam forbids whether to imitate kuffar or to get reward e.g. to celebrate the Hijrah or birthday of the Prophet, the new year Christian or Muslim calendar or night of Isra and Mi’raj or shabbe-baraat or to celebrate on the 27th of Ramadhaan (as opposed to seeking the night of Al-Qadr) hence we have the last 10 nights, because people start to celebrate this night is SHIRK. Hence it is haram to do such things otherwise you will be a MUSHRIK. Also, not all Muslims are terrorists. Please don't say things like that because we are peace loving and Allah fearing people. If in any case, We will fight only for ALLAH and nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac0124 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

If this article needs this section, I will try to work on this.--Jondel 04:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

re- non POV language:

You refer to "the Prophet Muhammad". This assumes Muhammad's Prophethood is an established fact. Muhammad apparently claimed he was a Prophet, and millions of Muslims apparently believe he was. But using language which presupposes this claim to be proven is not appropriate to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. It's like an article on Christianity referring casually to "Christ the Risen Lord". Christians may believe he is. But others dispute this.

You also refer to "preachers and holy men". "Preacher" is an acceptable NPOV word. "Holy men" is not acceptable. It assumes their holiness is proven. They may have believed they were holy. But their holiness is not proven. This is POV language.

"Idolaters" and "heathen" are also emotively charged Muslim POV words to describe the non-Muslims originally living in the Philippines. How would these non-Muslim Philippines have chosen to describe themselves?

When you say, "and by war waged against heathen states", could you expand? Whose army attacked the "heathen states"? Who ordered the attack? Who commanded? Was this an official jihad? Also, what were the names of these heathen states? Who ruled them? What was the outcome of the war or wars? Presumably somebody won and somebody else lost. Who?

When you say, "Islam gives the Philippines Muslim their life meaning and direction", you imply that the non-Muslim and pre-Muslim Philippine people found life meaningless and directionless. Do you have any evidence of widespread existential angst among them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.15.141.50 (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your last paragraph, I don't think it implies that non-Muslim and pre-Muslim Filipinos found life meaningless and directionless. If it had said, "Islam gave the Filipino Muslims their life meaning and direction", this could mean that pre-Muslim Filipinos had no meaning and direction in their life to begin with (which Islam later gave), while Christian (or other non-Muslim) Filipinos might have lost meaning and direction in their life when they converted to their non-Islamic religions, because the past tense would refer to the Filipinos as one united entity that found meaning and direction as it began to adopt Islam, whereas the present tense would refer to separate individual Muslim Filipinos today, who found meaning and direction with Islam in their life as their children will too someday. However, this is not the case. The statement doesn't offend any particular group in my opinion. Is it not possible that Islam gives Filipino Muslims their life meaning and direction (as opposed to soccer/football or money for example), while Christianity gives Filipino Christians their life meaning and direction? Isn't it just another way of saying that religion is central to their life? (only that it answers the how and why question) The only problem I have with this statement is (like the problem I have with many other statements in Wikipedia) is the data to back up the statement (like survey of Muslim Filipinos who find meaning and direction with Islam in their lives). However, I do agree with the rest of your points. Good job! It all pushes Wikipedia to become more and more neutral and reliable. Salut!Senantiasa (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a casual passerby, I have to say most of the criticisms of this article seem a bit unjustified. The allegation is that the article is biased, pro-Muslim, etc.

It didn't strike me that way. Rather, it seems the critics are upset the article isn't sufficiently anti-Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.60.165 (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See also

Added National Commission on Muslim Filipinos to the see also section. Hope that's all right... --Breuns (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Filipino redirect

I noticed Muslim Filipino redirects to this page. Would it not be better suited to redirect it to Moro people since that title would refer to the people, not the religion? --Destron Commander (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Islam in the Philippines is not one of the oldest.

The Islam is not the oldest thing in the Philippines. It had much influencce from Buddhist ans hindu-people long before Mohammed even was born. In the Philippines is not much left from this period because it is destroyed bij muslims and later the Spanish also the last remains. The taking over by muslims was not done in a very friendly way, the fact that hardly anything is left to be found is to blame by the Islam and later the Spanish. It were muslims from malaysia that stole Sabah from their fellow Sultan of Sulu. Muslims in the Philippines were not very friendly. Greetings Multidifficulti (married with a pinay) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multidifficulti (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User "Multidifficulti", your statement is illogical. At no place in the article has the claim that Islam is the oldest "thing" in the Philippines, been seen, read or amended to by anyone.

FACT: Islam is attested as the oldest continuously-practised organized religion in the Philippines, as there are no indigenous Hindu-Buddhist followers left.

FACT: Islam was introduced to the Philippine archipelago by peaceful means (it did not sweep across the continent or destroy anything, but rather took many centuries from the 13-18th centuries to become the dominant religion of Sulu and Mindanao, and incorporated many of the previous Hindu-Buddhist elements, (unlike the colonial-Christianity which destroyed everything, and replaced it with the imperial Spanish Church-political corruption and hatred of non-christians). Proof of Islam's tolerance and slow gradual adoption would be the late Islamization of the Maranao, Kalagan (they are Manobo's who converted from animism), Yakan and Bajau/Sama groups between the 16-18th centuries.

FACT: Muslim Filipino groups culturally and linguistically exhibit the most outward signs of ancient Hindu-Buddhist influence over the majority Christianised and fully animist/pagan groups; proof enough that it is the Moro groups, and not the Christian majority, who are the direct descendents of the supposed Hindu-Buddhists of the southern Philippines (Kingdom of Butuan, pre-Islamic Jolo and Lanao). All this means that your "Islam was spread by the sword" pretense is nothing more than baseless allegation, and trying to prove it would be futile; the semi Hindu-Buddhists of Mindanao and Sulu peacefully became Muslims betweeen the 14th and 18th centuries. Do you (or anyone who shares your views) want more obvious linguistic, historic and cultural proof? here:

- Concepts like Agama, Neraka, karma Sulga and Biradali all have their origins in deep Hindu-Buddhist philosophy, and they are used commonly in Moro dialects like Tausog. On the other hand, hardly any have remained in languages like Tagalog or Visayan.

- Musical instruments like kulintangan were traced to pre-Islamic Srivijayan Java;

- Maranao and Magindanao legends, Maharadya lawana and Nussa/Rajah Indarapatra in Mindanao follow the format and events of the Ramayana, and were made secular bayok when they became Muslim. No detailed epics of Hindu-Buddhist influence are found anywhere else in the archipelago today.

Greetings, (a Moro)

Nondifficulti

FACT: Islam is the religion/ideology that bring the most violence, war, corruption, terrorism and other disgusting things such as polygamy (also know as adultery), to the Philippines and the rest of the world. The so-called "fact" about Islam spreading peacefully in the Philippines is supported by no evidence at all. The destruction of the existing culture and religious sites speaks for itself. These attack are well know today too, and I am sure all Buddhists all over the world remember what Afghan MILF (also know as Taliban) did to the ancient Buddah statues there. Unlike you guys though, they don't express their anger of this attack on their religion, by killing and burning things in the street.