Talk:Islam in the Philippines

Warning templates
I added warning templates. This article needs serious rework in order to meet Wikipedia standarts like NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarovit (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.20.149 (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Random comment: No offense, but being married to a Filipina doesn't automatically give you an insight to the history of the Philippines. The Sultanates of the southern Philippines originated from the Hindu/Buddhist kingdoms of the Philippines (closely related to or part of the ancient Srivijaya empire) which converted to Islam. While warfare was still pretty common between animists and the southern sultanates as well as within the two groups before and during the Spanish period (both for territory and for capturing slaves), it wasn't religiously motivated and it was practiced by all the groups (Muslim or not).


 * Islam is also the oldest monotheism (the worship of one god, specifically the Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) of the Philippines. It was introduced to Southeast Asia by Arab traders long before the Spanish arrived. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Animism are not monotheistic religions.


 * The current problems in Southern Philippines are all the legacies of colonialism, both by Spain and the United States. To put it simply, the US bought the Philippines after the Spanish-American war. Spain included the Sultanates of Mindanao in the treaty after their defeat, despite the fact that the areas technically have never been conquered by Spain and already had a sovereign ruler, the Sultan of Sulu. Sabah was also the result of Spain giving away Sabah to the United Kingdom in the Madrid Protocol of 1885, again even when Sabah was technically under lease by the UK from the Sultan of Sulu (who was given sovereignty of the region by the Sultan of Brunei) and it was never a part of Spain. "Muslims from Malaysia" didn't steal anything.


 * And before you accuse me of bias: I'm Filipino, I live in Mindanao (though not within traditionally Muslim territories), and I'm atheist (formerly Catholic). Also note I'm not blaming anyone or condemning anything, those responsible are long dead--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   03:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re items asserted to be factual, please read WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A mosaic of prominent Filipino Muslims would be nice
The Moro group was for those in Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago, I think there should be an infobox and a mosaic for all Filipino Muslims in general. Not even only the Moro groups of the south, but even people like Rajah Sulaiman III, Lapu-Lapu, and even recent converts to Islam like Robin Padilla and Alma Moreno. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Discussion concerning content in this article
A discussion is taking place here which concerns some content of this article. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Magat Salamat muslim?
Wheres proof that Magat Salamat was a muslim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheaxHendible (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islam in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703210211/http://cebueskrima.s5.com/custom3.html to http://cebueskrima.s5.com/custom3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509022407/http://www.bt.com.bn/art-culture/2010/07/13/zheng-he-and-islam-southeast-asia to http://www.bt.com.bn/art-culture/2010/07/13/zheng-he-and-islam-southeast-asia
 * Added tag to http://www.bangsamoro.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A case of triple tautology in the intro
The fact that "6% of Filipinos are Muslims" is mentioned three times in the intro. Please, fix, this is outrageous.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @Adûnâi I noticed this too. I believe the intent was to show the same calculation is from different sources. But the claim should be one statement with multiple references, not simply repeated. So I agree. Well, except for the ridiculous accusation that the repetition is "outrageous". Jyg (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Old Mosque Lanao Del Sur Philippines.jpg

Proposal to clean up and expand history section
Perhaps more experienced editors can help out with this?

In "THE ROLE OF ISLAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE" by CESAR ADIB MAJUL he proposes that there are essentially six phases when discussing about the History of Islam in the Philippines.


 * 1. Sultanates and principalities as part of larger Malaysian influence (13th - 15th Century)
 * 2. The arrival of Western European Imperialism and Colonialization in Malaysia (16th - 17th Century)
 * 3. Gradual fragmentation of the Malaysian dar-ul-Islam
 * 4. The attempt of Sulus at regaining its previous glory
 * 5. The decline of the Sultanates
 * 6. Philippine Revolution and American Occupation

Included in his paper is a recommendation of different events and snapshots of history with historical, religious, and cultural importance to the Muslim community in Mindanao. His list is not intended to be comprehensive but can provide a lot of starting points for expanding this page.

I would also propose having a section dedicated to the modern influence and relevance of Islam in the Philippines as well as it's controversies (written in NPOV of course)

Disclaimer: I am not a Muslim and I am not very knowledgable in its history and culture hence my apprehensiveness at making any changes to this article at the moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaybayin (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Golden Mosque 10.JPG

Reorganization -- mainly the lead section
Per WP:LEAD, "[t]he lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" Here I've begun a WP:BOLD reorganization/rewrite of the lead section, merging the first and third paragraph, which contained a historical overview, into a single lead paragraph. The second paragraph contains details that previously separated this historical info into two blocks that (IMO) mostly belong in the Demographics section of the article body, but they need a rewrite and a rethink of the sources cited. I'll continue with bold edits to do that, but I'll do it as a separate step. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good change. It appears every single lead source is used only in the lead, so much of the lead information could probably be copied into the body. CMD (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that many, WP editors tend to edit in the style of news reporting, with the hottest and most attention-grabbing content up front, rather in an encyclopedic style. That broad generalization is probably unfair to more experienced editors, but that's how it strikes me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

As a second step, I've separated the final two sentences of the redone initial paragraph into a new second paragraph. These sentences summarize the impact of the Spanish conquest on Islam in the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

As a third step, I've redone the third paragraph of the lead into two paragraphs, the third paragraph has big changes in presentation of the 5% vs. 11% disagreement, but no intended changes in the assertions there. The fourth paragraph contains the content following that, simply requoted as a separate paragraph.

In that third paragraph, I've gotten rid of the cite of the 2013 IRF report and replaced it with a cite of the 2020 report, and I've rewritten the presentation of info on the disagreement re the size of the Muslim population; the presentation of that that disagreement is what got me started on this. I'm not a very good wordsmith and, though I think that what I have done is an improvement, I'm sure that it can be improved further. In particular, there's info in the lead which does not summarize info in the body, and the meat of that info probably ought to be moved to the the body -- probabnly into the very short section there headed Demographics.

If I've left something out here which ought to be retained or otherwise screwed something up, please fix whatever I've gotten wrong. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added the table for Muslim population in each region, province and city
I have provided source

Feel free to improve the table's layout. Maybe add some gradient colours from largest to smallest similar to Islam by country wiki page. OghuzDynasty (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)