Sometime in the last quarter of the 14th-century Sheikh Karimul Makhdum arrived in Buansa town in the province of Sulu with seven other Arabian scholars or teachers. My first question was how did historians trace this event to the years 1376 or 1380? The historical sources cited are either: oral tradition, local history, or genealogical records that do not record time in a Gregorian calendar as we do today. I hate to be a spoilsport but someone has to explain to me how they arrived at the date 1380 on which the 622nd anniversary was anchored. Furthermore, how did they get the date, Nov. 7? Perhaps the National Museum could help in the research by dating the posts through a study of the tree rings on each post. Maybe even radio-carbon dating? To split hairs even further, what about the exact number of missionaries with Sheikh Karimul Makhdum? Majul says Karimul Makhdum arrived with seven other missionaries. This made a total of eight. However, people in Simunul insisted there were only seven including Karimul Makhdum. So, were there seven or eight? Was Karimul Makhdum the first to plant the seeds of Islam in the Philippines? Nowhere in the historical sources is it said that Karimul Makhdum was the first to bring Islam to the Philippines. Unfortunately, history does not record the names of Arab traders and missionaries who had spread Islam in Mindanao long before Karimul Makhdum arrived in Sulu. Karimul Makhdum is remembered for consolidating or reinforcing Islam in Sulu. He was famous for his teaching as well as his miracles that included: flying, walking on water, healing the sick, producing water from a hole in the ground, etc. The greatest miracle though is that Majul and other historians state that Karimul Makhdum died and was buried in Sibutu. How come there is a tomb of Karimul Makhdum in Simunul? I doubt if they divided the body as they did revolutionary general Artemio Ricarte who is buried in the Libingan ng Bayani, Fort Bonifacio, in the Ricarte Shrine, Batac, Ilocos Norte, and a thumb is somewhere in Japan. Where is Karimul Makhdum, really? In my experience, historical research often yields more questions than answers and my trip to Tawi-tawi was no different. I shouldn't complain because unresolved research keeps me busy. All these questions, however, led me to reflect on the way Muslim Mindanao was absent in my grade school, high school and college history classes. What little I learned was rather negative. Muslim Mindanao was portrayed as a land of violence, piracy, and the people resistant to Spanish domination and evangelization. Textbooks today have some Mindanao content but I think it should be improved. If the research on Simunul is accurate and the mosque can really be dated to the 14th century then it proves that Islam pre-dated Christianity in the region. Islam was there before Magellan arrived in 1521. Islam was in Mindanao before the present Philippines was charted and formed. No wonder Muslims in Mindanao are proud about their religion and heritage. Unlike the Christian inhabitants of Luzon and the Visayas the Muslims in Mindanao were never conquered, but their pride is often misread as arrogance. If our textbooks emphasize the Philippine Revolution of 1896-1898 as the height of the anti-colonial struggle, can't we see the so-called Moro Wars as an anti-Spanish and anti-colonial struggle as well? If we remember the names of Rizal, Bonifacio, Aguinaldo shouldn't we remember Kudarat, Dato Utto of Buayan and Datu Ali of Cotabato as well? By integrating the Muslim resistance to colonization into the national narrative maybe we can share an anti-colonial struggle in history. Having something in common can at least make Muslim and Christian Filipinos brothers again rather than be separated or divided by a common history. I'm dreaming again, but now that there is a move to rewrite our textbooks and update our history curriculum we have a chance to integrate the history of Muslim Mindanao into national history. This opportunity must not be missed. * * * Comments are welcome at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Post a follow-up to this message

I believe that Islum is why most Filipino men are TULI today? Coments? JAY

I believe that Islum is why most Filipino men are TULI today? Coments? JAY Hard to say...how do the Muslims slice their foreskin?

I believe that Islum is why most Filipino men are TULI today? Coments? JAY Hard to say...how do the Muslims slice their foreskin? With a Kriss.

I believe that Islum is why most Filipino men are TULI today? Coments? JAY Hard to say...how do the Muslims slice their foreskin? With a Kriss. One thing tho', New Guineans who had no contact with Muslims, except probably for skirmishes with Muslim pirates, has elaborate customs and preprations in circumcision...according to Pigafetta who arrived with Magellan the natives used to place shells and pebbles into the skin of penis shafts, all to ensure womens' pregnancy, it is believed that women will not get pregnant if the men did not do this. Come to think of it, isn't that the same thing our old people say about SUPOTs? they cannot have children unless they get Tuli. My own conclusion is that if the women could not get to a climax, men assume she won't get pregnant, so a whole slew of ideas on enhancing the penis is done, to get her off! Muslims do that to honor the arrangement with God, just like Jews.

I believe that Islum is why most Filipino men are TULI today? Coments? JAY Hard to say...how do the Muslims slice their foreskin? With a Kriss. One thing tho', New Guineans who had no contact with Muslims, except probably for skirmishes with Muslim pirates, has elaborate customs and preprations in circumcision...according to Pigafetta who arrived with Magellan the natives used to place shells and pebbles into the skin of penis shafts, all to ensure womens' pregnancy, it is believed that women will not get pregnant if the men did not do this. Come to think of it, isn't that the same thing our old people say about SUPOTs? they cannot have children unless they get Tuli. My own conclusion is that if the women could not get to a climax, men assume she won't get pregnant, so a whole slew of ideas on enhancing the penis is done, to get her off! Muslims do that to honor the arrangement with God, just like Jews. There's plentiful info online on circumcision in relation to Jewish religion but not that many with respectto Islamic faith.  You are right about the covenant with God (for the Jews reason for circumcision) but I did not find the same with the Muslims. In fact it was cited that there were no references to circumcision in the Koran. THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF THE JEWISH RELIGION EDITORS IN CHIEF R. J. Zwi Werblowsky Geoffrey Wigoder CIRCUMCISION (Heb. milah), removal of the foreskin in an operation performed on all male Jewish children on the eighth day after birth and also upon male converts to Judaism. Circumcision was enjoined by God upon Abraham and his descendants (Gn. 17.10-12) and has always been regarded as the supreme obligatory sign of loyalty and adherence to Judaism. As the sign of the *covenant (berit) sealed in the flesh, circumcision came to be known as berit milah or the covenant of our father Abraham. The presence of the foreskin was regarded as a blemish, and perfection was to be attained by its removal (cf. Ned. 31b). The generation born in the wilderness, however, was not circumcised, an omission repaired by Joshua (Jos. 5.2-9). Many Hellenistic Jews, particularly those who participated in athletics at the gymnasium, had an operation performed to conceal the fact of their circumcision (I Me. 1.15). Similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, in which period a prohibition against circumcision was issued. It was probably in order to prevent the possibility of obliterating the traces of circumcision that the rabbis added to the requirement of cutting the foreskin that of peri'ah (laying bare the glans). To this was added a third requirement, metsirsah (sucking of the blood). This was originally done by the mohel (circumciser) applying his lips to the penis and drawing off the blood by sucking. For hygienic reasons, a glass tube with a wad of cotton wool inserted in the middle is now generally employed, or the blood is simply drawn off by the use of some absorbent material. Unless medical reasons interpose, the circumcision must take place on the eighth day after birth, even if that day falls on a Sabbath or Yom Kippur. If circumcision has been postponed for medical reasons, the ceremony may not take place on a Sabbath or major festival. excerpt from: To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah: Legitimization of Male and Female Circumcision by Sami A. ALDEEB ABU-SAHLIEH Muslim authors skim over male circumcision. They only see advantages and, most of all, the subject does not trigger any debate in the West. According to Al-Hadidi (an opponent of female circumcision), male non-circumcision can cause penile infections arising from urine droplets. It can develop into cancer, requiring the penis to be amputated entirely 92. Circumcision is even believed to prevent cancer in the circumcised man's partner, as mentioned by Doctor Al-Fangari, who goes on to state that it helps to extend the length of copulation, thanks to the liberation of the glans 93. Their Jewish counterparts make the same type of arguments. It is enough to have the Christians, to whom Saint-Paul suggests circumcision in their heart rather than in their flesh, turn green with envy 94! If only Saint Paul could have heard our Jewish and Muslim medical experts before rejecting the obligation to circumcise! Imam Shaltut does not find any basis for male and female circumcision, be it in the Koran or in the Sunnah from Mohammed. Therefore it must be judged according to the general Islamic consensus which forbids hurting anyone, unless advantages outnumber disadvantages. For the boys, he states that circumcision is beneficial because it cuts off the foreskin which harbours filth and promotes cancer and other diseases. As such, it is a protective and preventive measure. Thus its mandatory quality in Muslim law 95. Logically, if male circumcision were beneficial, it should be generalized. Male circumcision cannot however be justified solely on the basis of its usefulness in certain pathological conditions. A foot may be amputated under medical imperative if it is gangrenous and amputation will then certainly be beneficial. Nevertheless, nobody would call for generalized foot amputation among the followers of any given religion96. The argument is compelling, unless it can be shown that the relevant religious adepts have penises noticeably different from those of their fellow humans. Let us point out here that circumcision has its enthusiasts among Christians who believe the Bible to be a scientific book. This is especially the case in the U.S.A. where obstetricians sever at birth the foreskins of future Methodists, Adventists, Catholics, Sectarians of Love, if not good brave Atheists . To them, uncircumcised males can only be country people and half-witted 97. In that country, the number of new-born who are circumcised is estimated at 50%. But in 1975, the American health commission stated that circumcision was not a good hygienic measure. Since then, circumcision has been reduced considerably 98. The pro-circumcision people then launched a campaign to persuade the commission to reverse its decision, claiming that circumcision prevents infantile urinary tract infections and even AIDS transmission, a claim denied by Swedish experts