[R-18: Please do not touch me if for some reason you find a discussion of wooden, costumed idols personally offensive. More so avoid it, if you find a discussion of human, costumed idols offensive.]
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. was wearing his friar’s zuccheto, a touch akimbo, in yesterday’s column about the Sto. Nino feast and Chief Justice Reynato Puno where he says, “
The feast of the Sto. Niño reminds us that the earliest preachers of Christian values were lay soldiers…More than that, however, it is also a reminder that the destiny of this nation depends very much on the restoration and the strengthening of the values which Christianity first planted in the Philippines—the values of honesty, morality and love of neighbor.”
One is forced to ask in all earnestness and concern: Does the good Father Bernas believe that before Christianity was planted in the Philippines that there were no honest and moral human beings who felt love for their neighbor?? Before the Catholic Taliban arrived, were we all dishonest, immoral savages, with hatred and enmity in our wild hearts?
Fray Bernas’ entire rhetorical point in this column resides in a simile between Reynato Puno and famous “lay soldiers”, in particular, Ferdinand Magellan–to prove the admirable point that laymen can be moral leaders too and it is not only to the Catholic Bishops that we ought to look for such leadership.
The unfortunate thing for Fray Bernas’ simile is that Chief Justice Reynato Puno becomes the Right Reverend Reynato Puno every Sunday, when HE puts on the costume of a Methodist Minister! How do we know this? Well read Reynato Puno’s speech at Siliman University where he mentions his Sunday morning activities.
Fray Bernas parabolically compares Chief Justice Puno first to St. John Baptist (who was the cousin of Jesus Christ, and therefore the Nephew of God the Father.) Then, lightly skipping over the Holy Roman Empire and the Dark Ages to around 1521, he finds traces of Ferdinand Magellan in the character and agenda of Reynato Puno’s call for moral leaders to lift their “veil of invisiblity”
Magellan was met by King Humabon and his family, his courtiers and his followers. Filled with missionary zeal, Magellan preached to them about accepting Christianity. In their simplicity they responded and many of the natives were baptized together with the royal family.
On this occasion, as was the practice of conquistadors, Magellan left gifts behind. It is almost certain that one gift he offered was an image of the Sto. Niño.
That was in 1521. But as we know Magellan and his crew were driven away by the natives.
Well this is definitely one for the Textbook Crusaders like Antonio Calipje Go! Listen to what AMBETH OCAMPO says in his column of 14 January 2009:
Humabon Conversion Wasn’t For Religion!
Historically, the image of the Santo Niño venerated in Cebu is the oldest image in the Philippines, unless this is challenged by the image of the Virgin of Ermita that was also found or “recovered” in the islands by the Legaspi expedition in the 16th century. The image of the Santo Niño was presented to the wife of Rajah Humabon when she was baptized in 1521. She was shown a crucifix and an image of the Virgin Mary but the Queen of Cebu, who was baptized and given the name Juana, was attracted to the Santo Niño and asked for it. Magellan was happy to part with it and after the Battle of Mactan, the Santo Niño remained in Cebu and was found by one of Legazpi’s men in 1565. We will go into the historical details about the Santo Niño in a succeeding column because when I re-read the account of the conversion of Humabon, as narrated by Antonio Pigafetta, chronicler of the Magellan expedition, I realized there was nothing religious about it at all. Magellan threatened the “heathens” who refused to be converted with bodily harm; on the other hand, he promised aid and power to the king so that the latter could subdue his enemies.Pigafetta described Magellan and Humabon embracing and later sitting on chairs of red and violet with chieftains and other notables on cushions: “The captain told the king through the interpreter that he thanked God for inspiring him to become a Christian; and that (now) he would more easily conquer his enemies than before. The king replied that he wished to become a Christian, but that some of his chiefs did not wish to obey.… Then our captain had all the chiefs of the king called, and told them that, unless they obeyed the king as their king, he would have them killed, and would give their possessions to the king.… The captain told the king that he was going to Spain but that he would return again with so many forces, that he would make him the greatest king of those regions, as he had been the first to express a determination to become a Christian.”
I have not read myself Pigafetta’s diary of the Magellan voyage. But I think Ambeth’s interpretation, based on just such a direct reading is more true-to-life. The boastful Magellan had convinced Humabon he would take care of Lapu-lapu. Instead he was, in the understatement of Fray Bernas, “driven away by the natives.”
However, Magellan’s death at the hands of Lapu-lapu is definitely proof-positive that he was an honorable man and that his pledge to Humabon to defeat his enemies was in earnest (after all he had threatened Humabon with the same if he did not convert!) Thus, when the survivors of the expedition (who had been dirven away by the natives) limped back to Spain and forty years later Miguel Lopez de Legaspi came calling, what should he find but the emblem of Magellan’s compact with Humabon, the miraculous wooden idol, the Sto. Nino de Bernas, err, Cebu.
Now of course, Joaquin Bernas is better known as a “Constitutional Expert” and Dean of the Ateneo de Manila Law School, if I am not mistaken. He should stick to that and avoid trying to become a Catechism-cum-History teacher because this is most undignified and embarrassing for him. Why he mounted such a pathetic attempt to explain that it is okay for laymen to call for moral regeneration, is beyond my powers of Ignatian discernment. Does he really think the Catholic Church represents “moral leadership” to the Filipinos when their entire appreciation of History and their role in it is perverse and conceited.
But with the Swinging Door of Observation slightly ajar, let me call everybody’s attention to the fact that although both Bernas and Ocampo are OpEd columnists, they are both widely cited as authoritative references by teachers and textbooks. But I wager that Bernas’ take on Magellan will miseducate many more Filipinos about their history than Ambeth Ocampo’s allergy-ridden sojourns into dusty libraries could ever remold. PDI’s website claims millions of readers daily, both online and in print.
Sto. Nino de Bernas, conyo!
Popularity: 3% [?]
“The Bangsamoro are better off with us than the religious separatists.’
Hehehe. Shall I offer you facts to disprove this claim of yours DJB?
danilo,
i uphold the right of peoples to self determination. But I am not convinced that Bangsamoro people back any of the organized insurgencies, or that they want outright independence as you seem to , because there have already been three plebiscites and you can only rustle up votes in about 5% of Mindanao. Yet you want the whole island??
As far as I know the Bangsamoro have voted to stay Filipino. It is incumbent on you to prove otherwise, not for me to argue history with you.
“As far as I know the Bangsamoro have voted to stay Filipino. It is incumbent on you to prove otherwise, not for me to argue history with you.”
Hahahaha!
No one in the world, not even the Organization of Islamic Conference recognizes your claims to Mindanao. They may sympathize with you but they do not subscribe to your historical claims either. The true homeland of Filipino Muslim tyrants is Sabah where they did all their commercial slavery, supplying harems and households all over the Moluccas and Indo-Malaya. You ought to be bugging Malaysia, not the Philippines.
“The true homeland of Filipino Muslim tyrants is Sabah…”
Ooops! that is a 360 degrees anathema to the Philippine claim. Caiingat ka ky presidente.
No but seriously danilo, wouldn’t Sabah make a juicier homeland. It’s bigger richer and you even have documentary evidence to prove the claim. I bet the Philippines would gladly give the MILF to the Malaysian Intelligence Services that have been arming them and supplying them new uniforms made in China.
Another allegation huh!
danilo,
if the MILF were to convert itself into a political party, how many governors, mayors, or barangay chiefs could they elect into office in Mindanao, do you think?
Danilo U. Ignacio,
Good!
All the while I thought you are for the Shariah law or something.
And you have reconsidered the issue of segregation on that “inside each one’s peripheries” and “BUT inside their own communities and vice-versa”.
At least now there will be nothing of that sort of segregation based on creed as based on Article 13 of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.
I’m quite sure DJB will agree with both of us that we can now leave that issue behind.
Well there is “Muhammad bin Qasim” By Khurram Ali Shafique
Muhammad bin Qasim was one of the finest colonialists in the Arab history, and a worthy soldier. Unfortunately, our modern writers have tried to turn him into a saint, and in the process, have lost all those features that made this Arab general an interesting human being. It is high time we restore his true picture from authentic sources of history written by the earliest Muslim historians.
There is also “The Legacy of Jihad in India”
By Andrew G. Bostom.
Interestingly enough; he uses some of Majumdar’s work of “The History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. 3, The Classical Age” in detailing the conquest of Debal and it seems to be in line with what I previously wrote.
Ooops
The first part after “Muhammad bin Qasim” By Khurram Ali Shafique should have been included in the box.
Good work that you also read for yourself, unlike DJB who always put unfounded allegations without basis.
But sir Justice, I also chose R.C. Majumdar’s work because I believe “it’s a word directly coming from the horse’s mouth.” He is writing for his country. If the case was so, that is according to your readings in your chosen book, then is Majumdar committing a great disservice to his land of birth by not highlighting that “atrocity” allegedly committed by bin Qasim? What you think? Huh! Again, I invoke what Count de Castri had written and I think he is no Muslim that I’ll not be accused of self-service for quoting him.
“Very well, do you agree that it is of the highest benefit for all in a Bangsamoro land to live under a law that is in consonance to the U.N. declaration of Human Rights that is applicable to all regardless of creed or no creed.
Do you agree or not?”
Agree sir, …….. – justice league
I think you missed including here the continuation of my post in this respect just to make it appear that I agree with DJB. I demand justice, hehehe.
“if the MILF were to convert itself into a political party, how many governors, mayors, or barangay chiefs could they elect into office in Mindanao, do you think?”
DJB, it saddens me that you also see the objective of MILF as that selfish way – clamor for political positions and wealth.
Danilo U. Ignacio,
And justice you shall get.
I did not make it appear that you agree with DJB.
What I stated was that I’m quite sure DJB will agree with both of us since we have already set aside the segregation issue of “inside each one’s peripheries” and “BUT inside their own communities and vice-versa”.
I didn’t include the last part anymore since I thought it was irrelevant but I’ll quote the whole part and explain the irrelevance.
Since you agreed with a law that is in consonance with the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights; it is irrelevant whether I agree with you if you never have had the slightest taste of it since your incorporation into the Philippine state.
And that would be because of your post on February 3, 9:14 AM and 9:25 AM the pertinent parts of which I quote below.
And that is because you have agreed that all people in your so called Bangsamoro land will live under a law that is in consonance to the U.N. declaration of Human Rights that is to be applicable to all regardless of creed or no creed whether that Bangsamoro land be in the context of 2 states or a nation within state.
And the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights does not provide for such segregation based on religion.
So you already agreed with me in getting rid of that segregation issue!
Are you satisfied with the justice given you?
Ok.
I again invoke Karachi born Khurram Ali Shafique who is a research consultant for Iqbal Academy Pakistan (Federal Ministry of Culture) and I think he is no Hindu nor Indian that I’ll not be accused of self-service for quoting him.
He said “Muhammad bin Qasim was one of the finest colonialists in the Arab history, and a worthy soldier. Unfortunately, our modern writers have tried to turn him into a saint, and in the process, have lost all those features that made this Arab general an interesting human being. It is high time we restore his true picture from authentic sources of history written by the earliest Muslim historians.
However we obviously have differing views of what R.C. Majumdar wrote.
My source is Andrew Bostom’s http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/the_legacy_of_jihad_in_india.html
Majumdar’s piece on Debal comes at about [8] and [9].
And included also in there are source materials from Muslim chroniclers al—Baladhuri and al—Kufi.
Maybe you are referring to something like what was stated in [12] and [13] which also came from Majumdar.
I think we should exchange reading materials so I can read for myself your source of Majumdar’s “Ancient India”.
“So you already agreed with me in getting rid of that segregation issue!”
No sir, when I said I agree with you in your invocation of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I am referring to everyone’s right to self-determination as guaranteed in that universal declaration. And so s/he has the right to invoke the right to be free from any imposition of hegemony, especially when it is fabricated thence shoved into one’s throat, because such imposition threatens or has been threatening his/her very rightful existence, and because such is unjust.
I understand you why yo said “it is irrelevant whether I agree with you if you never have had the slightest taste of it since your incorporation into the Philippine state.” And I don’t want to force you to believe on that. Just accord some relevance anyway to what history actually tells on this subject as proven by things on the ground.
To quote BJB’s “The Bangsamoro are better off with us than the religious separatists.”: This is proven wrong, say by the 2005 Philippine Human Development Report.
I understand you quote Andrew Boston. I also understand why he wrote that way and influence his readers to have the same insights as he has.
“Palestine, the holy land of the Jews, Christians and Islamites,”
What an informed research! By his use of terminologies, one can easily detect his mental direction while writing such.
Danilo U. Ignacio,
The context of the UNDHR was supposed to be already along your 2 states or a nation within state.
Espescially with a view of 2 states, your referral to your right to self-determination was already irrelevant because you would be living already in a separate independent state.
You could have just said no and instead offered one under the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.
Your attempt to reverse yourself now just means you didn’t understand what you were agreeing to in the first place.
The part that you refer to wasn’t his words.
That part was actually from Jadunath Sarkar ‘The Condition of Hindus under Muslim Rule’.
But all of that is just a sideshow since what we are after is what R.C. Majumdar wrote about.
I am still waiting for your text of Majumdar’s “Ancient India”.
This is it sir, R.C. Majumdar, Ancient India, Part 6: The Arab Conquest of Sindh, pp. 264 – 267.
Danilo U. Ignacio,
Can you please give me the website.
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=XNxiN5tzKOgC&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264&dq=Hajjaj+over+Debal&source=bl&ots=IL9TrtjPYn&sig=2niZstA9ZXgnRCijMA28KKQdJ-I&hl=tl&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
The exchanges of justice league is important.
Authors that equate Islam to Jihadists quickly dismiss that believers of Islam slaughters infidels.
But even before the series of terrorism there are authors who placed Islam in a bad light.
Danilo quickly points out that what was written in books maybe also be countered by what is also written in books.
So we are back to subjectivity of which truth is correct.
Incidentally since history of Islam religion was was discussed the title of the blog is about how christianity started in the Philippines, and a noted historian Ambeth Ocampo even says that the mass conversion was not for religion’s sake.
So Religion was spread world wide through war and conquests.
Karl Garcia,
Thanks for the kind words.
Danilo U. Ignacio,
“Ancient India” and “The History and Culture of the Indian People” are both works of Majumdar.
“Ancient India” is one book of less than 520 pages and originally published in 1952.
“The History and Culture of the Indian People” is however an 11 volume work which took more than 26 years to complete from 1951 till the last volume was published in 1977 .
You can glean how more detailed the latter one is as it takes about 5 volumes of “The History and Culture of the Indian People” to relate what “Ancient India” tells all in just one book.
The pages referred to alone already tells how more extensive one is as compared to the other. Your source relates to India from pre-historic age to 1300 AD and the story of Debal already starts at page 264. While HCIP’s Volume 3: The Classical Age [320-750 A.D.] alone has the story of Debal starting only at page 458.
Clearly, there are a lot of things that you would not find in your source that could be found in the other.
And if you look at page 265 and 266 of your source, you will see that Majumdar took note of the Chachnama book . He took some length to denounce the credibility of the account of the way Muhammad Bin Qasim supposedly died through the schemes of 2 daughters of the slain King Dahar as stated in that book.
But the Chachnama also related lengthily about the siege and fall of Debal and the slaughter that followed.
Yet you don’t see R.C. Majumdar denouncing the account of the slaughter at Debal as false. There is not a denial from Majumdar about what happened at Debal.
“Ancient India” was finished and published first. HCIP’s volume 3: The Classical Age [320-750 A.D.] came later.
The slaughter that followed at Debal as recounted in HCIP vol. 3 is a “positive and categorical” assertion on Majumdar’s part and that certainly outweighs his own dearth of comment on the same circumstance at Debal in his earlier work of “Ancient India”.
As based on the account of Majumdar and even other Muslim historians; the atrocities that the Muslim army under Muhammad Bin Qasim did in Debal as ordered by his superior Hajjij; is true!
At any rate, you might find pages 307-309 of “Ancient India” interesting which is still some 8 decades before 1099.
You may read the Chachnama here-
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Ffile%3D12701030%26ct%3D0
Danilo U. Ignacio,
I wish to revise my basis for claiming that “HCIP” is more extensive than “Ancient India” based on pages alone.
From whatever snippets of the 3rd volume that I could find; it appears that the story of Debal regarding the Arab conquest of Sindh may have started already on page 169 of HCIP vol 3.
That would make HCIP volume 3 devoting more than 250 pages on the Arab conquest alone with a significant portion of which pertaining to Debal.
So still that supports my assertion that Majumdar’s “HCIP” is more extensive than his other work of “Ancient India”.
okey justice, i’ll accord you what you want or what your mind wants to lead to by clinging persistently with your references here i.e. Muslims did commit atrocities in their conquests. Based on how Count de Castri has written which I quoted here, I do not deny that. But you may have a different line of thinking and scholarly qualification to prove your points. That is your pre-notion on the back of your head eh. And I don’t intend to prevent you from having that line of thinking. Hope you can also undergo the same scholarly works like the authors I quoted here and hopingly would have come up some form of outputs afterward e.g. book like what they had. But is this the only reference you have that you can convict immediately the “subject” i.e. Islam. What about those premises I have presented to you, don’t they have any merit to you?
danilo, justice league,
what do you guys think of Salman Rushdie and his novels like The Satanic Verses, and if you have read it, The Enchantress of Florence? Much about India and Arabs seems to be inwoven in a most charming way. Your exchanges on Ancient India may find some solace in Sir Rushdie’s exotic fiction. No doubt the Golden Ages of both empires and civilizations were marvels to behold. More’s the pity that they have gone the way of Ozymandias.
Danilo U. Ignacio,
My references?
If you are referring to pages 307-309 of “Ancient India” which relates to the acts of Sultan Mahmud; “Ancient India” happens to be your reference, not mine.
Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri- 9th century Persian historian. (The Origins of the Islamic State)
Kazi Ismail- author of the conquest of Sind in Arabic, from which Chachnámah was translated.
Both of which lived close to the time the events occurred.
If we go back to Khurram Ali Shafique whose credentials I have previously posted, he has practically charged modern writers of sanitizing history and exhorts us to restore the true picture from authentic sources of history written by the earliest Muslim historians. Seems your Count de Castri is being alluded to also.
My references have positive and categorical assertions on the matter.
A lot of yours are practically general denials and those already got hit from Khurram Ali Shafique.
So how many do you want?
Now where the heck did that come from?
As far as I recall from your February 2, 10:44 AM post, you invited me to prove my claim. And not only that; you said you would be glad if I do!
Well somehow I feel you’re not glad.
I was willing to compromise that atrocities were mutually inflicted. You are the one coming as if the followers of your religion can do/has done no harm and is the one on the receiving end all the time.
But what exactly do you feel that I charged Islam of that I am convicting it of it by use of my references?
Alright. Maybe I missed an issue here and there so go ahead and remind me what premises you have presented to me that I have failed to address. I certainly hope you addressed these premises to me.
DJB,
I wish I could oblige you but I haven’t read his books.
But if you are referring to the call of a death sentence over Rushdie, of course I don’t approve.
http://www.jamaat.net/rushdie/Rushdie.html
Danilo U. Ignacio,
Thanks for the website.
I’ll read as soon as I can.
But you obviously read it already so what’s your view since DJB is asking you?
“If we go back to Khurram Ali Shafique whose credentials I have previously posted, he has practically charged modern writers of sanitizing history and exhorts us to restore the true picture from authentic sources of history written by the earliest Muslim historians. Seems your Count de Castri is being alluded to also.” – justice league
Count de Castri is no Muslim historian sir. Please see: http://www.test7861.20m.com/my6.html
What I am trying to emphasize here is that as much as possible I am making quotes of those works written by non-Muslim historians about Islam so I shall not be accused of self-service if I did otherwise i.e. quoting works of Muslim authors to justify my point.
I mean, which you will going to accord credit to in this respect: “Muslim authors” who superficially bloat their writings about Muslim Glory in the past at one hand and non-Muslim authors whose inveterate prejudice against Islam has taken away their scholarly rationality and objectivity in writing historical accounts about Muslims; or, Muslim writers who try to rectify these bloated historical accounts about Islam at one hand and non-Muslim scholars imbibing the required scholarly objectivity while writing “something good” about Islam?
Didn’t you see this point of mine, your Honor?
Now, if you have doubts about their writings, I challenge you to do the same i.e. undergo related scholarly works so I can also make some quotes of you in the future.
No ill-thoughts here sir.
Danilo U. Ignacio,
Yes he isn’t and I didn’t refer to him as a Muslim historian.
But what he is being alluded to is that he has tried to sanitize history.
Will you still be using Majumdar?
I suggest you watch your words.
Because they tend to betray you.
Like it betrayed you when you equated the idea on Muslims and Non Muslims living together as 2 sets of animals with one preying on the other.
We are talking about atrocities here.
Of slaughter, plunder, etc…; then all of a sudden you are now equating what we are talking about with Muslim Glory in the past .
I would wonder on what is your idea of Muslim Glory in the present.
And you feel these non-Muslim scholars imbibed the required scholarly objectivity because they are writing “something good” about Islam, aren’t you?
But is R.C. Majumdar still included there?
Well I don’t think you’ll be quoting Majumdar anymore so I choose option 3 in this case.
I choose “Muslim historians” who lived in that past and corroborated by Muslim writers/authors in the present.
But just to prove to you that I can choose reference that says “something good” about Islam; I suggest you read this page here of the Chachnama and it begins with “The Chachnámah further bears out all that has been said by Muir …….
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Ffile%3D12701030%26ct%3D0
And about “Sultan Mahmud”, his exploits were chronicled by his court historian al-Utbi in the Tarikh-i-Yamini. And those 17 expeditions of his with resulting plunder of Indian temples are corroborated here http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/biography/viewentry.php?id=1058
Yes I do.
I don’t think that would be necessary because you can quote me below already.
Watch your words because they tend to betray you!
Well I think I’ll do you a favor by probably moving on now. Who knows what your words will betray you next.
Peace be unto you.
“And you feel these non-Muslim scholars imbibed the required scholarly objectivity because they are writing “something good” about Islam, aren’t you?”
Of course, because some if not most of the historians carry their own subjectivity most of the time. Hence writing historical annals through their own prism to suit their respective purposes. And only by transcending such subjectivity that they become true to the “scholarly profession.” This should apply to both Muslim and non-Muslim historians.
To me, what these western historians and writers had written was a great wonder. You know, they were writing “something good” about Islam despite the fact that they were not Muslims and that Islam has been “magnanimously” accorded with prejudice in the west all the time because of the reason that only westerners can justify to suit their racism and imperialism.
Of course, I do not mean here that the likes of Count de Castri deserve our back-scratches on their backs because they scratched our backs by writing these “something good” about Islam.
“But what he is being alluded to is that he has tried to sanitize history.”
Oh yeah? How can you prove de Castri (and the likes of him) exactly did that or that was his intention when he wrote his book? He had proven his point in his book. And that was not an easy thing to do as it requires a painstaking research along the way. I think it is fair enough that you should also prove such indictment of yours against him. Do you have your own book to refute his book, or what he had written in his book?
“But is R.C. Majumdar still included there?”
Of course yes. But not because of such mindset. That is, I give credit to Majumdar because I believe that what he wrote has come directly from the horse mouth. To me, no one can best write the history of one’s country but him/her who is a native of such a country. Now if he was doing a great disservice to his country because he by-passed the “atrocities” of bin Qasim against India in his book, then that is his problem.
“…Of slaughter, plunder, etc…; then all of a sudden you are now equating what we are talking about with Muslim Glory in the past .”
Haaay naku nga naman! I didn’t mean that way sir. Please go back to my statement in this regard. I just want to clear and establish a point out of that analogical statement which would seem to me fair to all, and my position is out of that point from that statement.
The Victors or the Conquistadores wrote the History. They wrote it
on their own Version. It may be true. It may be exagerated. Like
Pizzaro’s conquest of Peru. They placed , on the Conquistadores
records. Peru was conquered by small bands of Spanish soldiers.
In truth, they were helped by Native Incas who were fighting against
the established Inca Ruler of Peru at that time. The truth was proven
by the historical examination of the bones in the battlefield. The rival Inca tribes did the fighting for the Spaniards.