Iran conflict deepens divisions within Philippine Muslim community

The US-Israel war on Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have sent shockwaves across the globe. In Southeast Asia, economies are reeling from shortages of oil, liquefied gas, and other essential goods typically shipped through the strategic waterway.

The Philippines was the first country to declare a state of emergency in response to the crisis, but this has done little to ease shortages. The nation has seen multiple protests against soaring prices.

Yet the war’s impact is not limited to socioeconomic fallout. The conflict is also affecting the country’s Muslim community, especially in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region, sharpening polarization among local Islamic scholars and threatening communal cohesion.

When the war began, reactions on social media and in public spaces were swift. Broadly, two camps emerged. One side voiced support for Iran’s retaliatory strikes against the US and targets in neighboring countries. For example, one community member wrote on social media that Muslim prayers for Gaza were being answered through Iran’s strength and retaliation against Israel; another wrote that Tehran was playing a key role in restoring the shattered dignity and respect of Muslims.

The opposing camp condemned Iran, pointing out that Iran is a Shia country and therefore hostile to the Sunni community. One scholar from this camp equated Shia Muslims with Zionists, describing Shia as a subtle enemy and Zionists as an overt one.

This clash of views is not new among Bangsamoro Islamic scholars. A pattern of increasing division emerged after the Abraham Accords established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab states. Disagreement over a geopolitical issue in the Middle East was unprecedented and also led to splits over the Palestine question.

It should be noted that the Philippines has a long history of solidarity with Palestine. Protests organized by both Muslim and non-Muslim activists, from local to national levels, have been frequent.

However, after normalization, some Bangsamoro scholars made unprecedented statements arguing that advocacy for Palestine was an Iranian plot. They contended that the Palestinian resistance movement was aligned with Iran and therefore deviant—a political tool of Shia power.

When Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the narrative conflict deepened. Some scholars echoed Western and pro-Zionist media narratives, presenting the attack as an isolated event while ignoring decades of Palestinian oppression under Israel’s colonial regime. The other side supported Palestinian resistance.

Although Islamic scholars are engaged in this narrative conflict, it is not purely a theological debate. It reflects the interweaving of politics and religion.

In the post-colonial era, the intertwining of politics and religion is normal in many ways. Yet in the Bangsamoro context, where the central government remains weak, dominant politico-theological frameworks from Arab countries are increasingly being imported into local discourse.

This is largely because some scholars with anti-Iran views have been trained in certain Gulf states. This dynamic influences the local landscape, mirroring a typical pattern where students trained in authoritarian education systems reproduce state-aligned ideologies when they return to their home countries.

This ongoing narrative has significant internal consequences.

First, the intertwining of religion and politics as practiced by Islamic scholars with large social media followings creates an indirect assumption among their followers that these scholars possess reliable authority on geopolitics, even when they may not.

This contradicts the Quranic principle of seeking advice from those with knowledge, 'ahl al dhikr.' This principle points to the distributed nature of knowledge: no single person has sole authority over all-encompassing knowledge.

Second, this conflict leads to deeper polarization among Islamic scholars in a region navigating a fragile post-conflict transition. Since the 1970s, Muslims in the southern Philippines have struggled and fought for self-determination; they are now navigating a complex situation that requires a strong, unified identity. This polarization undermines the formation of a cohesive identity in an already fragile political setting.

Third, some scholars take extreme positions against opponents, labeling them 'deviant.' This mindset can lead to radicalization.

To address this situation, several considerations must be made.

First, differences in the discursive field must be resolved on ethical grounds, not by attacking those with whom we disagree simply because they hold different political views. It is wrong to label someone 'deviant' for having a different political opinion.

Second, when addressing the Palestine question and the US-Israel wars in the Middle East, it is important to remember our own context. Bangsamoro has a historical legacy of resisting oppressive and unjust systems. Remaining true to our humanity means opposing injustice elsewhere in the world.

Third, divisive discourse over foreign affairs can damage the communal cohesion and critical thinking needed for a future of unity and self-determination.

The Muslim community in Bangsamoro should not fall for divisive narratives and should place their trust in Islam as well as their own history and identity.