Recent comments in the media about the real or imagined persecution of Christians by Islamic terrorists backed by the Nigerian State has once again forced to the front burner, the issue of Islam and terrorism. This is an over flogged concept we thought had died with the realization that terrorism in Nigeria has been unmasked and the true face of the terrorists has been laid bare to the general public. Terrorists are terrorists without the preface of Islamic or Christian, pagan or any other nomenclature.
The current spate of insecurity and terrorism in Nigeria is all pervasive and not limited to Christian victims alone. According to a commentator, it signifies a failure of leadership and not religion.
Human rights activist, Omoyele Sowore, has accused both the Nigerian government and the United States of hypocrisy over their handling of widespread killings across the country. According to him, the violence is rooted in bad governance and insecurity, not religion. “There’s genocide against the poor in this country, there’s genocide against Muslims in this country, there’s genocide against Christians in this country, there’s genocide against children in this country. To now separate it and say maybe it’s one religion or the other, that’s dishonest,” he said.
“Why is the U.S. not taking the same position in Gaza, where there’s genocide against Palestinians by Israel?” he asked, describing Washington’s stance as “international hypocrisy.”
The problem with Nigeria has nothing to do with religion. It’s complete irresponsible leadership and insecurity that kills everybody. A leadership that dialogues with terrorists, grants their leaders chieftaincy titles, grants them amnesty and sends them back into the communities they have been terrorising.
Islam is a religion of mercy and does not permit terrorism. We read in the Quran: “God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.” (Quran 60:8)
Islamic teachings make it clear that acts of inciting terror, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam. When individual Muslims commit an act of terrorism, they would be guilty of violating the laws of Islam.
Let it also be said that wanton acts of genocide are recorded in the Bible too: Joshua and the Slaughter of the Canaanites Joshua 6:21; 8:24-29; 11:10-15, come into full focus; unparalleled today even by the Jewish genocide in Gaza.
There was also the Rhineland Massacres 1096 AD, when Crusaders attacked and massacred Jewish communities in Germany. Followed by the siege of Jerusalem 1099 when thousands of Jews were massacred by Christian soldiers of God or crusaders.
No doubt all religions have had their black spots. Some words such as ‘Islamic Terrorism’, ‘Muslim extremism’, ‘Islamic fundamentalism and ‘Jihadists’, need to be challenged: Mostly coined by the “Islamophobia industry”, according to scholars Nathan Lean and John Esposito.
The socio-economic, political, and cultural circumstances of Muslims are varied across the globe, but I believe that we can distinguish three different groups of Muslims in the world today based on how they envision and practice their faith.
The first group is the most problematic — the fundamentalists who envision a regime based on Sharia, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version and take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone else. We call them “Medina Muslims,” in that they see the forcible imposition of Shariah as their religious duty.
The second group — and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world — consist of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence or even intolerance towards non-Muslims. We call this group “Mecca Muslims.”
More recently, and corresponding with the rise of Islamic terrorism, a third group is emerging within Islam — Muslim reformers or, “modifying Muslims” — who promote the separation of religion from politics and other reforms. Although some are apostates, the majority of dissidents are believers, among them clerics who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of political violence.
The future of Islam and the world’s relationship with Muslims will be decided by which of the two minority groups — the Medina Muslims and the reformers — wins the support of the Mecca majority. That is why focusing on “violent extremism” is to focus on a symptom of a much more profound ideological epidemic.
Anyone seeking support for armed jihad in the name of Allah will find ample support in the passages in the Quran and Hadith that relate to the Prophet’s Medina period. For example, 4:95 states, “Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home).”
Equally, anyone looking for support in the Bible for Christian acts of cruelty and even barbarism should consult: https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/murder-in-the-bible/
However, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence continues to maintain that the so-called “sword verses” (9:5 and 9:29) of the Quran have been taken out of historical context.
According to Feisal Abdul Rauf, “the Quran expressly and unambiguously prohibits the use of coercion in faith because coercion would violate a fundamental human right—the right to a free conscience. A different belief system is not deemed a legitimate cause for violence or war under Islamic law.
The Quran is categorical on this: “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” (2:256); Surah Al-Kafirun 1-6 “Say to the disbelievers “To you, your beliefs, to me, mine” (109:1-6)”
Jawaid Quddus asserts that “Quotations from the Quran, cited out of historical context, are being used to prove the contention that Islam is by nature and design a violent religion.”
Micheline R. Ishay has argued that “the Quran justifies wars for self-defence to protect Islamic communities against internal or external aggression by non-Islamic populations, and wars waged against those who ‘violate their oaths’ by breaking a treaty”, 42:39.
Khaled M. Abou El Fadl asserts that “there is not a single verse in the Quran that calls for an unmitigated, unqualified, or unreserved obligation to fight the unbelievers.”
According to Esposito and Mogahed, the Quran balances permission to fight the enemy with a strong mandate for making peace: “If your enemy inclines toward peace, then you too should seek peace and put your trust in God” (Quran 8:61).
Finally we must also realize that until the Treaty of Hudaybiya there had been intense persecution of Muslims by the Meccans. And there were several revelations. The Treaty of al-Hudaybiya was an event that took place during the lifetime of prophet Muhammad (SAW). It was a pivotal treaty between Muhammad (SAW), representing the state of Medina, and the tribe of the Quraysh in Mecca in March 628. The treaty helped to decrease tension between the two cities.
Al-Fath (Arabic: الفتح, al-fatḥ; meaning: “The Victory”) is the 48th chapter (surah) of the Qur’an with 29 verses (ayat). The surah was revealed in Medina in the sixth year of the Hijrah, on the occasion of the Treaty of Hudaybiya between the Muslim city-state of Madinah and Makkan polytheists.
The Quran is therefore a book that must be read with its historical context for better understanding, the more reason why it is important to read the commentaries that follow each and every Surah.
At this point, it may be useful to step back from the recent violence and review broader patterns of religious affiliation and conflict across the country. Nigeria is not only the largest half Muslim, half Christian country by far but also ranked as the most religious. With between three hundred and four hundred ethno-linguistic groups, it is also one of the most complex, though three ethnic identities make up two-thirds of the population: Hausa-Fulani at 30 percent, Yoruba at 20 percent and Igbo at 17 percent.
In general, Hausa-Fulani tend to be Muslim. Yoruba are split evenly between Muslim and Christian. Igbos are predominantly Christian. Hence ethnic and religious identities may be conjoined, which also tends to reinforce regional zones: the north, predominantly Muslim; the southwest, a mixture of Yoruba Muslims and Christians; and the southeast, predominantly Christian Igbos.
Since independence in 1960, Nigeria has witnessed its share of conflicts, including a 1967-70 civil war when the southeast tried to secede as Biafra. The numerous coups and attempted coups have often had a regional/ethno-religious flavour. Since the return to civilian rule in 1999—the so-called Fourth Republic—insurgencies have flared up in the south-south (Niger Delta) and the northeast (especially Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa states), post election violence was serious in Kaduna, and in the Middle Belt, herder-farmer violence continues.
In retrospect, there had been no war based on religion in Nigeria since the end of the Fulani Jihad of Dan Fodio and the Fulani incursion into Yorubaland that was thwarted finally at Osogbo by Ibadan army.
Those crying wolf about Nigeria’s imagined persecution of Christians are therefore dreaming of starting a religious ‘kuraku’ in a country already smouldering under the intense heat of home-grown terrorism, kidnapping which has suddenly become a growth industry, herders versus famers, hungry people versus belly-full political leaders and impoverishment and grinding poverty in the midst of plenty, without hope on the horizon.
No doubt, we still have many rivers to cross.
Barka Juma’at and happy weekend
