PEOPLE AND POLITICS BY MOHAMMED HARUNA

First Bank, the West and “Islamic Terror”

Remember Abubakar Siddique Mohammed? He was, in case you’ve forgotten so soon, the senior lecturer paid to teach politics at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, who, much to the apparent annoyance of the authorities, decided to use his spare time to write a pamphlet sometimes in March warning Nigerians of the dire consequences of allowing President Olusegun Obasanjo to succeed with his then well-known Third Term Agenda. In the pamphlet, titled Obasanjo: The Lust for Power and its Tragic Implications for Nigeria, Mohammed spoke about the “popular and widespread anger against the attempt being made by President Obasanjo and some Governors to prolong their stay beyond 2007.”

For all this trouble, Mohammed was hounded by security agents in Zaria, his base, and in Abuja, where he had gone for business. The political consultancy he co-directed with the late Dr. Bala Usman, the Centre for Democratic Development Research and Training, Zaria, was raided. So also were the printers of his pamphlets in Kaduna, the Vanguard Printers and Publishers Ltd. Indeed the chief executive of the company was detained and several hundred copies of the pamphlet seized.

Unfortunately for the security agents, the horse had already bolted out of the stable by the time they made all these efforts at stopping Mohammed’s publication; many copies were already in circulation especially in Abuja and the action of the security agents only had the predictable effect of increasing its circulation through photocopying.

As we all know, the Third Term Agenda came to a sudden and unlamented grief in the Senate a few months ago.

In late September, Dr. Mohammed decided to send 15,000 Naira through First Bank’s Western Union money transfer to his nephew, Mohammed Bashir Abubakar, in Kano. Perhaps it was mere coincidence that Mohammed had offended the sensibilities of the powers that be, but two months since sending the money to his nephew, Abubakar is yet to collect it. At the same time every attempt Mohammed himself has made to recover the amount has failed.

The reason for this brazen confiscation of Mohammed’s 15,000 Naira? It seems in the new era of the West’s “war on terror,” any one bearing a Muslim name even here in Nigeria is regarded as a terrorist, at least a potential one, unless he can prove otherwise to the chaps at the First Bank. Mohammed’s nephew, the bank has said, cannot collect his 15,000 Naira unless he submits to it a court affidavit showing he has never been involved in any criminal activity, including apparently, spreading terror.

Quite rightly Mohammed has sworn to get his nephew to do no such thing. Instead, he has insisted on a refund of his money. For some inexplicable reason, First Bank has refused the refund. Hence the two-month stalemate.

I don’t know what and how long it will take to break this stalemate. But while it lasts everyone with a stake in freedom of association and freedom on religion – and that means each and every one of us – must be worried by this policy of the First Bank of apparently presuming any beneficiary of its Western Union money transfer who bears a Muslim name as a potential terrorist.

Unfortunately the First Bank is not alone in this idea of turning the fundamental judicial principle of innocence unless proven guilty right on its head. About a year ago, Newswatch, which prides itself as Nigeria’s foremost weekly newsmagazine, ran a cover story in which it barely stopped short of accusing every Muslim in this country of being a potential terrorist. “Danger!”, it screamed in a blazing headline in red on the cover of its edition of October, 31, 2005, “Bin-Laden’s Men Are Here.”

In an equally alarming introduction to the story, the magazine stated unequivocally that “Al-Qaeda Network of terrorists which is fast expanding to many countries of the world has arrived Nigeria. Osama bin Laden’s men are not only here they are already targeting some major installations, particularly in the oil industry for attack and destruction. Their alleged sponsor has also been identified as Ahamed Idris Nasreddin, the proprietor of the Jos, Plateau State-based Nasco Group.”

Going through the story it was truly amazing how the magazine showed a reckless disregard for fairness by simply regurgitating stuff that American officials have been peddling – and some irresponsible Nigerian officials have been parroting – as evidence of the danger of so-called Islamic terrorism in Nigeria. The magazine, for example, quoted Princeton Lyman, former US ambassador to Nigeria and well known as a CIA operative, as saying in effect that Nigeria’s large concentration of Muslims guarantees bin Laden confident large numbers of recruits.

No where in the magazine’s five-page story did it interview any Muslim organization, radical or otherwise, to hear the Muslim perspective to the story. And given its categorical mention of Ahamed Idris Nasreddin, the proprietor of Nasco Group of Company in Jos, as the alleged sponsor of Islamic terror in Nigeria, there was no indication that any attempt was made to get his own side of the story. If the magazine had done so it would probably have discovered that the allegations against Nasco and its proprietor, as has been the case with allegations against many leading Muslim charity organizations, businesses and individuals in many parts of the world, have since been discredited.

Perhaps the most celebrated of these discredited stories were those peddled by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guilanme Dasquie in their book, Forbidden Truth, published over five years ago. The two had also published a report titled “Terrorism Financing” in 2002.

This month the two were apparently forced to eat crow. In a full page apology in The Economist of November 4, the two unequivocally admitted that they had defamed two leading Arab businessmen, Khalid Bin Mahfouz and Abdurrahman Bin Mahfouz, in both their book and Report by alleging that they were principal sponsors of Islamic terror.

“Notwithstanding research into terrorism financing”, said the co-authors, “we have learnt nothing since the publication of the Book and the Report which suggests there is any evidence supporting the allegations. We therefore now unreservedly withdraw all of the allegations about you in both the Book and the Report and confirm that we will never repeat them.”

Terrorism of whatever variety costs money and to stop it its source of financing has to be identified and then blocked. But as The Economist pointed out in an editorial and a feature article on the subject in its edition of October 22, 2005, the Western attempts, or more specifically the Anglo-American attempt by Tony Blair and George Bush, at combating the funding of Islamic terrorism by hindering flows of money across international financial network, have been both costly and ineffective. Terrorism, the magazine pointed out, giving facts and figures, costs peanuts. For example, terrorism funds, it said, form an insignificant 1% of the world’s “dirty” money. Besides, because the terrorists now know that banks have since come under close scrutiny, they have learnt to avoid them like a plague.

The lesson in all this should be pretty obvious. The solution to so-called Islamic terrorism does not lie in profiling Muslims as bank customers or as anything else for that matter. It also does not lie in peddling largely false propaganda about their faith. On the contrary such profiling and false propaganda can only alienate Muslims from the West even more. It is, for example, not difficult to imagine the effect that First Bank’s refusal to pay Dr. Saddique Mohammed’s nephew his 15,000 Naira must have had on the poor young lad whose crime seems to be that he bears a Muslim name.

No. The solution to s-called Islamic terrorism does not lie in profiling Muslims and defaming their faith. It lies in looking at the principal source of terrorism, namely the Western attitude which sees anything or anyone that questions the assumptions of the supremacy of Western values as an enemy.

September 11, 2001, the Bali bombings, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, and others more, are despicable and condemnable acts of terrorism by Muslims. However, they pale in significance compared to the acts of Western terrorism against the rest of the world, especially against the Muslim world. As William Blum pointed out in his 2003 book, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, America alone between 1945 and 2003, “attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalists movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the U.S bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.”

Any one who wants to end the scourge of terrorism in the world should be looking into these policies instead of blackmailing hardworking people bearing Muslim names into going to court to swear that they are not terrorists simply because they want to send stipends to their friends and relations who also bear Muslim names.