DISCOURSE BY DR. ALIYU U.
TILDE
The New Challenges of Boko
Haram
aliyutilde@yahoo.com
Within 48 hrs of publishing Jonathan and the Security of Nigerian
Christians on the internet and a number of Nigerian newspapers and
websites, Imam Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Jama’atu Ahlis
Sunnah Lidda’wati wal Jihad – commonly called Boko Haram –
released a video on Youtube describing the objectives of its
mission.
I feel that both the international and local press have not done
justice to the speech of the Imam. Though he has clearly given
reasons behind their mission, everything was just reduced to “Boko
Haram has claimed responsibility for attacking Christians in
Nigeria”, without even stating the reasons.
Given the relevance of the group to our national security today, I
think it is essential for the media to maintain a balance in its
reporting of the group. This is not to say ‘five minutes for the
Israelis and five minutes for the Palestinians”, but a coverage
that ensures the message of each side is passed to readers in the
most comprehensive form possible is desirable.
In following 'few' paragraphs, I set out to discuss the most
essential points of Imam Shekau’s message – the category of
Nigerians that the group is targeting and its reasons for doing
so. Of course, he has raised some controversial matters in the
province of contemporary Islamic jurisprudence just as there are
also many things he did not say which we would love to hear from
him directly. However, these are matters that can best be
discussed separately at a later date, hopefully, by more capable
minds than mine. As conclusion, the challenges the group posed by
the group to government, Muslims and Christians are discussed.
Targets
The video, according to Imam Shekau, was essentially directed at
three targets: President Jonathan, for whom the Boko Haram leader
promised “more troubling times ahead”; the Christian Association
of Nigeria (CAN) for its “vituperations” in the aftermath of the
recent bombings; and, individuals opposed to the group including
those that see it as a “cancer or disease among the people."
Imam Shekau was also clear on who the group regards as its
enemies. First on the list was security personnels who the Imam
charged with persecuting members of the group, including the cold
blood murder of its leader in police custody, killing many of its
members and eradication of its centres; two, Christians, for
killing Muslims in various parts of the North in various religious
and ethnic crisis that took place during the past two and a half
decades; and, three, Muslim informants and moles, "yan chune",
who assist the government to identify and kill its members. “Apart
from these”, said the Boko Haram leader, “we have not targeted
anyone.”
Let us discuss each of these targets separately.
Security Personnels
It is difficult for anyone to suggest an alternative to going
underground for the group after the treatment meted it by the
Yar’adua administration in 2009. Instead of abiding by rule of
law, like arresting its leader and charging him - maximum - with
treason, the authorities deliberately chose to provoke the group.
The police killed a number of its members during a funeral
procession on the flimsy ground of not using a helmet. To date,
nothing was done to the culprits.
The group promised to retaliate after Ramadan in 2009. What
happened after that Ramadan when the group protested at some
police stations in Bauchi did not actually necessitate an all-out
war against it. Many groups have attacked the police before but
they were handled by normal means without resorting to extreme
measures like massacres. Let us not forget the “finish them” order
that President Yar’adua gave to the security forces that morning
when he was leaving for Brazil. In fact, he even timed it that by
4.00pm that day, the job must have been completed.
In Bauchi, it was estimated that over seventy members of the group
were massacred at their centre behind the airport. Apparently,
they were even unaware of the conflict at Dutsen Tanshi police
station that started that morning. By evening, the state
commissioner for special duties led a team of government agents
that leveled the centre with bulldozers. Passengers at the Yankari
Park in Bauchi also witnessed how eight unarmed members were
arrested and killed instantly by soldiers as the were boarding a
bus to Maiduguri. The governor, Isa Yuguda, would later claim
credit for the “decisive way” in which his government dealt with
the group in his state.
In Maiduguri, what happened was pretty clear. Government went for
total extermination of the group without recourse to any due
process. The world was witness to how their centre was leveled by
soldiers; how Muhammad Yusuf, their leader, was executed; how
Muhammad Foi, a former member of Sheriff’s cabinet, was executed
on the street after his arrest; and how the police and the
military went about killing anyone that resembled their members to
the extent that people started shaving their beard en masse
because a senior police officer was reported in the press saying
that he cannot guarantee the life of anyone wearing such features.
So many were arrested along with their wives. They remain in
prison to date without trial. Extermination is still the strategy
of government in dealing with the group.
While some ulama that were in the good books of government
justified the killings saying that the sect is Kharijite, the
world condemned the killings. We wrote essays then condemning both
the ulama and the authorities on the highhandedness they showed.
The government apologized to the United Nations after it was
condemned for the human right abuses, promising that it will bring
the perpetrators to book. Actually, it did nothing. No
disciplinary action was taken against anyone until when Boko Haram
bombed the Police Headquarters in Abuja. Two police officers were
then reportedly dismissed from service for the murder of the Boko
Haram leader.
Boko Haram therefore was left with no option but to go into
hiding. The group did exactly that. It took time to heal its
wounds, regroup and re-strategize before returning to revenge what
Imam Shekau described as the “the injustice meted against it.” To
my understanding this is why he chose the following verses to open
his Youtube video speech:
“Truly, God defends those who believe. Verily, God likes not any
treacherous ingrate. Permission to fight is given to those who are
fought against because they have been wronged, and, surely, God is
able to give them victory. Those who have been expelled from their
homes unjustly only because they said, Our Lord is God.”
The overwhelming opinion among Muslims then was that the group was
indeed treated unjustly. Public commentators from the North openly
accused Yar’adua of playing ‘Animal Farm’ with his brothers. The
killing of Boko Haram members came just some few month after the
President negotiated and granted a lucrative amnesty to more
destructive militants in the oil rich Niger Delta.
Beneficiaries of the amnesty were placed under a welfare package
and chunks of the federal government expenditure was sunk into the
development of that region in addition to the ‘lion share’ that
its state governments collect from statutory allocations, which is
greater than the allocations of all the 19 northern states. In
addition, they receive 13% of Nigerian revenue earnings. Finally,
as it was clear in 2011, 76% of federal projects are allocated to
that region.
The result is peace.
However, for Boko Haram, the government chose to negotiate with
bullets and bombs. It is not surprising, therefore, that the group
replied it in its own language. In this context, one can easily
understand its resort to violence as a means of survival.
If Yar’adua was wrong in treating Boko Haram in the 21st Century
with the same strategy that Shagari and Buhari used to overcome
Maitatsine in the 1980s, Jonathan did little to correct that
mistake. He has not shown any interest in dialoguing with the
group, so far. The group has many times cited this as another
reason for continuing its struggle. Appeal to its members to put
down its weapons and negotiate with government and they will rebut
in this standard format: “How can we trust any negotiation with
people who are amassing arsenal to attack us?”
All that Jonathan did was to constitute a committee to study the
group and matters related to it. When it was insinuated that the
mandate of the committee included negotiating with the group, the
Secretary to the Federal Government quickly dismissed any such
mandate. Months after the committee submitted its report, its
recommendation for peaceful negotiation between government and the
group continues to remain frozen.
The result is insecurity.
This is in sharp contrast to what happened to the October 1, 2010
bombers. President Jonathan laboured hard in public to exonerate
the perpetrators, who claimed to belong to the Movement for the
Emancipation of Niger Delta. They said they did it; he said they
didn't. Security officials told the nation that they have evidence
linking Raymond Dokpesi, the presidential campaign manager of
Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida and owner of AIT to the attacks.
Security agents quizzed Dokpesi and some arrests were made.
The media guru transferred his support to Jonathan and allowed his
channel become the mouthpiece of the President. Behold, the
bombing charges were forgotten. The last thing we heard between
Jonathan and Dokpesi ten days ago was that the latter was
reportedly paid N1.3 billion for ‘services’ he rendered to the
government!
Informants, Moles and Critics
When it reappeared in 2010, Boko Haram started to selectively
start killing people that assisted the authorities in identifying
them. The initial victims were grassroots traditional rulers, the
lawanis as they are called in Borno. After killing the first few,
Boko Haram issued a warning that it will go after all those that
aided the authorities in persecuting them. These included a number
of ulama, traditional rulers, and the three governors of Borno,
Gombe and Bauchi states. It demanded pubic apologies from the
governors and got it from the last two. Though the group rejected
the apology, it is yet to carry out its threat against the big
three. Among the high profile killings made in this category was
that of the junior brother to the Shehu of Borno, the state
chairman of the ruling party in the state and its gubernatorial
candidate during the last elections.
Immediately the group started the selective killings, the ulama
realized their vulnerability and none of them dire again to
condemn the group publicly or repeat to assign it the Kharijite
nomenclature. At a point, Boko Haram also issued a warning that
they will also go against anyone who publicly condemns its
activities, including journalists who do not live by the ethics of
their profession in reporting it.
The government has been unable to protect its informants and other
citizens from these attacks. This partially explains the silence
of the Muslim community over Boko Haram. Generally, though, it
could be argued that it has not been the tradition of communities
in Nigeria to criticize their own militants. The Niger Delta and
the killing of Muslims in Plateau and Kaduna States are the bad
examples that readily comes to mind.
While whoever decides to serve as an informant or a mole knows the
risk he is taking, it is my opinion that the group has gone far
when it considers criticisms as attack. By so doing, though the
group would gain the advantage of instilling fear in the
population, it stands the chance of losing public sympathy and
gaining the benefits of correction, or nasiha as it is called in
Islam.
Islam, which the group is linking its cause to, is very wide and
it could harbour a variety of opinions on the same issue.
Throughout its history, given the diversity of the their
environment, Muslims have benefitted more than losing from such
differences. Divergence of opinion is counted among the blessings
of the ummah. And even great Caliphs like Umar welcome corrections
by ordinary members of the society when they adopt policies that
are contrary to the scripture.
Likewise, there could be many other interpretations to the
Nigerian situation than Boko Haram’s and if the cause is truly for
the common good of the people as Imam Shekau has said, the door of
constructive criticism must remain open. In his video alone, there
are a number of controversial issues on which many Muslims would
beg to differ with Boko Haram: the status of Christianity,
democracy, jihad, western education, etc. It is the right of the
Muslim community to debate them publicly in light of its
understanding of Islam and it is the right of Boko Haram to rebut
such points with superior arguments or accept them at its
pleasure.
Having made this observation, I must hasten to mention that
debates on issues regarding Islam in Nigeria are very difficult
even among Muslims in particular. What I have realized in the past
thirty-five years is that some people are impatient, and many
times unwilling, to listen to the other side. Immediately I differ
with you in opinion, the first thing I do is brand you with
heresy, infidelity, blasphemy, or other similar derogatory words.
End of discussion! That is why in Muslims and Rule of Law in
Nigeria (2009) I wrote strongly against the people who rushed to
label Boko Haram as Kharijite. Others before them have been
labeled with equally disastrous names, making it difficult for
mutual understanding to be reached at on any single matter that
arises.
The very day their massacre started in 2009, the Bauchi State
government sought and got from the ulama in the town a fatwa which
served as a license for authorities to kill Boko Haram members
without recourse to justice. Only the most elderly sheikh in town
opined differently, insisting that in Islam no soul should be
killed without a ruling from a judge. That is why some of the
ulama fled the country when Boko Haram made staged a return the
following year. The governor too has abandoned the Government
House and practically relocated to Abuja since after he received
the death threat.
The reluctance of Boko Haram to engage this kind of ulama is
therefore understandable. Yet, if it will look around well, not
the entire ummah is a mouthpiece of government. There are hundreds
of other ulama with whom it can engage constructively.
Christians
Up to last Christmas, Boko Haram has not clearly claimed attacking
any church. As we did above, it is possible to see the angle from
which the group justifies its attack on security personnel,
informants and the like. However, making targets of innocent
Christians is extremely hard, if not impossible to reason with
from the Islamic viewpoint. Justifiably, nothing has negatively
affected public sympathy for the group like those attacks. The
uproar that greeted the Christmas bombing among Muslims and
Christians alike is a testimony to that repugnance.
But let us be fair and examine the reasons of Boko Haram first
before we hang it. Imam Shekau based his justification on the
brutal killings of Muslims in various incidents Kaduna and Plateau
State since the Kafanchan crisis. He mentioned how Muslims were
killed in the various crises, their women subjected to
dehumanizing treatments, and so on. The acts, and worse ones, like
the reported trafficking of children of victims and the
sex-slavery of their women did not receive any condemnation from
Christians or their leaders. Government also declined to prosecute
perpetrators clearly identified by their victims, the availability
of hardcore evidence like pictures and videos, etc. It was against
this background that the Boko Haram leader rebuffed the protest of
the President of Christian Association of Nigeria “simply because
of the few successes we recorded recently,” apparently referring
to the Christmas bombings.
There could be few Muslims who would concur with Shekau, privately
arguing that reprisal attacks are the norm in Nigeria. Christians,
they would argue, would know that if they continue to kill Muslims
in their areas, there are now in place a set of Muslims that will
revenge it. The overwhelming majority of Muslims, however, were
disappointed with the claim. I was planning to visit Gombe, Yola
and Mubi to investigate the recent attacks on Christians because
of the widespread belief that those attacks could not have been
the work of Muslims. As I reclined on bed to plan out the trip
that Wednesday, the BBC Hausa Service broke the news that Boko
Haram has released a video claiming to target Christians in
Nigeria. I was completely devastated.
Like most people, I have my reservations about the recent attacks
on Christians in the Northeast. This is not like Jonathan's case
of “they said we did it, he said they didn't.” There is a mountain
of evidence that implicates Christians in activities linked to
Boko Haram. The SSS has shared some with the public. Some were
reported caught attempting to burn churches. The latest is in
police custody right now in Kaduna. The last person I spoke to in
Yola regarding the bombings that took place there recently. He
said, “we don’t have Boko Haram here; all we have are politicians
who are using the bombings to canvass votes.”
Despite the above revelations, the speech of Imam Shekau must be
given its due weight. We must be honest to say that Boko Haram has
unequivocally declared Christians as targets of its attacks. Pure
and simple. Whether the group carried all attacks on Christians or
not is a matter that is open to debate, which like many, I thought
the Imam will clarify himself. Unfortunately, he did not.
If I were a consultant to Boko Haram, I would have advised it
against taking this measure on both religious and political
grounds despite my appreciation of their concern over the
atrocities repeatedly committed against Muslims in . many
communities in Plateau and Kaduna States.
From angle of religion, it would be quite easy to prove, using
unquantifiable number of sources, that collective punishment to
Christians in Nigeria is not in accordance with the letter and
spirit of the Qur’an. It is haram. If the group had taken the pain
to investigate the people or the communities that perpetrated
those atrocities against Muslims and directed its anger against
them, that would have put its mission of revenge in a more proper
context. But to hold a Christian in Madalla, Borno, Yobe or
Adamawa for the wrong done by some Christians in communities of
Kaduna and Plateau state is a cause that is difficult to support.
Revenge in Islam, even where it is chosen by the victim over the
preferred option of forgiveness, must be precisely surgical to
meet the requirement of Shariah.
Politically, I will continue with my advice, attacking Christians
sends different messages, all negative to the image of the group.
Onne some may think that the group is losing in its battle with
the Nigerian authorities. Two, that attacking armless and and
innocent Christian worshippers is interpreted as going for easy
targets, instead of difficult ones like the governors that the
group let untargeted. Thirdly, it may also be seen as a cheap way
of conscripting the entire Nigerian Muslim community into the
conflict after the group failed to earn its support in the ongoing
conflict. In a nutshell, it is a political blunder that it should
not have ventured into.
In any case, attacking Christians does not solve any problem since
it exposes Muslims to retaliatory attacks in the communities where
they are a minority, thus feeding the vicious mill of violence
with the blood of innocent souls. It is doubtful if God will be
pleased with such a bath.
Meanwhile, the attacks have introduced some favourable
developments in Muslim Christian relationship. Muslim groups, in
both Northern and Southwestern parts of the country, have started
visiting Christians in Churches, expressing their support for
living in their communities. Some have even taken the
extra-measures to give protection to churches on Sunday. The
realization that some clerics on both side of the divide who would
not care to ignite a conflagration must not be allowed to succeed
has visited on many. Such Nigerians seem to say that these clerics
have crossed the line.
Challenges
In his comment on my blog after reading Jonathan and the Security
of Nigerian Christians, Dr. John H. Boer, a respectable Canadian
missionary that lived in Nigeria for decades until recently, wrote
the following few sentences, which alerts us on the challenges
ahead of us:
“Assuming your facts to be correct, this is a very interesting
analysis. If your analysis is correct, Christians, along with
government and Muslims, have a huge job to do, but everyone should
start at home. I have circulated your article to a lot of
Christians for their consideration. Da godiya da yawa.”
That was an apt observation from an elder. It is my firm belief
that government must take the lead, while both Muslims and
Christians address the problems of relating with each other in
their communities. Government must tackle Boko Haram, not by
bullets and arrests, but by negotiation as advised by its
committee on the conflict. Fortunately, unlike Niger Delta
militants, the group is not looking for material benefit. There is
no reason why the government cannot dialogue with it, given the
resources at its disposal. There are sufficient ulama that
understand its language and may succeed in realigning its
understanding with mainstream Islam. There are also sufficient
members of the group at hand that the government can use to reach
out to its leaders.
Government must be even handed in the manner it treats different
communities in Nigeria. Money for one, bullets for the other will
not breed peace. Prosecution to this and support to that is the
differential treatment that encourage violent reprisals.
Other matters are political and a common ground to handle them can
easily be discovered. There is nothing, once said the UN
Secretary-General after the bombing of UN headquarters in Abuja
last year, which cannot be amicably resolved through dialogue.
Despite the reputation of the source of that advice, the Nigerian
government has shown little interest to take it.
Among the duties of the Christian community in Nigeria, from the
Muslim point of view anyway, is appreciating the frustration of
Muslims with the escalation of violence against them in minority
communities in Plateau and Kaduna States in particular. Horrific
crimes have been committed. Silence over such atrocities by
Christians, their support for the perpetrators or their
manipulation of public opinion in the Christian dominated media to
shift blame to the victims only generates anger and retaliations.
These conflicts are basically ethnic and political, but a
religious identity is recruited to augment support for them. No
true Christian will commit them. But when CAN or Christians
generally justify them or manipulate them against Muslim victims,
that will cultivate a fertile ground for suspicion among Muslims.
The Muslim community has an equally daunting task before it. It
requires a unified voice that can express its spiritual and
political aspirations. JNI and SCIA cannot play this role since
its members – mostly traditional rulers – are government
employees, unlike what obtains in the South or among the Christian
community in the country. The Sultan, by virtue of his office,
cannot employ the militant posture of the CAN President, for
example, neither could any Emir.The demand for such a voice in the
past did not exist for the simple fact that governance was better
and the Muslim community did not face the multifarious challenges
it is confronting today. Frustrations about ill-treatment of some
Muslim communities, like those articulated by Imam Shekau, must
not be left to sediment so hard until people resort to violence.
Jointly, Muslims and Christians, especially in the North, need to
find a common ground for social interaction. The gap between them
in is too much wide for stability. To reduce mutual suspicion and
build trust among members of the two communities, avenues must be
created for such interaction at all levels and spheres of human
activity. Interactions in schools, offices, parks, cafes, games,
resorts, churches, mosques, festivities, town meetings, and, of
course, homes can all be revived to achieve this goal as it used
to be before the late 1970s.
Both Muslims and Christians need to check the activities of
extremists among them, people – mainly youths – with a surplus
zeal to serve God but with little appreciation of the complexity
of life and of contemporary Nigeria and lacking the wisdom to see
things in different shades. They need to be guided accordingly by
leaders of their sects and relevant authorities. Otherwise, they
will continue drifting away from the centre until they reach a
point where they dream of a whole world drowned in an ocean of
human blood. Certainly, this will not please God that has
described Himself as the Most Merciful.
Finally, we must all keep our guard against corrupt politicians,
people who for their irresistible penchant to loot our treasury
are always ready to exploit our differences and foment communal
misunderstandings that often translate into religious crises.
Northerners are more susceptible to these homo-viruses than others
because religion in the region is the cheapest and most
inflammable vector at their disposal. From Borno to Kwara, the
realization that we are destined to live together forever is
sufficient to bring us together against the wish of many that
would love to divide us for their own gain.
The government may today succeed in subduing Boko Haram by arms or
by negotiations. But unless we meet the above challenges, another
group will rise tomorrow, among Muslims or Christians, to face us
once more with similar or greater challenges.
Abuja
16 January 2012
|