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 a police station 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 beards en masse; etc. 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
actions. 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 in 2010. 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 underground. 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 months 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, 86% of federal projects are now 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. And behold, the bombing
charges were forgotten! The last thing reported between Jonathan and
Dokpesi ten days ago was that the latter was 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 kill
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 were those 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 its selective killings, the ulama realized
their vulnerability and none of them dared 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's activities.
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
come 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 too far when it
considered 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 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
adopted 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 from 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 as heretic, infidel, blasphemous, or other
similar dangerously derogatory names. End of discussion! (I have been
awarded a number of those insignia whenever I express an opinion that is
distasteful to some pious readers.) 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 obtained 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
staged a return the following year. The governor too has abandoned the
Government House and practically relocated to Abuja since he received
the death threat.
The reluctance of Boko Haram to intellectually engage this kind of ulama
is therefore understandable. Yet, if it will look around well, it will
see that 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 tried to do 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 the
prevailing 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 Muslim women, did not receive any
condemnation from Christians or their leaders. Government also declined
to prosecute perpetrators clearly identified by their victims, despite
the availability of hardcore evidence like pictures, videos, etc. It was
against this background that the Boko Haram leader rebuffed the protest
of the CAN President, as he put it, “simply because of the few successes
we recorded recently”, apparently referring to the Christmas bombings
and those that followed in Gombe, Mubi and Yola.
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, for example, 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 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 became 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 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.” An article published today by
the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, our respected brother Hasan Kukah,
has listed such cases. Good progress.
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 would
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. Period. 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 Niger, 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 justify. Revenge in Islam, even where it is chosen
by the victim over the preferred option of forgiveness, must be
surgically precise to meet the requirement of Shariah.
Politically, I would continue with my advice, attacking Christians sends
different messages, all negative to the image of the group. One, some
may think that the group is losing in its battle against the Nigerian
authorities. Two, that attacking armless and innocent Christian
worshippers could be interpreted as going for easy targets, instead of
the difficult ones, like the governors that the group threatened but, so
far, 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 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 would be pleased with such a bath.
Meanwhile, the attacks have introduced some favourable developments in
Muslim-Christian relationship in the country. 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-measure to give protection
to churches on Sunday. The awareness has visited many that some clerics
on both sides of the divide who would not care to ignite a conflagration
have stepped the boundary.
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, alerting us to the challenges ahead:
“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
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 after 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 logic
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 encourages 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 my 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, for example, cannot employ the
militant posture of the CAN President, 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 confronting it 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
becoming 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, festivals, parks, cinemas, 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
who 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
negotiation. But unless we meet the above challenges, another group will
prop up tomorrow, among Muslims or Christians, to face us, once more,
with similar or greater challenges.