By MAJEED DAHIRU —
If ever there were doubts about the complicity of some mainstream Islamic authorities in the proliferation of radical Islamic ideologies of hate, intolerance and violence, they may have been cleared by the most recent of the regular outbursts of Ishaq Akintola, a Professor of Islamic eschatology and spokesman of the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC).
Th e self-appointed defender of Muslims rights in Nigeria, who is fast gaining notoriety for his politicization of faith matters and propagator of hate and intolerance, has crossed the red line of decency in social commentary by his latest verbal misadventure.
While breathing down heavily on the neck of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) for expressing concerns over an alleged Islamization agenda, citing, among other reasons, the recent introduction of the Sukuk bond option of public sector fi nancing by the federal government, Akintola betrayed certain sentiments that have potentials of stoking further the fears of the umbrella Christian body in Nigeria.
In a press statement that qualifi es as hate speech as suggested by the title; “Opposition to Sukuk: ‘CAN Playing Dog in the Manger”, Akintola was quoted as saying, “Th e Muslims Rights Concern (MURIC) considers CAN’s position demeaning.
It is not only infantile, petty and overbearing but also spiteful and egocentric”.
He went further to posit thus, “Our position is based on the fact that it needs today because the whole system is Christo-Western: education, the judicial system, the economy, everything.
Muslims who were deprived all Islamic landmarks and ways of life by the colonialists are constrained to start the struggle all over again by demanding Shari’ah, use of hijab in schools, Islamic banks, Sukuk, etc.
It must be made clear ab initio that Nigerian Muslims had all these before the advent of colonialists who changed everything in favour of Christianity”.
Th e depiction of a respected body like CAN in the mould of the fabled “dog in the manger” is the height of unprovoked assault on the collective image of Christianity in Nigeria and a disrespect to millions of Nigerian Christians.
Interestingly, while denigrating CAN in his latest opprobrium, Akintola inadvertently misrepresented the Islamic faith and its lofty ideals when he suggested that the current secular status of a religiously diverse nation like Nigeria is unacceptable to Muslims, because it is Christo-Western; a system he claimed, Muslims are struggling hard to replace with the Shari’a.
Th e claim that education is Christo-Western as well as the aspiration to replace the current secular order in Nigeria with Shari’a through concerted struggle (Jihad) by all Muslims clearly puts Akintola’s MURIC in the same category with Abu Shekau’s Boko Haram insurgent group.
It is such narratives by mainstream Muslim leaders like Akintola that sow and continuously water the seeds of radicalization among Nigerian Muslims, which have guaranteed a steady fl ow of willing recruits into the rank and fi le of extremist Jihadi groups.
Th e sustained narratives that denounce education as ChristoWestern and the call to return to the ideals of an Islamic state are what have sustained the on-going Boko Haram insurgency as a result of the determined eff orts of the young men and women who congregate around Shekau to put to practice in Sambisa what Prof Akintola is preaching in Lagos.
More tragic is the presentation of falsehood as facts of history by Akintola in his bid to justify his intolerance of the beliefs and the feelings of fellow Nigerians of the Christian faith.
British colonialism was not a Christian enterprise neither did it deprive Muslims of their rights and privileges.
Th e British colonial policy of association as opposed to French colonial policy of assimilation preserved the ways of life, religion, culture and tradition of natives throughout the British Empire, from India to north and sub-Saharan Africa.
In the Southern half of Nigeria, Christianity spread peacefully without coercion of the native peoples to accept.
Despite that, centuries old Muslim communities in Western Nigeria continued to thrive and fl ourish.
Th e monopoly of Christian missions over education in Southern Nigeria was eventually broken by the introduction of Muslim missionary schools.
Similarly, in recognition of the predominance of the Islamic faith in and around the Sokoto caliphate and the old Kanem-Borno empire, British colonial authorities deliberately prevented Christian missionaries from evangelizing most parts of the Muslim north in order not to alter their religious way of life.
In the place of missionary schools, colonial authorities established government schools throughout the Muslim north with mandates to educate the native population without prejudice to their deep Islamic heritage.
Th e elaborate emirate system of traditional leadership, under the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan of Sokoto, the legacy state of the Uthman Dan Fodio Jihad of the preceding century was preserved and enhanced in prestige throughout the colonial period into the modern era.
Never in the history of Nigeria were Muslims ever prevented from practicing their faith.
Concepts of Islamic banking and bonds (Sukuk) are relatively modern developments which were not available during British Nigeria.
Th e actual thought process on the development of the concept of interest free fi nancial system in line with Shari’a started in the 20th century and eventually culminating into formal institutions in the 70s, while Sukuk was formally adopted in 1988.
Th erefore, it is doubtful how possible it was for British colonial authorities to have been able to prevent Nigerian Muslims from practicing what was not in existence at the time.
From the foregoing, the position of MURIC goes a long way to confi rm the fears of CAN that a spirited struggle is on-going to replace the current secular constitutional order with Shari’a because, according to Akintola, Nigeria is a Christo-Western creation of British colonial rule.
Th e attempt to create an impression in the minds of the citizens that Nigeria is a competition ground for religious supremacy is a recipe for having multiple nations under one country, whose loyalties are with their faith but not with Nigeria.
Th e consequences of this can be very grave.
From Iraq to the greater parts of the Levant are currently being ravaged by religious and sectarian wars.
In an event that Nigeria is pushed to an edge on account of hate and intolerance, Akintola and others like him will only be granted refuge by the Christian West as the gates of Mecca and Medina will shut tightly against “Nigerian refugees”.
Th erefore, the Christians you refuse to live with in peace in the warmth of your country, Nigeria, you will be forced to live with in the cold alleys of Christo-Western Europe and Americas as strangers and refugees.
Nigerian Christians as much as any other group of citizens are entitled to an inalienable right to hold their government accountable and demand explanation and redress were warranted and the leadership of government business at all levels are duty bound to be responsive accordingly.
Th e concerns raised by CAN were directed to the Nigerian government and not to any Muslim individual or group.
Th erefore, it is not in the place of MURIC to take it upon itself the task of defending government policies on the basis of the fact that the current President is a Muslim, especially in the manner it did in this instance.
It is the responsibility of government to allay the fears of the Christian community in Nigeria and reassure them that the picture being painted by Akintola is not in its agenda.
Muhammadu Buhari, though a Muslim, is the president of all Nigerians.
Th e offi ce he occupies is neither Muslim nor Christian but Nigerian.
As a Nigerian president no group should arrogate to themselves his ownership on the basis of tribe, tongue or faith.
