The Nation Newspaper

Category: Friday

  • Law and a nation in troubled times

    Law and a nation in troubled times

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    From our discussion of values and morals and a nation in troubled times last week, today we move to the role of law, arguably the all-embracing and all-encompassing of all social institutions in the matter of social control and behavior regulation. It is also the most effective, though effectiveness, as we know, does not necessarily confer validity. My focus here is on law and its enforcement. Next week, we will discuss justice.

    In an ideal social setting, moral values will effectively regulate social conduct. But it is futile for society to base its expectations on an ideal setting which may never be real. Therefore, with the authoritative power of the state, laws are promulgated, presumably derived from, and founded upon, those moral values. Hence the belief that law and morality are inextricably linked, with the latter providing justification for the former.

    The claims in the last paragraph are weighty. First, on the assumed authoritative power of the state, many would object that the state uses raw power with no valid authority. This is especially true in the case of tyrants who identify the state with themselves. The presumption of the claim is that the people voluntarily grant authority to the state to govern them. Based on this authority, the state makes laws. But where this is not the case, as in a military takeover of state power, or in flagrantly rigged democratic elections, that authority is lacking and, therefore, the validity of law is suspect.

    The second assumption in the claim above is that the promulgated laws are derived from moral values and principles upheld by society and therefore law and morality as indissolubly linked. The assumption here relies on the goodness of the lawmakers; that they are consumed by altruism; that they are epitomes of moral courage; and that they are motivated only by patriotic zeal and the common good.

    This assumption is Rousseauean in nature. The idealist philosopher conceptualized a legislative forum in which each legislator rids him or herself of all the cravings of self-interest, focusing solely on the common good as he or she consults the general will for the right answer to a legislative question: what law is good for the common good in this situation? Won’t it be great if this is how legislation proceeds? But the reality of our experience is far different. Self-interest and group interest have been the dominant motivations in most legislatures across the world, this nation included.

    Let us start with the foundational instrument. No one can deny the influence of group interest, if not individual interest, on the deliberations that led to the adoption of the various constitutions up until the 1960 independence and 1963 republican constitutions. At first, it was the interest of the colonizers that was dominant. Then, as the nationalist struggle intensified, primordial, rather than national interest supervened. Argument over the most desirable system of government for a multi-ethnic, indeed, multi-national state like ours often degenerated into name-calling with unitarists attacking federalists as tribalists, using the language of the colonizers.

    In the end, however, reason prevailed and former antagonists and combatants adopted the federal system through negotiation, having recognized the good of the system for each of their groups. This is the logic of negotiation in a quasi-state of nature when the state had not yet existed and, therefore, there was no basis for thinking about the good of what was nonexistent in the negotiation for its existence. Each individual or group had to factor in its own interest. That the federal system was adopted meant that each group found it good for its wellbeing in the new state.

    Having adopted a system, federalism in this case, with all the details of its working for the good of each group, any departure from the agreed upon structure should normally be invalid unless the original agreement is renegotiated by the different parties. A unilateral adoption of a different structure is therefore problematic from legal and moral perspectives.

    Yet that was what happened on two levels in 1966. First level was the military takeover of government, which was an extraordinarily unconstitutional usurpation of power. Second level was the egregious and unilateral abandonment of the federal structure for the unitary structure which just happened to be conveniently consistent with the military’s command structure. This was the original sin for which there has been no repentance or restoration. By itself, it accounts for an unquantifiable proportion of the crisis in the nation’s troubled times.

    This reasoning is not difficult to validate. The founders knew that the Constitution was the foundation, which if faulty or wobbly, makes future trouble inevitable. Their thought was sound and was the basis for the new nation moving forward. Suddenly, military self-interest and command structure prevailed, and the basis of the original agreement was rendered null and void. But if the military was wrong, what about the civilians that subsequently took over from them? What have they done to redress the anomaly?

    Let us assume that there was a genuine belief by some groups that the structure agreed upon at the inception of the new nation was no longer desirable. What fairness dictates is to invite other groups to embark on a new round of negotiation that takes into account new realities. If the consensus is for a new structure, so be it. But no such renegotiation has been initiated talk less of a consensus. However, some groups, thinking solely about their group interests, and ignoring the interest of others, have simply imposed a new structure on every other group. How is there not to be trouble? This is where the nation is. The common good of the nation has been sidelined and truncated for sectional interests.

    The Psalmist’s rhetorical question is apt: If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? A logically sound answer is that the righteous ones, like Nehemiah of old, have a duty to mobilize others to rebuild. Again, unfortunately, this has apparently not happened or any such efforts have been inadequate.

    Tragically, the collapse of the foundation also appears to have hastened the gradual demise of objective lawmaking. It is in legislative activities that the Rousseauean ideal actually makes sense. For once a political association in the form of a state has been formed, then every member must see themselves as an integral part of the body. They must therefore look at legislations in terms of the benefit and good of the state. Self-centered or sectional legislations are to be avoided because they will ultimately lead to trouble. Again, it is not difficult to see that this principle has not been adequately followed in our legislative activities in which the question: “what’s in it for me, my party, or my corner of the nation?” is prioritized over “what’s the good of the nation?” Examples abound.

    We are embarrassingly and regrettably described as a lawless people. In many cases, this is obviously true: driving against traffic, running red light, disobeying sanitation laws and regulations meant for our protection, etc. But if you give violators of such laws opportunity for defence or explanation, they’d have plenty to say. All laws are burdensome, but some are unjustifiably so. There are laws that don’t take into consideration the conditions that citizens are going through. Some laws lack moral validity because they place sectional interests above national interest.

    It is fair to observe, then, that we are not inherently a lawless people. A simple way to confirm this is to observe our nationals when they pay visits to or reside in other countries, compared to how they behave inside their own country. The difference can be explained in various ways. They aren’t happy with the system. They suffer and blame it on the system.

    Perhaps, however, the most serious source of our lawlessness is the inadequacy of our enforcement infrastructure with a grossly deficient police to population ratio. The debate about how best to correct this deficiency has been a harrowing experience since 1999. Hopefully, one day reason will prevail and law and its enforcement will take its proper place in a well-ordered society.

  • Values and a nation in troubled times

    Values and a nation in troubled times

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

    In the last few weeks, I have focused on the condition of the nation in these troubled times and the state of the institutions that are expected to make a difference. Two weeks ago, I highlighted politics. Last week, I examined religion. Today, I explore values in general, and morals in particular. How have our values contributed to the state of the nation?

    The Holy Bible teaches that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” The Holy Koran identifies the characteristics of righteousness: “believing in God …giving wealth….freeing slaves….obligatory charity…fulfilling promises…patience in poverty and ailment…..it is those who are the righteous.” Our traditional spiritual resources are not far behind as an Odu Ifa proclaims: “Be truthful and be of good conduct because the divinities support the truthful.”

    Of course, I am not suggesting that our moral values come only from the Holy Books of our various faiths. Neither am I suggesting that only the faithful could be morally virtuous. We have numerous examples of individuals who have been moral exemplars without being religious. And there are many morally bankrupt leaders and followers in all faiths. Indeed, it is undeniable that some of our troubles as a nation are not unconnected with unabashed hypocrisy in high places as we operate bifurcated and contradictory modes of living inside and outside the church and mosque.

    What values do we hold dear traditionally and how have we evolved over the years? I think it is fair to observe that traditionally, we hold a potpourri of values and we hardly make a distinction between religious, cultural, and moral values because we see them as mutually supportive. Yet, it is useful to separate them. For instance, one of our cultural values is having many children. But traditionally having many children is useful because our ancestors placed instrumental value on them as sources of farm labor. That is, of course, seeing children as mere means to parents’ end of affluence. And when times change and western education became an important asset, having many children became a burden. Yet, many parents still held on to traditional cultural value with serious social and moral consequences for them and society.

    Religiously, we see Babalawos, Pastors, and Imams as representative of our various Supreme beings on earth. They minister to our spiritual needs and we are to follow their lead. But they are as human as we are, subject to human emotions and proclivities. Thus, when they let their emotions get the best of them, are we still supposed to follow the conduct they model at such times when they succumb to the dictate of the flesh? This week, I watched briefly a video of a pastor cursing on the pulpit, threatening to kill anyone who insulted his father. I assume that because of the veneration we have for our elders, especially those who sire us, this may be understood culturally, even if not encouraged. But is it acceptable religiously or morally?

    Moral values emanate from the moral life established by a moral tradition. Moral tradition is the customary way of life that establishes codes of conduct for a people and provides the guidance not just for individuals but also for associations and entrepreneurial organizations as they carry out their organizational goals and purposes. As I observed last week, this is how morality, law, and religion, function as institutions of social control. Every culture or society has these institutions and their success or failure is in direct proportion to the effectiveness of these institutions.

    Omoluabi is the central and overriding moral concept in the Yoruba moral tradition with counterparts in other traditions. Since I have made some observations on this concept in previous submissions on this page, I would only remind readers of few salient points. First, the Yoruba, like every tradition, is invested heavily in the future of its culture. Therefore, it makes serious efforts to inculcate its values in indigenes to guarantee its survival. Children are brought up in the knowledge and practice of these values. The successful culmination of such efforts is a cultured and morally upright individual referred to as omoluabi, the epitome of good character.

    Just as the youth are encouraged to be of good character, so are elders. We know, of course, that much as the effort is grounded in tradition, it doesn’t always end well. Thus, we have omokomo (youth of bad character) just as we have agbaiya (elders of abhorrent character). The goal of any society is to have a preponderance of youth and adults as omoluabi. Unfortunately, often, the reverse is the case and when society has a large proportion of omokomo and agbaiya, there is bound to be trouble, anxiety, and unrest.

    Is this such a time in the nation? With all the crises going on and what the nation is going through, is it out of place to infer that the absence of omoluabi culture is the culprit? Notice, of course, that were this to be the case, such an inference would not have exonerated any one individual, group, or organisation. There is enough blame to go round, and rightly so.

    Let us identify some of the entities in the tool box of the proverbial omoluabi. There is honesty or truthfulness. A professional colleague once remarked in a publication that Africans are generally dishonest people. I took serious offence because it overgeneralised. Recently, however, such generalised indictment is coming from within Africa herself in various forms, from drama videos to journalistic reports. Whether it’s the former or latter medium, they often reflect reality, cutting across groups and classes. And that is damning.

    How about moderation? There is reason why tradition advises a farmer to cover up his big yam tuber. It is to prevent unnecessary envy that may lead to avoidable conflict. But we are now in an ostentatious mode of existence in which we open for the whole world to see our success as predators of a common patrimony. I watched, with sympathy for the pettiness of spirit, a former senator gleefully displaying his hundreds of wristwatches, numerous shoes, and gold-trimmed suitcases in a video. I have never seen a hard-working industrialist or businessperson who made his or her money in the traditional way flaunt such opulence for public consumption. But that is where we are as a nation.

    Integrity is the capacity for consistency, the ability to follow through with promises voluntarily made, an essential quality for individuals as for groups, including political organizations. Our word should be our bond and promises made must be kept. Otherwise, society cannot operate because it would be difficult to function without the ability to rely on the words and pronouncements made by others.

    Finally, an omoluabi is a selfless person with fire in the belly to do exploits for the community and make the supreme sacrifice if necessary. He or she doesn’t seek the good of the self ahead of the common good. He or she serves with a clear conscience.

    We are such in dire straits because selfish greed has taken over the communal spirit and many citizens feel forsaken, abandoned, lied to, and taken for a ride. The omoluabi philosophy is under attack. Dishonesty and promise breaking are the new norm in politics. But a policy of dishonesty is simply counter-productive. We are witnesses to the reality that if a political party relies on a strategy of dishonesty and promise-breaking, it may have a temporary success, but it will ultimately lose big when its modus operandi is revealed.

    Our republican system of government has taken over the role of traditional communities. In this system, political parties, like age-grade associations, moderate conduct and set national agenda. Therefore, they must be above board. Dwight D. Eisenhower was right: “If a political party does not have its foundation in a determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.” (my emphasis) Translation: politics is inherently a moral practice. Our national crisis is consequent upon how we have disconnected the two.

     

  • OIC Controversy: NCEF’s Rejoinder

    FEMI ABBAS 

     

     

    Monologue 

    Readers, like customers, are Kings and Queens. They are not only entitled to a right of response to any publication they might have read in the print or social media, they also deserve due respect for reading them. No serious-minded writers, including newspaper or magazine columnists, can claim any value for their writings without carrying their readers along.  It is a fact, universally acknowledged, that every writer is first and foremost a reader. Thus, as a journalist/columnist, I doff my hat for readers.

     

    Preamble

    The original intention of ‘The Message’ columnist, today, was not to publish any reactions, (from readers of this column)

    to the article entitled ‘How Gowon took Nigeria into OIC’, which was published in this column last Friday (September 4, 2020).

    The reason for that intention was to give a chance to address many other urgent issues, already lined up for necessary attention.

    However, that original intention suddenly changed, not only because of the usual

    Deluge of reactions with which ‘The Message’ column is weekly bombarded, but also because of the rigour of going through many reaction before selecting the publishable ones.

    It will be recalled that the article in question was published last Friday, September 4, 2020. But by last Monday morning, September 7, 2020, (less than 72 hours after its publication),  more than 1341 reactions had reached yours sincerely through various means, thereby plunging this columnist into a deep dilemma. Even by last Wednesday, September 9, when today’s article, in this column, was being written, reactions kept coming torrentially until I lost the count.

    In that melee, yours sincerely had to take a decision on whether to endeavour to publish some readers’ reactions to last Friday’s historic article or to completely ignore all reactions. At that moment  a particular reaction came to alter my choice.

    It was from a religious group of some elderly Nigerians, called ‘National Christian Elders Forum’ (NCEF).

    The reaction of that group, which came in form of a rejoinder, was signed by Elder Solomon Asemota, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). It was published in some national daily newspapers, on Tuesday, September 8, 2020.

    As a professional mark of fairness in journalism, therefore, yours sincerely decided to publish the rejoinder especially since it was critical of the article to which it is reacting. Here it goes:

    ‘How Gowon Took Nigeria Into OIC – Rejoinder By National Christian Elders Forum (NCEF)

    “We are compelled to issue this rejoinder in the interest of truth and the need to educate coming generations on the source of the insurgency and destruction that currently bedevils Nigeria.

    On Friday 4th September, 2020, Mr. Femi Abbas, a well known publicist for the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Sa’ad Abubakar, wrote an article in the Nation Newspaper titled “How Gowon took Nigeria into OIC”.

    In the said article, Mr. Abbas attempted unabashed revisionism of history and unhidden distortion of facts.

    Three disturbing issues stand out in the article under reference:

    The deliberate denigration National Elders Forum (NCEF). Mr. Abbas did not hide his dislike NCEF.He described NCEF as “a dubious delf-appointed Christian body” and went further to call NCEF a “mischievous body” because the Christian Ellders alerted the nation that there is (sic) an Islamization agenda going on in Nigeria. For the information of Mr. Abbas, and his sponsors,

    NCEF was established by the Christian Social Movement of Nigeria and inaugurated by the former President of CAN…”

    “We are of opinion that the Ethics Committee of the NUJ need (sic) to have a private chat with Mr. Abbas”.

    In the attempt to dissimulate and absolve any Muslim of complicity in the membership of Nigeria in OIC, Mr. Abbas displayed high level “Taqiyya” which is Islamic doctrine of approved deception. It is for the purpose of correcting the dissimulation employed in the article under reference that this ‘rejoinder is written.

     

    Who Took Nigeria To OIC?

    The author misrepresented historical facts when he claimed that Gen. Gowon took Nigeria to OIC in order to obtain support for Nigeria during the Civil War. This is deliberate distortion of history because nothing of the sort happened. As we shall see later in this rejoinder, it was General Ibrahim Babangida who took Nigeria into OIC. If it was Gen. Gowon that took Nigeria into OIC as claimed by Mr. Femi Abbas, then, why and when was Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe removed from office? And, who was it that removed him? Commodore Ukiwe was removed by General Babangida, a former Military President of Nigeria, for querying the full membership of Nigeria in the OIC. It is curious that throughout his discourse, Mr. Abbas did not mention the name of Commodore Ukiwe. How could anyone talk about the membership of Nigeria in OIC without mentioning the name of Commodore Ukiwe who protested the unilateral decision of General Babangida and consequently lost his position in the Military? This incident occurred in 1986, was General Gowon in power in 1986?

     

    The True Story: How Nigeria Joined OIC

    In its February 24, 1986 edition,

    Newswatch ran a story on how Nigeria joined OIC. The investigative report 34 years ago proves conclusively that Mr. Femi Abbas deliberately set out to deceive Nigerians by telling a convoluted story of how Gen. Gowon took Nigeria to the Islamic body. Gowon did not take Nigeria into OIC at all. On the contrary, Gowon opposed it. Newswatch wrote as follows:  “In September, 1969, Arab countries met in Rabat, a preeminent Centre of Islamic theology since the days of early Prophets?, to put finishing touches on the proposed Organization of Islamic Conference. Nigerian Muslims were anxious to be part of the historic gathering. With the support and encouragement of the Sultan of Sokoto, Abubakar III, a delegation led by Abubakar Mahmood Gumi, a prominent Islamic Priest flew to Morocco to register Nigeria’s presence. Gumi was later to become a fixture in the OIC issue for the next 17 years.

    At that time, Nigeria was in the last leg of the civil war. Yakubu Gowon, ‘as head of state’ (sic)

    at the time, was worried that attendance of Gumi’s delegation might be misconstrued as a declaration of intent of Nigeria’s membership of the Organization. He therefore sent an urgent message to King Hassan of Morocco clarifying the status of the delegation. The team was on its own, Gowon reportedly informed King Hassan, and they were not representatives of Nigerian Government (sic).

    That move threw a spanner in the works. The delegation led by Gumi was denied accreditation, but was meerly allowed to observe the proceedings.

    Less than two years later, when OIC was formally inaugurated, it was clear that Nigeria had no intention of becoming a full fledged member of the Organization”.

    This account was written 34 years ago. Where then did Mr. Femi Abbas get his version of history that Gowon took Nigeria into OIC? There should be a limit to Taqiyya shouldn’t there be?

    The Newswatch account continued that “the Muhammadu Buhari government decided to pursue the matter with deliberate speed. Newswatch has been reliably informed that ex-Spreme Headquarters Chief of Staff, Tunde Idiagbon’s pilgrimage last year, just before the Buhari regime was swept away, was connected, in part, with the decision of Nigeria to enroll as a bona fide member of the OIC. Buhari was to have paid a trip (sic) to Saudi Arabia subsequent to Idiagbon’s, but the coup made that plan academic”.

    In December 1985, the OIC sent an invitation to Nigeria to attend the OIC Ministerial Conference for January 6-10 in Vez, Morocco….”

    On new year Day, Dodan Barracks instructed the Ministry of External Affairs, for the first time in the history of the efforts to get Nigeria to join the OIC, to give diplomatic cover to the ‘Nigerian delegation’. The all Moslem delegation was led by Rilwanu Lukman…”

    The demand for diplomatic cover for the delegation effectively meant that the represenntatives were from the Nigerian government…What is clear, however, is that the Minister, (Professor Bolaji Akinyemi) did not give diplomatic cover to the delegation by the time he left on his diplomatic shuttle to Europe and North America…”

    “While Akinyemi was away, the official delegation left for Morocco under diplomatic cover, presented an application for Nigeria’s membership and was immediately admitted as a member, after being a spectator for 17 years. General Gowon did not take Nigeria into OIC; General Ibrahim Babangida did. The narrative of Femi Abbas is falsehood.

     

    Islamization

    The Caliphate apologist sought to impress the readers that the claim of Islamization agenda in Nigeria is false. Again, this is nothing but “Taqiyya”. The first person to prove Mr. Abbas wrong is Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Boko Haram who said in a video in 2012,

    “… This war is not political. It is religious. It is between Muslims and unbelievers (arna). It will stop when Islamic religion is the determinant in governance in Nigeria or, in the alternative, when all fighters are annihilated and no one is left to continue the fight. I warn all Muslims at this juncture that any Muslim who assists an unbeliever in this war should consider himself an unbeliever and should consider himself dead.”

    If the statement of Shekau is not confirmation of an Islamization agenda, Mr. Abbas should kindly tell us what it means.

    There are two factors that confirm that a country is an Islamic state and both were accomplished in Nigeria by the past Muslim Military leaders. The two factors are as follows:

    1. Membership of OIC
    2. Inclusion of Islamic law and jurisprudence in the Constitution.

    While Gen. Bagangida unilaterally and surreptitiously took Nigeria into OIC in 1986, Gen. Abdulsalaam Abubakar unilaterally inserted Sharia legal code into the 1999 Constitution in violation of Section 10 and Section 1 of the same Constitution. Any country that has these two factors is an Islamic state.

    That Nigeria has been Islamized is no longer debatable. The Muslim Military heads of State plunged Nigeria into the crisis of Islamization. What the Islamists are now fighting for is to transmute Nigeria into a Sultanate, with Sultan of Sokoto as Supreme Sovereign, and institute Sharia as source of legislation, over and above the Constitution. This is the crisis that is currently playing out leading to the collapse of every infrastructure and institution in Nigeria, by the deliberate design of the Islamists, who seek to plunge Nigeria into chaos and from the rubble build their Islamic theocratic state.

    This is why we advice that Nigeria should, as a matter of urgency, discard the conflict ridden 1999 Constitution and constitute a Conference of Ethnic Nationalities to re-negotiate Nigeria as prerequisite for a new Constitution. In the meantime, the 1963 Republican Constitution should be amended and adopted as a matter of urgency to stabilize the country. So long as Nigeria continues to operate the sectional and discriminatory 1999 Constitution, the country shall neither have peace nor progress because insurgency has root in the dual conflicting ideologies in the 1999 Constitution.

     

    Islam in Africa Organization

    Mr. Abbas sought to sugar coat (sic) the Islam in Africa Organization Conference (IAO) as an innocuous meeting that meant no harm. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Communiqué issued after the meeting of the IAO, titled “Abuja Declarations 1989” proved that something sinister was in the offing for Nigeria. Today, we are all witnesses of the Islamist conspiracy against Nigeria, courtesy of the Buhari Administration and APC political party, which has finally confirmed that it was not a slander to have called it an Islamic Party in 2014. It is evident that the presence of a Pastor as Vice-President was simply to procure Christian votes and beguile unsuspecting Christians as it has in no way mitigated the rabid Islamic Agenda of the APC Party.

    Salient points in the “Abuja Declarations 1989” of the IAO are as follows:

    o To ensure the appointment of only Muslims into strategic national and international posts of member nations;

    o To eradicate in all its forms and ramifications all non-Muslim religions in member nations (such religions shall include Christianity, Ahmadiyya and other tribal modes of worship unacceptable to Muslims).

    o To ensure that only Muslims are elected to all political posts of member nations.

    o To ensure the declaration of Nigeria (the 24th African and 48th World member of the OIC) a Federal Islamic Sultanate at a convenient date any time from 28th March, 1990, with the Sultan of Sokoto enthroned as the Sultan Supreme Sovereign of Nigeria.

    o To ensure the ultimate replacement of all Western forms of legal and judicial systems with the Sharia in all member nations before the next Islam in African Conference.

    Anyone who could not see the “Abuja Declarations 1989″ in the policies of the Buhari Administration should be considered a victim of Taqiyya….”

     

    COLUMNIST’S NOTE

     

    Anybody who read the article entitled ‘How Gowon took Nigeria into OIC’ published by yours sincerely in this column last Friday, and compares it with NCEF’s rejoinder published above should be able to clearly distinguish between naked TRUTH and cloaked FALSEHOOD.

     

    Personal Comment

    As a disciplined Muslim and cultured professional, I, Femi Abbas, will not engage in obnoxious arguments with people who have no reign with which to check the recklessness of their speed in times of rage. And, I am very sure that His Eminence, Dr. Muhammad Sa a’d Abubakar, CFR, mni, the Sultan of Sokoto and permanent (not rotatory) President General of Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), will not, in any way be ruffled by the familiar language of mud slinging in which that rejoinder is bitterly coated against decorum.

    As an exemplarily dignified Royal/Religious Father whose glass house is distinct, he knows that people who live in mud houses are unlikely to know the cost and the value of a glass house. After all, any blind person may be free to deny the existence of the Sun, but that cannot stop the Sun from performing its God-endowed duty. As for calling me the publicist for the Sultan, that is a matter of pride. How many journalists in Nigeria have a similar opportunity?

    As far as this OIC issue is concerned, I shall, face the substance and leave the shadow for those who are known to be its chasers. And that is because I was one of the only two Nigerian journalists that covered Nigeria’s regularization of membership in OIC, in Vez, Morocco, in January 1986. I, therefore, do not speak or write from rumours flying around through hearsay.

     

    Truth VS Falsehood

    Truth is light. Wherever it appears, darkness and its agents must vamoose into oblivion. On the contrary, falsehood is like an ostrich which often tries to hide by burying its head in the sand when its entire huge body is conspicuously exposed for all to see.

     

    Claim of Gowon’s Opposition to Nigeria’s membership of OIC

    Is it not laughable, for anybody, to claim that General Yakubu Gowon, a Military Head of State, with all the political and military powers, opposed Nigeria’s membership of OIC? To whom did he express such opposition when he was the main decision maker? And for the extra six years (1969-1975) that he spent in office as Head of State, were Nigerians not attending OIC summits in the name of Nigeria? In what capacity were they attending it? And, after Gen. Gowon’s exit from office, were there no other Heads of State or President until 1986 when Nigeria’s membership of OIC was regularized? The fact is that one black lie will always need 10 white others to cover it up.

     

    The Bakasi Saga

    It was during Nigeria’s civil war, in the same 1969, that a juicy part of today’s Cross River State called Bakasi was ceded to Cameroon for the same purpose of wanting to win that war. And today, that part of Nigeria is a  bona fide part of Cameroon. If we may ask the senior trumpeters of ‘Islamization’ in Nigeria, who ceded Bakasi to Cameroon? And, for what reason? Was the ceding of Bakasi to Cameroon also done by General Ibrahim Babangida?

     

     

     

     

    Islam In Africa Conference

    Yours sincerely was not just a participant in the referred ‘Islam in Africa Conference’ (not Organization of Islam in Africa as ignorantly it is in the rejoinder above) which was held in Abuja in 1989, I was also in the team that wrote the quoted (or rather, misquoted) communiqué in reference and I still have a copy of it. I now challenge NCEF or its spokesperson, Mr. Sam Eyoboka, to publish that communiqué verbatim to enable us compare notes on it with a view to delineating between the original and the fabricated version.

     

    OIC Summits

    Four Nigerian Presidents have, so far, attended the Presidential Forum of OIC summits. They are Chief Mathew Olusegun Okikiolakan Aremu Obasanjo; the late Alhaji Umaru Musa Yar’Adua; Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan and President Muhammadu Buhari. Two of those Presidents are Christians while the other two are Muslims. If OIC, with about 36 African countries as members, is for Islamization as often claimed by certain bigots in Nigeria, would those two Christian Presidents attend its summits in which most European and American countries are regularly present even if as observers?

    In their usual shadow chasing, as reflected in the above rejoinder, the anti-Islam megaphones of Nigeria would rather resort to mud slinging than enbrace the substance.

    Those trumpeters are by far carried away by their cheating euphoria of the past which gave them the false sense of monopoly of the use of English language as a means of exploiting the Muslim through media propaganda. Time has changed. The realistic situation now is that of brain for brain and pen for pen. We are all Nigerians and we shall all dwell in Nigeria generationally to perpetuity. GOD BLESS OUR COUNTRY!

  • Religion and a nation in troubled times

    Religion and a nation in troubled times

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    Last week, I made the case, as if one was needed, for the claim that this nation is going through some hard times. I identified politics as a force, negative and positive, to be reckoned with and called to account, in the troubled condition of the nation. But as I also noted, while politics is supposedly the architectonic in the grand scheme of things, with an assumed built-in capacity to make things right, human nature has unfortunately ensured that the political class is incapable, without external assistance, to soar majestically like an eagle in the direction of redemption.

    Today, I would like to interrogate one of the institutions which has been identified as the antithesis of the political institution, supposedly with little to none of its negative characteristics, and, therefore, boasting of an inherent capacity to serve as an antidote to the foibles of politics. I have in mind the institution of religion.

    One of my pet theories, which I have pushed in professional forums, is that politics, religion, law, and morality, are a powerful quartet in the realm of social institutions with similar purpose and objectives. They are created for the purpose of promoting the peace and order of communities and nations. To the extent that they succeed, this purpose is well served. Otherwise, communities are in danger of collapse. To avoid such a calamity, each of these institutions serves in various ways, formally or informally, to make up for the excesses or deficits of the others. Religion and morality are especially effective in this regard, the former more than the latter for obvious reasons.

    A useful approach to the matter at hand is to go back to the origin of our tradition to investigate the role of religion in its management. Years ago, in African Philosophy, I noted how traditional religion in Yorubaland in particular, and Africa in general, served as a rallying point of the community and how it promoted the peace of the land. For, with no mandate for evangelization or proselytisation, rivalry is absent among the followers of the various deities.

    Most significantly, the priests and priestesses, believing in the unforgiving power of their deities to punish waywardness and oath-breaking, spoke truth to power without minding whose ox was gored. Not infrequently, as tradition required, in case of a vacancy created by the demise of an Oba, Ifa oracle was consulted to determine who the best choice was. Or in an outbreak of pestilence, a priest must determine the cause and what needed to be done for the health of the community. In all these, the truth, and nothing but the truth, was the sworn obligation of the priest or priestess. And the community and its leaders had the utmost trust in and respect for the sincerity of their intercessional efforts.

    Needless to add, we have since moved on from the primacy of priests and priestesses of traditional religion in communal affairs, to embrace the Abrahamic faiths in their various iterations. Recently, in an otherwise polemical attack on a cultural and intellectual icon, we have what should pass as one of the most unabashed defenses of that movement. We were urged to see our traditional cultures as pagan-infested and therefore abhorrent, and our new religious faiths as the best of modernity, and thus a movement from darkness to light. As my friend observed, the vituperation amounted to a shameless “dressing up of cultural inferiority”. But I put that aside.

    The pressing question we must address now is this: How have our adoption of Abrahamic faiths fared in dealing with the important task of promoting peace and order in the multi-national and multi-faith context of our troubled times? Incidentally, with the leadership of IPOB’s recent embrace of Judaism, we may now boast of having the three Abrahamic faiths represented in the land. What can we show for this feat? What has been our experience?

    A most visible and undeniable aspect of our experience is that these Abrahamic faiths, from their inception, with the exception of Judaism, the newest arrival, have their focus on proselytization and evangelization, the perceived means of saving souls, which is the ultimate goal. This has the prospect of keeping adherents tethered to the principles of inner conviction and external conduct which are well-suited for the peace of the community. If the Christian beatitude and its counterpart in Islam were to be embraced by all, we would have the semblance of paradise on earth.

    However, beside the fact of the stony nature of the human heart, the proselytization imperative of Islam and Christianity almost invariably ensures that friction and conflict are wired into the fabric of our national existence. Therefore, despite a common belief in the religio-ethical teachings of both, adherents of the two faiths have hardly seen eye to eye. Rivalry and envy have stood in the way of a common approach to national peace. Indeed, it is arguable that, in a counter intuitive respect, given the fundamental tenets of each, the two religions have proved themselves to be stumbling blocks in the way of peaceful relations in recent times. Petty rivalries having nothing to do with the principles of each religion ensure that this is the case.

    The task of forging peace in a multi-religious political environment is made more daunting when there is a perception of partiality on the part of the political authorities, as ingrained rivalry ensures that every move of a governor or president is seen from the prism of religious favoritism. The ongoing tragedy of Southern Kaduna is a case that breaks the heart. How, in the name of religion, human beings could act below the standard of beasts is mind-boggling. But that is where we are in the life of a nation draped in the garment of fake religiosity.

    The political exploitation of religious sentiments by politicians and their hangers on haven’t helped matters. Where leadership is required to correct false impressions, we have many leaders behave as followers down the path of insanity.

    The prophets of old were notable for their boldness in fighting social injustice, standing firm against corrupt civil authorities, often suffering the worst fate of loss of life, which they didn’t consider a loss because they would have saved their souls. In our time, we have also witnessed the boldness of faith in some of our religious leaders as they speak truth to power. Unfortunately, however, we have also seen too many impostors and false prophets with huge followings whom they indoctrinate and lead astray. With emphases on worldly prosperity, they forget the main message of the scripture which is to lay our treasures in heaven. Their message corrupts and pollutes with unimaginable consequences for the peace of the land.

    In other cases, in an apparent pivot to the political leaders of their liking, some prophets in the evangelical mode delve into divisive social issues with no redeeming spiritual value. In some cases, such issues tend to appropriate the language of oppression which the powerful have always deployed for the marginalization of the weak, or worse, the enslavement of their minds.

    How, for instance, does the representation of blackness in the discourse of faith square with the experience of black people? How should we understand the pronouncement from the pulpit that blackness is evil? Is a black person to repudiate his or her skin color to avoid been a subject of evil? An obviously non-religious singer was bold enough to affirm the positivity of his blackness. That was James Brown. Another was philosophical enough to preach the gospel of emancipation from mental slavery. That was Bob Marley. For them, what we make of any color is what it is.

    Of course, it is true that the ideas of the ruling class have always shown up as the ruling ideas. So if the enslavers from the ancients to the contemporaries effectively categorized black as evil in order to subjugate black people as their properties, does that make them right? Aren’t we told in the scripture that the One who made them all made them well and saw them all as good?  God help us!

  • How Gowon took Nigeria into OIC

    How Gowon took Nigeria into OIC

    By Femi Abbas

    This article is not appearing in this column, today, for the first time. It had been published before as a presentation of naked facts against the incessant falsehood with which Nigerians have been perennially fed through untenable propaganda shamelessly mounted by certain Nigerian media irritants who are well known for exhibiting gullible bigotry.

    Facts are as much constant as they are sacred.

    Points to Note

    Four major and fundamental points should be well noted in this article for historical records as well as for posterity. And, the four points are quite verifiable.

    The Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) was established in 1969 with Nigeria as a foundation member.

    Contrary to the wide spread misinformation in Nigeria, it was General Yakubu Gowon, a Christian Head of State, and not General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, a Muslim Head of State, that took Nigeria into OIC.

    Four Nigerian Presidents have attended OIC Summits so far. They are Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo (Christian), Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (Muslim), Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (Christian) and Muhammadu Buhari (Muslim).

    About 30 African countries, none of which can claim to be an Islamic State, are, like Nigeria, members of OIC and their citizens are not in any frivolous noise of Islamization.

    Preamble

    This is Nigeria’s time of digital facts. And to reveal those facts as succinctly as they are and not as they are deceptively and mischievously presented in Nigeria media, is to appropriately create an indelible archive of digital facts for posterity sake. Falsehood of any form, in any place and at any time, is like a blind horse which may run berserk in its hurried bid to convey its rider to his/her presumed destination. Should that horse, in its blindness, mistake a dungeon for its rider’s destination, the trip in question may become ‘a journey of no return’.

    Reminiscence

    Time flies. It has been 34 years already since Nigeria’s membership of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) sparked off a wild, national brouhaha in Nigeria’s local communication den of rental criers called Nigerian media.

    That unwarranted brouhaha over this country’s membership of OIC was an open evidence, either of the blatant ignorance with which most Nigerian journalists practice journalism as a profession or as a deliberate mischief of some political/business charlatans who have been perennially masquerading in the cloak of religion or both. For such charlatans, religion is a silhouette through which they can call a dog a bad name in order to hang it.

    Background Information

    The Organization of Islamic Conference popularly known as OIC was established in  September 1969 when General Yakubu Gowon, a Christian from today’s Plateau State, was Nigeria’s Head of State. Nigeria was then embroiled in a civil war that raged fiercely from 1967 to 1970. In his desperation to win that war, General Gowon, as Commander-in-Chief of Nigerian Armed Forces, took certain steps that later turned out to be generators of unbridled controversies in Nigerian history. One of such steps was to take Nigeria into the then newly established international Organization called OIC. Another was the ceding of Bakasi area of  today’s Cross River State to Cameroon in exchange for the latter’s support in a bid to win the civil war and to prevent the emergence of a rebellious region named Biafra as a separate country. But our immediate concern here is more about Nigeria’s membership of OIC which led to the coinage of the word ‘Islamization’ as a religious blackmail in Nigeria by certain business Christian charlatans who are parading themselves as clerics.

    Gowon’s Role in OIC

    While the brouhaha in Nigerian media continued to reverberate ceaselessly over the country’s regularization of her membership of OIC in 1986, only a few, well educated and civilized Nigerians, knew the role played by General Yakubu Gowon in the historical episode that ushered Nigeria into that Organization. And, as a charismatic statesman that he is perceived to be in certain quarters, one would have expected General Gowon to openly come out to tell Nigerians about his role in that controversial venture.

    How It Happened

    It was during Nigeria’s civil war years (1967-1970) that Yakubu Gowon, a Northern Christian General in the Nigerian Army and the country’s Head of State, approached the then Egyptian military Head of State, General Gamal Abdul Nasir, who later transformed himself into a civilian President in that country for help. General Gowon asked that Egyptian President for assistance in winning the then ongoing Nigerian civil war in the spirit of Pan Africanism which President Nasir championed along with the then President Kwami Nkruma of Ghana at that time. And, in addition to helping General Gowon with some sophisticated military wares, President Nasir also introduced him to OIC, which was established in September 1969, in the belief that Gowon could get further help from other member States of the Organization. After all, seeking foreign help internationally was not peculiar to Gowon or Nigeria as a country. The leader of the then rebellious Eastern region, Lt. Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, also sought and got military and financial assistance from some countries like France, Germany, Portugal, Israel and others in his bid to succeed in pulling his region out of Nigeria by all means.

    Thus, by participating in the very first meeting of of that Organization in 1969, Nigeria became a member of OIC from its inception.

    Nigeria’s Observer Status in OIC

    For 17 years (1969-1986) after joining OIC at its inception, Nigeria remained an observer member of that Organization until 1986 when her membership was regularized.

    As a Deputy Foreign Editor in the now defunct Concord newspaper, at that time, yours sincerely was one of the only two Nigerian journalists that covered that event in Fez, Morocco in January 1986. The other Nigerian Journalist that was in attendacne to cover the conference was Alhaji Liad Tella, the then News Editor of the same Concord newspaper.

    Process of Regularisation

    Before 1986, Nigeria had been severally pressurized, by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), to regularize her observer membership status. That observer status had embarrassingly become a matter of suspicion to other members of the Organization. And in 1985, Nigeria was given an ultimatum of one year (1986) to either regularize her membership of that Organization or pull out of it. At that point, if Nigeria had failed to regularize her membership of OIC in the following year (1986),  she would have been disgraced out of the body and that would have amounted to a public diplomatic ridicule in the comity of nations.

    The Cry of Owl

    One of the loudest allegations of ‘Islamization’ of Nigeria in recent times is from a dubious, self-appointed   Christian body that names itself National Christian Elders Forum (NCEF). Besides OIC membership, that mischievous body has also severally referred to another Muslim Conference called ‘Islam in Africa Conference’ which was hosted by Nigerian Muslims in the city of Abuja in 1989. That was the year that the Nigerian National Mosque, in Abuja, was officially commissioned. Many African Muslim leaders who attended the commissioning of that Mosque were so impressed that they fortuitously proposed an annual conference under that name, which could unite African Muslims in the practice of their religion as a way of checkmating any act of fanaticism that could breed terrorism. Perhaps if that proposal had materialized, the mence of terrorism that is rampant in Africa today would have been minimized.

    Christian Participation

    The 1989 Islam in Africa Conference (IAC), held in Abuja was not exclusive to Muslims. Many African Christian leaders including some members of the now so called NCEF were invited and they participated in it with the expression of their opinions and advice on various religious issues in Africa. If the conference was truly aimed at ‘Islamizing’ Nigeria as mischievously alleged by NCEF and CAN, would Christian leaders have been invited? And knowing very well that Nigerian media was heavily dominated by Christian journalists, at that time, would those journalists have been allowed to cover the event?

    In its solo or chorus voice, the song of ‘Islamization’ of Nigeria can be heard only from mischievous brigands who are parading themselves as religious clerics or Priests.

    The 1953 West African Synod

    About 16 years before General Gowon took Nigeria into OIC, a Christian West Africa Synod was held in Ghana. Many Nigerian Christian clerics who attended that Synod did not participate in it as ordinary members but as vocal leaders. Yet, Nigerian Muslims did not raise any senseless noise that could engender unwarranted religious rivalry on it by tagging that Synod as a venture of Christianizing Nigeria. Nevertheless, Nigerian Muslims are not oblivious of the problem with NCEF, CAN and some other Christian bigots in who are constantly and monotonously shouting the sour song of ‘Islamization’ of Nigeria as if they have the monopoly of such provoking noise. That the trumpeters of that owlish noise do not see it as a dangerous phantasm, which may cause un-foretold consequences, is a conspicuous  evidence of blatantly dangerous ignorance on the part of the so-called NCEF and even CAN.

    Genesis of the Noise

    Seven years before Nigeria’s independence, a West African Christian Synod was held in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) with active participation of certain Nigerian Christian leaders, some of whom are still alive today. No Muslim was invited to that Synod.

    Synod is a conference of Bishops and other Christian topmost Priests at which fundamental decisions are taken which would become the basis of Church operations in evangelism. It was at that 1953 Synod in Ghana that a resolution to use Western education as an instrument of Christian evangelization in the West African sub-region was adopted. By that resolution, any Muslim child that wanted to acquire Western education in a Christian Missionary school must be converted into Christianity in spite of his or her payment of any charged fees. The fear of the Christian conferees at that Synod was that despite all efforts made by the then available Churches to stop the spread of Islam, that divine religion kept spreading spirally to the greatest amazement of the Christian evangelists in the sub-region. And, to curb such a trend, only an evangelization policy through the use of Western education as a magnet could work like magic. Thus, incorporation of educational system into African Continental evangelism became a fundamental policy through which the trend of religious preaching in Africa could favour the growth of Christianity.

    It was by that policy, which had the tacit backing of the Colonial masters, that the use of Western education as an instrument of evangelism became possible. Through that policy, Muslim youths whose parents were eager to see their children educated in the Western way had to adopt Christianity as their religion.

    Objectives of the Policy

    One of the objectives of the policy formulated at the 1953 West African Synod  was to indoctrinate all converted school children in a way to sow in their hearts the seed of hatred towards their parents for sticking to the religion of Islam and thereby force those parents to psychologically jettison their religion and embrace Christianity or to renounce their children who would then become the foot soldiers of Christian evangelism.

    Evangelical Resolution

    With such a resolution, as mentioned above, that was backed up with a White Paper which became a permanent policy of the Christian Mission in Africa, Christianity, according to the Synod’s plan, would become such a formidable rival of Islam that within just one half of a century, Islam would have been completely effaced from the surface of African continent and thereby relegated to a second class religion especially in Nigeria. Thus, most of the vocal antagonists of Islam in Nigeria today are men and women with Islamic background who fell into the dragnet of that tendentious plot of the 1953 Synod.

    It is the seeming failure of that plot that is now pushing the sour song of ‘Islamization’ of Nigeria into the mouths of the Christian archers.

    Their Clandestine Thought

    The front line advocates of that plot are thinking that like their Synod, Muslims too might take a decision which could be devastating to Christian evangelism in Africa.

    Conclusion

    Now, from all indications, the era of falsehood in religious sphere may be fast approaching its end in Nigeria as it once happened in Europe, since Nigeria’s lifestyle, as a colonial country, is based on the template of that of Britain that colonized her. And, when that happens, the monotonous sour song of ‘islamization’ being echoed almost daily with irritating reverberation will become a faint solo without any chorus.

    • ERRATA

    In the article entitled ‘Whenever the Sultan Speaks’ published in this column last Friday, August 30, 2020, some errors were inadvertently made which need to be corrected here, for records purpose.

    The appointment of Brigadier-General Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar as Sultan of Sokoto was announced on November 3, 2006 and not his installation as stated here last Friday.  His Eminence’s installation as Sultan and his assumption of office was in March 2007.

    Please, let these facts be noted for record purposes. God bless you all!

  • Whenever The Sultan Speaks…

    Whenever The Sultan Speaks…

    FEMI ABBAS

     

    Monologue 

    The  Sultan of Sokoto and President General of Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), His Eminence, Dr. Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, CFR, mni, is 64 years old. He attained that golden age precisely last Monday, August 24, 2020, a date of birth he shares with the late Bashorun MKO Abiola, the Nigerian President-elect who was prevented from assuming office.

    His Eminence was about 50 years old when he ascended the exalted throne of the great Sokoto Caliphate in November, 2006 as the 20th Sultan of that Caliphate. But typical of his exemplary humility and dedication to man’s humanity to man, His Eminence does not celebrate birthday for two reasons:

    In emulation of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), he deliberately abstains from ventilating a joyous atmosphere for himself in a situation where many ordinary people are wallowing in penury.

    He personally perceives aristocracy of birth, if there is one at all, as a rare privilege rather than a right. To him, such a privilege must not be flamboyantly celebrated in a way to arouse any psychological chagrin in underprivileged people. Thus, instead of sitting down glamorously, last Monday, in his royal palace to celebrate birthday in royal regalia, like his royal colleagues, His Eminence was in Kaduna to deliberate with the Governor of that State and share thoughts and ideas with him on how to settle the crisis in the Southern part of that State. That was because, as usual, the Sultan abhors any act of violence let alone killings and counter killings as a perennial case in that State.

    That is Sultan Mahammad Sa’ad Abubakar for you. And, he had embarked on similar mission severally in most parts of the country ever since he ascended the Sultanate’s throne in 2006.

     

    Preamble

    Leaders are not those who ascribe leadership to themselves politically by whim or by caprice. The real leaders are the very few ones who are sincerely acknowledged by their followers, publicly or privately, as effective leaders in intent and in action. This Sultan is a typical example of the latter category. The great man’s leadership traits are not, in anyway, hidden. He neither speaks just to be heard nor acts just to be seen. His utterances which are in tandem with his actions, are always timely and meaningful, not just for the Muslim Ummah in Nigeria, but also, for the entire black race. And, he combines certain qualities, the likes of which distinguished the second Caliph in Islam, Umar Bn Khattab, clearly among the first four Caliphs.

    For Nigerian Muslims of today, Sultan Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar is a vivid reminder of Umar Bn Khattab’s leadership prowess at the early stage of Islam. This Sultan is a bold and charismatic soldier like Umar Bn Khattab. He is visionary, firm, humble and affable like Umar Bn Khattab. And, he believes so much in leadership by example just like Umar Bn Khattab. Perhaps that is why he is so close to the ordinary people in his day to day running of the Sultanate administration in Sokoto and that of the NSCIA just as Umar Bn Khattab was.

     

    His royal antecedent

    Over a decade ago, Sultan Abubakar spoke passionately with touching concern, at a public function, on three important issues, each of which is now vividly manifesting in Nigeria. First, he advised the three tiers of government to use the then booming oil revenue to ventilate the economic environment for possible mass employment of the teeming youths in the country. Secondly, he warned the people in government, at that time, against sustenance of mass unemployment of youths which he described as a time bomb that could explode anytime. Thirdly, he attributed the rising rate of criminal tendencies in the country to mass unemployment of able bodied youths and ravaging poverty in the land. He then cautioned those in government against criminal consequences of that ugly situation. At the time the Sultan made that speech, the menace of banditry, kidnapping and Boko Haram /ISWAP insurgency had not become as much a threat as they are today.

     

    Admonition

    On the occasion at which he delivered the above mentioned highly valuable speech, His Eminence also admonished Nigerian Muslims not to be bellicose towards non-Muslims in reaction to provocative utterances and obnoxious conducts of some disgruntled charlatans in the country who were masquerading in the cloak of religion.

    He counselled the Ummah to rather educate any non-Muslim who might want to tread the path of religious transgression against Islam than resort to hate speech and mudslinging. In that speech, His Eminence concluded that it was only in a peaceful atmosphere that people of diverse spiritual and temporal backgrounds could comfortably co-exist in a multi religious and multi tribal society like Nigeria.

     

    Impact of his leadership

    Since his assumption of office as the Sultan, the impact of His Eminence’s leadership both as a royal father and the Commander of Nigerian Muslim Ummah as well as the CUSTODIAN OF NIGERIA’S NATIONAL MOSQUE, has been unprecedented in history. This Sultan is one of the most mobile personalities in thoughts and in action in Nigeria as well as in the entire world. The reverberating echoes of the historic lectures about peace and harmony which he delivered at Harvard and Oxford Universities in 2011 are vehement attestation to the above assertion about his leadership.

     

    In Retrospect

    When this great man was five years old on the throne in 2011, yours sincerely wrote an article about him in this column which remains as relevant today as it was then. An excerpt from that article is as follows:

    “In every crowd of horizontal men there is always one vertical man who deserves honour not much because of his vertical position but because of the significant difference which that position makes in a society.”

     

    History and Man

    “History and man are like Siamese twins or a pair of scissors. The one cannot function effectively without the other. History makes man just as man makes history. And, the reciprocal baton that symbolises their togetherness continues to change hands between them as long as they remain in existence”.

    “In November 2006, an official announcement of the sighting of a human crescent which had remained hidden in the firmaments of the orbit was made. That crescent turned out to be the towering personality generally known today as the Sultan of Sokoto. His name, Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar did not ring any bell in Nigeria before the referred historic announcement. But thereafter, he was crowned ‘The Sultan of Sokoto’ precisely on November 6, 2006.

    Thus, the emergence of Brigadier General Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar (rtd.) as the successor to the exalted throne of the great Sokoto Caliphate without any controversy came as a surprise to many Nigerians. At 50 years of age then, many people thought that he was one of the youngest men to ascend that throne in many decades. But he humbly disagreed with that assumption as he recalled that his own father, Sultan Abubakar Sadiq III who died in 1988 ascended the throne at the age of 37.

     

    His pedigree

    With a sound military background coupled with a sound intellectual aristocracy and a high level diplomatic exposure, this Sultan has been perceived, since coming into office, as a millennial royal Commander divinely designated to pilot the affairs of Islam and the Muslim Ummah with unequalled success.

     

    Philosophers’ assertion

    Given the qualities highlighted above, only a few people will want to disagree with the Philosophers who once asserted that every new century has a way of producing a great leader. The example Dr. Abubakar is a manifest attestation to that assertion. Ever since he assumed the exalted royal office of the Sultan 14 years ago (2006), this great man has convincingly exemplified all the qualities of genuine leadership in an aura of personification. Every statement he has made socially, religiously or politically and every action he has taken publicly or privately has proved to be a school from which all well-meaning people continue to learn one lesson or another.

    As ABU Chancellor

    Five years after his assumption of office, the symbiotic relationship of history and man was reconfirmed in Zaria, on Wednesday, (November 23, 2011), when a galaxy of well-meaning men and women from all walks of life and from all parts of the world, assembled to say “we are here to bear witness”. That was the day His Eminence was installed as the Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria. The occasion was just one of many on which laurels that have been accruing to him since he assumed the royal office as Sultan.

    An American President, Harry S. Truman (1884-1972), once described a leader as “a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don’t want to do and like it”. By his activities and functions so far, Sultan Abubakar has proved Truman right by demonstrating to the Ummah that the time has come for the reformation, not only of the NSCIA, but also of the Sultanate.

     

    Education in Islam

    In Islam, education is the first law. It is only through it that man can understand life in all its ramifications. That was why Allah’s very first revelation to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in the Qur’an, ordained education for Muslims thus: “Read in the name of Allah Who created; He created man from clots of blood; Read! Your Lord is the Most Bountiful One, Who taught man by the pen; He taught man what he (man) did not know…”Q. 96:1-4.

    To further emphasise the compelling need for education in Islam, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was reported to have said in one Hadith that “knowledge is a lost treasure. Muslims should search for it and pick it wherever they could find it”.

    But information is the main source of education just as education is the source of knowledge. Without information there can be no education. And without education there can be no progress. That is why the Sultan started his reformation of the Sultanate from the premise of education. It is only with education that most problems in man’s world can be solved without much ado.

    Sultan Abubakar also believes that education without social harmony is like a virtue without value and that there can be no harmony in a society where people are overwhelmed by ignorance and poverty as in Nigeria. Thus, he has consistently focused on both.

     

    Installation as Chancellor

    At his installation as the Chancellor of ABU in 2011, Sultan Abubakar told the crowd that “the current socio economic indices in Nigeria were a clear indication that the country had begun to drift”. He lamented the fact that despite the nation’s unprecedented resources, development had failed to match the national wealth.

    In his words: “Corruption has emasculated our progress even as poverty and unemployment have pushed citizens to the brinks, fueling and confounding social conflicts even as inter-communal crisis has extracted heavy toll in both human lives and property”. He went further to say that: “Persistent insecurity has generated panic and anxiety; our social and physical infrastructures are far from meeting the needs of the nation; the country appears to be adrift and at the core of all these is moral decay engendered by ignorance and greed.” He also noted that no reformation of the tertiary education sector in the country could be effective without putting in place, the progressive developments required in the basic and senior secondary education sectors”. His Eminence insisted that: “our state governments, especially those of the North, must begin to realize the enormity of the challenges facing the education sector and take urgent and necessary steps to address these challenges.” He lauded the founding fathers of the ABU, particularly, the late Sarduana of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello, and urged the authorities of the school to continue to abide by the cardinal principles on which the institution was founded.

     

    Royal voice against corruption

    This Nigeria’s renascent Sultan is a man who, though at the topmost echelon of the tree of comfort still feels so much concerned about the plight of the peasants who are hopelessly consigned to the weeding of the shrubs by official policies. He has never relented in his advocacy for good governance, denunciation of corruption and religious intolerance.

     

    Interfaith Engagements

    When His Eminence was invited in January 2010 to a religious seminar organiSed by the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) with the theme: ‘Knowing Your Muslim Neighbour’, he delivered an historic speech that reverberated meaningfully across the entire world. And in May, same year, he also invited the leadership of CAN to a special conference of the NSCIA held in Kaduna. The theme of that conference was: ‘Islam in the Eyes of the Christians’. He is the first Nigerian first class Monarch ever to engage in such an interfaith affair at the national level and his speech on that occasion was quite electrifying as usual.

     

    Electoral Reform

    In his special counsel to the National Assembly, and indeed all tiers of Government, His Eminence said those in government should not relent in their efforts to engineer electoral reform and to ensure that Nigerians have a genuine electoral process that guarantees free and fair elections. “Unless and until we do that, our nation will continue to be haunted by the unholy alliance between fraudulent elections and illegitimate electoral outcomes, the consequences of which we all know very well. We must break away from this vicious circle and confer on Nigerians the power and indeed the ability to decide, freely and willingly, who leads them at all levels of governance”.

    “….There is also the urgent need for us to re-evaluate our conception of leadership as a nation…. needless to add, that there is no way we can make genuine progress as a nation when a significant number of our populace wallows in abject poverty unable to secure the requisite means for their sustenance and to cater for the health and educational needs of their families. Democracy must build a humane society capable of looking after the legitimate needs of its citizenry. For it to be truly successful, it must be able to bring real progress to all sectors of our diverse society. “Finally we must all work hard to limit the influence of wealth in our society and to support those values that promote social responsibility, excellence and hard work”. Now, where is the role of birth in all these?

     

    Grassroots Interaction

    Sultan Abubakar is, no doubt, a leader who knows the problems of his followers and associates with them in solving those problems. Through his humble interaction with all Muslims in Nigeria irrespective of tribal or geographical boundaries, he has become the first Sultan to create a strong feeling of a united Muslim Ummah under a competent and kind leader. And by speaking out incessantly against policies which seem to deliberately impoverish ordinary Nigerians across board, this Sultan has brought a rare hope to Nigeria and the Muslims are the luckiest for it. Such a leader deserves allegiance, loyalty and regular prayer from the Ummah. We pray for the elongation of his life with very sound health and continued Allah’s guidance. Amin!

     

     

  • Politics and the nation in troubled times

    Politics and the nation in troubled times

    Segun Gbadegesin

     

     

    In the life of the nation, these are not normal times. These are troubled times. Many may consider this as an understatement. They may suggest something more dramatic. These are calamitous times.

    I concur. What with the unending spate of violence from terrorism to banditry, kidnapping, cultism and armed robbery? Or the hopelessness, an avoidable affliction of the youth? Or the hunger across all ages and vulnerable demographics? And the scourge of the global pandemic that respects no class or creed? The stress that all these create for our people in daily struggles of life is unfathomable. Yet they lumber on, hoping and praying for better times.

    As it is to be expected, there are some who would see the above depiction of our current experience as a hyperbole. And they may be right. The nation has had other troubled times. Indeed, many would argue that in its calamitous character, these times pale in comparison with earlier times.

    In truth, since her becoming, Nigeria has gone from one major crisis to another, and through it all, the same set of people, the vulnerable among us, have suffered the most. Think of the first republic and its political violence that pitted the poor against the poor. Think of the pogrom of 1966. Think of the civil war. Or the thousands that perish or suffer indignities in the crisis of June 12 1993 and beyond. The point, then, is that trouble hasn’t left this country alone in her checkered journey to nationhood.

    Let us admit that the nation and trouble have been in an undesirable companionship for as long as she has existed. On the assumption that we find it desirable that the nation endures, a reasonable and commonsensical follow-up to this admission suggests two questions: what is the source of the trouble? How can it be extricated or removed? Of course, it is also possible that the preceding assumption is false; in which case, we should just give it up. Why keep deceiving ourselves on the matter of nationhood?

    Let us explore a bit more the truth-value of the last narrative on the assumption that we find it desirable that the nation endures. Is it true or false? How are we to tell? The unity of the fight against colonial rule and the success of that fight despite all its ugliness? The determination of the military to keep the nation united culminating in the end of the civil war and the “no victor, no vanquished” declaration, which seemingly meant every nationality is once again a member of the multinational family? The resolution of the June 12 election crisis and the final end to military adventure in politics? Each of these appears to be critical moments of renewal of faith in the nation and together they signal a desire to proceed as one united entity.

    Yet, however, each of those moments has also been followed by setbacks of enormous proportions. A sequel to the nationalist struggle saw the harassment of the West and the humiliation of its hero in detention and prison jail. The first coup and the ensuing civil war and military rule witnessed the most devastating influence of politics on the military and its attendant fatal corrupt grip on esprit de corps. The resolution of the June 12 debacle is still a work in progress which, while appearing to have curbed military adventurism, has yet to resolve the root of our national dilemma: to be or not to be?

    To be clear, then, the truth value of the assumption that we find it desirable for the nation to endure is not completely positive. Look around and observe the various self-determination groups in action. IPOB is the most active and visible. There are reports of its foray in the international arena seeking recognition. Yoruba World Congress (YWC) is not far behind with its registration with Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO). What began as calls for restructuring in the early 90s is fast becoming demands for self-determination by various sub-national units.

    But the truth value of the assumption is also not completely negative. This is especially true of the political and business class who believe that a united Nigeria is a desirable ideal worth fighting for. They see the nation as an African juggernaut with a great potential for driving the continent’s economic and industrial revolution in the 21st century and beyond. They therefore focus on policies that they consider to be the effective means toward the achievement of that end.

    Unfortunately, however, this politics of means eventually collides with the realities that they deliberately or inadvertently choose not to countenance. And this is where our politics of means is at logger head with our troubled times.

    Consider the fact that it has been 21 years since the return of civil politics and we have hardly achieved a substantial or noteworthy breakthrough in economic advancement. Sure, we have a breakthrough in communications with the GSM explosion. But our focus on infrastructure, which should lead any economic and industrial revolution, has only received much needed attention in the last six years.

    Neither have our foreign policy achievements been particularly spectacular. At various points since independence, we have made Africa the centerpiece of our foreign policy. That is the way it should be because of our understanding of our place as the giant of the continent. But we have not always matched our understanding with the action it requires. We have not related to the African Diaspora as our smaller cousin to the West has. The undertones of disunity and insecurity that foreign investors perceive from the signals that we inadvertently send out have not been especially helpful.

    Nonetheless, the politics of means fires on on all cylinders, looking neither through the side mirrors nor the back view. Far be it from me to suggest an ulterior motive to this politics. I want to believe in the decency of the heart of every politician. I want to believe that everyone means the best for the country. I want to trust that each means what he or she says in the oath of allegiance to the constitution of the republic. What I want to suggest, however, is that we ponder the possibility, indeed, the probability, that our best intentions may not always be right or conducive to the health of the nation and its future well-being.

    In the battle for political ascendancy, we employ and deploy every tool in our toolkit. We deploy every weapon in our arsenal just to make it victoriously. Do we ever ask the question: Is this in the interest of the nation? What is missing? What is needed right now to heal the nation so that it moves forward as a united entity? But these are the right questions to ask. And if the political class is too engrossed with winning such that it finds itself crippled beyond redemption to ask these questions, then it should fall on the part of some other entity to step in.

    What entity? What group? Over the years, ethnic nationalities have raised issues that speak to their particular fears and interests almost always in isolation from the fears and interests of others. They have sought others with similar interests and fears while demonizing those they consider to be “enemies”. However, it should be clear that we have reached such a point in this our national lifeboat that we either stay afloat together or sink together. The choice is ours. Going to another civil war is obviously not an option. No one will come out swinging!

    A Yoruba adage observes that when elders are around, a newly born baby doesn’t come off with a crooked head shape. Clearly, Nigeria is a baby, not only with a crooked head shape, but with one that severely aches. Partisan politics of means cannot fix this aching head. It will only aggravate it. But there are selfless elders, including intellectuals, professionals, traditional rulers and God-fearing clerics, across all geopolitical zones. They cannot take sides. It is their duty to intervene before this crooked and aching head bursts beyond repair.

     

  • What are we?

    What are we?

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    Readers may have two questions regarding my title today. First, you may wonder what is the reference population, “we”. Second, you may ponder what triggers my question. With regard to the second question, you may wonder “what is going on inside the head of the questioner?” These are legitimate questions, which themselves are triggered by the presumably strange nature of the question. How does anyone ask what we are if the questioner doesn’t also entertain a doubt about our humanity?

    Your guess about the questioner’s motivation is spot on. But why that motivation? Why entertain doubt about our humanity? Kindly allow your imagination the freedom to cruise around like a bird in the air. Consider with me the possible competing answers to the question, and maybe we will come to a common understanding of our predicament.

    That leaves the question “what is the reference population, “we”? Simply put, my reference population obviously includes me and it includes you, my reader, especially if you are perceived, and perceive yourself, as an African in general, but in particular, as an African descendant of the continent’s most populous nation-state, Nigeria. What are we?

    Let us attempt a process of elimination. Are we stones and pebbles? On the face of it, this is insulting, isn’t it? Stones and pebbles have no blood running their veins. Damn it, they don’t even have veins! Why attempt to identify us with them? They don’t hustle as we do. They have no worries as we have. They simply follow the laws of nature without the ability to formulate any of theirs. They have no consciousness and no self-awareness.

    We gloat in our superiority over stones and deal with them as we like. We crush and grind them for our use. We feel no guilt in what we do to them because we assure ourselves that they feel no pain. Therefore, it is alright how we treat them. So, a question: When we do to those of our kind what we do to stones, do we just pass them off as stones? If so, and if there is no difference between those of our kind and us, don’t we just then similarly identify ourselves as stones? Do we also will that we be treated as we treat them? Isn’t this what the logic of consistency requires?

    How about logs of wood? They are inert and non-sentient, without reason or emotions, all of which we boast having as our unique properties. Therefore, we are not logs of wood, which we treat as mere means to our ends. But, without compunction, we treat others of our kind as if they are logs of wood. It is also important for us to acknowledge our role in the status of inertness acquired by logs of wood. After all, a log is a felled tree, thanks to human action.

    But what are trees? Are they sentient or conscious? We are not used to thinking of trees as sentient beings. However, in the last eighty years, scientific research has provided ample evidence that, like animals and humans, trees are super communicators and sentient beings, with intelligence, and the ability to pass information inter-generationally. And this is not exclusive to big trees as botanists have also established that plants as apparently tender as tomatoes do produce electrical signals to cause change in other parts of the plants. This suggests that the lack of brain does not preclude intelligence. So much then for our superiority complex.

    So, we are not plants or trees, but trees and plants are not necessarily inferior. However, we treat them as such. More importantly, we tend to treat those that share the same properties of brain intelligence with us as we treat plants and trees. We cut them down in their prime. We do to them what plants and trees don’t do to themselves. One scientific research finds that plants and trees take care of their offspring by transferring signals for survival to them. For our kind, education happens to be one of the ways that our brain intelligence suggests we could ensure the survival of our offspring and preserve their future. Instead, however, we choose to deliberately fail their future. We are not plants and trees, but we behave less intelligently and more greedily and cruelly than plants and trees.

    Moving to traditionally acknowledged sentient beings, from the tiny ants under our feet to the pets that we keep, there is even more glaring evidence of our depravity vis-à-vis those we despise. The Holy Scripture that endows us with that pride of superiority also directs us to learn from ants and follow their lead in the matter of industry. But rather than see our greed as a clarion call to hard work, we see it as rationale for plundering or eliminating others. Hobbes was right. Our pets are more loyal than we can ever dream of being. The “me-mentality” which motivates greed keeps regenerating itself.

    You say to me that we are not fish and beast of the water or wild animals in the forest. And I ask, how are you so sure? What do they do that we aren’t capable of doing at a more alarmingly damaging rate? The lions, tigers, and hyenas of this ecosystem of ours can even be exonerated of wrongdoing in the “crime” of cannibalism. They cannot help it because nature doesn’t avail them of alternatives. But how do we characterise human cannibals other than as animals in human clothing? More importantly, we know that animals don’t kill their kind for sport. So-called humans unfortunately do. A whole industry of weaponry is created for the purpose.

    What is more, so-called wild animals sometimes show more kindness and empathy to their human cousins than we show to each other. A bear in a zoo was seen taking care of a human baby who accidentally fell into its den. A lion was seen in New York looking sympathetically at a young woman who taunted him in his den. In an adorable video, a baby elephant was seen rushing to help a human swimmer who he thought was drowning.

    This nation is reeling under an unending epidemic of violence and insecurity in which we are victims, not of wild animals, but of human-on-human violence in the celebrated continent of “humane” animals.

    Without warning, I opened a video from an elder and I will never be the same again. A young woman was in a tank top and a pair of shorts. She was struggling on the bare floor with her hands tied behind her back. Her attackers whipped her mercilessly. Then suddenly one of them, brandishing a machete struck her on the neck. Then a second time. Blood gushed out. She died.

    Another young woman and her fiancé were returning from their farm. They were ambushed by Fulani kidnappers close to Lanlate. They tried to escape but were out-maneuvered by the hoodlums. The young man was gunned down for daring to escape. The woman was captured, taken to the bush and brutalised until ransom was paid. No one has been found or charged. A young dreamer’s life was cut short.

    Rape is the new norm in the land of mega churches and mosques. Even not a few clerics see their calling as entailing the victimisation of their women congregants. And many cases of incestuous rape have been reported. What has become of the humanity that we so much flaunt as a badge of superiority?

    Hobbes observes that nothing distinctive should be read into human rationality because, left to itself, it seeks the good of the self. In the state of nature, which is simply a state without a controlling authority, individual reasoners will discover that it is in their self-interest to form a political association with an authority to regulate activities. This is the warrant for the state—to make and enforce laws for security.

    What is the business of having a state without the capacity to secure the lives of its citizens? What we are is an imperfect specimen of humanity. The state exists as a bulwark against human imperfection. Ours is failing.

  • Happy New Year 2

    Happy New Year 2

    By Femi Abbas

    Monologue

    The appearance of today’s title in this column once in a year often looks strange and even odd to most Nigerian readers because it does not come in January.  In Nigeria, like in most other African countries south of the Sahara, the idea of ‘New Year’ is ignorantly believed to be peculiar to January which is the first month of Christian Gregorian calendar. That is the effect of colonial scar on the smooth body of  our continent.

    From whichever angle it is viewed, European colonialism has a thick Christian colouration that still portrays African culture in a rainbow of colonial Christian religion and tradition.

     

    Public Holiday

    It is a well-known fact that out of the 109 days of official religious holidays in Nigeria today, Islamic religion enjoys only five days as public holidays (two days for Eidul-Fitr, two days for Eidul-Adha and one day for Mawlidun-Nabiyy). The remaining 104 days are for Christianity.

    At least, it is undeniable that in every one of the 52 weeks in a year, two days (Saturday and Sunday) are ceded to Christianity as religious holidays.

    Yet, the Nigerian Christians continue to incessantly and maliciously allege islamization of the country especially whenever a Muslim becomes the President.

    Even at the State level, the monotonously sour song of islamization gets loudest whenever a Muslim is elected as Governor. And the hatchet job is invariably done by the Christian dominated media. Incidentally, this irredentism originates mostly from the Southwest which is the main hub of Nigeria’s hate media despite the very large population of the Muslims that put them in the majority in the country.

     

    Why this Article?

    The event that motivated the writing of this article came up yesterday,   August 20, 2020. That event was the celebration of the first day of Muharram. And, Muharram is the name of the first month of Islamic year of Hijrah calendar. That is an occasion that is yearly celebrated by millions of Muslims around the world, in commemoration of Prophet Muhammad’s triumphant entry into the city of Madinah as the climax of his emigration from Makkah for safety, following a plot to kill him in Makkah by the pagans of that city, in 622 CE.

    The celebration of that event has been on course for almost one and a half millennia. Thus, yesterday was the beginning of 1442 Hijrah year.

     

    Implication

    In a country like Nigeria, celebration of new Hijrah year is like a coin with two sides. A fading face of one side of that coin neither debases the coin nor renders it invalid.

    While the celebration of this festival brings joy to Muslims, it attracts sadness to the antagonists of Islam. But gladly, Islam is like the Sun which aids the ventilation of oxygen to all living organisms and photosynthesizes all plants in the environment. Any blind person can deny the existence of the Sun because of his inability to see it. But such a person cannot deny its scorching effect except he does not walk under its rays. Besides, any sincere observer will notice that this divine religion called Islam is like a surging train. The barking at it by over one trillion dogs can never halt its surging force.

     

    The Fastest growing Religion

    Despite all  odds, intrigues, blackmails and all evil machinations being constantly and surreptitiouslyerected on its way by its antagonists, Islam continues to wax stronger even as it remains the fastest growing religion in the world today. AlhamduLillah!

     

    Colonial Reminiscence

    Throughout the 99 years of the British colonial rule in Nigeria (1861-1960), the Southern Muslims were never granted any public holiday to celebrate their festivals. It took Nigeria’s first and only Prime Minister, Sir AbubakarTafawa Balewa to address that malicious injustice by granting religious holidays officially to Islamic festivals at national level after independence in 1960. Hitherto, the only recognized religious festivals granted public holidays by the British colonialists and their successors in the Southern partof the country were Easter, Christmas and the so-called New Year. That was in addition to the weekly holiday every Sunday.

     

    Holiday by Military Fiat

    Prior to 1972, Nigeria was a six working day country in which public workers worked statutorily from Monday to Saturday. It was General Yakubu Gowon, a Christian military Head of State, that granted Saturday, by fiat, to the Seventh Day Adventists denomination of Christianity as a weekly religious public holiday at a time when the total population of that denomination in Nigeria was less than 700,000 within the then Nigerian total population of about 56 million people. Following that unjust imperial action, Nigerian Muslims could have kicked against Gowon’s declaration of Saturday as holiday which further expanded the tentacle of Christianity to the gross disadvantage of Islam in Nigeria. In the alternative, the Muslims could have demanded equal right by asking for Friday as a public holiday for their religion. But since granting multiple  public holidays to enable Nigerian Christians to worship according to their faith did not, in anyway, hinder the practice of Islam, the Muslims decided not to contest it in order to give peace a chance. That is part of what makes Islam a religion of peace.

    Yet, the Nigerian Christians still believe that their Muslim counterparts do not deserve any right at all even as they consider the declaration of one day public holiday declared by some States for Hijrah celebration, as a religious aberration amounting to islamization of Nigeria. Isn’t that ridiculously laughable?

     

    Islamic Calendar 

    Islam has its own calendar called Hijrah calendar. And, like in other calendars of the world, there is a beginning and an end for every Islamic year which consists of 12 months. However, unlike those other calendars, the Islamic calendar, otherwise known as Hijrah calendar, is divinely ordained because it originated from Allah. This is confirmed in chapter 9, verse 36 of the Qur’an as follows: “Surely, the number of months ordained by Allah when He created the heavens and the earth is twelve. Therefore, do not wrong yourselves in them….”. That verse is a confirmation   of Islam as Allah’s divine religion.

     

    The Months of Islamic Calendar

    The 12 months of Islamic calendar as follows: Muharram; Safar; RabiulAwwal; Rabiu-th-Thani; JumadalUla; Jumada-th-Thaniyah; Rajab; Shaban; Ramadan; Shawwal; DhulQadah; and DhulHijjah. Out of these 12 months, four are specially designated as sacred. They are the last four months of Islamic year thus: Ramadan, Shawwal, Dhul-Qa’dah and Dhul-Hijjah. Some of these months have 30 days while others have 29 days. No more, no less.

     

    Islamic Education

    It takes well- educated Muslims to understand the facts stated here and relate them to their lives. It is such education that prompted the former Governor of the State of Osun, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola to be the first Nigerian Governor to declare a public holiday for new Islamic year in Osun State in 2013.

    That historic declaration by Ogbeni Aregbesola was not only an exhibition of sound education and civility on his part, it was also a clear evidence of justice which had hitherto been denied to Nigerian Muslims in that State despite their demographic majority. And, was he not frontally attacked and called all sorts of names in the Southwest media for declaring that holiday? That is Nigeria for you as far as religion is concerned. Meanwhile, to emulate similar justice, either out of conviction or for political reason, some other Governors, including the late Alhaji Ishaq Abiola Ajimobi later joined the train of sanity along that line by declaring Hijrah holiday in his State. And, that historic gesture which had been considered anirreversible in Nigerian history has now been audaciouslly reversed with unbridled impunity.

     

    Genesis of Hijrah Calendar

    Hijrah calendar took its name from Prophet Muhammad’s migration from Makkah to Madinah which is otherwise known as Hijrah, in 622 CE.

    The use of Hijrah calendar began shortly after that migration  when Umar Bn Khattab who was later to become the second Caliph in Islam suggested the idea of a distinctive calendar for Islam which should be named after the Prophet’s migration from Makkah to Madinah and he classified that incident as a watershed for the success and survival of Islam. Without that landmark event in Islam, it would have been difficult for the sacred religion to survive. As a matter of fact, Hijrah is foremost among the three main factors responsible for the survival of the religion of Islam. The second was the victory of the Muslims in the battle of Badr which the Makkah pagans waged on them in Madinah, about 500 kilometres away from Makkah,   shortly after the Prophet’s migration to Madinah. And the third factor is Allah’s great promise that became an everlasting fulfillment. That promise is contained in Chapter 15 verse 9 of the Qur’an thus:

    “It was ‘We’ (Allah) who revealed the Qur’an and it is ‘We’ who will surely ensure its preservation…”.

     

    Question

    Now, after about 1500 years of the inception of that divine religion which was ushered into the world by the Sacred Book called the Qur’an, who can doubt the ability of the Almighty Allah to make promise and fulfill it? But for those three fundamental factors mentioned here, perhaps Islam would have joined the legion of defunct religions in human history. It is only with Allah that all things are possible.

     

    Social Effect

    It was only after the Prophet’s migration (Hijrah) that people began to see Islam clearly as a total way of life which paid attention to, and reformed every facet of human existence. It then became evident that Islam was the divine religion that gave mankind directions regarding almost every moment of a believer’s conscious life. Hijrah also enabled the Arabs, in particular, to see what a Muslim’s matrimonial home should be in a Muslim society as against what it was in the days of ignorance. Hence, it was only after the Prophet’s migration that the world could see the aspect of human social decency and decorum prescribed by Allah through Islam.

     

    Economic Impact

    The second reason for the importance of Hijrah is its economic significance which manifested in the lifestyle of the pioneer Muslim immigrants who were led by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself in migrating to Madinah. The unsurpassable hospitality of the people of Madinah towards the Muslim emigrants at that time did not only provide a new peaceful home for the immigrants, it also showed the hosts’ passionate self-sacrifice in philanthropic gesture. And with Hijrah, those immigrants vividly came in contact with advanced agricultural acumen and ingenuous artisanship which they never experienced in Makkah. These resulted in an unprecedented economic revolution for the city of Madinah. Since the hosts shared virtually everything they had with the immigrants when the latter first arrived, a lesson was learnt by those immigrants that they should not continue to be a burden on their brotherly hosts. Thus, every one of them adopted legitimate way of earning righteous income, an action which enabled the city’s economy attain an unprecedented leap.

     

    Moral Effect of Hijrah

    Initially, the Muslim Immigrants in Madinah worked as labourers in the agricultural fields, and construction sites of their hosts. But later, they, being traditional traders before migration, started small scale trading activities which brought them into economic competition with the Jews of Madinah. One aspect of the Islamic economic revolution at that time was that the Muslim immigrants paid the right price for every product they consumed since the Prophet had forbidden the practice of acquiring products on reduced prices in return for loans given to the artisans or to the land cultivators as was the practice in Madinah before Hijrah. That practice was prohibited because it was considered to be a form of usury. Thus, it was only after Hijrah that agriculture, industry and trade freely helped the Muslims to bring about an integrated, balanced and unfettered economic growth to the Ummah.

     

    Judicial Effect

    The third reason which made Hijrah a very important event is the enjoyment of political freedom by the Muslims. Before Hijrah, the Muslims in Makkah had no say in any matter, internal or external. They were a minority against whom the hearts of the majority were full of poisonous enmity simply because they were considered to constitute an insignificant fraction in a society overwhelmingly dominated by unbelievers.It was Hijrah, therefore, that made the Muslims masters of their own internal affairs, external relations as well as other matters relating to war and peace. If there was any disagreement between the Muslims and the non-Muslims in Madinah, at that time, the privilege of taking the final decision on it was conceded to the Prophet by consensus because of his unbiased sense of mediation. The agreement to that effect was by all the leaders irrespective of race, tribe or faith.

    This concession accentuated the autonomy and fair judgment enjoyed by the Muslims in that city for the first time in their Islamic religious lives. Thus, Madinah became the nucleus of a city-state which, within a period of ten years 622-632 CE, in the life time of the Prophet, which rapidly expanded to most parts of Arabian Peninsula. It is therefore evident that the event of Hijrah turned the city of Madinah into a highly successful society in commerce and agriculture.

    But when celebrating the Hijrah day, you are celebrating not only the historic success of the Prophet’s migration but also the triumph of Islam as the everlasting password of the Universe. That is why Muslims, during the period of Hijrah celebration do exchange pleasantries by congratulating one another and by chanting the slogan of HAPPY NEW YEAR!

     

  • The Propellers of Terrorism

    FEMI ABBAS ON

     

    The writing of this article   was motivated by two major tragic factors with which the world is now agonizingly grappling by force. One of those factors is an invisible Corona virus pandemic codenamed COVID 19 which is mercilessly ravaging the livelihood of mankind and recklessly rendering millions of people lifeless across continents. The other is a one word solo song that is universally being chorused with unlimited reverberation. That word is TERRORISM. A chunk of this article is culled, as an excerpt, from a lecture which the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), under the leadership of Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, prevented yours sincerely from delivering at Nigerian Interreligious Council (IREC)’s meeting in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, in January 2013.

    The Juggernauts’ Focus

    Perhaps the world is aggressively restive today because some juggernauts do not agree with the above quoted axiomatic poem. Today’s global juggernauts who constitute the topmost twig on the tree of life, are hardly convinced that the food which sustains and keeps them aloft on that tree is supplied by the roots of the same tree hence their trampling on those roots.

    The Qur’anic Position

    The Almighty Allah who created the entire universe and everything in it tells us in Qur’an 49:13 thus: “Oh mankind! We have created you as males and females and classified you into races and tribes that you may interact (and benefit from your diversity); surely the best of you are the ones who fear God most”.

    The Tree of Life

    On the tree of life, there can be no foliage without stem just as there can be no stem without roots. The fact that the roots of the tree of life are buried beneath the earth while the stem stands tall above the earth does not make the roots inferior. As a matter of fact the stem subsists above the earth because the roots hold forth for it beneath the earth.

    It will be parochial and self-deceptive for any sensible person to think that the current trend of terrorism around the world is all about religion. That kind of thinking can arise only from the agents of the Lucifer who are benefitting from the largess of terrorism through religion. There are indications that the hub of that devilish thinking is the Southwest of Nigeria from where the smoke of blackmail and propaganda is constantly polluting the country’s peaceful weather.

    Reminiscence

    From the available historical  facts, it can be confirmed that the factors which initially gave rise to terrorism clearly transcended religion. Other prominent factors such as political, economic, social and cultural ideologies, which had been the bones of contention for centuries among nations, are, by far,   more attributable to modern terrorism than religion.

    If violence is what constitutes terrorism, then, it never emanated from religion though religion has mostly been used as a cover up and blamed for it as often demonstrated by certain religious adherents.

     

    First Act of Terrorism

    At the time when the first act of terrorism was perpetrated by a Jewish Zealot group, over 2000 years ago, neither Christianity nor Islam had taken any firm root. And Judaism, in practice at that time, was more of business struggle than religion.

    Although Prophet Isa (Joshua) who the Greeks renamed Jesus had just come and gone by then, his divine mission had not reached the Gentiles who named that mission Christianity and spread it to other parts of what is now known as Europe. Also, by that time, Muhammad (SAW), the Prophet of Islam, had not been born.

    Therefore, the seed of terrorism planted by those Jewish Zealots’ in year 6 AC was rather a violent expression of resentment for domination of the Jews by the Roman gentiles than a fight between two religions.

     

    International Terrorism

    Tragic and condemnable as it is, international terrorism only accentuates the bitter resistance of certain cultures to the domination of others especially as exhibited by the relationship between the West and the East. In modern time, the origin of bomb detonation as an instrument of that resistance which came to be called terrorism today goes started 1939.

    How it began

    In August that year, a German American physicist Albert Einstein sent a letter to the then U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt to hint him of the possibility of discovering a powerful explosive device through the fission of uranium and warned Roosevelt against the danger in allowing other nations to precede the US in developing that device. In response, the U.S. government hurriedly established the top secret Manhattan Project in 1942 (three years after receiving Einstein’s letter) to develop an atomic device. The leader of that Project was a U.S. Army Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves whose team worked in several locations but largely at Los Alamos, New Mexico, under the direction of American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. The team designed and built the first atomic bomb which was test-exploded at Alamogordo, New Mexico on July 16, 1945.

    The Power of the Bomb

    The energy released from that explosion was equivalent to about 20,000 tons of Trinitrotoluene (TNT). And towards the end of the World War II, precisely on August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima killing about 60000 to 70000 people within minutes. And another was dropped on the city of Nagasaki three days later on August 9, 1945, killing about 40000 people. Most of the people killed by those bombs were on their beds sleeping as the bombs were dropped on them in the nights.

    The Effect of Atomic Bomb

    The single atomic explosion on Hiroshima destroyed 68% of the city and damaged 24% of what remained.

    As a result of that unprecedented calamity, Japan which fought the war on the side of Germany was forced to surrender unconditionally to the allied forces on August 14, 1945. Thus, in less than one week, America conquered Japan with the help of atomic bomb thereby sending a frightening signal to other countries on the side of Germany.

    From the Hiroshima/Nagasaki experience, atomic bomb became the darling weapon of all rival powers and the race for acquiring it thus began. If that was not terrorism what was it? Yet, it was with that historic calamity that competition for marketing weaponry around the world evolved.

     

    Audacious Declarations

    After the World War II, the United States and seven other countries openly declared, with a tone of marketing, that they possessed atomic weaponry and they have since conducted one or more nuclear tests to demonstrate their capability. Those other countries include: Russia which first tested her own in 1949 under the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR); Britain (1952); France (1960); China (1964); India (peaceful test in 1974 and nuclear weapons test in 1998); Pakistan (1998); and North Korea (2006).

     

    Other Nuclear Nations

    Besides those listed countries, Israel is generally believed to possess atomic bomb, although she has not formally owned up to that fact since she has never openly conducted a nuclear test like others. Thus, the total number of countries generally recognised as possessing nuclear weapons, including Israel, is nine.

    A tenth country, (South Africa), has also admitted that it developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons which she completed in 1977, but which she claimed to have dismantled in the early 1990s.

     

    Break up of USSR

    When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, three of the 15 newly independent countries, in addition to Russia, had nuclear weapons on their territories. By the mid-1990s, however, the three countries: Belarus , Kazakhstan , and Ukraine had transferred all their nuclear weapons to Russia. Of the nine states recognized as possessors of nuclear weapons today, only five have developed advanced nuclear weapons known as thermonuclear arms. They are the United States which first tested it in 1952; Russia (1953); Britain (1957); China (1967) and France (1968). The five countries have since constituted themselves into super powers having created monopoly for the device. One noticeable fact, however, is that some other countries are believed to have secretly developed thermonuclear weapons but refused to test them in order to avoid drawing negative global attention to themselves unnecessarily and thereby attract UN sanctions.

    Non-Proliferation Treaty

    The fear of proliferation of nuclear arsenal has compelled the so-called super powers to initiate the idea of Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty which was signed in 1968. By that initiative, virtually all countries of the world besides the known nine nuclear nations have since formally pledged not to manufacture those weapons. The pledge was made under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons policy, which came into force in 1970. Meanwhile, that treaty was ratified by 187 non-nuclear weapon states.

    However, efforts to curb nuclear proliferation have faced a series of new major challenges. For instance, the nuclear smuggling network established by one Abdul Qadeer Khan (a Pakistani nuclear expert) has shown that proliferation can be actively assisted not only by national governments, as in the past, but also by private, non-state persons and organisations that have access to key knowledge and equipment. Following the arrest of Khan, a UN Security Council Resolution 1540 was passed in 2004 to further emphasize the importance of non-proliferation Treaty. This Resolution is expected to encourage countries like Pakistan and Malaysia to better control activities related to weapons of mass destruction within their borders and to prevent improper exports.

    Uncertainty

    The effectiveness of this new element of the non-proliferation “regime” however remains uncertain.

    The original treaty which is still in force has five nuclear weapon state members and 187 non-nuclear weapon state members. India, Israel, and Pakistan never joined the treaty, thereby reserving the legal right to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea which was a party to the treaty in 1985 renounced it in 2003 to enable her exercise her rights under the treaty’s withdrawal provisions. North Korea’s action highlighted one of the treaty’s major limitations.

    The problem concerning terrorism here is neither about the signing or breaching the treaty per se, nor about armament reduction. It is rather about some nations’ determination to balance power with rivals. This was the factor that led to the invention of atomic bomb by the US in the first instance. And this factor has now advanced into balance of terror not only among nations but more between those perceived as oppressors and the non-state groups that feel oppressed as the knowledge of developing nuclear weapons keeps spreading.

    It was for this reason that the US turned herself into the policeman of the world tormenting countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and other Middle East countries that can pose any threat to Israel.

     

    Policing the World

    Policing proliferation as is the case now is a mere euphemism for policing the entire world which can never ventilate a peaceful coexisting atmosphere for mankind. It will rather aggravate the existing conflict situations. The fact that the US and China or India and Pakistan have not been able to use nuclear weapons against each other despite their open hostilities and tight suspicious  diplomacy is simply because they all possess such weapons.

     

    From Militancy to Terrorism

    Terrorism often begins with unfounded allegations and baseless suspicion   leading to militancy. But when the threat of state power is intensified against the militants, an all-out violence becomes the necessary weapon with which to freely counter what those militants consider to be state terrorism. Thus, to those called terrorists, violent activities are only a means of countering State terrorism.

    Nigeria Under Watch

    If Nigeria had been a nuclear nation, the US would not have listed her as a nation under terrorism watch as she did in 2009 on the account of an isolated case of attempted terrorism by one single Nigerian. After all, an American citizen, Timothy McVeigh, committed a devastating act of terrorism in the US City of Oklahoma on April 19, 1995 killing 168 people at once and the US did not, as a result, list herself as a nation under terrorism watch. The worst that happened to McVeigh was a trial that earned him a death sentence in 2001. But thereafter, we were not given the privilege of knowing what happened to that terrorist as par the judgment that earned him death sentence.

    Internal Terrorism

    As for internal terrorism which is far more dangerous than the external one, only good governance and people’s patriotic devotion can safeguard it.

    Nigeria is terribly wrecked today because the so-called leaders since 1999 have sold all that were considered national assets to themselves in the selfish belief that by virtue of being in government, they owned the country and could do anything to take possession of it. Now, after massively empting the national treasury to convert the country into their private property, they came to realize how futile such vainglorious efforts are and decided to block any credit accruable to those who can expose them.

    In a country like Nigeria where the wind of multifarious terrorism are forcefully and incessantly blowing with an active clandestine role of certain religious vampires who are feeding   exploitatively on the blood of the masses and are sponsoring terrorists to cover up their evil acts how can individual or group terrorism be stemmed? Well! We can only pray God to save Nigeria.