The Nation Newspaper

Category: Friday

  • Ahmadu Bello’s Christmas message

    Preamble

    This article was scheduled for Friday, January 15, 2016 to coincide with the 50th year remembrance of Alhaji Sir Ahmadu Bello’s assassination in Nigeria’s first military coup d’etat. However, since man only proposes while Allah disposes, the plan to publish it that day had to change due to an exigency that required an urgent attention. Nevertheless, despite the two weeks delay, it is hoped that the respected regular readers of this column will still find it as fresh as it would have been a fortnight ago. This is one of the memorable stories of life that often leave a sour taste in the mouth but never get stale in history. We are still in January and the story of Nigeria’s first coup remains inexhaustible.

     

    Death of an icon

    One of the foremost political icons in Nigeria’s first republic and the patriarch of the political party called Northern People’s Congress (NPC), was Alhaji Sir Ahmadu Bello, the first and only Premier of Northern Nigeria. He became Premier of Northern Nigeria in 1954 through a popular election and was killed as Premier in January 1966 in a tribal/religious military coup plotted mainly by soldiers of Igbo extraction and led by one Major Patrick Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu. The plotters had killed this icon in cold blood before looking for reasons to justify their heinous crime. The three reasons they later gave were corruption, tribalism and religious bigotry. It was a matter of calling a dog a bad name in order to hang it.

    Among the four Premiers in Nigeria at that time, only Ahmadu Bello could not in any way be evidently linked to corruption. Unlike others who lived opulently, Ahmadu Bello was an ascetic personality who served his people as patriotically. He left only a small residential bungalow in Sokoto at the time of his death. He could also not be singularly accused of tribalism because tribalism was the basis of all the existing political parties of the time. No Premier from 1954 to 1966 could be exonerated from tribalism. They were all guilty of it.

    It can be recalled that such organisations as Ibiobio State Union, Ibo Federal Union, Egbe Omo Oduduwa and ‘Jam’iyyar Al-Ummar Nigeriya ta Arewa’ which translated to Northern Elements Progressive Association which later transformed into Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU) were all socio-cultural organisations that metamorphosed into political parties. All those parties preceded ‘jamiyyar Mutane Arewa’ meaning Northern People’s Congress (NPC) to which Ahmadu Bello belonged. Many other ethnic-based political parties later emerged to broaden tribalism in Nigerian politics.

     

    His 1959 Christmas Message

    Of the four Premiers in Nigeria’s first republic, only Ahmadu Bello was bold and sincere enough to allay the fear of the minority groups in Northern Nigeria by making a public policy statement about his government’s stand concerning tribalism and religious bigotry. Here is what he said:

    “We are people of many different races, tribes and religions, who are knit together by common history, common interests and common ideals. Our diversity may be great but the things that unite us are stronger than the things that divide us. On an occasion like this, I always remind people about our firmly rooted policy on religious tolerance. Families of all creeds and colour can rely on these assurances. We have no intention of favouring one religion at the expense of another. Subject to overriding need to preserve law and order, it is our determination that everyone should have absolute liberty to practice his belief. It is befitting on this momentous day, on behalf of my ministers and myself, to send a special word of gratitude to all Christian missions.

    Let me conclude this with a personal message. I extend my greetings to all our people who are Christians on this great feast day. Let us forget the difference in our religion and remember the common brotherhood before God, by dedicating ourselves afresh to the great tasks which lie before us.”

    Thus, to accuse such a person of tribalism and religious bigotry is like searching for a new crescent in a deep well.

     

     His Fabricated ‘Speech’

    However, years after Ahmadu Bello’s unjustifiable assassination, some evil elements in the media, in collaboration with certain political demagogues went to fabricate another statement attributed to the Premier as a justification for his killing. The concocted statement was credited to a publication in an unknown newspaper called ‘The Parrot’. Here is the fabricated statement:

    “The new nation called Nigeria should be an estate of our great grandfather Othman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We use the minorities in the north as willing tools and the south as a conquered territory and never allow them to rule over us and never allow them to have control over their future.” The statement was said to have been made on October 12, 1960.

     

    Truth and Falsehood

    Now, looking at both statements very carefully, any sensible person should be able to see clearly, a distinction between truth and falsehood. The Premier’s Christmas message quoted above was made on Thursday, December 24, 1959 through a radio broadcast which was published by all newspapers in the country including the vociferous ‘West African Pilot’ owned by Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, the boisterous ‘Tribune’ owned by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the clamorous ‘Daily Times’ jointly owned privately by certain prominent individuals at that time as well as many other smaller newspapers in Nigeria. All those newspapers are identifiable in the Nigeria’s media history even though most of them are now defunct. On the other hand, the place and occasion of the second statement attributed to Ahmadu Bello was neither indicated nor can be traced in Nigeria’s newspaper history.

    The first time any genuinely existing newspaper ever made reference to that second statement was on November 13, 2002 (42 years after it was purportedly made. And the reference by ‘The Tribune’ newspaper that published it was to an article published online a few weeks earlier (October 24, 2002) by a Yoruba journalist and columnist (name withheld) and entitled ‘the northern Agenda’. It can therefore be deduced that the statement was actually fabricated not in the 1960s but in October 2002, by the columnist who credited it to a newspaper that never existed, to give it undeserving credibility. What a country! What a people! This is a typical case of an obvious mischief by heartless mischief makers just to fetch ephemeral fame and illegal income.

    The belief was that once such a fabricated article appears on the internet and is   ignorantly quoted by some inconsequential writers, it would automatically become a document of facts. That is Nigeria for you.

     

    The Coup Episode

    January 15, 1966 was a Saturday like no other one in the history of Nigeria. That day laid the bitter seed which germinated and grew into the thorny tree that now feeds Nigerians with unpalatable political fruits of today. It marked the beginning of an agonising voyage of destiny on which Nigerians embarked without a compass. Coming up in the sacred month of Ramadan, the day actually came to confirm the axiomatic thought of an Arab poet who once asserted in a couplet that: “Nights are heavily pregnant; they give birth to wonders in the days….”

     

    The preceding Friday

    The preceding Friday (January 14, 1966) had been quite eventful for the then Premier of Northern Nigeria, Alhaji Sir Ahmadu Bello who was extraordinarily busy from morning to night. He had planned to travel to Sokoto with the then Ghana High Commissioner, Mr. Yakubu Tally, who had come to spend the weekend with him in appreciation of his role in ensuring the formation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) through the merger of the Monrovia and Casablanca groups that had been mutually antagonistic on certain ideological grounds.

    On that Friday, Sir Ahmadu Bello, as usual, observed the Jum’at Prayer in company of a retinue of his Ministers and government officials. He hosted the Premier of Western Nigeria, Chief Samuael Ladoke Akintola, (his political ally) in the newly formed Nigerian National Alliance (NNA). The latter had come to alert his colleague of a premonition hovering over Nigeria through an impending bloody coup d’etat that could clear the existing political stable wheat and chaff. His alert was not however strange to Sir Ahmadu Bello who had earlier got the same security report.

    The duo jointly reviewed the then volatile political situation in the country but failed to reach a conclusion on how to forestall the impending calamity.

     

    Akintola’s Effort

    Chief S. L. Akintola, pleaded with his host to persuade the then Prime Minister, Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, to act promptly to curb the impending disaster that was swinging restlessly like a pendulum over Nigeria before it could devour them all. But Sir Ahmadu Bello was reluctant. He believed that only the will of Allah could prevail in any given circumstance. His fear was that in the sacred month of Ramadan, it would be better to be martyred than to be an assassin. To him, any attempt to foil such a virtually mature coup would be so bloody that even the country would have nothing left to bleed with. By that belief, hardly did Sir Ahmadu Bello realise the implications of paving the way for a ruinous destiny to take its course.

    The whole scenario was like a valedictory drama of fate in which the actors were blind to the denouement which the viewers had vividly perceived. And when it was time for the two Premiers to part, it became apparent that they were meeting perhaps for the last time alive. In a sobre but sorrowful tone, the host bided his guest “buy for now,” and the guest, whose feet were already on the staircase of his aircraft on his way back to Ibadan replied: “if we ever get to see again”.

    Thus, both spoke in coded language in the presence of their entourages who could not decode their language. By the time when cities started to return to life, in the wee hours of the following morning, the die had been cast as the picture had become clear that the night had tragically discharged the contents of its cargo to the amazement of the entire world. A bloody coup in Nigeria had swept the country’s democracy away with the rulers as casualties. It confirmed the maxim of the above quoted poem and the rest has since become history.

     

    The major Casualties

    The heartless rascals in Nigerian military who struck in the January 1966 coup to terminate a democratically elected government must have foreclosed the consequences of their criminal action. They had killed virtually all the major key players in the then Nigerian politics except those of Igbo extraction and of course, some non-Igbo people who were then in prisons. The Prime Minister, Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and the Minister of Finance, Chief Festus Okotie-Eboh were killed in Lagos. The Premier of Northern Nigeria, Sir Ahmadu Bello, was killed with his wife and some other people in Kaduna, the then Headquarters of Northern Nigeria. The Premier of Western Nigeria, Chief Samuel Akintola was killed in Ibadan, the then Headquarters of the South Western Nigeria while some military top brass of non-Igbo extraction were killed in different military barracks across the country.

    Except for Lt. Col. Arthur Unegbe who was killed for being too close to Maimalari and could not be trusted, no other Igbo man of note, politician or military, was killed in that coup. As a matter of fact, if there was any feeling of the coup in the Eastern Nigeria at all, it was that of victory and heroism. The top military officers who were killed included: Brig. S. A. Ademulegun (South West); Brig. Zakari Maimalari (North); Col. Kur Mohammed (North); Lt. Col. J. Y. Pam (North); Col. S. A. Shodeinde (South West); Lt. Col. Largema (North); Lt. Col. A. G. Unegbe (North); S/Ltd. James Odu (South West) and a host of others.

     

    The Allegations

    It became evident that virtually all the leaders of that coup as well as its executioners were of Igbo extraction. Thus, the other ethnic groups who were severely affected saw the coup as a tribal one. But much more than that, the Muslims in the country saw it as a religious coup that could not be justified in any way, the killing of Chiefs Akintola and Okotie-Eboh notwithstanding. This was because the then Governor of Eastern Nigeria, Sir Francis Akanu Ibiam was as deeply religious as Sir Ahmadu Bello. The one was a Vice-President of the World Council of Churches. The other was the Vice-President of the Muslim World League. If religion was therefore the reason for the coup, the two of them ought to have been killed. But history entails a variety of interpretations.

    Overwhelming majority of the ring leaders of that coup as well as the executioners were of Igbo extraction. The chief beneficiary of the coup (Major-General Johnson Aguiyi Ironsi) was of Igbo extraction. Almost all the military appointments after the coup were for men of Igbo extraction and none of these, except Hassan Katsina and Muhammadu Shuwa was a Muslim. How else could a coup be tribal and religious in nature?

     

    Nigeria’s Founding Fathers

    In semblance of the above, the great fathers of Nigeria’s independence left a legacy that can be called a footprint on the sands of time. By whatever standard they are measured today, the late Sardauna of Sokoto, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello; Nigeria’s first and only Prime Minister, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa; the first Premier of Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his counterpart of the Eastern Region, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe as well as Mallam Aminu Kano and Chief SL Akintola and Chief Denis Osadebay were all exemplary in their styles of life given the circumstances of their governance, their personal weaknesses notwithstanding.

    Their legacy is a fortune which amazingly turned into misfortune in the hands of their successors. Thus, the great hope which those fathers had embedded into our destiny became colonised and turned into personal property by their political heirs. Were those great fathers to wake up from their graves today and see what has become of their sweat, they would just shake their heads in sorrow and return quietly into their graves without comments.

     

    Qualities of Leaders

    Looking at the phenomena of human life critically, one may conclude that human world is depreciating geometrically. The men of primordial years were greater by far than those of the contemporary time. Their lives were more qualitative. Their thoughts were richer. Their intentions were purer. Their gazes were more visionary. Their dispositions were more human. It is upon the foundation of their thoughts and deeds that today’s technological pyramid is firmly built. Yet, they did not allow their reasoning to be driven by the material life of their time.

     

    Exemplary Hadith

    Fearing for their hereafter, some companions of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) once asked him a probing question about the quality of their lifestyle saying in a quivering voice thus:

    “Dear Prophet! The wealthy ones amongst us seem to have gone to the world beyond with all the existing rewards. They worshiped Allah as we are worshiping Him. They fasted as we are fasting today. Yet they were giving in charity, huge amounts of resources to the poor and the needy according to the sizes of their wealth. What is then left for us, if the paradise will be determined by the amount of our rewards…….?” The similitude of the lesson in that Hadith is the situation of Nigeria yesterday and today in terms of leadership quality. Will any lesson be learnt?

  • God save the kings!

    God save the kings!

    For progressives who also embrace tradition and perceive no contradiction in so doing, there is much to inspire and encourage in recent news.

    Let me start with a fundamental question? Is there a contradiction with progressives embracing tradition? Or does a progressive have to defend embracing tradition? Not necessarily, especially if the idea of progressive traditionalism makes sense. By this I mean the deliberate and active encouragement of tradition moving with the times. It does make sense!

    I once had an experience with a member of the family of the late Onjo of Okeho, Oba Ereola Adedeji. It was Christmas holiday when I visited Okeho. As I drove around town I ran into a group of merry makers dancing on the street. I stopped my car in the middle of the road so they can pass by. But their leader would have me do more. He wanted me to come down from my car. I didn’t, and he considered it an insult and shouted some obscenities. I didn’t respond. He then invoked what he thought was the traditional right of a royal family which for him I had trampled upon.

    Before I got home, my father heard about it and went straight to Kabiyesi Adedeji. I had held a meeting with Kabiyesi earlier in the day on his interests in mobilising the elite for the development of the town. He was therefore embarrassed by what his younger brother had done and he called him to caution and apologise to me.  That was enough for me to want to do more for the town and for the monarch who was not going to turn back the clock of progress.

    The present Onjo of Okeho, Oba Rafiu Osuolale Mustapha, has also embraced progressive approach to tradition because it is the only way for tradition to endure.

    My experience with the traditional rulers that I have had contact with in Yorubaland has been nothing but positive and uplifting. From Oba Rilwan Akiolu of Lagos whose thoughtful response to affectionate shout of “Kabiyesi” from admirers is “Olorun lo n je bee” (That is God’s title), to Oba Sikiru Adetona, the quintessential integrity model, to my foremost senior, Oba Alani Oyede, the Olota of Ota, I have seen the best in what tradition can be. Sure, there is always going to be some uninspiring stories. But that is true of all other social and political institutions and we don’t throw away their bath waters with the precious babies.

    I had not seen Oba Oyede since 1966 when he completed his Teachers Grade II programme at the African Church Teachers’ Training College, Ifako, Agege until he showed up at the public presentation of my book on December 21 last year. As those who were at the event witnessed, it was an emotional moment for both of us.

    Senior Oyede was an all-round student. He was the school goal-keeper, the captain of the volley ball team and the college librarian. He appointed me his junior librarian and I succeeded him as the college librarian in 1967, my final year. We lived in the same Joseph House, and as I mentioned to him during my visit to his palace in Ota recently, I inherited his bed in the House.

    That Oba Oyede chose to risk his frail health to honour my invitation was the height of affection which we mutually shared. And rather than expecting anything from me, he also made donation to the Foundation which I co-chair with my wife.On my visit to his palace, he presented me with invaluable gifts to last a lifetime. At that visit, he ensured that he invited one of my classmates, Bishop S. A. Odu and it was a great reunion. The Oloris, Chief Akinyemi, the Ajana of Ota, were friendly and pleasant hosts.

    Oba Akiolu, who also graced the public presentation of my book, is a modern progressive Oba in all respects. Some years ago, Oba Akiolu visited Maryland to see a young man, who was studying there. I met him at the airport and gave him a ride to his hotel. As I tried to open the back door for him so he could sit comfortably at the back, Kabiyesi went for the passenger’s seat in the front. My request for him to take the back seat was ignored. He then volunteered the information that having been a police officer; he was comfortable anywhere and under any condition. He loaded two pieces of luggage with food items for us all the way from Lagos. That is tradition combined with progress. For extreme traditionalists, an Oba does not give; he only receives.

    Money is the root of all evils, including the evil of belittling tradition and its keepers. What is pleasing to me is that I have not heard that any of our Obas is linked with Dasukigate or Anennihgate. Indeed, they have come out to deny categorically that they had no part in the booty sharing.

    The foregoing observations are pertinent as evidence of our coming of age in the progressive development of our communities and the enlightened reconciliation of tradition with progress. For all these, there is a good reason for optimism and pride.

    However, the recent news of the visit of the Ooni of Ife, Oba Enitan Ogunwusi, Ojaja II, Arole Odua, to the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, Iku Baba Yeye, coming 79 years after the last such visit by an Ooni, is the foremost tradico-progressive news of the century. That Alaafin and Ooni shook hands openly, sat together and worshipped together in celebration of the 45th anniversary of the Alaafin’s coronation is a story that must warm the hearts of all Yoruba worldwide.

    Why is it an indication of progress? There’s no denying the fact that the root of the crisis between Alaafin and the late Ooni drew the Yoruba back in the scheme of things. It prevented the public show of unity of Yoruba traditional hierarchy, which sent the wrong signal to others. If we cannot speak with one voice because our traditional rulers will not lead in that direction, can we blame anyone for marginalising us? That the foremost rulers of Yorubaland embraced peace and cooperation to push the Yoruba agenda is progress.

    Secondly, it is also not in doubt that self-centred politicians have benefitted from the division or misunderstanding between the two royal fathers over the years. And a number of them must have cheered them on while it lasted. Now, those politicians are enemies of the progress of the Yoruba and they have been shamed by the singular act of courage and patriotism on the part of the new Ooni and Alaafin.

    We must, however, not also forget that for every dancing iromi, there is a strategising drummer even if unseen and unappreciated. The drummers to whose beat the royal fathers gleefully danced know themselves and we also know them as foremost progressives. In the fullness of time, they will reap the rewards of their nationalistic and patriotic endeavours.

    I was almost ready to submit this piece when the news broke of the transition of the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Kabiyesi Oba Samuel Odulana, at the ripe age of 101. A foremost progressive among traditionalists, his experience traversed all areas of the social and political life of Nigeria. An army officer, he fought in the war of the Greatest Generation, served in the parliament of the First Republic as well as in its executive branch as Minister of State. As a co-founder of the Ibadan Economic Foundation and the Ibadan Progressive Union, Oba Odulana championed the cause of progress and development even before he ascended the Olubadan throne. His life, which crisscrossed centuries and millennials, was full of notable achievements. That he lived to see the promise of leading Yoruba Obas coming together is a lasting tribute to the sweet memories of his life and times. He is already resting in peace.

  • Re – Hijab: Muslims against Muslims

    Preamble

    An article entitled ‘Hijab: “Muslims against Muslims” which appeared in this column penultimate Friday drew an unprecedented array of reactions from readers. A follow up to that article last Friday in this same column also attracted torrential reactions. Apparently, both articles struck the touchy parts of readers differently. And their simultaneous reactions, accordingly confirmed that assertion.

    As mortal beings, we jointly live in a world of diverse ideas and experiences. It is not always that we see what we look. Some see without looking. Some look without seeing. But in the end, we all return to the natural fallibility that confirms our mortality. As a columnist, I take responsibility for whatever storm or calm that greeted both articles. And at the same time, I thank all who reacted to them positively or negatively. Allah knows best. Here we go:

     

    Reactions

    “….NACOMYO has made it categorically clear that hijab can never be separated from believing women, so banning hijab is banning the practice of Islam. The claim by the writer that the “the experience in the countries such as Niger Republic, Chad and Cameroon where the spate of mass murder by bomb blasts concealed in Islamic dress in those countries went down tremendously, following the ban on certain types of hijab” cannot be substantiated because the gendarmerie in these countries are well equipped, up to the task and are up-and-doing to contain the insurgency. The role played by the Chadian armed forces in dealing Boko Haram in Nigeria, before President Muhammadu Buhari took over, a deadly blow, cannot be over-emphasized. On January 12, Boko Haram still struck in northern Cameroon where 13 Muslim faithfuls were brutally killed by a man suicide bomber in a Mosque!

    NACOMYO has strong belief in the sincerity of the incumbent government to eradicate Boko Haram without banning hijab and we have seen the handwriting on the wall already. All what the government needs is our full support and vigorous prayers for its success in bringing the insurgency to a quick end, fighting corruption to a standstill as well as rejuvenation of Nigerian economy. Mallam Garba Shehu, the President’s Spokesman has officially denied the hijab ban, what’s more?

    Finally, NACOMYO advises the columnist, and his likes, to always use their pens to promote, defend, propagate Islam and educate non-Muslims about Islam rather than compromising the religion at any slight provocation. They should learn from the action of the only woman on the panel who successfully boxed the President to a tight corner on the issue of hijab. Her action seemed propelled by religious interest rather than by professional zeal…”

    Binyamin Yusuf, Secretary-General NACOMYO

     

    My dear brother Femi Abbas, after carefully going through your write up titled ‘Hijab: Muslims against Muslims’ and the barrage of reactions that awashed (sic) the social media from our Muslim brothers, I felt pity for you. Your follow up article titled: ‘The Message and ‘The Messenger’ however came as a relief and a justification for my caution against reacting in a hurry. What some of those reactions intended to do was to give you a public ridicule and disgrace. And that perhaps forced you to throw your background open, a thing you had never done in your 33 years of writing the same column. That shows that the motive was beyond the article they reacted to. But thank God, you have proved your intellectual worth and restored the confidence of your genuine readers by delivering the goods as expected of you. However, without those tendentious reactions most of your readers would not have known anything about your background and professional antecedent. Now, I am more strongly confident in ‘The ‘Message’ column. Please, ride on. God bless you.

    Jelili Adebare, Shaki, Oyo State

     

    Alhaji Femi Abbas, have you ever heard the story of the lion and the lamb? Both animals met at a stream where they went to drink water. On sighting the lamb, the lion greedily accosted her by alleging that the lamb was polluting the stream. The lamb said “it is not possible since I am drinking at the lower part of the stream and you (lion) are at the upper side”. The lion then said you want to abuse me again as you did here this time last year? The lamb replied that I had not been born this time last year. Then, the lion said if it wasn’t you, it must have been your mother. The wild cat thereafter pounced on the innocent lamb and made a meal of it. That is the parable of our brothers’ provocative reactions to your article even after you had effected correction. But I am not surprised as that is characteristic of new school Muslims in Nigeria today. Femi, just stand by Allah and He will stand by you always.

    Abdullah Musa Zubair. Kaduna

     

    Mallam Femi, reading through your article captioned ‘The Message’ and the Messenger’ last Friday, one could feel that you were worried. I don’t think there is anything to worry about. The duty of people who have little or nothing to offer the society is to disturb those who have societal value. You are not a local columnist and cannot be rubbished by local nuisance. With Allah’s tremendous endowment for you, such envious reactions ought to have been expected from time to time. Every success has a cost. Yours cannot be an exception. You should rejoice that the unwarranted attacks on you in the social media over your article on Hijab has turned out to be a booster and not a diminisher (sic) of your enviable image. Alhamdulillah. Please, throw the past behind you and continue your good work as usual. Allah will continue to guide and protect you.

    Suleiman Guruje, Abuja

     

    Alhaji Femi Abbas, the interruption brought into your column by the bitter critics of your article on hijab was not against you but against those of us who are regular readers of that column. Most of those who reacted did not read the article in question. Some of them called me to ask for your telephone number and email address both of which are constantly present in the head mast of your column. You will also notice that most of them could not even spell your name (Abbas) correctly. That will confirm to you the type of people you are dealing with. Ironically, most of those people who can be called new school in Islam had not been born by the time you started writing a column. I appeal to you to please concentrate on the wheat of your profession while you leave the chaff for the goats. Your quality will never diminish. Assalam alaikun.

    Salihu Fazazi, Auchi, Edo State

     

    Mallam Abbas, I have never met you in person, neither have I seen your photograph anywhere. But I want you to look at the appearance of the modern day propagators of Islam. When I read your article titled ‘The Message’ and ‘The Messenger’ my mind just quickly went to the young Muslim brothers who claim to be engaged in da’wah. Should any propagator of Islam be shabby? How can a shabby person win souls for Islam? Please, whenever you meet them take a second look at them. I am disgusted. These are the people who want us to see them as scholars. Does scholarship take away decency from a scholar? Islam is becoming something else in the hands of modern day Muslim scholars. We must do something about it. Please, lead us. God will give you all you need to lead.

    Shakirullah M. Haruna, Brinin-Kebbi, Kebbi State

     

    Ustadh Femi Abbas, I have followed very keenly the arguments for and against the ban on the use of Hijab or Burqah between you and some of your readers in your column. As usual, your detailed analysis of the origin and genesis of hijab is highly appreciated and by that analysis we are better educated. Those who are denying your claim and calling you names have not told us their own version of the history of that Islamic dress. We thank Allah that you inform and educate with your column without necessarily claiming to be a scholar. That is a mark of humility. May God increase your knowledge and your wisdom.

    Salim A. Abubakar, Dutse, Jigawa State   

     

    Mr. Femi Abbas, Reading your last Friday article was quite interesting. I had to quickly look for the one of the Friday before which warranted the writing of the second. My conclusion after reading both was that Nigerians generally acknowledge good work only posthumously. You know what that means? How many of those emergency critics are capable of writing Islamic columns of your standard? Ordinarily, there is nothing bad in calling your attention to an error. But when a handshake goes beyond the elbow, it becomes suspicious. Intention matters a lot. From the reactions I have read in the social media so far, it seems that most of the critics had been looking for an opportunity to attack you on something else which they have not yet disclosed. But don’t be bothered. It is all part of experience. We shall intensify our prayers to Allah to continue to provide you with long life and formidable protection and give us more men of your type. Remain blessed!

    Mubarak Ahmad Mubarak, Jos, Plateau State

     

    Alhaji Abbas, those who seized the opportunity of your error in the article on hijab to say you are rather a nonentity than a scholar, have their hidden agenda. Through what I read in their reactions, I discovered that they have redefined scholarship. To them, only people who know Hadith and Islamic history are qualified to be called scholars. They have made Hadith the primary source of Islamic Law. Even where the contents of the Qur’an evidently contradict their quoted Hadith, they stick to the latter. So, with Hadith, they can easily pronounce Hell in judgment over their victims. Other learned people, irrespective of the depth of their knowledge, cannot be scholars.

    That is why a person like you cannot be qualified for a scholar. It is a matter of blackmail. But if you join them today, you will automatically be recognised as a scholar. We are talking of the modern day diabolical scholars who must be seen as such to be able to exploit the Muslim Ummah. Rather than lifting Islam, these people have relegated the divine religion through dogmatism rather than dynamism which Islam stands for. Hijab is not the problem but those who are campaign for it. We must cooperate to rescue the situation. We cannot continue like this. God bless you.

    Adam Olajide Ojengbede, Ile-Ife, Osun State

     

    Ustadh Femi Abbas, for many years, we, the permanent readers of your column have benefited tremendously from the fountain of your knowledge and we are not idiots. We can easily distinguish between the wheat and the chaff. No emergency/extremist tutors can confuse us at this stage with strange tutelage like the one that bred Boko Haram insurgents. We know that life is sacred in Islam and anything that can lead to deliberate termination of lives unjustifiably must be avoided. Islam is neither a bloody religion nor a religion of nudism. Hijab is an ordained costume for Muslim women but it does not necessarily have to be Burqah or Khimar. That is the point you were making and we understand it very well. We are quite familiar with your writings and logic. Anybody can make a mistake. Your clarification in the second article should be reasonably comprehensible to any responsible Muslim who has no ulterior motive. We are satisfied. Let those who see religion as an instrument of mass murder separate their mode of worship from that of conventional Islam. No one can lure us into blind fanaticism.

    Bamidele Ibrahim, Ikare, Ondo State

     

    Assalam alaikum, you are always an enjoyable columnist and preacher of Islamic issues. May I advise you to compile your articles of about 33 years into a book form for the benefit of Muslims and to serve as a further means of reference. On issues of hijab, your explanation is well understood and should be acceptable to all. Ma salam.

    Hon. ADEYINKA Corsim, Osodi, Lagos

     

    I sincerely appreciate respected Alhaji Femi Abbas to have written this article; ‘The Message’ and ‘The Messenger’.  May Allah overlook our shortcomings.  I think we should all see it as a reminder that perfection and absoluteness are only for ALLAH especially as it clarifies his mistake by showing the missing link in the article which according to him, he had inadvertently omitted.

    “Banning Burqah rather than Hijab is not the same as banning Islam” was said to be the original draft and not “Banning Hijab is not the same as banning Islam”

    I implore all Muslims that we write a rejoinder to him appreciating his courage to accept his mistakes and show him genuine and increase love and concern. For me, I take your clarification as true and I apologise for any denial and or castigation you may have received on behalf my Muslim brothers and sisters. Regards.

    Akinfenwa Omolaja Akeem

     

    Ustadh Femi, We have problem. The issue here is not about hijab per se. We know hijab as a divinely ordained dress for Muslim women. Wearing it is not negotiable. But Islam, in our society today, is passing through a new trend that may be bigger and more dangerous than Boko Haram. Are you aware that our female children are now being waylaid by some modern day self-acclaimed scholars? These heretical scholars who evidently toe the line of the Taliban, ISIS and Al-Shabbab are out to destroy the lives of our female children. They do not only persuade them to withdraw from their University courses, they also marry them out through match making without the consents of their parents. They convince the innocent girls that once they attain the age of 18, they do not need their parents’ consents again to take decisions on issues including marriage. They then ask such girls to send some tins of condensed milk to their mothers as a replacement for the milk they had sucked from those mothers’ breasts at infancy.

    By the ‘Salafi’ philosophy of these ‘satanic scholars’, women are not supposed to work outside the confines of their matrimonial homes and therefore, they do not need any certificate. They also try to convince some young Muslim graduates to do away with their University degrees or forget about Al-Janna (Paradise). Some of such ‘scholars have even created special camps at which they indoctrinate their captives after hypnotising them.

    Please, Femi, use your powerful column to correct this terrible anomaly and educate Nigerian public about it before it is too late. Some parents who have fallen victim to this evil are still gnawing their teeth. Others must not become their victims again. And if you have female children especially in higher institutions please, monitor them very well. You have intellectually used your popular column for Nigerian Muslim Ummah in the past 33 years. Allah will reward you abundantly. But this is not the time to relent. Allah will help you as you are helping others. We need more information and education through your column.

    Sulaiman Olaoye Jubril, Lokoja, Kogi State.

  • The Message and the messenger

    The Message and the messenger

    Prologue

    The title of this article is quite symbolic. Islam is the most worthy message that requires a worthy messenger to propagate. And the messenger in this case is any worthy Muslim who is supposed to propagate that divine message in a worthy manner. Invariably, the quality of the message is often vividly reflected in the capability of the messenger.

     

    Clarification

    ‘The Message’ column has noted the venomous reactions of some Nigerian Muslim brothers and sisters to the article on hijab which appeared in this column last Friday. Expectedly, some of the respondents to that article had hardly read it before hurriedly passing their usual heretical FATWA by declaring this columnist a ‘KAFIR’ (renegade).

    Nevertheless, the concern of some of the brothers and sisters about the contents of the article is understandable. The writer’s conclusion in that article was seen as capable of fuelling disturbing implications especially in Nigerian terrain where religion is virtually taken for a tacit war of attrition.

    I must admit that the conclusion of that article was as puzzling to this columnist as it must have been to many readers. Definitely, there was an error. But the particular clause in the controversial conclusion of that article which caused a loud brouhaha last Friday is not strange in journalism. What is strange in that case was the implacable attitude of some brothers who were trying to set the house ablaze in an attempt to chase out a lizard.

    This column is not a monopoly and the columnist is not a perfectionist. Despite being an alumnus of the great institution called MARKAZ, Agege, Lagos State, and despite studying in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as well as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, I have never claimed to be a scholar, out of modesty. Even when I am called a scholar I do not acknowledge it. Thus, the idea of labeling yours sincerely as an arrogant person is a figment of imagination of some people based on sheer ignorance.

     

    Consultation

    Ordinarily, I do not write this column without consulting some trusted learned scholars directly or indirectly. For instance, some highly respected scholars, not less than five, are given the privilege of reading through this column every week before it is sent for publication. If, like me, none of those scholars could sight the faulty clause in the article before it went for publication why should I be taken for an Angel now being turned into a ‘devil’ to be pestered with verbal and written missiles through the apathy of some Islamic enthusiasts? Incidentally, only nine out of 91 people who reacted to the article in question were able to decipher the clumsiness of the controversial clause and four of them were from foreign countries.

     

    The foreign angle

    The very first person to raise a question on the article was a brother from Belgium who had closely monitored my blog for some years and had got familiar with my style. His alert was followed by some others from Ireland, Turkey and Comoro Island. The four noticed the missing link in the conclusion of that article and promptly drew my attention to it in a responsible manner. But then, the die had been cast as the alerts came after the publication.

    Brother Tariq of Turkey was particularly exceptional in pinpointing the missing link when I became confused. He identified the problem as being between my claim to “strongly believe in the use of Hijab” and the sudden advocacy for support of its ban albeit conditionally. He then advised me to go back to the original draft of the article and fish out the printer’s devil. It was only then that I realised having become a victim of that abominable cliché called the printer’s devil.

     

    The Nigerian angle

    Here in Nigeria, about 37 brothers, five of whom are from the academic sector, also hinted me of a possible mistake in the article but none of them could actually pinpoint its place. Delightedly, all those brothers practically demonstrated the difference between education and sheer literacy as much as they exhibited the genuine spirit of Islam. Theirs was a display of thorough understanding and high level of maturity. They are qualified to be called reliable readers and worthy Messengers. God bless them.

     

    Personal angle

    On my own, I also discovered another major error on which some respondents have deliberately preyed to score critical points. That is in the paragraph where I referred to Nigerian female cultural dress consisting of ‘buba’ and ‘Iro’ without mentioning Ibori (big scarf) which is the real equivalence of hijab in Nigeria.

    With such conspicuous omission, I expected some of the respondent brothers who had known me very well for a long time, to understand that as an informed Muslim of Yoruba extraction, I could not have deliberately referred to ‘Buba’ and ‘Iro’ as hijab. But that wasn’t the case.

     

    Purpose of Errata

    Making a sensitive mistake in public communication is not peculiar to Femi Abbas as a columnist. For the same reason of printer’s devil, many print media houses have had to withdraw thousands of copies of their publications from circulation. I can still recall that this once happened when I was in Concord. It also happened once when I was in Vanguard and the world did not crumble. Where such withdrawal became impossible, they simply followed up with the publication of errata.

    To correct any erroneous publication in a newspaper is not a big deal. The writer can easily effect such correction through the same medium by publishing erratum/errata any other day. It is only emotional readers that would want to make a mountain out of a mole hill in such error by treating it as if the world is coming to an end. Most of our brothers are known for such exaggerated reaction.

     

    The original draft

    In the original draft of that article, I discovered that in the process of my final proofreading, while crossing the T(s) and dotting the I(s), I inadvertently removed three words which included ‘BURQAH’, ‘RATHER’ and ‘THAN’.  And that changed the entire concept and intention of the whole article. Unfortunately, this   happened in the most sensitive part of that article. Here was the missing link:

    “Banning Burqah rather than Hijab is not the same as banning Islam”. What appeared in the published edition was: “Banning hijab is not the same as banning Islam”. Anybody who is literate enough can clearly see the missing link which was not deliberate. That I did not notice the error until I got a hard copy of The Nation , shortly before Salatul Jum’at last Friday, was also not strange. A writer can read his own script many times without discovering a mistake in it. If the error in this column last Friday was perceived as a sin, therefore, it must have been committed against Allah. And if there is need to apologise and seek forgiveness, it must be from Allah the ultimate Forgiver of sins. Therefore, those who were calling for apology in their reactions were only arrogantly playing God.

     

    ‘The Message’ Column

    From its inception in The Nation newspaper 10 years ago when it was renamed ‘The Message’, this column has been designed to be a participatory one in which its readers are entitled to reactions which deserve publication. But where such reactions lack decorum and are full of unprintable insults rather than meaningful corrections the columnist reserves the right not to publish. That happens to be the fate of many reactions to last week’s article.

     

    Reflection

    That after 33 years of writing an Islamic column in various newspapers and magazines locally, nationally and internationally, Femi Abbas is now being castigated as a failure and an ‘Islamic outcast’ did not come as a surprise. Even the heretical verdict of excommunication passed by some self-appointed judges was not surprising. It only further confirms the level of those who portend to be propagators of the worthy Message called Islam.

    I, however, take solace in the words of Cat Stevens, a British musician who adopted the name Yusuf Islam after embracing the rightly guided religion (Islam) in 1978. He said: “I thank God that I knew Islam before I knew Muslims”.

    In the same vein, I also thank Allah that I knew Islam by information, education and knowledge before I started interacting with Nigerian Muslims at various strata of life.

     

    Memory Lane

    That I became a journalist and a columnist 33 years ago was not just by fortuity a hard decision that amounted to a great sacrifice. As a fresh graduate in my national service year in 1982/83, I had already secured three jobs before the late Bashorun MKO Abiola personally approached and passionately appealed to me to stay in Concord. One of the secured jobs was in Mobil Oil Company which came because of my Arabic language background. Another was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which was due to the grade I obtained in my first degree as well as my proficiency in Arabic language. And the third was in the Lagos State Ministry of Education because of my previous years of teaching experience before I travelled abroad in pursuit of a University degree.

    I resolved to accept Abiola’s offer not because it fetched better opportunities or higher income than the other jobs but because of two fundamental reasons that I kept to myself until now. One of those reasons was my covenant with Allah during my madrasa days. As a very young boy then, without the privilege of a formal secondary school education, I was determined to acquire the so-called Western education because I knew it would become a necessary tool for me in future. I then prayed fervently to Allah to make my life a little staff upon which   many Muslims could rest with confidence in future.

     

    The pledge

    Thus, In the process of pursuing that ambition, I decided to make a pledge to Allah that if He could assist me to succeed in my yearning for Western education I would use it to serve Him throughout my life. The other reason was that if a personality like MKO Abiola, despite his enormous wealth, could endeavor to still want to serve Allah by opening an Islamic column in a national newspaper at a time when such was not fashionable, who was I not to join his spiritual train to convey multitudes of Nigerian Muslims to the cape of Good Hope?

    Ever since, the column debut in 1983, it has remained a mouthpiece for Nigerian Muslims especially in turbulent moments, such as the hullabaloo over Nigeria’s admission into the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC); the King Faisal International Award won by the late Sheikh Abubakar Gumi; the dangerous  Maitatsine crises; the volatile Zango Kataf religious duel; the Islam in Africa saga tagged by non-Muslims as Islamisation Project and the recent declaration of Hijrah Holiday in Osun State.

     

    Comment

    Throughout those turbulent years that I stood firmly as a front line soldier for Islam and Nigerian Muslims in the media, there was never a time when Muslim readers reacted to the contents of my column as they did on this occasion.

    At least, I have consistently championed the media campaign for the wearing of hijab and the declaration of Hijrah holiday in Nigeria since 1984 and throughout my professional odyssey, I never received a ‘brown envelope’ (often attributed to Nigerian journalists), from anybody. I challenge anybody who disagrees with this assertion to come out with facts or conceal such facts and face the wrath of Allah.

    Now, with a single major error in over three decades of service in the trenches of an undeclared religious war, my Muslim brothers are coming up with a verdict of crucifixion without trial. What an irony of life? It is a case of throwing away the baby with the bathwater, a situation that is aimed at turning Femi Abbas into a dormant lion to be taught by some proverbial dogs and puppies how to prey on victims in a familiar games forest.                                              I accept my fate of being called names including “an arrogant columnist, “an ignorant nonentity”, “a rusting gold” and “a sell out and betrayer of trust”. Who am I to reject such fate? After all, even Prophet Muhammad, the greatest man that ever lived was called names.

    The lesson in this situation is well learnt. Genuine friends are like stars. You may not see them always but when the need to see them arises, they resurface to say “we are always there for you”. God bless such friends.

     

    NOTE:

    1 Some publishable rejoinders came yesterday (Thursday) after this article had been sent in for publication. I had to inform the office to add this note.

    1. Reactions will be published next Friday in sha’Allah.
  • 50 years later

    50 years later

    I dedicate the column today to a great couple, Chief and Chief (Mrs.) Adebisi Akande, who are celebrating their birthdays this week. I was their guest on Tuesday and had a wonderful time. They are worthy role models and exemplars of patriotic zeal that we desperately need to move beyond pedestrian thinking to greater heights for the nation. Happy Birthday! Igba odun, odun kan. Ase.

    No thanks to her controversial, impatient and rebellious young Turks, Nigeria tasted the forbidden fruit as a kindergartener among nations for the first time 50 years ago today. And like the accursed of the Garden of Eden, it has never been the same for her.

    For a colony, independence is the political kingdom. On October 1, 1960, Nigeria had a promising future ahead. She was moving from the golden to the platinum era of existence. The signs were good on the economic and social sides. There were optimistic signs of the black gold. Not hoodwinked by that prospect, she prioritised the right mix of developmental goals and planned for the right results.

    Politics, on the other hand, was a different kettle of fish. And it turned out to be the undoing of a nation on the move.

    There is no shortage of theories on the cause of the fall of the First Republic. For the vast majority of theorists, it was not a question of structure; rather, ethnic politics was the foremost culprit. For advocates of a unitary system, the republic was structurally-doomed because of its adoption of a genuine federal system which afforded the regions ample opportunities for grassroots development and cultural democracy. For others yet, both of the above downplayed the powerful machinations of the enemy outside her borders. It was neocolonialism triumphant!

    It seems clear, of course, that none of the theories can credibly explain the politics of the First Republic without referencing the sandy foundation upon which it was built due to the lousy credentials of its architectural experts. Unfortunately, only a wobbly edifice emerges from a sandy foundation.

    The majors and captains who conspired and planned the first military coup in the history of Nigeria were most likely convinced of the rightness of their cause and the nobility of their plan. They thought that they were doing the country a huge favour. They were disturbed about the violence of its politics and the baseness of its leadership cadre.  They believed that they were the conscience of the nation. Believing that there was a moral burden on their heads, they struck.

    Rightly or wrongly, it was clear that they took sides in the political conflict that afflicted the republic at the time. From the various official and unofficial reports on the coup, certain facts emerged. First, some of the young officers involved in the coup resented the acrimonious character of the politics of the times and thought that they were on a conscientious rescue mission.

    Second, there were the more regionally-inclined officers who, in addition, resented the dominance of the North and its political party in the affairs of the nation. Needless to suggest, there is no way to parse this than understand it as another expression of sympathy for the South and against the North.

    Third, there were those moved by the specific cases of political corruption and electoral malpractices in 1964 and 1965 and the controversial federal census of 1964. For this group, the Western Regional election of October 1965 was the final straw. It didn’t help matters that there was a rumour making the rounds about an impending forceful crackdown on the West sequel to the violent protests against the election results.

    Fourth, from the list of officers and other ranks involved in the planning and execution of the coup and the list of its military and civilian casualties, many found it difficult to believe that it wasn’t ethnically-motivated. Without justifying the ensuing developments, including the crisis in the North and the July counter coup that followed, one must have to infer that the belief of an ethnic motivation of the January coup must have been a considerable factor in these subsequent developments.

    Now, to what end was the first bite of the forbidden fruit? What did it accomplish or fail to accomplish? What lessons were learnt and how have we fared as a result?

    We would never know what the plotters were up to and how prepared they were to change the republic for better because they failed in the mission to secure power. That, in itself, may be a damning verdict on the quality of their planning ability. They killed and maimed for nothing and they never had access to political power, having been outfoxed by the Generals.

    On their part, the Generals thought that they had a prescription for whatever ailed the nation. It was, in their judgment, too much independence for the regions; therefore, they needed to be reined in to promote not just unity but uniformity. For 13 years, this therapy was administered with unparalleled passion in various degrees by three administrations. Needless to add, it failed woefully, the most visible evidence being the scars of Biafra and its reincarnation in IPOB.

    Typically, apologists of military rule justify it on two grounds, one of which is backward-looking, while the other is forward-looking. For the former, the argument is analogical to the retributive justification for punishment. Bloody civilians misbehaved politically; they deserve to be taught a lesson. Without politicians messing up, the military won’t dare interfere with the democratic system. So the argument goes.

    The forward-looking argument is corrective and developmental. The presupposition or presumption is that the Army has the discipline to push the development agenda of a new state and put in corrective measures for the politicians to build upon. Therefore, intervention is not so much of a punishment, but more of a developmental effort to help the new nation advance its interests beyond the bickering typical of civilians.

    To be fair to the second argument, a disciplined military has an edge over civilians in the promotion of development. But our experience as a nation has been the opposite. As it turned out, we did not have a disciplined military. Indeed, it was the lack of discipline that motivated the first military coup in the first place and its failure was just a good evidence of this observation.

    More importantly, however, no sooner than the military took over, the nation was plunged into a senseless war that cost us dearly in human lives and material resources and further divided us beyond repair till today, 50 years later. There were a few indices of development in bridges and refineries and higher institutions. But what one clean military hand gave to promote development, the other corrupt military hand took back. Indeed, to the extent that corruption was the foremost legacy of the military in power in this country, one can justifiably proclaim that its intervention was to a negative end.

    Now to the first argument, just as retributive punishment is problematic because it offers no good justification, so the idea that military intervention is justified as a punishment for civilians’ misbehaviour in power is without merit. Were it to have merit, it must yield a better political system and good political behaviour on the part of civilians. But we know that civilians have not been given the chance to learn the rope.

    The first military intervention was just five years plus four months into the First Republic. It wasn’t enough time for politicians to mature. That intervention lasted 13 years. Then the military struck again just after four years of the Second Republic. Thereafter it was serial coups and counter coups. How are civilians supposed to learn the art of democratic governance?

    The only good that may be claimed to have come out of the national experience of January 15, 1966 is that 32 years after they first tasted the forbidden fruit, the military finally realised that it is too poisonous for its system and too acidic to be of any lasting benefit to the political system. That realisation is the beginning of military wisdom.

  • Hijab: Muslims against Muslims

    Hijab: Muslims against Muslims

    Preamble

    Controversy is a Nigerian. It occupies a delicate but vintage position in the hearts of most citizens and revolves incessantly around trivial matters often to the detriment of serious and meaningful issues. In no other country of the world does controversy thrive as much as it does in Nigeria. Nigerians take pride in the vainglory offishing out controversy even where it serves no purpose. When public controversy in Nigeria is not about politics, it may be about tribe or religion or gender. If this country is most qualified for any adorable medal it is in the realm of controversy.

    Through such controversies certain peculiar vocabulary such as tribalism, nepotism, marginalisation, ‘islamisation’and annulment often surface.

     

    The current controversy

    Currently, another controversy is raging in the country.It is about an allegedly proposed ban on the Muslim women attire called Hijab.

    Incidentally, this controversy is between the Nigerian Muslim community and the Federal Government on the one hand and within the Muslim community on the other. Some Muslims are alleging that the Federal Government is planning to ban the wearing of hijab by Muslim women and are therefore calling on President Muhammadu Buhari not to dare it as such action may entail serious implications.

    Ironically, some other Muslims believe that the gross abuse to which hijab is subjected(especially by Boko Haram vandals) as well as the embarrassment which such abuse constitutes to Islam has long warranted the ban on hijab.

    In the melee, a fierce controversy has ensued between both sides.Thus,some Muslim groups and individuals have taken to the internet to sensitise the Nigerian Muslim Ummah on the need to counter the alleged proposal with a view to preempting the Federal Government from turning such allegation into a reality.

     

    Proposal to ban Hijab

    What most Nigerians, especially Muslim agitators, do not seem to know is that the proposal to ban hijab did not emanate from the Federal Government of Nigeria. Rather,it came out of a security meeting held by the Presidents of West African countries otherwise called ECOWAS. And the reason for resorting to such a proposal is the well-known rampant and continuous mass killing of innocent people with bomb blasts by some devilish elements who callously use such dress to conceal the bombs.

    The proposal came up subsequent to the experience in countries such as Niger Republic, Chad and Cameroon where the spate of mass murder by bomb blasts concealed in Islamic dress in those countries went down tremendously, following the ban on certain types of hijab.

    This experience came to confirm that the abuse of those female Muslim garments by some devilish elements in the society who are bent on decimating Islam by all means. It is the main cause of mass killing adopted by Boko Haram devils.

    However, despite the ban on those types of hijab, Muslim women in those countries still cover their heads as well as their bodies but not in the types of robe that can aid concealment of bombs. Besides, the three governors of the frontline states in the Boko Haram war (Adamawa, Bornu and Yobe) have also proposed the banning of the dress for the purpose of peace.

     

    What is Hijab?

    Linguistically, the Arabic word hijab means rein which is a kind of strap with which a domestic animal, such as horse, is cautioned against dangerous surge or unbridled aggression.

    Derivatively, hijab is a kind of scarf adopted in Islam for Muslim women to cover their heads as well as to protect the sensitive parts of their bodies against immoral or sensual exposure. This is to prevent any possible harassment or abuse to which immoral dressing easily subjects women in the society.

    By Islamic prescription, hijab is mostly meant for women who have attained the age of puberty. But younger women may wear it as a rehearsal in preparation for their attainment of puberty.

     

    Types of Hijab

    Although the general name by which this attire is known is hijab, there are other names according to the types designed draped and worn by various Muslim women in various countries and Muslim societies of the world. There are several types of this attire. For instance, in most Arab countries, it is either called Abayah (loose and flowing outer garment that covers the entire body from head to feet excluding the face) or Al-Amirah (which consists of a close fitting cap, usually made from cotton or polyester in form of an accompanying tube-like scarf) or Burqah (a complete cloak-like garment that covers the entire body including the head and the face) or Khimar (which is almost same as Burqah except for its exclusion of Niqab).

    Niqab is the special substance meant to cover the nose of a Burqah wearing woman. In short, the name depends on the pattern of sewing and the community in which it is worn.

    Meanwhile, the type of attire which the Boko Haram heretic group forces some women to conceal bomb in and which most Nigerians generally call hijab is either Burqah or Khimar or Abayah. These are the types banned in Niger, Chad and Cameroon which are also being proposed for banning in the entire West African region.

     

    Why do Muslim Women wear Hijab?

    Hijab is a dress of decency divinely prescribed for Muslim women to preserve their chastity and to ward off any indecent attraction that may cause public harassment for them or subject them to sexual abuse.See Quran 33 verse 59 which states thus in respect of hijab:

    “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the wives of Muslim believers to clad themselves in their outer garments;that is more dignifying for them to be identified with so that they will not be harassed; Allah is most forgiving, Merciful”.

     

    Genesis of Hijab

    Long before the advent of Islam, hijab had been in use by women of various religions, including Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Christians and Buddhists though it was called different names.

    Head cover (hijab) was globally regarded as a spiritual dress of dignity as women who wore it were accorded high level of respect. Today, as in the days of yore, each community has a name for it in consonance with its religion and language. For instance, it is called Chardon in Iran just as it is called Dupatta in Pakistan and Mukena or Selendang in Indonesia. In Malaysia, it is called Tudung or Kerudung. But Islam came to statutorily adopt it in the early 7th century as a peculiar identity for Muslim women in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, including Arabia.

    Hijab is not necessarily a combination of long garment plus scarf as designed in the mentioned countries. And Islam did not limit it to any particular design or colour. Other dignifying dresses like the type of “up and down” (Buba and Iro) type of attire worn decently by Nigerian Muslim women in the Northern and South Western parts of the country which do not expose their bodies in any way is equally qualified to be called hijab.

    It is rather unfortunate that some satanic forces have now turned the protective dress generally called hijab into an instrument of death by violence. But this is not quite strange since virtually every beneficial substance anywhere in the world today is satanically abused.

     

    History of Hijab

    Hijab reached the Arabian Peninsula from India via Persia (now Iran) several centuries before the advent of Islam. It was originally meant for the upper class people, such as princesses and wives of monarchs. But it later became a dress for all willing women when it was adopted by Islam not as a dress of class but as a respectable dress of chastity. Islam is not a religion of class. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was divinely mandated to preach the religion of peace to all and sundry. Thus, hijab as an adopted dress for Muslim women could not have been discriminatory as it used to be before the advent of Islam.

    Despite its adoption as an Islamic dress, the type of hijab designed and worn in some Muslim countries is not necessarily mandatory on all Muslim women. What is mandatory is decent dressing that keeps chastity and maintains fidelity. Every nation has its language and culture. Islam does not reject a particular language or culture except it contradicts any of its fundamental tenets. That is why Muslim women who wear either Burqah or Khimar are in the minority worldwide. A woman who does not wear Burqah or Khimar cannot be declared persona-non grata in Islam. As far as dressing in Islam is concerned, decency is the general norm.

     

    Implications of Banning Hijab

    Hijab, like any other decent dress is a matter of human right which no government can unilaterally ban. But if anything in Islam constitutes danger to human lives and constitutes threat to peace in a society, such a thing could be banned or suspended for the purpose of peace. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) showed a good example of this when he sacrificed a whole pillar of Islam (Hajj) for the purpose of peace in 628 CE. Six years after he was forced to migrate from Makkah to Madinah in 622 CE, he decided to go on pilgrimage in Makkah following inspiration to perform Hajj that year.

     

    The Prophet’s Example

    Thus, accompanied by 1400 Muslim men and women who were fully dressed in Hajj regalia, the Prophet set out on pilgrimage in March 628 CE. The congregation had taken along with them all their needs including the rams they would slaughter. He had thought that the Meccans would respect the sacredness of the month and honour pilgrimage as customary in Makkah. But that assumption did not work.

    On getting information about the Prophet’s trip to Makkah for pilgrimage, the Meccans quickly assembled and sent a delegation to meet the him and his entourage on their way to Makkah to tell them that they would not be allowed to enter the city.

    Most of the Prophet’s companions were infuriated by that message from the Meccans and urged the Prophet to promptly declare a war. But the Prophet turned down such a request and rather asked the Meccans to come up for a treaty that would facilitate peace. Thus, each side set up a peace committee and they jointly resolved to put the treaty into writing.

    In the process of writing the treaty, the Meccans objected to any reference to the name of Muhammad (SAW) as a‘Prophetof Allah’. The Prophet’s Companions countered the objection and insisted on preceding Muhammad’s name with the word Prophet. But again, the Prophet calmed down his companions and agreed to the demand of the Meccans.

     

    The Clauses of the Treaty

    The contents of the treaty signed by the leaders were as follows:

    1. Both parties would cease hostilities for a period of ten years.
    2. The parties would not interfere with the free movement of one another.
    3. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah upon him) would return that year, but the Muslims would be permitted to enter Makkah the following year.
    4. Any Muslim man coming from the Quraysh to join the Muslims would be sent back, but any man going from the Muslims to Quraysh would not be sent back.
    5. Any tribes other than the Quraysh that wished to enter an alliance with Muhammad (Peace and blessings of Allah upon him) were free to do so, and any that wished to enter an alliance with the Quraysh were free to do so.

    By the contents of that treaty, the Muslims were prevented from performing that year’s Hajj which was to be the Prophet’s first Hajj. That showed the value of peace in Islam.But eventually, the treaty turned out to be a victory for Islam as it became an unprecedented catalyst for the propagation the religion.

     

    Conclusion

    If Prophet Muhammad (SAW) could go so far to ventilate the atmosphere for peace why can’t the Muslims of today follow suit?

    I am a Muslim who believes strongly in the use of Hijab by Muslim women. But considering the thousands of lives so far lost in Nigeria through the abuse of Islamic dress by some devilish elements one would think that Nigerian Muslims should show understanding and co-operate with the authorities on any reasonable measure that will stem the spate of killings without disrupting their mode of worship. Banning hijab is not the same as banning the practice of Islam. Life is sacred. And to worship, one needs to be alive. God bless Nigeria.

  • The pitfalls of self-determination struggles

    The pitfalls of self-determination struggles

    E jo laa ko; a kii ko ija” is, for the Yoruba, one of the fundamental principles of a good fight. Simply put, for a successful fight, the trick is not just to be a good fighter, but rather it is important to be adept in the art of stating one’s case effectively. If you are a lousy combatant but an eloquent narrator of events, you are likely to have the sympathy of the judge and jury. On the other hand, even when you are a good fighter but your recounting of the issues is defective, the risk of your losing the case is pretty high.

    All oppressed people have good cases in the court of world political opinion. But not all oppressed people have made a good impression on the world. Many factors are responsible for this, not least of which is that the world itself is a veritable centre of great injustice that has not always been moved by the plea of the oppressed for justice. But even when oppression is so morally outrageous that many are moved to help, the misfortune of the oppressed is that they play into the hands of the oppressor with the manner of their approach to the fight and with their poor narratives of the issues.

    The principle of self-determination was Clause 3 of the Atlantic Charter adopted at a meeting between the British Prime Minister and the United States President and issued by them in August 1941. It was the agreement that got the United States involved in the war of the greatest generation. The principle of self-determination may have been strategically invoked to assure subordinated groups that they too had something important, namely their freedom, to gain at the end of the war and with victory over the adversaries. But originally it wasn’t meant to apply to African colonies. Who were Africans, after all?

    Africans adopted the principle anyway, and vigorously and effectively deployed it to expose the inconsistency and duplicity of the allied powers. The 1945 Pan African Conference made it its focus and dispersed the conferees with the instruction to fight for their self-determination. It worked.

    The self-determination battles of the 1940s to 1960s could have finished the job by insisting on new boundaries for the new states. For pragmatic reasons, they did not because they didn’t want a delay in the granting of independence to their states by the European powers. The self whose determination was the object of the struggle turned out to be the colonial-imposed boundaries and independence from colonial rule was the goal.

    Within a decade of the achievement of the goal in respect of each of those “mere geographical” entities, it became obvious that it was a wrong self that the struggle succeeded in determining and it was clear even to the vision-impaired that the various nationalities which made up the multinational states that the colonisers left behind had been unfairly treated. This was especially the case with the cultural minorities.

    It was clear then that the goal achieved cannot serve the purpose of good governance and self-government. John Stuart Mill is right on target: “Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of the representative government, cannot exist.” In many cases, including ours, it is a truism.

    Yet, two factors have since made it almost impossible to reverse the action. First, the Organisation of African Unity insisted on the principle of non-interference with colonial-imposed boundaries even in cases where those impositions were clearly ridiculous and outrageous.

    Second, the new indigenous powers as beneficiaries of the hand-over from imperialists also saw themselves as keepers of a sacred trust which they were not willing to betray. Of course, the imperialists only retreated to the corner, effectively controlling events of their former colonies from the sideline. Therefore, the new leaders swore to keep their various countries united at all cost. In addition, there was the human fear of the unknown creeping to the subconscious of national leaders, preventing them from taking the bold steps their countries needed.

    Granted that the most extreme of those steps, namely complete separation and/or full-scale boundary redrawing may be traumatic and sometimes counter-productive. But there are less radical approaches, such as true federal or confederal arrangements.

    For the trauma of complete separation and full-scale boundary redrawing, we do not need to go beyond our national borders and reflect on the new struggle for the Republic of Biafra. Assume that it is a genuine struggle based on the fundamental principle of self-determination. Assume also that there is a hundred per cent support for the cause among all Igbo of the Southeast. The snag is this: what about the Igbo in the Northwest, Northeast, Northcentral and Southwest, not to talk of Southsouth? Do they return to the new Biafra? Do they stay put wherever they are and become aliens requiring visas and work permits? What about those in the civil service of other states and the federal? Or in the university system?

    Of course, these issues would have to be part of the details that a more comprehensive approach may need to work out if there is a consensus on a complete separation. But barring such a consensus, there is bound to be severe tension across the land even as we are now witnessing.

    A consensus is not out of the question, but it has eluded us for a long time especially since Aburi. Every now and then, a political crisis rocks the nation and one zone or region feels the pinch, cries foul and demands an out. But somehow the crisis is resolved and with it goes the demand. It happened in 1966, 1967, 1993, and now it appears that the cycle is being restarted by agitators for a new Biafra. What sparked this new agitation is anybody’s guess! Is it marginalisation or electoral shellacking?

    A genuine fight for self-determination doesn’t need to be supported by any defensive justification other than that self-determination is the birth-right of human beings and groups. And where a group was unfairly imposed upon by an external entity, leading to its involuntary incorporation into a larger entity with others, it must retain its right to pull out at any time, provided that all the parties impacted reach a mutually agreeable consensus on the terms of separation.

    A consensus is not impossible. And despite OAU and AU it has happened in Africa. It can happen again. But it cannot be unilaterally achieved by one nationality especially when that nationality has its tentacles spread throughout the nation space.

    A more rewarding approach is genuine negotiation that includes all nationalities. This was the object of the Congress of Nigerian Nationalities (CONN) which the late super patriot, Chief Anthony Enahoro, initiated and struggled to achieve in exile and later upon his return to the country. His demise left a vacuum in the struggle for reform and cultural democracy.

    Hopefully there is a Joshua in the land who will take the people to their desired destination. Let dialogue and negotiations begin in earnest. We know that there are nationalities that are not afraid to go it alone and are capable of standing on their own without encroaching on the space of others.

  • Leaping and limping into 2016

    The New Year just sneaked on us like a thief in the night. It was only yesterday that we prepared so hard for the February 2015 elections, only to be dealt a severe blow by the almighty NSA. He needed all security agencies to focus on the militants and none can be spared for the conduct of “bloody civilian” elections. Therefore the elections had to be postponed.

    Now we know that the NSA only needed more time to fashion out an equitable distribution formula for sharing among PDP chieftains the funds meant to procure weapons for the war against insurgents. It was all meant buy victory for the party at the polls. With no viable options, INEC succumbed. We would have no idea but for the determination of PMB to restart his war against corruption from where he was stopped midstream in 1985.

    2015 was a year of drama on the political front. It was a year that democracy was stressed and stretched thin but it survived. It was the year that the electorate found their voice and got their mojo. Having been subjected to political intrigues for a long time, and having been treated like doormat in political mansions, the electorate had their sweet revenge in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Fifteen. Never again will any politician take them for granted.

    Politicians now know that they have to perform just because voters now know that they have the constitutional right to hire and fire. The landmark elections of 2015 pointed us in the direction of a new reality, which any politician misunderstands only at his or her political peril.

    In 2015, the power of strategic thinking on the part of progressives paid off in electoral victory at the centre. There have been progressives across the country since the beginning of the republic. And given the various progressive ideas championed across the states, it has always been clear that they are in the majority. They have just not been able to harness their collective power to gain entry to the centre of national politics. Now that has changed, thanks to the political wizardry of a few who downplayed and sacrificed their personal ambitions.

    However, it was also in 2015 that the doctrine of party supremacy, once defended vigorously and passionately by the acknowledged premier political sage of the last century slumped and succumbed to internal intrigue.It was all about 2019, we were told as if there can be a 2019 victory for the ruling party if it cannot discipline its folks in 2015. Pray, how do you get to 2019 successfully without a robust unity of purpose from 2015?

    One of the enduring features of the last presidential election was the enthusiasm and the rallying cry for change on the part of the youth and old alike. The message was unmistakable. They wanted change, not just of personnel but more importantly of direction. It was clear to them that the party that had been in power for 16 years had lost steam and direction and cannot be counted upon to redeem the country from the abyss into which it was heading.

    The youth in particular embraced the message of change in the political structure of the country. They were sympathetic to the promise of true federalism as proclaimed by the APC. Now that they used their votes to hire the party that they felt could do the job, the onus is on the party to deliver on its promise.

    It is not going to be easy especially with the first signs of chaos that marked the NASS elections. However, it will be the undoing of the party if it fails to put its house in order or neglects to work effectively for the restructuring of the country along the lines of true federalism.

    It is very clear that our people can no longer be taken for granted. They have seen the political light and they are not unaware of the power of their votes. If any ruling party dares them, they will patiently wait for their chance to retaliate. The “common sense” in common sense revolution is the wisdom to do the right thing and that is to restructure the country now.

    2016 comes with its challenges, the most serious of which is the economic. Ours has been a mono economy since the 1970s when we got carried away by the wealth from the black gold. Even when we had the opportunity to diversity, we did not seize it and now we are on the verge of an economic meltdown. Our budget benchmark for our most important export earner was $38 per barrel. But the most recent forecast points to the possibility of a $30 or even $20 demand price.

    We are in a state of desperation, as states are unable to pay their workers’ salaries. Most of them are unable to generate any significant amount of internal revenue, and have had to depend on subventions from the Federal Government. That we need to embark on a rigorous and thoughtful diversification of the economy now is a foregone conclusion. The President saw it clearly as stated in his inaugural address and at every opportunity he had since then, including his recent budget address.

    One area that has always been our strength and for which we do not have many competitors is agriculture. The President is wise to have identified it and mining as priority areas for government and private investment. We cannot overstate the need for this new policy direction. With dwindling foreign exchange, we cannot afford to remain as net importers of food when we have agricultural land in every part of the federation. It is hoped that he will lead the effort to pursue this policy initiative and the investment it requires to succeed.

    One such investment clearly is the development of infrastructure that is indispensable to a successful agricultural revolution. For both commercial and subsistence farmers across the country, there is the foremost challenge of evacuating their produce from the farm to the consumers. This means that road development must be a priority.

    Oke-Ogun area of Oyo State used to be the food basket of the Southwest until oil wealth took centre stage in governmental thought and action. Roads developed since 1962 literally disappeared. Okeho-Iseyin road is a federal road that has suffered this fate. It has been contracted out for repair multiple times by the previous administrations. Each time, the ruling party gave the contract to its hirelings with nothing to show. Meanwhile, farmers suffer losses because they are not able to move their produce to the market in timely fashion.

    Water irrigation has been another important variable in viable agricultural revolution. In the Second Republic, one of the initiatives in this direction was the Ikerre Gorge Dam in Iseyin. It was almost completed, but the Federal Government abandoned it. We were told that the dam was capable of supplying potable water as well as irrigation water for the whole of Oke-Ogun. However, it remains only a dream, as reptiles inhabit the Ikerre Gorge Dam now. What kind of government invests in laudable projects such as this only to abandon it?

    Finally, there is the challenge of politics. The battle cry for the resuscitation of the dream for a new Biafra is loud and clear. We must not think that the youth with clenched fist and raised voices are mad. There are two levels of reality that motivate their action and we must attend to both.

    First, if you believe that ethnicity and cultural nationalism are at best fictitious representations and at worst opium of the people, you may characterise what is going on as the consequence of unemployment and the hopelessness it engenders. If so, it is still necessary to treat that disease.

    Second, however, if you believe that there is something real about people wanting cultural democracy and recognition, it may well be that the Biafra agitation is a call for true federal democracy. We should attend to it before other “Biafras” join in.

    Happy New Year!

  • All the way: Serving with conscience (4)

    All the way: Serving with conscience (4)

    The public presentation of my memoir has come and gone. I thank everyone that contributed to the success of the programme. I am especially grateful to all the leaders and members of the progressive group of activists and politicians who graced the occasion with their presence. They included Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu (Chairman), Chief Pius Akinyelure (Chief Presenter), Kunle Ajibade (Book Reviewer), Senator Abiola Ajimobi of Oyo State, Chief Adebisi Akande, Aremo Segun Osoba, Otunba Niyi Adebayo, General Ipoola Akinrinade, Dr. Amos Akingba, Senator Olorunnimbe Mamora, Honourable Olawale Oshun and Afenifere Renewal Group members, Femi Falana (SAN) and others too numerous to mention.

    My colleagues in Egbe Isokan Yoruba, Washington, DC and Egbe Omo Yoruba: Professor Ropo Sekoni, Dr. Olu McGuinnis Otubusin and Engineer Kunle Badmus were there just as my former colleagues from Obafemi Awolowo University surprised me with a large contingent.

    The keepers of Yoruba tradition were generous with their time: Kabiyesi Oba Rilwan Osuolale Akiolu, the Oba of Lagos, Kabiyesi Oba Alani Oyede, the Olota of Ota and Kabiyesi Oba Rafiu Osuolale Mustapha, Onjo of Okeho. The Chief Imam of Okeho and the Pastor of First Baptist Church, Okeho were also there.

    Debola Williams of Red Media and his team introduced a novel idea with a panel discussion that focused on the subject of the book. I applaud the brilliance of the panelists.

    In this final excerpt from the book, I discuss the next phase.

    “My good aburo, Sola Yussuf had a signature sign-off greeting as she concluded her reading of the news on Radio O.Y.O. in those days of yore: “A na gbara, a na gboro, a tona koko a si dona jijin.” Simply put, I have gone far and near, literally and figuratively, and now it is time to round off.

    As I mentioned in the preface (to the book), this is not an ordinary autobiography in which I present a summary of my life so far. I have done that and more. I have presented some of the fundamental issues that predated my birth but which have somehow persisted and contributed in no small measure to who I am and has provided the motivation for my actions. I have interrogated old ideas and I have introduced some new ones. I have shown how a purposive leadership can change the conditions of existence of a people in both professional and social life. I am confident that I have accomplished what I set out to do in (the book) and I feel fulfilled.

    Figuratively, I have opened a window into my life from childhood to adulthood for the world to have a glimpse. I am certain the reader has some idea now about what I have been through and how providence has helped me in many ways in the battle against all odds. From professional to social and political engagements, I have seen the glory of the Lord “all the way.” I am sure that I can do more, but there is always some other time or some other person. In this regard, then, I can say with confidence that I am satisfied as I retire from active professional life.

    I have never been a politician, only a politically conscious animal engaged in the normal routine of contributing to the evolution and progress of my motherland in the tradition of my ancestors. This is not something that one retires from. But one can slow down and allow others, especially the young ones, to make their contributions. It is for good reason that the elders suggest that the baby elephant does not announce its presence at the same time that the mother does. What this means is that the mother elephant must know the appropriate time to retreat to allow the baby to take over.

    Finally, then, I have travelled far and near in the journey of life. All the way, my saviour has led me. There is nothing I can ask beside. I cannot doubt his tender mercies. Through life, He has been my guide. Heavenly peace, divinest comfort, here by faith, in him I dwell. I know that whatever befalls me, He knows best. He is always right and can never be wrong. In fact, He has done everything right.

    Yet there is more to do and there is a new phase that I must now explore. Professionally, I am fulfilled. But I cannot afford to rest because of the proverbial blood-stain on the finger-nails created by the occurrence of lice on our national, regional and local clothing. As long as these destructive lice endure, and the stained fingers remain the evidence of their endurance, neither I nor any human being with a conscience can rest.

    I hope therefore to continue to intervene at various levels. First, since 2007, The Nation has been an effective avenue for me to add my voice to those of well-meaning individuals. I intend to continue to use it as a forum for intelligent discourse on matters of national and regional significance. In the relaxed climate of retirement from active professional life and from social and political activism, I hope to continue contributing to the interrogation of issues that confront us locally, regionally and nationally.

    Nationally, we still do not have a true federal structure that is capable of unleashing the creative energy of the teeming masses of our people. The realisation that without such a structure we cannot expect an effective resolution of the issues that confront us is the beginning of political wisdom.

    While writing and analysis are important for the clarification of issues and proposal of new ideas, there is more to do at the level of practice. For instance, at all levels, we are inadvertently managing to entrench a dangerous system of inequality with our educational system in which the public education of our children is fast becoming a relic of the past, while we enlist the services of private institutions and agencies and we seem to relish the idea. From pre-school to college, private institutions have become the vogue. The impact of this shift on citizens could be serious, with the poor and middle class being more adversely impacted than the wealthy. We cannot allow this to continue and I intend to do my part towards the cause of promoting public education.

    On this score, I am fortunate to have compatriots at all levels—local, regional and national with whom I can collaborate on meaningful projects. However, I intend to start this at my local base in Okeho where there are committed individuals who have ideas and are determined to make a difference. Okeho Strategic Development and Economic Foundation (OSTRADEF) was established by fellow compatriots whose sole objective was to give back to the community. When Moyo Ajekigbe contacted me about the initiative and invited me to be a part of the group, I was honoured and I did not hesitate to join. I see it as a continuation, in a new century, of the labours of our heroes past in Okeho, some of whom have featured in (the book). Many of them have passed on but the contributions they made to the development of human talents cannot be forgotten. I will support the cause for which they laboured and sacrificed.

    I benefitted from the sacrifice of the generation before me, including my parents. I have also tried my best in giving back in various ways. Fortunately, my own children, as the next generation, have, without prompting, reflected on their own experience, and have collectively decided that my entire family should be involved in giving back some more. Though they are just starting their own families with the responsibility for the education of their children staring at them, they have come up with a Foundation to support the educational and health needs of our people, starting with Okeho and Eruwa. This initiative, The Segun and Adetoun Gbadegesin Family Foundation (SAGFF), will take up most of the time and energy of my wife and me in the foreseeable future. But I am thrilled at the prospect of doing something to make a difference.

     

    And so, to Okeho I return!

     

    Merry Christmas!

  • An orphan’s legacy

    Preamble

    This is a season which some Muslims celebrate as a festival. They call it Eidul Mawlid (meaning festival of birth). Their intention is to celebrate the birth of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). This, in Islam, does not anyway enhance the great Prophet’s achievements. If anything, it trivialises such achievements.

    No man in history is as great as Prophet Muhammad (SAW). He is, no doubt, the indisputable greatest man who ever lived. His legacy is the solid foundation upon which the contemporary civilisation is built. But despite the vivid visibility of that legacy it remains invisible to many eyes that are alien to the light of Islam. Thus, the Prophet’s legacy is like the beaming sun which no blind person can see and no seeing eyes can perceive in its natural nakedness. Yet, both the blind and the seeing feel the burning effect of the sun ‘willy nilly’ even as it photosynthesises the plants around them.

    This article is not meant to celebrate the birth of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) for which last Thursday was declared a public holiday in Nigeria.

    As far as ‘The Message’ is concerned, what is to be celebrated about this great Prophet is by far beyond his birthday. His achievements clearly transcend his birth. Thus, there is no need wasting time on celebrating his birthday.

     

    The Prophet’s biography

    From the creation of Adam, the first human being, till date, no man’s biography has been so much written and read as that of Muhammad (SAW) the son of Abdullah and Aminah. This man’s biography has been written from all perspectives, positive and negative, by various men and women of diverse races, tribes, ideologies and religions in the past 1437 years or there about. And the biography is still being written and re-written authoritatively and un-authoritatively, today, in uncountable languages.

    Through the writings of this Prophet’s biography, some people have zoomed into un-dreamt fame. Others have sunk into the abyss of permanent oblivion. But virtually all the writers have benefitted from their writings directly or indirectly in coins and in kind. No other Prophet’s biography has attracted as many writers from believers and non-believers, from friends and foes alike as that of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

    Every aspect of this Prophet’s life including the dresses he wore, the food he ate, the way he spoke, the wives he married, the children he bore, and the wars he fought, has formed the basis of his biography. In short, next to the Qur’an, no book is as much read daily in the world today as the biography of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in one form or another.

    Question

    But there is a vital question: why is the global focus so much on this unlettered Prophet from Arabia? The answer to this question is not far-fetched. The world has not produced any other personality like him and it will not. He is the seal of all Prophets and the epitome of human exemplariness. In him alone are found all the traits of what a perfect gentleman should be in all ramifications.

    If Prophet Muhammad had not been an orphan, he would not have been able to guide humanity on how orphans should be treated, especially with regards to inheritance. If he had not been a husband, his marital life would not have been an excellent example for others to emulate and women’s rights would have been permanently ignored. If he had not been a widower the world would not have realised the plight of widows and learnt how to provide for them. If he had not been a father, the proper care for children by parents would have been relegated to the background in Islamic doctrine. If he had not been trustworthy, the value of trust would have been totally lost on mankind.

    His migration from Makkah to Madinah paved way for the culture of hospitality universally imbibed today and the wars he was forced to fight engendered the law of war, armistice and peace. Without his conquests in some wars, the word magnanimity would not have found a place in the dictionary of man and if he had not suffered defeat in war, the vanquished would not have learnt the act of gallantry. If the Prophet had not been a judge, the virtue of justice would have been globally thrown to the winds and survival in all societies would have been for the fittest.

    If he had not been a democratic ruler, the relationship between the ruled and their rulers, all over the world, today, would not have been dissimilar from that of slaves and their masters and dictatorship in governance would have known no bounds. If Prophet had not been poor despite being a Head of State, the policy of social welfare adopted in civilised societies today in favour of the poor, would not have been possible. If he had not been an illiterate, the world would not have known the difference between literacy and education. And, if, despite all these qualities in him, he had not been humble and affable, arrogance would have been the main character of all privileged people in the world today.

    His qualities

    Who else can be compared to this man called Muhammad (SAW) in history? And, in which anyone else could all the aforementioned qualities have been found in history? There can be little wonder then why so much focus was and is still being beamed on the personality of this extra-ordinary human being. That is Prophet Muhammad (SAW) for you, the like of whom the world has never seen and will never see again. If this man is celebrated anytime, anywhere, in the world, it is definitely not because he was born. His achievements transcend his birth and to concentrate on the celebration of his birth is to trivialise his achievements.

    But for him, the world would have remained in the dungeon of ignorance and primitivism, while humanity would have remained at the level of crude beasts. It was he who brought back the manual of life to mankind after it had been lost in the search for sheer vanity. Manual of life is the divine instruction which came gradually from Allah to mankind according to the growth rate of human intellect. But such manual is not peculiar to man alone. All other organisms have their own instructions from Allah which in a way constitute their own manuals of life.

    The path and the pathfinder

    However, due to the intellectual superiority of man, the various divine instructions to other organisms were incorporated into man’s own manual of life. This is to enable man understand the complexity of his environment vis a vis the essence of his own existence and thereby act effectively as Allah’s vicegerent on earth. Although because of the differences in times and methods, Allah’s message is perceived differently, the fact remains that the message is only one coming from only one and the same God. This message is the ‘RIGHT PATH’ to salvation which came to mankind after several millennia of wandering in the wilderness of ignorance and vainglory. And the man, Muhammad (SAW), through whom that Message reached us is the ‘PATHFINDER’. Thus, the quality of the message is vividly manifest in the personality of the Messenger. There are many attestations to this.

    Attestations

    For instance, after many years of scientific experiments, a German-born American physicist of Jewish ancesary and Nobel Laureate, Albert Einstein, the inventor of atomic bomb who is generally known as the 20th century creator of special and general theory of relativity, compared his works with the contents of the Qur’an and concluded as follows: “Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind”. He then called on fellow scientists to endeavour to read the Qur’an without bias in order to know the true origin of science in human life.

    And as if responding to Einstein’s call, Professor Tagatat Tajasen, Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University in Thailand accepted Islam on the strength of just one scientific sign accurately mentioned in the Qur’an. He had spent a great amount of his time, as a professor, in search of pain receptor. When his attention was drawn to the Qur’an, he did not believe initially that such a highly sophisticated aspect of science could have been mentioned over 1,400 years ago. But when he confirmed it by himself in the translation of the Qur’an, he became so much impressed that he purposely attended the 8th Saudi Medical Conference held in Riyadh where he publicly embraced Islam.

    Further attestations

    Another leading scientist, Professor Marshall Johnson, the Head of the Department of Anatomy, a Director of Daniel Institute at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, USA, was asked to comment on the verses of the Qur’an dealing with embryology. In response, he said it was probable that for Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to have given such vivid description of foetus, he must have had a powerful microscope. But when he was reminded that the Qur’an was revealed over 1400 years ago and that the invention of microscope took place only a couple of centuries ago, Professor Johnson laughed and made the following remark: “I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved when Muhammad recited the Qur’an….”.

    Yet another Embryologist, Professor Keith Moore of the Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada, after carefully examining the translation of the Qur’anic verses presented to him admitted thus: “most of the information concerning embryology mentioned in the Qur’an is in perfect conformity with modern discoveries in the field of embryology and does not conflict with them in any way”.

    Professor Moore had no prior knowledge of anything leech-like about embryo until he read chapter 96 of the Qur’an where Allah says “Read! In the name of your Lord who created. He created man out of a leech-like clot…” He then went to verify this fact in an embryo under a powerful microscope and compared his observation with a diagram of a leech. He was astonished at the resemblance of the two. That prompted him to go fully into studying the Qur’an and Hadith to acquire more knowledge until he was able to answer about 80 hitherto unanswered questions in that field.

    His discoveries thus, influenced the correction of the contents of his book ‘The Developing Human’ which he published earlier and re-published in 1982. It was with that revised edition that he became the recipient of an award for the best medical book written by a single author in the 20th century. That book has been translated into many major languages of the world and is mostly used as textbook of embryology today in the first year of medical studies in various Universities in the world.

    Sciences and signs

    Yet, despite talking about all sciences, the Qur’an is not a book of Sciences but that of ‘Signs’. Those ‘Signs’ invite man to realise the purpose of his existence on earth and live in harmony with nature.

    Judging the above verses of the Qur’an revealed over 1400 years ago with the wonderful reality of scientific civilisation of today, what further proof does anybody need of the genuineness of the Qur’an? And who else can give better guidance than the Supreme Creator Himself? And who else can be better called the ‘PATHFINDER’ than Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who showed humanity the way to that all time guidance?

    Perhaps, this was why Michael Hart, a Jewish American Astrophysicist, named Prophet Muhammad the greatest man that ever lived in his famous book entitled ‘The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History’.

    Further testimonies

    If all the descriptions given above about Prophet Muhammad (SAW) sound exaggerated because they are given by Femi Abbas, a Muslim and an ardent follower of that Prophet, and if Michael Hart is seen as crazy in his judgment, let us read the views and impressions of some other non-Muslims about this great Prophet. One of them (Alphonse de Lamartine of France) had the following to say in his book ‘Histoire de la Torque’:

    “Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been interposed between man and his Creator; to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing.

    Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself, and no other, except a handful of men living in a corner of a desert…. If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled before their very eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls. On the basis of a book, every letter of which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blended together peoples of every tongue and of every race…..As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man in human history greater than Muhammad?”

    On his own, Napoleon Bonaparte, the great 18th century French conqueror of Europe was so much amazed by the traits of Islam which he saw in Egypt during his military expeditions that he made the following historic statement about that divine religion and its great Prophet:

    “Muhammad, in reality, was a great leader of mankind. He preached UNITY among Arabs who were, till then, torn asunder due to internecine quarrels, sometimes resulting in bloody war fares. He brought them out of the obscure world in a short time and the discipline which they maintained under his leadership was simply marvelous, and so was their bravery, courage and devotion to the cause which they loved and cherished. This, coupled with the contempt for death, as taught by their leader, made them great soldiers and fighters like of whom history rarely produces. I simply marvel at the achievements of this great ‘Son of the Desert’ within a mere period of less than 15 years; a thing which Moses and Christ could not do in 15 centuries. I salute this great man; I salute his qualities of Head and Heart….”

    George Bernard Shaw

    And, in corroboration of the above statements, variously made by renowned men of letters and intellect, another foremost Orientalist, playwright and dramatist, George Bernard Shaw, had the following to say about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in his book ‘The genuine Islam’ (vol. 1 No 8 of 1936):

    “The Christians and their missionaries have presented a horrible picture of Islam. Not only that, they also carried out an organized and planned propaganda against the personality of Prophet Mohammad and the religion he preached. I have carefully studied Islam and the life of its Prophet. I have done so both as a student of history and as a critic. And I have come to the conclusion that Mohammad was indeed a great man and a deliverer and benefactor of mankind which was till then writhing under a most agonizing pain. I have always held Islam in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing face of existence which can make it appealing to every age. I have studied him-the wonderful man and in my opinion, far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the saviour of humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.

    I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today”.

    For confirmation of Bernard Shaw’s remark quoted above, see ‘The Genuine Islam, vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.

    Conclusion

    These are just some of the facts that make an unlettered orphan like Prophet, Muhammad (SAW), the greatest man that ever lived on earth. None of the attestations above made any reference to his birth or birthday because they knew that his birth had no contribution to his achievements. If non-Muslims could go as far as shown above to benefit from the greatness of Prophet Muhammad’s mission on earth what is expected of Muslims for whom that mission is primarily meant should not be mere celebration of his birthday.