By Ibrahim A. Waziri
To most non-Muslims researching and writing about Boko Haram, the problem generally begins with Muslims and Islam in Northern Nigeria and, to some degree, across the globe.
To them, BokoHaram is synonymous with the issues of ontology and epistemology of Islam. That is why their narrative of it can encircle Shehu Dan Fodio, Late Sheikh Mahmud Gumi or even Ahmadu Bello Sardauna, the Premiere of Northern Region, during Nigeria’s first republic. They also do find its bits of ideological nuggets in the earliest of the Islamic literature!
But to most Muslims or their sympathisers, Boko Haram is a persistent story of fringe, rebellious elements among the larger Muslim population across history. These elements are primarily rigid and resistant to any contemporary interpretation of the Islamic canons, which goes with the present circumstances and gives maximum peace, harmony and cooperation among Muslims; and between them and non-Muslims.
The non-Muslim researchers generally point to Islam as the source of the problem. The Muslims point at Khawarijism (rebellion) against any Muslim broad social consensus (like Nigeria as it is presently constituted), at a particular point, as the problem.
The non-Muslims argue that the problem is profoundly historical. So they travel back the archives and exhume positions, at one time, of individuals, such as Sheikh Daurawa, Sheikh Gumi, Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi, Sheikh Auwal Albani, Sheikh Jaafar Mahmud, etc., to drive home their points.
While the Muslims are inclined to reject such a notion, arguing that social consensus is a transitional thing by nature, and Muslims embody the concept of Transition Personalities most. [Transition person as a concept is sufficiently delineated by Stephen Covey, in his, The Seven Habit of Effective People].
That, it is embedded in Muslims traditions and part of their essential social jurisprudence, that what is a norm today may not necessarily be the norm tomorrow. And that, the internal problem of the Muslim communities are those fringe elements who do not reflect the power of transition and acknowledge the value of consensus building, with new variables that new situations always present.
The very recent article by a certain David Hundeyin making waves through social media, Cornflakes for Jihad, also reflects the usual sentiments identified with many non-Muslims types of research about BokoHaram.
Apart from the basic factual errors it contains – which Abdulbasit Kassim diligently pointed out – it also concluded with logic barren childish conspiratorial arguments that send us millennia backwards in our struggle searching for the appropriate problem definition, analysis and solution recommendations on the issues of BokoHaram.
Contrary to the essay’s claims against Ahmed Idris Nasiruddeen (NASCO), Nasiruddeen has lived a life of a pious Muslim who was using his wealth to help Muslim friends, associates and organisations.
Of course, as any other friend or associate one might have helped, they too are naturally transitioning personalities (not necessary in the positive sense) living in a transitional world. One can help a person or an organisation, for a specific general reason or objective, only later in life for them to shift their objectives, metamorphosing into something different.
The fact that the NASCO conglomerate was once allegedly accused of financing terrorism (by whoever) does not mean it intentionally did that. Likewise, Sheikh Yakubu Musa was once allegedly accused of funding terrorism (by whoever) does not mean he is guilty.
Until we begin to look at the ontology and epistemology of issues around BokoHaram in this kind of light, our analysis about it will always leave undesired dangerous results born of misdiagnosis. We may begin to indict people like Alhaji Aliko Dangote and Abdussamad Isiyak Rabiu (BUA) because we are likely to find that the Imams, Mosques or organisations now or in the future they have once helped are enmeshed in terror wave of related accusations. Then we will begin to write warped essays like Cement or Sugar for Jihad.
Writing informed public commentaries or being a sound public intellectual is beyond the ability to flawlessly and flowerily write essays, making endless references to a large swathe of literature and records. No. It requires multidisciplinary insights, a great deal of patriotism, a deep sense of intuitive social measurement, appreciation of people and cultures from both etic and emic perspectives, history, and sound ability in social system projections.
Indeed, one cannot have a Nigeria of great value today or in future if they have a large heart sufficient enough to accommodate Ahmadu Bello, Sheikh Gumi, President Buhari, BokoHaram founder, Muhammad Yusuf and Abubakar Shekau, lumping them as the same people, who worked or are working, to turn Nigeria into an absolutely imaginary Islamic state.
Ibrahim A. Waziri writes from Zaria, Kaduna.
“Until we begin to look at the ontology and epistemology of issues around BokoHaram in this kind of light, our analysis about it will always leave undesired dangerous results born of misdiagnosis. We may begin to indict people like Alhaji Aliko Dangote and Abdussamad Isiyak Rabiu (BUA) because we are likely to find that the Imams, Mosques or organisations now or in the future they have once helped are enmeshed in terror wave of related accusations. Then we will begin to write warped essays like Cement or Sugar for Jihad.” – Ibrahim A. Waziri
For me, that sums it all. Thank you.