Religion

By Maryam Ahmad

In his Christmas address, Pope Leo appealed for an immediate end to violence and renewed efforts toward peace in the Gaza Strip. Speaking to worshippers during the traditional Christmas message, he expressed deep concern over the humanitarian suffering caused by the ongoing conflict.

The Pope called on world leaders and all parties involved to choose dialogue over confrontation, stressing the need to protect civilians, especially children and other vulnerable groups. He urged the international community to work tirelessly for a just and lasting peace in the Gaza Strip and across the broader Middle East.

He also lamented reports of continued killings of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, noting that violence has persisted despite announcements of a ceasefire. The Pope described the situation as deeply troubling.

He called on Israel and all parties to respect international humanitarian law, honour ceasefire commitments, and take concrete steps to end the suffering of civilians caught in the conflict.

Concluding his message, Pope Leo emphasised that the spirit of Christmas is rooted in compassion, reconciliation, and hope, values he said must guide global responses to conflict and human suffering.

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

A political controversy erupted on Tuesday after Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar was seen pulling down a woman doctor’s hijab during a public event, triggering sharp reactions from opposition parties and civil society groups.

The incident, captured on video and widely circulated on social media, occurred at an official function where the chief minister was interacting with health workers. In the footage, Kumar appears to reach out and adjust the doctor’s headscarf, an action many have described as inappropriate and disrespectful.

Opposition leaders condemned the act, questioning the chief minister’s judgment and mental state, and demanding a public apology. “This is not only an insult to a professional woman but also an affront to personal dignity and religious freedom,” a senior opposition spokesperson said.

The ruling Janata Dal (United) has sought to downplay the incident, with party members suggesting there was no malicious intent. However, the controversy has continued to spark debate nationwide about consent, gender sensitivity, and respect for religious symbols in public life.

As of press time, the chief minister had not issued a formal statement addressing the incident.

By Muhammad Abubakar

The Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC) has condemned what it describes as the “sectarian and deeply troubling” conduct of a recent United States congressional delegation to Nigeria.

In a statement issued by its Executive Chairman, Disu Kamor, MPAC faulted the visit of Congressman Riley Moore, who publicly emphasised meetings with Christian and traditional leaders during the trip, including bishops in Benue State and a Tiv traditional ruler. Moore, a vocal proponent of the claim of a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria, said on his X account that he came “in the name of the Lord” and held discussions on alleged Fulani-led attacks.

MPAC argued that the delegation’s failure to engage the leadership of the Nigerian Muslim community—particularly the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA)—was a deliberate snub rather than a scheduling issue. It accused the U.S. team of avoiding Muslim victims and communities affected by violence and warned that such selective engagement risked reinforcing “extreme voices and anti-Muslim narratives” within U.S. policy circles.

The organisation said the pattern of “selective listening, selective engagement, and selective outrage” threatens Nigeria’s delicate interfaith balance. It called on international partners, especially the United States, to demonstrate neutrality and ensure that foreign policy on Nigeria is not shaped by religious lobbies or sectarian biases.

MPAC reaffirmed its commitment to justice and peaceful coexistence, urging Nigerians to question why key Muslim institutions and victims were excluded from the delegation’s itinerary.

Dr Ebenezer Obadare, a Senior Fellow for Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), recently testified before a joint briefing of the United States Congress on the security crisis in Nigeria. Given CFR’s extraordinary influence on U.S. foreign policy, as its analysts brief the Congress, the State Department, and the White House, the accuracy and balance of Dr Obadare’s testimony matter significantly.

At the briefing, U.S. lawmakers and witnesses made one demand that every responsible Nigerian, Muslim or Christian, would be happy with: that Nigeria must disarm armed militias and prosecute attackers. The renewed commitment we are now seeing from the Nigerian government, including airstrikes against armed militias, the planned police and military recruitment, and the declaration of a national security emergency are all a response to the mounting U.S. pressure. On this point, American engagement has been productive.

However, Dr Obadare went far beyond the reasonable. After acknowledging the recent steps taken by President Tinubu, he nevertheless insisted that “Washington must keep up the pressure.” To him, U.S. leverage should not only be used to combat Boko Haram but to pressure the Nigerian president to abolish Sharia criminal law in twelve northern states and disband Hisbah commissions across the northern region. This framing is problematic on several counts.

First, it portrays Nigeria not as a sovereign state but as a dependent client whose legal and cultural system must be restructured via external coercion. This is not only intellectually careless; it is politically reckless. Nigeria’s constitutional debates, including the place of Sharia within a federal arrangement, cannot be resolved through directives from Washington. These are matters rooted in decades of negotiation, legal precedent, historical realities, and democratic choice. Such complexity cannot be wished away by foreign pressure or reduced to simplistic talking points about religious persecution. Sharia was introduced between 1999 and 2001 through public consultation and mass popular demand by the local citizens in northern Nigeria, who are Muslims. Subsequently, it was formalised and enacted into law by the various State Houses of Assembly.

Second, Obadare’s argument misdiagnoses the root causes of violence in the north. Boko Haram and ISWAP do not derive their ideology from the Sharia systems implemented by northern states since 1999. In fact, Boko Haram explicitly rejects these systems as insufficient, impure, and corrupted by democracy. They consider northern governors apostates precisely because they operate within a secular constitution. The group’s origins lie in violent extremism, socio-economic marginalisation, and the 2009 extrajudicial killing of the group’s founder, Mohammed Yusuf. It has nothing to do with the Sharia framework implemented by the twelve northern states. In fact, Boko Haram rejects and condemns these state Sharia systems as illegitimate, and this is why the majority of their victims are Muslims themselves. 

It is therefore analytically false to imply that Sharia criminal law fuels this insurgency. This narrative does not withstand even a basic historical timeline. The Maitatsine insurgency of the 1970s, whose ideology and violence closely resemble Boko Haram, predated the introduction of Sharia in the early 2000s by decades. To frame Sharia as the catalyst of terrorism is therefore a misreading of history and to locate causality where it does not exist.

Third, the call to disband Hisbah groups ignores their actual function and constitution. Hisbah institutions are state-established moral enforcement agencies regulated by local laws. They are not terrorist actors, militias, or insurgent organisations. They are contrary to Dr Obadare’s claims that they “impose extremist ideology, enforce forced conversions, and operate with near-total impunity.” These assertions either misrepresent the facts to unfairly tarnish their reputation or reflect intellectual laziness that risks misleading American policymakers. In doing so, they also demonise millions of peaceful Nigerian Muslims who regard Sharia as a legitimate component of their cultural and moral identity.

Finally, Dr Obadare’s testimony, intentionally or not, reinforces a narrative in Washington that sees Nigeria’s crisis primarily through the lens of religious conflict rather than the multi-dimensional reality it is, that is, a mixture of terrorism, banditry, state failure, local grievances, arms proliferation, and climate-driven resource conflicts in the form of farmer-herder crisis. Oversimplification of this serious problem does not aid victims. It distorts U.S. policy and encourages punitive measures that could destabilise fragile communities further and restrict the fundamental rights of millions of Muslims to exercise their faith and adhere to the guidance of Shari’a in their personal and communal lives. 

Nigeria faces serious security challenges amid years of leadership neglect. We genuinely need pressure to put the leaders on their toes, but not the kind rooted in calculated distortion. There is a need for leadership accountability, but not at the expense of Nigeria’s sovereignty. And we need a partnership with the United States in the areas of intelligence gathering, military capabilities and a mutually beneficial partnership. 

The United States should not base its engagement on flawed analyses made by experts such as Dr Ebenezer Obadare, which risk misrepresenting Nigeria’s realities, undermining local institutions, and prescribing solutions that could exacerbate rather than resolve the country’s complex security challenges. Partnering with the Nigerian government enables a tailor-made approach to effectively address these challenges, rather than relying on experts who have long been out of touch with Nigerian realities beyond what they read in media reports.

The Nigerian state must do more, no doubt. But analysts like Dr Obadare must also do better. Nigeria deserves policy analysis grounded in accuracy, proportionality, and respect for the complexities of a plural society; not sweeping prescriptions that collapse constitutional debate into counterterrorism and treat millions of northern Muslims as collateral in the process.

Ibrahiym A. El-Caleel writes from Nigeria and can be reached at caleel2009@gmail.com.

By Mallam Shamsuddeen Suleiman Kibiya

In the long and complex story of Islam in Nigeria, the tension between Salafi reformists and Sufi traditionalists has never been merely a clash of doctrines. It is, more often than we care to admit, a clash of tempers—of the tone one uses, the suspicion one bears, and the verdict one passes on those who practice religion a bit differently. What should have remained a quiet intellectual disagreement has, over time, metamorphosed into an extremism that thrives not on knowledge but on rhetoric.

When Dr Idris Abdulaziz Dutsen Tanshi passed on, the reaction from certain Salafi circles betrayed this peculiar tendency. His admirers saw his death as the painful exit of a righteous man who had lived his life fighting against innovation in religion and straightening the Umma along the path of Tawhid. On the other side, some Sufi-leaning critics responded not with mercy but with long-stored resentment—reminding the public of his “harshness,” his “excessive criticisms,” and his uncompromising, even combative sermons. The atmosphere felt less like the departure of a scholar and more like the settling of old, bitter scores.

And when Shaikh Dahiru Bauchi passed a few days ago, the pattern repeated itself, but this time in reverse. Sufi adherents elevated him beyond scholarship—into sainthood, into miracle, into myth. The outpouring was understandable, but in some corners it crossed into something else: a triumphalism that painted all those who disagreed with his spiritual path as misguided, cold, or spiritually weak. Some Salafi commentators, instead of exercising solemnity, used the moment to revisit old doctrinal disputes—reminding audiences of “bid’ah,” “ghuluw,” and “un-Islamic practices.” Even in death, the walls between both camps seemed eager to echo old hostilities.

What is common to both episodes is that the extremists on either side were saying the same thing without even realising it: that Allah’s mercy is exclusive to their camp; that the Ummah is too big to be shared, but too small to contain disagreement. And this, in its essence, is the extremism of our time—not the extremism of bombs and guns, but the extremism of the tongue.

The Salafi hardliner tends to imagine himself as the last defender of pristine Islam, wielding a vocabulary of denunciation: shirk, bid’ah, dalala, and ghaflah ad infinitum. Every disagreement becomes a deviation, every deviation a threat, and every Sufi becomes a suspect. Meanwhile, the Sufi extremist believes himself to be the custodian of spiritual truth, seeing the Salafi as spiritually blind, stone-hearted literalist, deprived of the inner sweetness of faith and to stretch it even further, an enemy of the beloved prophet SAW himself. Each side constructs a convenient caricature of the other —and then fights that caricature as if it were real.

The danger, however, is that rhetorical extremism does not remain rhetorical over the long run. It shapes communities. It hardens hearts. It turns mosques into enclaves, scholars into partisans and differences into hostilities. What begins as doctrinal rigidity becomes social fragmentation. And what should have been an Ummah becomes a map of feuding camps.

Yet, there is something instructive about how both Dr Idris Abdulaziz and Shaikh Dahiru Bauchi were remembered by their true students—not those who fight for them online, but those who actually sat with them. I mean, their real students, across divides, spoke about their scholarship, humility, discipline, and service. They remembered their knowledge—not their polemics. They recalled their character—not their controversies. This is a reminder that the extremists on both sides, loud as they are, do not represent the whole story.

Nigeria’s Muslim community must now decide what it wishes to inherit from its scholars: the softness of their manners or the sharpness of their debates; their mercy or their anger; their wisdom or their polemics.

To insist that disagreement must lead to division is itself an extremist position. To insist that every scholar must resemble one’s preferred tradition is another. And to pretend that Islam is too fragile to survive multiple approaches is perhaps the greatest of all.

In the end, the Ummah does not collapse because its members disagree. It collapses when disagreement becomes hatred, and hatred finds a pulpit.

May Nigeria’s Muslims learn to argue with knowledge, to differ with dignity, and to remember that Allah, in His infinite mercy, did not create only one path to Him—and certainly not only one temperament.

By Abdullahi Adam Usman

I recently read an exposé on the life of the late Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau, published by HumAngle.

The report, titled “The Making and Unmaking of Abubakar Shekau,” attributed the rise of Boko Haram partly to what it described as the influence of the teachings of the medieval Sunni scholar and jurist, Ibn Taymiyyah. HumAngle wrote that his ideas influenced Islamic reform movements such as Salafism and Wahhabism, and suggested that his thoughts on governance and rebellion helped shape extremist ideology in Maiduguri.

While HumAngle is widely respected for its investigative reporting, this conclusion is deeply problematic and requires more nuance. Whether due to insufficient historical context or oversimplified interpretation, such a claim risks misleading readers by forcefully linking terrorism with Wahhabism and, by extension, Ibn Taymiyyah (a narrative that has long been promoted in sectarian discourse).

During his lifetime, Ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned multiple times by different rulers. However, none of these imprisonments were due to armed rebellion or terrorism; rather, they resulted from theological and intellectual disputes. In fact, several of his critics even described him as a scholar who emphasized obedience to authority to preserve social order. Portraying him centuries later as a direct ideological architect of terrorism therefore presents a historical contradiction.

It is true that some extremist groups have selectively misused or misinterpreted Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings to support their actions. However, this does not make his teachings their true foundation. In reality, many of Boko Haram’s earliest and most prominent victims were Salafi scholars who openly opposed the group.

One such figure was Sheikh Ja’afar Mahmud Adam, a respected Salafi cleric who was assassinated in 2007 while leading the Subh prayer in Kano. He had openly criticized Boko Haram during its formative years. Similarly, in 2014, Sheikh Albani Zaria, another Salafi scholar, was killed by Boko Haram while returning from a lecture. If Boko Haram truly shared the same ideological roots as Salafi scholars inspired by Ibn Taymiyyah, these assassinations would not have occurred.

Furthermore, in mourning the late Bauchi-based Salafi scholar Dr Idriss Abdulaziz Dutsen Tanshi, the Nigerian President described him as someone who played a significant role in countering violent extremism during the early stages of the Boko Haram crisis. This official recognition underscores the clear distinction between Salafi scholarship and terrorist ideology.

Journalism demands more than merely repeating how a group defines itself. As the saying goes: “If one person says it’s raining and another says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both; your job is to look outside and find out which is true.” Responsible reporting requires context, depth, and historical accuracy.

We acknowledge HumAngle’s important contributions to terrorism reporting and public awareness. However, greater care is needed when making sensitive historical and religious attributions that could further inflame misunderstanding and division.

Abdullahi Adam Usman is a student of International Studies at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. He can be reached via abdallahnangere@gmail.com.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

President Bola Tinubu has expressed profound sadness over the death of the revered Islamic leader, Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi, who passed away on Thursday at the age of 101.

In a statement released on Thursday, the President described the late leader of the Tijjaniyya Muslim Brotherhood as a “moral compass” who dedicated his life to teaching and preaching.

President Tinubu stated that Sheikh Bauchi’s loss is monumental not only to his family and followers but also to the entire nation. He recalled the blessings and moral support he received from the cleric during the 2023 presidential election campaign.

“Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi was a teacher, a father and a voice of moderation and reason. As both a preacher and a notable exegete of the Holy Quran, he was an advocate of peace and piety. His death has created a huge void,” the President was quoted as saying.

The President extended his condolences to the Sheikh’s multitude of followers across Nigeria and beyond, urging them to immortalise the late cleric by holding on to his teachings of peaceful coexistence, strengthening their relationship with God, and being kind to humanity.

By Habu Abdu Aminu

Professor Umar Sani Fagge is widely recognised as a leading figure in Islamic scholarship and Arabic studies in Nigeria. His name commands respect not only in academic circles but also among millions of Muslims who follow his lectures, sermons, and community teachings. His life’s journey from the traditional Qur’anic school in the Fagge community to the rank of Professor at Bayero University Kano (BUK) represents an inspiring narrative of humility, perseverance, and the pursuit of divine and worldly knowledge.

Born into a devout, intellectually rich family in the Fagge area of Kano State, Professor Fagge’s educational journey began under his mother’s loving care. Coming from a lineage of knowledgeable parents and grandparents, he was nurtured in an environment where Islamic learning, moral discipline, and respect for knowledge were fundamental values.

His earliest education took place in the Makarantar Allo (traditional Qur’anic school), where he learned to recite the Qur’an. He later advanced to an Islamiyyah school, which broadened his understanding of Arabic grammar, hadith (Prophetic traditions), and fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). These formative experiences instilled in him a passion for knowledge and an unshakable spiritual foundation.

Subsequently, he transitioned into the modern educational system, completing his primary and secondary education in Kano State. Motivated by a desire to deepen his understanding of Islamic and Arabic studies, he proceeded to Bayero University, Kano, where he obtained a Diploma, a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), a Master of Arts (M.A.), and ultimately a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Arabic. This remarkable academic progression not only reflects his intellectual capacity but also his lifelong dedication to scholarship.

Professor Fagge’s professional career began at the Kano State Ministry of Education, where he served as a classroom teacher. His outstanding teaching skills and commitment to educational excellence soon drew attention from the academic community. In 1991, he joined Bayero University Kano as a Graduate Assistant in the Department of Arabic, marking the start of an illustrious academic journey.

Over the following three decades, Professor Fagge steadily rose through the ranks, from Assistant Lecturer, Lecturer II, Lecturer I, Senior Lecturer, and Associate Professor, culminating in his promotion to full Professor in 2023. His promotion was celebrated across the academic and religious landscape as recognition of his scholarly distinction, exemplary service, and mentorship of younger scholars.

Throughout his tenure at BUK, he has taught a wide range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Arabic language, literature, and Islamic jurisprudence. He has supervised numerous research projects and postgraduate theses, shaping a generation of students and educators who continue to uphold his academic legacy.

Professor Umar Sani Fagge’s influence extends far beyond the university walls. As an Islamic jurist (faqih) and public preacher (da’i), he has become a household name in Northern Nigeria and beyond. He actively participates in Makarantar Soro, Islamiyyah schools, and community-based Qur’anic centers, where he teaches and delivers sermons to diverse audiences.

His da’wah activities reflect a holistic understanding of Islam, addressing both ‘ibadat (acts of worship) and mu’amalat (social and economic interactions). Through his public lectures, radio and television programs, and digital platforms, he promotes moral reform, justice, and socio-economic development in line with Islamic principles. Thousands of people attend his lectures, and his teachings are widely shared on media outlets, where he reaches audiences across Nigeria, Niger, and other parts of West Africa.

Among Professor Fagge’s many contributions to Islamic thought, his interpretation of Zakat al-fitr stands out as a practical and socio-economically relevant concept. In his lectures, he emphasises that Zakat al-fitr, a mandatory form of almsgiving at the end of Ramadan, is a crucial instrument of infaq (voluntary or obligatory charity) that directly addresses food insecurity in Muslim societies.

According to him, Zakat al-fitr is not a mere ritual; it is a divinely ordained social safety net aimed at eradicating hunger among the poor during festive periods. When administered correctly, it ensures that every Muslim, regardless of social or economic status, partakes in the joy and blessings of Eid. He argues that if properly institutionalised, Zakat al-fitr can enhance the living standards of the poor and promote socio-economic balance within the ummah.

Professor Fagge further observes that the real purpose of its implementation goes beyond the spiritual cleansing of the fasting individual. It also reflects the economic justice promoted by Islam, where wealth flows and benefits all parts of society. In his opinion, the proper management of Zakat al-fitr by reputable charitable organisations could significantly reduce hunger, poverty, and inequality within Muslim communities.

Moreover, Professor Fagge’s intellectual reach is amplified through his numerous public lectures, Qur’anic tafsir sessions, and radio commentaries. He is known for simplifying complex religious concepts and applying them to contemporary social issues such as governance, family relations, business ethics, and community welfare. His style is calm, evidence-based, and deeply rooted in classical sources, making his teachings both authentic and accessible.

He has also published academic papers and presented at conferences on Arabic linguistics, Islamic jurisprudence, and ethics. His insights continue to influence scholars, students, and policymakers who seek to align Islamic principles with modern governance and development strategies.

Over the decades, Professor Umar Sani Fagge has mentored countless students, many of whom have become lecturers, jurists, judges, lawyers, politicians, administrators, businessmen, and community leaders. His balanced approach to Islamic jurisprudence, combining intellectual rigour with moral empathy, has earned him a reputation as a reformer who promotes unity, moderation, and social responsibility.

His enduring legacy lies not only in the degrees he earned and the lectures he delivered, but also in the transformative impact he has had on his community. Through his tireless service, he embodies the Qur’anic principle that “those who are given knowledge and act upon it are truly among the most honoured of people.”

Professor Umar Sani Fagge’s journey from the traditional Qur’anic school of Fagge to the professorial chair at Bayero University Kano is a story of resilience, dedication, and divine blessing. His life underscores the timeless value of education as both a spiritual and social enterprise. Through his scholarship and da’wah, he has contributed immensely to moral reform, academic growth, and socio-economic enlightenment in Nigeria.

In an age where many scholars are confined to either the mosque or the classroom, Professor Fagge stands as a rare bridge between both worlds. His teachings on zakat al-fitr and food security reaffirm Islam’s commitment to justice, compassion, and collective welfare. Indeed, his legacy will continue to inspire generations to come—an enduring reminder that knowledge, when guided by faith, is the greatest form of service to humanity.

Habu Abdu is a researcher and social analyst from the Department of Banking and Finance at Kano State Polytechnic, Nigeria. He can be contacted at +2348086252563.

By Engr. Abubakar Sulaiman

The Amnesty International Nigeria and some Northern Intellectuals were asleep or in a state of limbo when the Kano state government invited Mallam Lawan Shuaibu Triumph to appear before the Shura Committee and defend what some segments of Muslims considered blasphemous or disrespectful. He appeared, defended his statements, and heaven did not fall. He also made it clear that he was open to further discussion or debate.

Waking up from slumber, Amnesty International found its voice only when the ‘anointed’ Yahaya Masussuka (whom some people laughably expect to bring about a ‘revolution’ in mainstream Islam and its preachings) was invited by the Katsina state government to appear before a committee regarding his preachments. That was when they realised someone was about to be stripped of their freedom. The olive branch that wasn’t extended to Mallam Lawal Shuaibu Triumph.

Is it double standards or hypocrisy from the organisation and the so-called intellectuals? It is both. And it is a clever-by-half and calculated attempt to arm-twist a government procedure. But this is a discussion for another day.

That said, I believe state governments should find a way to disengage from organising religious debates. They should enact laws that regulate religious preaching and require JNI or CAN (or any other faith-based body) to license preachers. Whoever has a disagreement or believes a cleric’s preachment is an affront to overriding public interest should approach the court. Based on the enacted laws, the court should determine what constitutes extremism or actions inimical to social stability and thereby de-license a cleric or even sentence them to time in correctional facilities where appropriate.

I think debates on religious ideologies should be organised by faith-based organisations, or anyone who has an axe to grind with another person on religious issues should extend an invitation to a debate. Two Salafi scholars, Shaykh Isa Ali Pantami and the late Shaykh Idris Abdulaziz, extended such an invitation to the Boko Haram leader, the late Muhammad Yusuf, without any state government spearheading or supervising the engagement. Many people later renounced the Boko Haram ideology after listening to that debate. Additionally, Mallam Al-Qasim Hotoro also approached Mallam AbdulJabbar Nasiru Kabara for a debate, though AbdulJabbar used a ‘tactical manoeuvre’ to decline the engagement. The populace will then be the judge of who can present convincing evidence for their beliefs or ideology from such debates.

State governments risk falling into a quagmire if they continue to entertain complaints and organise religious debates without referring them to government-recognised faith-based organisations or a court of competent jurisdiction. It is difficult to digest, given the fear of censorship from our kind of governments, but regulation is key to taming religious hiccups and extreme tendencies while enhancing social integration.

Abubakar writes from Kaduna and can be reached via abusuleiman06@gmail.com.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

A new wave of public debate has followed the Katsina State Government’s invitation to Yahaya Masussuka to defend his religious preachings before a committee of scholars, with some analysts accusing Amnesty International and northern intellectuals of inconsistency in their reactions to similar cases.

The development comes after the state government released a statement on November 18 acknowledging that it had received complaints alleging that Masussuka’s teachings “contravenes the general principles of Islamic Law.” Authorities also noted that Masussuka himself had reported threats from members of Jama’atu Izalatil Bid’a.

According to the statement, the government escalated the concerns to the Katsina Emirate Council, where the Emir invited Masussuka and other clerics for discussions and cautioned all parties against preaching that could offend other Muslims. Despite that intervention, the government said tensions persisted. It explained that Governor Dikko Umaru Radda subsequently directed Masussuka to appear before a Committee of Ulamas to defend himself, after which standards for preaching would be set and violations addressed.

While the state urged the public to remain calm, the invitation triggered sharp reactions from Amnesty International and some activists who insist Masussuka’s rights must be protected.

Commentators Challenge Amnesty’s Position

Public commentator Abubakar Suleiman questioned why similar advocacy was absent when Kano authorities invited another cleric, Lawan Shuaibu Triumph, to defend statements some groups considered blasphemous. He said:

“The Amnesty International Nigeria and some Northern Intellectuals were asleep or in a state of limbo when Mallam Lawan Shuaibu Triumph was invited by the Kano state government… He appeared, defended his statements, and heaven did not fall.”

Suleiman argued that Amnesty International only found its voice when the Katsina government invited Masussuka, whom he described as “the ‘anointed’ Yahaya Masussuka (whom some people laughably expect to bring about a ‘revolution’ in mainstream Islam and its preachings).”

He accused the organisation and some northern intellectuals of “double standards or hypocrisy,” calling their intervention “a clever-by-half and calculated attempt to arm-twist a government procedure.”

Suleiman also advised state governments to stay away from organizing doctrinal debates, proposing instead that legislative frameworks and faith-based regulatory bodies like JNI or CAN oversee preaching. He noted that disagreements over religious messages should go before the courts, not government panels. He warned that continued direct intervention by state executives could place them “in a quagmire.”

Khaleel: Masussuka’s Teachings Resemble Maitatsine Doctrine

Another analyst, Ibrahim Khaleel, linked Masussuka’s ideology to historical radical movements. He wrote:

“Yahaya Masussuka’s ideology of Qur’anism is what Maitatsine preached in the 1970s. The only difference is that Masussuka has not picked up arms yet.”

Khaleel described Masussuka’s approach as involving “rejection of Hadith, rejection of mainstream Islamic scholarship, personal interpretation of the Qur’an, provocative sermons of puritanism.”

He argued that the government is right to be wary, especially given what he described as troubling advocacy from international NGOs. He said these organisations “are not friends of our fragile country” and referenced past allegations that they assisted hostile groups.

Khaleel insisted the Katsina government acted responsibly by inviting Masussuka only for a scholarly clarification, stating:

“The government hasn’t done anything more than inviting him to come before a scholarly committee to discuss his beliefs, just to ensure that he doesn’t be the next problem the government will spend a lot of money trying to solve.”

He also questioned the defense of Masussuka’s freedom of expression, asking:

“Wasn’t freedom of speech what has landed us in terrorism today?”

Khaleel urged authorities to regulate unconventional religious teachings to prevent potential crises and declared, “Let the panel discussion proceed.”

Katsina Government Pledges Caution

The Katsina Government, in its press release signed by Director of Press Ibrahim Almu Gafai, said the matter is being “judiciously handled.” It said guidelines for preaching will be issued after the committee concludes its review and that decisive action will follow any violations.

The state further appealed to the public to remain patient as the process unfolds.

Masussuka has not publicly responded to the invitation as of the time of this report.