Interfaith dailogue

By Sadiya Abubakar Isa, PhD

It appals me to see the Muslim North divided on a trivial yet substantial religious issue like ‘interfaith’. I have for long heard Muslim clerics discrediting the whole idea of interfaith since the establishment of its centre in Bayero University Kano – one of North’s prestigious universities, something which was otherwise not their business. Still, thanks to this institution, interfaith is now localized enough to get such stimulating clerical attention in Northern Nigeria.

Having had the opportunity to study Islamophobia exploringly, I would say interfaith is significantly relevant where the identity of Islam is greatly contested. By definition, interfaith, whether as a dialogue in research or academic discourse, revolves around the peaceful, complaisant, and constructive interaction between people of different faiths for mutual benefit. It involves striking balance, a tolerable understanding of such interrelationships and beneficial engagements through dialogues, academic events, and activities aimed at peaceful coexistence. To say all these aren’t relevant for a Muslim community is a dismal misunderstanding of the whole concept and reasoning of interfaith.

The world witnessed an unprecedented rise in Islamophobia shortly after 9/11; statistics show that Islamophobia reached its peak in 2016. If you reside in the Western world in the decade after 9/11, you will understand the intricacy of the threat Islamophobia puts Muslims into. Especially for Muslim women who are more obviously identified than their male counterparts. Muslim women were subjected to hate speech, discrimination, and abuse, thanks to the incessant misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims in the Western media. Since the Muslims are a minority in such Western countries, their religious identity was at stake. As such, the results were provocative political discourses, foreign policies and the whole activities of the Islamophobia industry vigorously tarnished the image of Islam beyond doubt.

Islam was always portrayed as an intolerant and backward religion that advocates terrorism. Muslim men are seen as utter misogynists, violent, barbaric, and bloodthirsty fanatics, while Muslim women are said to be oppressed, voiceless, helpless, and subordinate in dire need of immediate liberation. Now, this has been the case centuries before 9/11, but the Orientalism surged after 9/11 because there was an agenda to create fear of Muslims and control the world using that purported fear—New World Order?

Consequently, 9/11, subjugation of women in Afghanistan, terrorist activities by ISIS, Boko Haram etc., were leveraged as justifications for those claims. The average Westerner believes every accusation about Islam and has little or no interest in discerning the images. One may ask, so what if they believed?

The consequences are bigotry against Muslims, vandalism of religious places, hate speeches, discrimination, loss of jobs (or other vital opportunities), rejection in the community they ought to belong to, and the worst is loss of lives. We have seen so many Islamophobic attacks on the Muslims, the New Zealand mosque shootings, for example. This misconception renders the Muslim communities in the West vulnerable. It puts them in constant fear of perceived danger and, consequently, loss of faith. Yes, look at it from the perspective of younger generations struggling to fit in.

Among many other factors, I acknowledge the efforts of Yaqeen Institute by Sheikh Omar Suleiman, a Palestinian American scholar. He has taken the lead in fighting Islamophobia through interfaith dialogues, among other methods. Why shouldn’t the Muslims engage in interfaith dialogue when it has been an avenue for discussing the Muslims’ predicaments? It has given Muslims a platform to talk about their real lives and share their religious practices contrary to the media’s narrative.

Interfaith dialogue has helped quell the flame of hate. It has given Muslims the room to openly operate as an inclusive religion – with lots of global moves to ascertain cultural harmony. It has opened laypeople’s minds about Islam which they would otherwise have remained unaware of. It has opened the door for discussion of religious differences politely and positively, which pushed many non-Muslims toward studying Islam.

Do you know the result of this increased curiosity about Islam? Acceptance of Islam, the Christian West has seen rapid growth in conversion to Islam. So, where is that extreme hate of Islam/Muslims today? Alhamdulillah, there is a significant improvement in the situation, thanks to interfaith dialogue, among other efforts taken by anti-Islamophobes.

So is interfaith precarious to Muslims in Nigeria? Why all the debates?

Would Nigerians understand the need for an interfaith dialogue without foreknowledge of Islamophobia, global diplomacy and religious inclusiveness? It’s a fact that Muslims aren’t a minority in Nigeria, but ethno-religious crises are still ravaging, in the North especially; crises in Jos and Kaduna would have been addressed amicably if the interfaith dialogue was well embraced. It is utterly disconcerting to say that, in this age, people are having religious disputes.

Similarly, Boko haram has been synonymous with Islam in Nigeria in that it is always referred to as an ‘Islamic terrorist group’. Don’t we need to dispel the myth of Islam advocating terror in Nigeria? Are Muslims too big to have a peaceful inter-religious conversation in Nigeria? Are we blind to the fact that Islam is under attack in Nigeria? When professor Farooq Kperogi wrote on Islamophobia in Yorubaland, I was bemused because I never expected that of all the tribes in Nigeria, Yorubas would discriminate against their tribespeople based on religion. The rapidity at which Islamophobia is manifesting in Nigeria is quite alarming. Nigerian Christain’s support for Donald Trump in the last election spells out their desperation for Muslims’ continued exclusion.

Religious harmony is still farfetched in most regions of Nigeria. We are just pretending to be harmonious and tolerant. Little wonder how minuscule events easily trigger provocation. We need to talk about our differences positively and engage in healthy interactions to progress as a nation. Colonialists already bond us together, so unity in diversity becomes a necessity. Or do we wait until our children begin to ask us questions before we get to talk about our differences nicely? If not for anything, interfaith in Nigeria will allow non-Muslims to learn about your faith – Islam. Isn’t that a form of da’awa?

My research acknowledges how interfaith dialogue in the US, Europe and other parts of the world contributed to the curbing of Islamophobia by promoting peaceful coexistence. So to use religion to relegate the whole idea is quite imprudent. To quote Shafiq, Muhammad, and Mohammed Abu-Nimer, the authors of Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, “although a relatively modern term, interfaith dialogue has, in fact, had a long and enduring history for Muslims, underscored by a spirit of genuine inquiry and respectful exchange. The primary role of interfaith dialogue is to remove misunderstanding and accept difference….”

Some Ulamas in Nigeria have taken a critical stance on this matter. I listened to one yesterday opening that interfaith is an extension of secularism. While I appreciate his disposition, I beg to disagree that ‘we don’t need interfaith’ due to his stated reasons. It should be at the participant’s discretion to know the aim of every dialogue before engaging in one. My focal point is that whoever participates in interfaith dialogue should be cognizant of their religious jurisdiction and wary of their intentions. I kindly advise our Ulama to focus on ways to religiously liberate the Northerners from the abject poverty that has infested this region instead of the debates surrounding the appropriateness of interfaith – which is long overdue.

Dr Sadiya Abubakar Isa is interested in research related to Islamophobia. She can be contacted via sadeeyaa@yahoo.com.

By Dr Babayo Sule

The revolution in social media, no doubt, made life fascinating for the present generation in information dissemination and data assembling but most importantly, in harnessing dialogue among inter-cultural and diverse complex groups cutting across the universe unprecedented. Many societies are positively utilising the leverage of social media to develop their political and socio-economic sectors individually and collectively. However, in Nigeria, social media is dangerously setting us on the path of collapsing our values and tolerance and it is ambitiously threatening to magnify ignoramus into the regalia of scholarship while scholars are being relegated to objects of caricature. This is anticipated in the warnings of Daniel J. Levitin in his Weaponised Lies: How to Think Critically in the Post-Truth Era and Nicole A. Cooke’s Fake News and Alternative Facts: Information Literacy in a Post-truth Era, that the era of honest ideas and truth is fast passing and this is palpable more in our environment where things are twisted deliberately for sentiment or personal agenda. This has manifested in the recent development in national issues where the bedevilling monster of insecurity is becoming worrisome. The high level of ignorance in understanding, interpreting, comparing and linking issues in Nigeria bordering religion, politics, economy and other social issues is nauseating. This is evident in the use and abuse of the term ‘Interfaith’ by social media interlocutors. 

The two Arabic terms are mixed up unconsciously by itinerant merchants of social media but most surprising, by even some religious Sheiks either deliberately or out of ignorance. The term ‘Wahdatul Adyan’ (unification of religions) in the Arabic language can never be the same as ‘Hiwar Al Adyan’ (interfaith dialogue). Unification of religion means collapsing of faith to become one while interfaith dialogue means debates, comparative studies and discussions of understandings as well as the relationship among followers of a different faith. The word ‘Hiwar’, dialogue, was mentioned three times in the Qur’an 18:34; 18:37 and 58:1.

How can Islam, for example, collapse and become one with Christianity when Islam philosophises the unity of Allah (SWT) while Christianity accepts the doctrine of ‘Trinity’ or how can Islam unite with Judaism that does not believe in Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad (SAW), at least, the current version of it? Or how can Christianity unite with Judaism that does not believe in Jesus Christ? Can Islam ever accept any form of law besides the Shari’ah principles? 

A scholar, popularly known as ‘Digital Imam’ made some utterances on escalating insecurity situation in a delivered sermon which eventually led to his removal. The crux of the matter is that I am not in support or opposing what the Imam uttered in his furious outburst. Many messengers have their philosophy, style, methodology and perspective of conveying messages based on their training, background, experience and the environment. How or why the Imam decided to deliver the message in the mode he did was not the main concern here. Some may see it right while others may see it as unfit and all are right in their perception. I am not in defence or support of the Imam and his words nor am I his spokesperson but some misperceptions, distortions and misrepresentations of the term ‘interfaith’ need to be cleared to avoid the created confusion. However, the annoying aspect of the issue is the way the ‘message’ was totally ignored and the messenger is being crucified on account of being what they called ‘Interfaith’. 

And what is interfaith? Is it a polytheistic process or a pronouncement that will disqualify one from Islam? Does interfaith has a basis from the religious roots and branches? Is our education level annihilated to the extent that our social media pedestrians could not understand what it is or is learning Islamic scholarship withering away to the level of misunderstanding Islam or misusing it? What is the link between sermon on insecurity and participation of Digital Imam in interfaith? Interfaith means dialogue among the various Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity to promote peaceful co-existence and to understand more the philosophy of each other to avoid sustained mutual hostility. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines interfaith as activities involving persons of different religious faith. Going by this definition, who is not involved in activities with persons of different faiths in Nigeria?

Islam is a religion that by virtue of its philosophy encourages logic, wisdom and reasoning. It challenges its believers to ponder on signs and symbols of the divinity and unity of Allah and the truthfulness of the religion. Allah (SWT) dialogues with His Angles on the wisdom, logic and the reason for creating the weak Adam (AS) and placing him on earth despite the weakness and the vulnerability to sins (Q. 2 verses 30-35). If Allah (SWT) wishes, He will simply create without consultation or dialogue and made the Angels prostrate compulsorily without any resistance or disobedience by Satan but for His prior knowledge of all, He wanted it that way. Is there no lesson for mankind in it to understand that reasons and logic are used in dialogue to convince?

Allah (SWT) in many places commands that believers should reflect and find faith in Islam not follow what is bequeathed to them by their ancestors presenting to them logical arguments, scientific facts, miracles and points of pondering. Prophet Nuh (AS) engaged his people in peaceful interfaith dialogue to convince them to believe in his religion for 950 years using alternative views and arguments (Q.7 verses 59-64; Q.10 verses 71-73; Q.11 verses 25-49; Q.21 verses 76-77; Q.23 verses 23-30; Q.25 verses 37; Q.26 verses 105-122; Q.29 verses 14-15; Q.37 verses 75-82 and Q.71 the complete chapter).

What about Prophet Ibrahim (AS)? He could have argued forcefully with the divine support and protection and ridiculed his people for worshipping idols that they had created with their hands but instead, he chose the path of wisdom and logic and the power of peaceful dialogue to make them understand particularly being careful of the presence of his father among the idolaters. Several Qur’anic chapters and verses (Q.2 verse 258; Q.14 verses 35-41; Q.19 verses 41-50; Q.21 verses 51-73; Q.26 verses 69-104; Q.29 verses 16-27; Q.37 verses 83-113 and Q.43 verses 26-31).

In all the chapters and verses above, Ibrahim (AS) used a superior dialogue with wisdom, chosen soft words and logic to explain his faith before the idolaters. Then take the instance of Musa (AS) who had not only debates with the Pharaoh and his people but went the extra mile in the demonstration of faith and interfaith dialogue under the command of Allah (SWT) in the Pharaoh’s palace. Many chapters and verses (Q.7 verses 103-173; Q.10 verses 75-93, Q.11 verses 96-99; Q.17 verses 101-105; Q.20 the complete chapter; Q.25 verses 35-36; Q.26 verses 10-68; Q.27 verses 7-14; Q. 28 verses 1-50 and several others too numerous to mention all here). It should be noted that Prophet Musa (AS) dialogued with his people profusely in convincing them against Shirk (polytheism) after he rescued them from Pharaoh using logic and wisdom (Q.2 verses 40-61; Q.7 verses 137-141 and Q.20 verses 83-97) and Prophet Musa (AS) also dialogue and went into a voyage of discovery with Khidr (AS) (Q.18 verses 60-86). 

Other Prophets (AS) dialogued in what is closer to interfaith with their people which time will not allow for all of them to be enumerated here but some few cases are still necessary. Prophet Ilyas (AS) dialogued with his people and showed them a reason to desist from worshipping a lamb as mentioned in Q.37 verses 123-132. Prophet Yusuf (AS) also convinced his inmates’ partners and his people of the unity of Allah (SWT) through an interfaith dialogue (Q.12 verses 37-41). Prophet Isa (AS) was shown the path of dialogue by Allah (SWT) when he was asked if he is behind the instigation for people to worship him when he responded beautifully, respectfully, logically and scientifically in this way (Q.5 verses 116-120) and he also tried and convinced his disciples on the miracle and powers of Allah (SWT) when they challenged him for manna (Q.5 verses 112-115) and elsewhere (Q.19 verses 30-33), Prophet Isa (AS) dialogue with his people to convince them while in his infancy that his mother Maryam (AS) was innocent and that he was a miracle of Allah (SWT). 

The most astonishing aspect of those who wanted to confuse interfaith with unity of faith is their lack of acumen in understanding ‘Asbabul Nuzul’ (purpose of revelation of Qur’anic verses) otherwise they would have saved their ignorance before the public humiliation. One of the outstanding characteristics of the Makkan chapters and verses of the Glorious Qur’an is the dialogue between the Prophet (PBUH) and Makkan infidels to scientifically show them the logic and reason of worshipping Allah (SWT) alone and the dirtiness of idolatry. These chapters and verses are too many to mention here. When Christians from Najran (Nazareth), a place near Madina in those days, heard the preaching and teaching of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) on Jesus Christ, they approached the Prophet (PBUH) for interfaith dialogue and that was the reason for the revelation of Q.3 verses 33-83 as mentioned by Al-Ghazali in his book ‘Asbabul Nuzul’ and also as narrated by Imam Ibn Kathir in his ‘Tafsir’ (Qur’anic exegesis or commentary). 

The Prophet (PBUH) did not only engage in interfaith dialogue but he agreed that Muslims under threat and vulnerability can seek shelter in other places of different religions when necessary. He asked his companions to migrate to Ethiopia where a Christian king was ruling, Najjash (Negus). The Makkan oligarchs, Abu Jahl and Abu Sufyan sent a delegation to King Negus to convince him to return the Muslim believers to Makka so that they could persecute them until they revert to idolatry. They went to the king with gifts and presents but he rejected their request.

The representatives of Makkan infidels adopted emotional manipulation by telling King Negus that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his followers were also saying evil things about Mary and Jesus Christ (AS). The king summoned Muslims to his palace and questioned them. One of the companions, the Prophet’s cousin, Ja’afar Bin Abi Talib, explained to him their idolatry and decadent situation before the emergence of Islam and went ahead to recite before him the Surah Maryam Q.19 verses 16-40. The scholars of history like Ibn Hisham and Ibn Kathir reported that king Negus and his people wept on hearing these verses which was the reason for revealing Q.5. verses 82-85. Later. King Negus converted to Islam and the Prophet (PBUH) prayed for him from Madina which served as the juristic justification for ‘Salatul Gha’ib’. 

Apart from the above views on interfaith dialogue, many companions of the Prophet (PBUH) were reported in authentic hadiths by Bukhari and other reporters and scholars of the history of engaging Jews in Madina, Christians and pagans in interfaith dialogue using the Qur’an and other sources heard from the Prophet (PBUH). Ibn Taymiyyah, one of the medieval Islamic respected scholars devoted an entire book of two volumes in interfaith dialogue with Christians titled Al Jawabul Sahih li man Baddala Dinal Masih (Answer to those who Altered the Religion of Jesus Christ). Besides, contemporary Islamic jurists have their views on interfaith dialogue. For instance, Ismael Raji Al Faruqi characterises dialogue as Da’awah which includes preaching Islamic teachings, promoting virtues and avoiding vices and providing comprehensive knowledge to understand the purpose of life. 

The Christians and Jews are addressed with respect in the Qur’an ‘as people of the book’. The Prophet (PBUH) was reported to have been visiting the ill in Madina irrespective of their faith (Tirmidhi). The Prophet was sympathetic, patient and understanding with people of other faith. He never imposed Islamic laws on them. Abu Hurairah narrated that once a group of Jewish scholars came to the Prophet (PBUH) and declared that one of them committed adultery. The Prophet (PBUH) judged the matter using the Jewish scriptures and not Islamic laws (Al Tabari).

In essence, most Islamic jurists agreed that Islamic teachings are not in favour of eliminating the preaching of other faiths. Islam is, instead, in favour of counterbalance as a means of creating a harmonious environment instead of confrontation. This is mentioned in the Quran (Q.22 verse 40). It is based on this that the power of Qur’anic dialogue challenged the entire universe to produce its like or to ponder on the saved corpse of Pharaoh Menerpter as a sign of miracle of Islam and the Glorious Quran open for a challenge by those interested. An attempt to do so earned Islam valuable converts such as Professor Mike Moore, Professor Maurice Bucaille, Professor Gerald Dirk, Dr Gary Miller and many famous global scholars of various fields of human endeavour. 

The question to ask ourselves is, if not because of the flavour and the assistance of interfaith dialogue, how could the gallant intellectuals armies of Islam confront the entire world with intellectual discourses of comparative knowledge? The blessed Sheikh Ahmed Deedat, Sheikh Dr Zakir Naik, Dr Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips and other ones who stand tall in the hall of fame of comparative religion and remain unchallenged by all religions when it comes to dialogue and reasons. How many hundreds of thousands or millions have they converted to Islam successfully? Could those against interfaith serve Islam in this capacity? What about the blessed Adnan Oktar aka Harun Yahya who solely demolished Darwinism and Marxism by the mighty power of his Islamic dialogue pen?  Have we forgotten our own, Sheik Auwal from Jigawa State who has been busy propagating Islam in America? What about the blessed Sheik Hussaini Yusuf Mabera? What about the good work of the Da’awah Institute of Nigeria in bridging the gap of knowledge closer to what even a layman can comprehend? Please what is the name of what they are doing? What about Nigerian Inter-Religious Council? What is it and who are the members? It is a civil society of interfaith dialogue and action involving the supreme spiritual leader of Islam, his Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto and the Chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), other distinguished scholars of Islam and Christianity just for the information of the misguided interfaith antagonists. 

It is frightening that the Nigerian Ummah is gradually drifting towards Al Qaradawi’s description of extremism and Abdulkadir Oudah’s ignorant followers and incapable scholars. Al Qaradawi in his book, Islamic Awakening Between Rejection and Extremism warned that extremism is an uncalled duty to Islam by ignorance which has six symptoms including bigotry and intolerance, commitment to excessiveness, uncalled for austerity, severity and harshness, thinking ill of others and Takfir stage which is the dangerous one. Abdulkadir Oudah in his view argues that Islam and Muslims are suffering from the comity of ignorant followers and the inaction of incapable scholars aided by amoral leadership.

The debates on interfaith by some scholars wrongly and the perception of ignorant followers exhibited this fear and it is tilting towards the symptoms of extremism warned by Al Qaradawi which we must be cautious of. Of course, some of the views may not lack relevance to late Dr Yusuf Bala Usman’s postulation of the manipulation of religion in Nigeria but it is shameful and uncalled for. Saying an opinion or a view before the public must have a moral burden. Ibn Qayyim Al Jawzi in his book Ilamul Muqi’ina an Rabbil Aalamin exponentially exposed us to the intricacies of those who can speak on Islamic issues and fatwas and the chain of authorities that can qualify one to be among them. I don’t think the interfaith interlopers qualified to be among the ones listed by Ibn Qayyim.

I am not in any way in convergence with Digital Imam on that fateful sermon. It is wrong to advocate for a boycott of the election in a democratic clime. It is an unpatriotic, irreligious and social disservice.  We differ completely in this perspective. Instead, I am an unrepentant advocate for voting and election and a transparent one for the better. In an era where the leaders failed glaringly but their failure is not instilling remorsefulness in them to desist from power scramble, how could the voters sacrifice their legitimate opportunity to vote? In essence, I am calling on Nigerian voters not only to vote but to vote a protest vote on target. To identify candidates on their own, sponsor them, vote for them and guard their votes to succeed for better governance without regarding any party (parties that lack ideology or even principles) do not matter in developing democracies more than individuals in elections. 

Based on the above observation, I am suggesting the following as remedies against this detrimental degeneration that will consume us if we are not careful.

1. The Digital Imam and other religious leaders should invoke the saying of Allah (SWT) in delivering their messages Q. 16 verse 125 “call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and reason with them in the best manner possible. Surely your Lord knows best who has strayed away from His path, and He also knows well those who are guided to the Right Way”. 

2. People should desist from throwing themselves into the arena of knowledge and scholarship based on anecdotal stories and emotions while those who know but are trying to divert the subject matter or discussions should fear Allah (SWT) and relay that which is the truth because “Not a word does he utter but there is a sentinel by him, ready (to note it)” (Q.50 verse 18) and “And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart – about all those [one] will be questioned” (Q.17 verse 36). 

3. Matters should be dealt with accordingly instead of manipulated. Matters of security discussed by a cleric should not be dismissed away for trivialities such as interfaith. Interfaith is a different subject matter so also a sermon and issues of insecurity why lump them unnecessarily?

4. The social media abuse should be checked by authorities before another Tunisian model is engineered deliberately out of ignorance or sentiments. Government has the legal duty to do so. In an era where wise people are using social media for business, we are busy abusing it for the promotion of ignorance.

5. A strong Shura committee is needed to check fatwas and online scholars that are incapable of judging a simple matter or need rigorous scholarship training before their views can see the light of the day. 

6. Ahlul zikr should kindly intervene and educate our Ummah on critical issues to avoid misperceptions, distortions and misrepresentations of facts that can drag our youth into ideologies that will throw our society into further disaster.

Dr Babayo Sule is the H.O.D International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences, Federal University of Kashere, Gombe State.

Perhaps, it was the Mathew Effect that made Professor Kpareogi’s recent article on the plight of the Yoruba Muslims in their own lands so famous that it generated so much response as if, until the piece was made public, nobody was aware that Yoruba Muslims, who were in the majority in the Southwest, have been under powerful religious subjugation by the Yoruba Christians.

But even a casual observer will not fail to notice the recurring crisis across the Yoruba land over the use of Hijab by Muslim female children in the schools. Some of these sartorial choice crises trended long enough to attract the attention of everyone while some have to be settled at the courts. The infamous ruling by an Ikeja high court that because Christians would feel less righteous in the presence of Hijab wearing children, Muslim children should not wear Hijab to their schools, is still fresh in our memories. Delivering the judgement on 17th October 2014, Justice Modupe Onyearbor declared that “The non-Hijab wearing students will feel inferior to those who are putting on Hijab.” The judge, therefore, banned the use of Hijab for Muslim girls till an Appeal Court put aside that judgement.

The sartorial choice struggle is, perhaps, the most glaring among the many struggles being fought by the embattled Muslim majority in the region, this is mainly due to publicity it is generating and the will to resist the subjugation by the new generation of Muslims who firmly believed in self-determination. The case of Barrister Firdaus Amata who refused to jettison her constitutional right on December 12, 2017, an action for which she was denied entry into the International Conference Centre by the Body of Benchers, highlighted one of such struggles.

Apart from the Hijab struggle, the most glaring inequality the Muslims are struggling with is the fact that despite being the majority in the region, not a single Islamic court exists in the whole region. They are forced to either take their cases to the imposed Christian common law courts or Customary courts. This is more worrisome given that Islamic courts existed in Yorubaland long before the arrival of the colonial armies who abolished them and imposed their own courts. Islamic courts existed since 1842 in that region, according to MURIC.

Even the Yoruba Muslim’s peaceful move to introduce sharia courts in Yorubaland through constitutional means was fiercely tamed by the Christians in that region. On May 27 this year, the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) was eloquent in its submission that the introduction of Shariah Law in the South West should be ignored by the Senate.

Nothing highlighted how the Muslims in Yorubaland are struggling to free themselves from Christian subjugation than the declaration by some Muslim groups that they are not in support of the Oduduwa Republic as they will face persecution if actualized. This belied the widely believed notion that the Yorubas are homogenous and that religion plays a second or third role in their lives. It proves that for a long time, the Muslim majority were silenced into submission out of fear of “social ostracism”. Their passiveness was fully exploited by Christians and misunderstood by northerners.

Now that the passiveness is giving way to the rising tide of Islamic awareness in the region, things are getting clearer that the hyped religious tolerance in that region was indeed the domination of Christians over Muslims.
Ironically, this is coming just as some voices are maintaining a hyperbolic but erroneous assumption that the North is the den of religious intolerance even as facts are contradicting them.

Sheikh Nuru Khalid is among those who seemed to have fallen for this fallacy recently. In his clamour for Interfaith Dialogue, he recently claimed, among other things, that Interfaith Dialogue was necessary now given the bad light in which the terrorist organizations, like Boko Haram, are painting Islam and the high level of religious intolerance in the North.

If the Sheikh is right on Interfaith Dialogue’s effect on religious intolerance, he is very wrong on the Boko Haram claim. He is also very wrong in his charge that Muslims are to be blamed for religious intolerance in the region. Because of all the religious crises in this part of the nation, over ninety per cent were NOT caused by Muslims; they were just defending themselves.

Therefore, to insinuate that Muslims are to blame for religious intolerance in the country is insidious even if said in good faith, because it is a BIG lie.

It is flabbergasting to assume that had there been an Interfaith Dialogue, Boko Haram wouldn’t have happened, because among the reasons the terrorists have for fighting is what they called the systematic downplaying of religious teachings in order to please non-Muslims.

It is evident that both the terrorists and the Sheikh have agreed on the same erroneous definition of Interfaith Dialogue. Both seemed to give Interfaith Dialogue the definition of Syncretism. Many people speak about syncretism while they think they are discussing Interfaith Dialogue.

To differentiate between the two terms, just take the stands of late Nnamdi Azikiwe who said “We must forget our differences”, and that of late Sir Ahmadu Bello (Sardaunan Sokoto) who replied, “No, let’s understand our differences…” What Azikiwe said is syncretism while the stand of Sardauna connotes Interfaith Dialogue.

I don’t think anyone who knows that Muslims are the majority of the victims of Boko Haram or understood their mission will honestly insist that an Interfaith Dialogue would have been an antidote to their aggression.

Finally, while I am not saying (the Muslim) North is totally devoid of religious intolerance (this depends on your definition of the term), it is not true that we are the purveyors of intolerance, rather, we are at the receiving end of religious intolerance. This could be discussed in another piece.

Muhammad Mahmood writes from Kano.