Islam

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.

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 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 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.

By Abubakar AbdusSalam Muhammad (Baban Gwale).

Dr Audu Bulama Bukarti is one of the individuals I admire most in today’s Nigeria.

Recently, during the deeply thought-provoking Zoom discussion organised by Professor Toyin Falola on President Donald Trump’s comments about Nigeria, Bulama once again demonstrated remarkable clarity, courage, and sincerity. His contributions stood out with intellectual depth and honesty, and he represented our nation with dignity and unwavering principle.

Beyond his powerful voice in national discourse, Dr Bukarti is an expert legal practitioner, a meticulous researcher, an exceptional analyst, and a genuine freedom fighter whose work continues to inspire countless Nigerians.

What truly sets him apart is his unshakable commitment to Islam and truth. I recall during an episode of Fashin Baki on President Tinubu’s recent pardons, when he was asked about the case of DCP Abba Kyari and other inmates. His response was firm, principled, and full of integrity:

“I don’t talk on anything that contradicts Islam whatsoever.” These words reflect the heart of a man guided by faith before anything else, a man whose compass does not bend under pressure or public opinion.

A true Nigerian, a proud Muslim, a committed Northerner, a brilliant mind, and indeed a one-man army “KAI KAƊAI GAYYA”

I am deeply proud of him, not only for his intellectual contributions, but for who he is as a true Muslim brother whose sincerity, courage, and patriotism strengthen my love and respect for him.

May Allah preserve him upon goodness, protect him, and continue to make his voice a source of benefit, justice, and guidance for our beloved nation.

By Ibrahim Mukhtar

The Katsina State Government has formally invited the Quranist preacher, Yahaya Ibrahim Masussuka, who has recently become well-known, especially on Social Media, to appear before an Ulamas’ committee following complaints that his teachings allegedly breach “the general principles of Islamic law.”

The preacher debunks all prophetic sayings (Hadith) and calls the famous Hadith reporters liars. He later adjusted his stance, saying he agrees with three forms of Hadith and refutes all others. According to Masussuka’s new stand, he agrees with any Hadith on three conditions: 1) If the Hadith didn’t violate anything from the Qur’an; 2) If the Hadith didn’t say anything bad against the Holy Prophet, and or 3) If the Hadith preaches peace. However, some scholars have already labelled his current stance as clever bait to catch gullible, ignorant followers.

Masussuka has preached and discussed controversial issues and dismissed some fundamental issues of the Islamic religion as heresy and disowned all the revered Hadith books of Islam as mere concocted lies.

According to the Katsina State’s Secretary to the State Government, Alhaji Abdullahi Faskari, the government has received petitions from some scholars and concerned citizens regarding the nature and manner in which Masussuka’s preachings and sermons do not align with orthodox interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence.

At the same time, Masussuka himself has filed a complaint, claiming that some members of Jama’atu Izalatul Bid’ah (also known as Izala) have insulted and threatened him.

Although Masussuka has great backing and massive support from some Darika disciples, his heretic preaching still continues to stir controversy as many scholars, even among the Darika, see his teachings, which are based on debunking all prophetic sayings, as being completely un-Islamic.

In a bid to resolve the tension, the matter was referred to the Katsina Emirate Council, where both parties were invited to engage in dialogue. After the discussions, Emir Abdulmuminu Kabir Usman reportedly admonished that no one must preach in a way that offends fellow Muslims.

Following the Emir’s intervention, Governor Dikko Umaru Radda directed that Masussuka defend himself “before a Committee of Ulamas.” The SSG’s office also announced that standards and guidelines for preaching would be developed; anyone found to contravene them may face “appropriate action.”

Authorities have called on the public to remain calm, noting that the process will be handled “judiciously.”

The summoning has drawn mixed reactions from several groups, while many others, especially from the Dariqah and other rights and religious-freedom groups, vow to support the preacher. ICADAR (Impactive Centre for Accountability, Democracy, and Rights) warned that targeting Masussuka, whom they describe as “a preacher known for his peaceful teachings,” could undermine Nigerians’ religious expression.

Similarly, Amnesty International has raised concern over what it describes as a coordinated attempt to silence Masussuka. The group cautioned that shutting down his religious activities might violate his constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Another rights organisation, Ettrah: Voice for Freedom and Human Rights, called on both state and federal governments to protect Masussuka, arguing that calls to question his preaching risk “deepening misunderstanding” and threatening national unity.

On the other hand, some social analysts see the current development as worth pursuing, as many scholars were invited to defend their stands, which were deemed contrary to the general teachings of Islam. Some others view it as sectarian tensions, which, if not managed carefully, could inflame existing tensions between different Islamic groups in Katsina and beyond, particularly between Masussuka’s following and the Izala movement.

Sheikh Masussuka’s invitation by the Katsina State Government to defend his teachings marks a critical moment in northern Nigeria’s debate over religious freedom, state intervention, and sectarian balance. With vocal responses from rights groups and religious leaders alike, the outcome of this committee could resonate far beyond Katsina, touching on broader issues of governance, faith, and coexistence in Nigeria.

By Muḥammad San

I have read the PhD thesis of the Emir of Kano, and just like in his Gamji days, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi (now Muhammadu Sanusi II) remains forthright in expression and uncompromising in his quest to balance Shari’a.

Some may dismiss contributions like mine as disturbing or argue that we are too little academically to weigh in on the Shari’a debate. But this is a debate that dominated Nigeria at the turn of the millennium, and Sanusi himself was at its centre. Having read his papers, watched his TED talk, and reviewed the recent compendium of his essays, I can say I have at least a fair understanding of his intellectual outlook.

Sanusi has always been controversial. His now-famous remark that a wife should slap back or retaliate against an abusive husband is a good example. That boldness, perhaps, was the same energy that pushed him to the University of London to produce a doctoral thesis on Islamic family law, using Morocco and Kano as his comparative space.

The Emir is an ardent advocate of girl-child education, but this passion seems to have narrowed his focus, leaving him blind to the ordeals of men under the same system. While women’s marginalisation has been widely documented, men, too, are now facing a new wave of vulnerabilities. The cases are there for anyone who cares to look.

The infamous Maryam Sanda case, in which a woman brutally murdered her husband, remains etched in public memory, yet the debate around it was clouded by sympathy. In 2021, a young wife in Kano was convicted of poisoning her husband after repeated disputes. In 2022, another woman fatally stabbed her husband during a quarrel over financial neglect. These are not isolated events. They highlight the rise of what can be called “feminine defence,” but they also expose the growing fragility of men trapped in broken family systems.

Sanusi himself points to Morocco as a model. “What did they do in Morocco? They built schools and invested in transportation so that girls could be moved from villages to the nearest schools. They also invested in school feeding and provided financial support to the poorest families ready to send their sons and daughters to schools,” he said in an interview with Time Africa Magazine. Yet the contrast is sharp. In Kano, the state government spends millions on lavish emirate ceremonies, while journalists like Dan Bello continue to expose the dire state of public schools in the very heart of the metropolis.

To be fair, Sanusi’s thesis tackled the historical marginalisation of women in Islamic family law with rigour and depth. But in amplifying women’s rights, it failed to defend men or acknowledge their growing vulnerabilities in a rapidly changing society. By leaning heavily on the Moroccan Moudawana, itself a product of feminist activism, the work framed men only as a dominant class to be restrained. Missing were the struggles many men face: unemployment, the crushing demands of polygamy, and the relentless pressure to perform as patriarchs without resources.

This omission is striking. In Kano today, the rise of wives killing their husbands is not just a crime. It is a signal of imbalance in the family system, a warning that reform is incomplete. Without addressing male fragility alongside female empowerment, Shari’a reform risks becoming a zero-sum game. Sanusi’s thesis suggests that empowering women alone can resolve family crises. But true reform, as Shari’a itself demands, must be a balanced restructuring that preserves the dignity and well-being of both men and women.

Muḥammad Sani is a freelance and public policy writer from Zaria. Can be reached via muhdusman1999@gmail.com.

By Aisha Musa Auyo

I preach kindness every now and then—kindness to a spouse, kids, parents, relatives, and others in our lives. But today, I want to dwell on the most crucial kindness… kindness to oneself.

This is a kindness that goes beyond this dunya (this world); a kindness that rewards you with the best of here and the hereafter. Being kind to oneself has many faces, but I’ll discuss the most important ones here:

Prioritising the Akhirah Over the Dunya

This world is merely a temporary place. Try as much as you can to resist the temptation of indulging in sins. Strive to stop any act that you would not love to die doing. Stop procrastinating regarding good deeds. We do not know when our lives will end; no one gives us notice. We owe ourselves this profound kindness: preparing for the inevitable.

The Investment of Sadaqah (Charity)

Giving out sadaqah, even if it’s merely half a date, expiates sins and prevents tragedy. We often spend a great deal on ourselves without calculation, yet when it comes to giving to others, we hold back and start calculating. What we forget is that whatever we give out is multiplied and comes back to us many times over. Whatever we spend only on ourselves ends here.

But you see, when we make other people’s lives easier, lessen their burden, or make them feel better, Allah multiplies that, and the reward is for both here and the hereafter. Whenever we spend on ourselves, let’s try to include those who are less privileged. We are not only helping others; we are being incredibly kind to ourselves beyond this dunya.

The Perpetual Reward of Sadaqah Jariyah (Ongoing Charity)

Let’s discuss Sadaqah Jariyah—a charity, in which the reward continues to reach you even after your death. We can achieve this through various means, such as investing in raising pious children, teaching the Quran, performing good deeds, drilling a source of water, contributing to an Islamic school or any other worthy cause, even if we can’t afford to sponsor it entirely, planting trees, etc.

We benefit more from this benevolence than the people it was intended for. We truly owe it to ourselves to show this type of kindness.

Cultivating Great Relationships

Cultivating good relationships with others, elevating their mood and ranks, making them feel great about themselves, and improving the quality of their lives are powerful ways we can be kind to ourselves. These are the investments that make people miss us and sincerely pray for us after we are gone. We owe this kindness to ourselves—being able to invoke the feeling of longing, missing, and praying for us when we are no longer here.

Sustaining Spiritual Well-being; keeping our mouth moist with Zikr (remembrance of Allah), Istighfar (seeking forgiveness), and Salawat (blessings upon the Prophet); reading the Quran; and constantly upgrading our knowledge and practice of our Deen (religion) is a kindness to ourselves that we should never compromise.

Integrity and Truthfulness

Saying the truth, having integrity and decency, minding one’s business, and having a halal (lawful) source of income is a profound kindness we owe ourselves, for this will be a shield from the Hellfire.

Simple, multiplied deeds

You see, a simple gesture—smiling at strangers, a kind word, an encouraging nod, removing a harmful object from the road, helping or feeding animals, or watering a plant—will go a long way in benefiting us here and hereafter. Angels are praying to Allah that whoever gives out, may Allah increase his wealth, and whoever withholds his wealth, may Allah withhold His blessings from him. So we should never forget that whatever we do, small or big, we shall receive it in multiples.

Being Intentional

One crucial thing I’d like to remind us here is to be intentional about everything we do. Let’s always ensure that our deeds and actions, big or small, are motivated by the reward of our Creator. Let every action or inaction emanate from the craving for Allah’s Rahma (Mercy) and the fear of His punishment. This, indeed, is the biggest kindness we owe ourselves.

Lemme stop here..

Aisha Musa Auyo is a doctoral researcher in educational psychology. A wife, a mother, a homemaker, a caterer, a parenting, and a relationship coach. She can be reached via aishamuauyo@live.co.uk.