Muslims

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 Aliyu U. Tilde

We will write herein facts that even Professor J. O. Amupitan, the current INEC Chairman, will find it difficult to deny. It regards the “Legal Brief” he wrote in 2020 recommending foreign intervention in Nigeria. I owe him the respect of a student and a consideration for his standing as a legal luminary. Follow me on this long trip.

1. Context

We are judging Prof. Amupitan in retrospect, based on something he wrote five years ago in his limited capacity as a university lecturer at my alma mater, University of Jos (UNIJOS). He may have shifted his position on some issues since then. His current position as INEC chairman will now expose him to the challenge and experience of fairness and inclusion, which the environment of Jos could not afford him. Today, if asked to write on Christian genocide in Nigeria, I believe he would sound radically different.

We are engaging him, nonetheless, on this past record for the benefit of its future readers. It will also help us understand the arguments used to convince President Trump to enlist Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern in 2020 when the Legal Brief was written.

2. Audience

It is also important to note that he did not write the legal brief for the general public, an academic press or a client before a court of law. It was the main body of a document titled Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter: Genocide in Nigeria and Implications for the International Community, which is “authored, published and distributed by Washington-based International Committee on Nigeria (ICON) and International Organisation for Peace-building and Social Justice.” 

Principally, they are among the organisations that pressured American authorities to sanction Nigeria in 2020. The first item in the Foreword of the publication was a letter to Michael Pompeo, the then-US Secretary of State under Trump, written by former Congressman Frank R. Wolf.

Giving this highlight is important in understanding why, unlike other professional, academic and journalistic documents, Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter is limited in scholastic latitude. It speaks only to Christians, for Christians, and for the purpose of Christians. When thrown into the public arena, as Sahara Reporters has done now, its bias will attract the reproach of many.

3. Unprofessional Language

The professor has in many places used words that are unbecoming of an academic or legal luminary in a number of instances as the foundations of his argument. Speaking about the demographic superiority of Muslims in the North, he said: 

“…while the Hausa/Fulani people are predominantly Muslims and are said to be in the majority” without any reference in the end. “Are said” here entertains doubt in the fact he mentioned. Well, thank God, Prof is INEC Chairman today; the voters’ register and elections result records will teach him the hard truth. Other unbecoming phrases include “it was taken for granted”, “it is believed”, “it is a notorious fact”, “Christians generally believe…”.

A layman can be forgiven if he uses such terms. But, with due respect, they must not be the diction of a Senior Advocate.

4. Spurious and Tendentious Claims:

The “Legal Brief” is loaded with baggage of spurious and tendentious claims that are not supported by statistics, historical records or judicial pronouncements. For example, he said:

— “Fulani people only joined Nigeria in the 19th Century through trade, jihad and conquest”,

— “major tribes in Nigeria – Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo”,

— the British “handed over a polity fraught with dishonest census figures, political gerrymandering and favouritism in the appointment into the public service in favour of the Northern Region, as a reward for the northerners’ loyalty to the colonial administration”,

— “…with the distorted systemic structure in favour of the Hausa/Fulani, it is possible to revisit the 1804 agenda while the other ethnic groups believe that constitutionalism has brought into existence a true federation based on equity, fairness and justice.”

—“The drive for Islamisation of Nigeria through the jihad of 1804… has now manifested as the Jama’at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-Da’ wah wa’l-Jihad commonly called Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen’s attacks and even the Sharia controversy.”

I have listed 49 such unsubstantiated statements and appended them at the bottom of this article. If anyone wants to hang Prof academically, Prof has handed him is enough rope to do so. The statements are not only inaccurate but, taken together, paint the Hausa/Fulani in a very poor light. The brief repeatedly vilifies them at various points, using unfounded claims. But it is not our intention here to hang him. I will advise Prof to check them and make corrections in future.

5. False Premise

Certain claims he made appear to be inaccurate or misleading. Consider this: 

Speaking of atrocities of Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen, he said: “The victims of the crises are mainly the Christian population and the minority ethnic groups in Nigeria.” 

Haba! This is a misstatement that even a Christian boy on TikTok disproved yesterday: He said, “I will speak the truth. I am from Borno. If 10 people are killed by Boko Haram, 9 will be found Muslims.”

But fairness and truth are not the language of even the most highly placed clerics if they are promoting a sectarian agenda. A similar misrepresentation was also made by the Anglican Bishop of Jos, Benjamin-Aghak Kwashe, in his contribution to the Foreword. He said:

“It is a common development and an everyday occurrence across Nigeria to kill Christians, meanwhile offenders are not being prosecuted and the leaders are unresponsive…We recognize that Christians are taking the brunt of the persecution but even Muslims in the northwest and in some parts of the northeast have been killed.”

If the argument of Christian genocide in Nigeria is premised on such bareface fabrication—that majority of those killed by Boko Haram and bandits are Christians, and it is going on every day, and that the authorities did nothing about it or prosecuted nobody—then the conclusion that a foreign intervention is necessary is baseless. It is so painful to see highly placed individuals in the society promoting such a deeply misleading narrative against the people and government of their country before foreigners like this.

Last week, the Federal Government revealed that it has convicted over 730 people on charges of terrorism. And if the government had indeed done nothing, as claimed throughout the document, would not the entire Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States have been under its singular dream caliphate? Who fought Boko Haram back into the forest of Sambisa and the hills of Gwoza after it was set to take over Yola in 2014? Who killed Muhammad Yusuf, Shekau, and so many of their followers? Who killed hundreds of bandits and their leaders in the northwest? 

And if Christians are killed daily, as the bishop said, how many were killed in the past two days—11th and 12th November—and where? In fact, peruse the papers of the last week, where is a single report indicating the killing of a Christian in Nigeria by Boko Haram or bandits other than in the imagination of these sectarian leaders?

It is into this baseless pit that the Christian Right in America and the Anglican Church in England fell and which, fortunately, the Vatican resisted many times.

6. Extrapolation

Prof hardly backed his assertions with the requisite data befitting his intellectual station, even when data on most ethno-religious incidents in the North can easily be drawn from credible sources on the Internet. And he is quick to extrapolate from a mention of just one person to cover the entire Christian North. An example is his accusation that

“Underage girls are abducted, hypnotized and forced to convert to Islam and also forced into marriage, as exemplified by the case of Ese Rita Oruru, a 13-year old Christian girl who was abducted on 12th August, 2015, by Yunusa Dahiru…where she was raped, impregnated and forced to convert to Islam and marry her abductor without her parents’ consent.” This was a girl, if we remember, who voluntarily fell in love with a muslim boy and followed him to the North.

From this single case, he said, “There are more of such cases unnoticed and such minors were forced to deny their faith and married their abductors without any hope of seeing their parents again.”

Prof and his evangelical co-travelers are lucky to be living amidst a very docile Muslim population. The Muslims can show many camps where muslim children are kept by Christian clerics and organizations.

—In 2015 or so, I visited one orphanage operated by a Christian woman from Jalingo who camped many children victims of Boko Haram from Borno State in a building just after the checkpoint before Miango in Plateau State. She refused me contact with the children. 

—the reporter scandal involving the abduction of 21 Muslim children and detention by the ECWA church in Jos until rescued by the DSS in 2022?

— the report of Christian police woman caught with several children she abducted from Sokoto at Abuja motor park on 14/5/2024? 

—the reported police case of 9 muslim children that were kidnapped from Kano and sold in Anambra who were reunited with their parents on 12/10/2019?

—the report of Plateau pastor Dayo Bernard’s child-trafficking syndicate and ACHAD sect (2024–25) by HumAngle Media

— the report of NAPTIP’s 2025 rescue of Kano children in Delta orphanage by Vanguard & Guardian (Nigeria)

—This is not to mention several cases of the systemic North-South child trafficking for domestic work and exploitation as contained in the reports of NBS, UNICEF, ILO, TIP, etc. I can provide Prof with a long list, any day.

Also, the data of gender based violence against Christian women perpetrated by “Fulani militants and Boko Haram” in Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter was only a list of seven women, none of whom was reported killed but taken to the bush for days, denied food, caned or asked to carry out arms for the bandits, according to the publication. Imagine! How does this compare to the enslavement of Muslim women in Yelwan Shendam, their massacre at the turn of every religious conflict for the past 35 years by Christian militia in Northern Nigeria? Does Prof need a list?

Then came the singular mention of Leah Sharibu’s case, the only girl not released among the abductees of GGSS Dapchi. She was used by Prof to prove how Christians are forced to convert to Islam by Boko Haram. How many filled the gap between her and the purported many? No statistics was given by Prof or in the publication.

7. Admission and Concealment

There have been areas in the “Legal Brief” where Prof was forced to admit, albeit reluctantly, Muslim victims in attacks by Boko Haram and bandits or communal clashes in the North without conceding that they are the majority:

— “Boko Haram, therefore, targets Christians, other non-Muslims and even Muslims opposed to their ideologies of Salafi-Jihad”,

— “Attacks and reprisals have been launched by both Christian and Muslim groups in different parts of Plateau State”,

—“Then attacks and clashes occur with mutual casualties. Either or both sides accuse each other of genocide and crimes against humanity. Government looks the other way. Hence, the violence keeps revolving.”

—“The pattern of violence in Nigeria is such that anytime there is an attack against an ethnic or religious group in one part of the country, members of the ethnic or religious group in another part or other parts of the country will react by carrying out retaliatory attacks.”

One would expect that, faced by this reality which he acknowledged, Prof will take the professional lane of advocating for both Muslim and Christian victims and give the balanced data that indicates the share of each side in those attacks. He should also have been bold to mention the atrocities of Christian attackers, including not less than 10 horrendous occasions, that would flatly qualify as war crimes according to the standards he mentioned, some of whom, as in the case of Zamani Lekwot, were even sentenced to death by the Courts.

Also, while speaking about genocide, he has forgotten to mention the cleansing of large Christian-dominated areas of Muslims, over forty settlements in Plateau State alone as at 2012, each following heinous massacres of Muslim inhabitants. Today, it is difficult to come across a Muslim—except for herdsmen— in the Plateau State segment of the Jos-Abuja highway from Mararraban Jama’a outside Jos to the Forest border with Kaduna State. People who did this are the same ones crying genocide!

8. Data

Prof’s lack of data aside, I am more disappointed with the data included in the publication—Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter that included his Legal Brief. Most of it is irrelevant as it does not prove a genocide against Christians.

Consider the data given on “Incidents of Atrocities in Nigeria (December 1, 2019 through March 1, 2020)” that included all kinds of violence, most of them simple civil matters between two Nigerians across the 36 states of the federation and Abuja given in 21 pages (pp 216-235). This is non-probative. Does such ordinary crime data prove any genocide of Christians in Nigeria?

So also is the data titled “Taraba State Deaths: Victims 2015-2019 – Office of the Secretary to the State Government of Taraba” (pp 238-248) that lists registered deaths from all kinds of conflicts including both Christians and Muslims names. How does it prove Christian genocide in Nigeria? Then it did not include all the 726 Muslim Fulani herders massacred in one incident in 2017-2018 by Christian militia and Mambila tribesmen, which is described as genocide by impartial mikitary officials. In the eyes of Christian led Taraba State Government, such amount of deaths did not happen.

The publication also includes data of people killed from Adara and Agatu, Irigwe etc, but it does not contain the corresponding hundreds of Muslims and herdsmen killed by Christians in those conflicts.

As for the maps that appeared later in the publication, nothing shows the number of Christian victims in isolation of Muslim victims. From the areas covered, an objective mind can easily discern that more Muslims than Christians are victims of terrorism and communal conflicts in the North.

The data was obviously presented with a bias, just concentrating on “Boko Haram and Fulani Militants”. Here is a confession made when introducing the data:

 “Our main focus is to demonstrate twenty years of genocide in Nigeria. from the period January 1, 2000 to January 31, 2020. We recognized that there are several components and perpetrators, but we concentrated on two main ACTOR codes: • Boko Haram / ISIS / ISIL / Islamic State / ISWAP / Al-Queda (and) Fulani / Herder / Militant Extremists.”

Thus, the ethnic militia that have perpetrated mass killings against Muslims in Christian dominated areas were not a target of the data. And neither did the data separate Muslims from Christians. So how can it be used to prove genocide? 

In some instances, the perpetrators are classified just as Fulani, without even qualifying them as militants or bandits or whether they are acting in self defence or reprisal. So the whole Fulani as a tribe are guilty. What a data!

9. Recommendations

In the closing section of the Legal Brief, Prof outlined 9 recommendations which give us a resounding proof of what he actually said in 2020:

—“set up an independent, neutral and impartial international commission of inquiry to investigate the causes of recurrent crimes under international law in Nigeria; identify perpetrators and make appropriate recommendations for immediate action pursuant to Articles 33 and 39 of the Charter of the UN”;

—“impose sanctions on State and non-State actors responsible for the series of serious crimes in Nigeria, which have led to mental agony and colossal losses of lives and properties…”;

—“set up a UN-backed tribunal in Nigeria to try perpetrators of the crimes as was the case in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra-Leone…”;

—“the UN Security Council can be pressured by the major powers to refer the case of Nigeria by virtue of its referral powers under Article 13 of the Rome Statute to the ICC”;

— “the UN Security Council passing a Resolution, making call for jihad in any part of the world a barbaric act and a breach of the Charter of the UN which would result into enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter, and would also constitute an inchoate act of genocide under the Genocide Convention for the purpose of the OTP’s investigation and prosecution”;

—“mobilize local and foreign non-governmental organizations to put pressure on Nigeria to act in compliance with its international obligations”;

—“Contracting Parties to the Genocide Convention should sue Nigeria at the International Court of Justice for failing to comply with its obligations to prevent genocide and to punish perpetrators in the country in line with Articles 8 and 9 of the Genocide Convention”;

— “military action by the UN, African Union and ECOWAS forces may be taken as a last resort: Article 42 of the Charter of the UN”;

—“once the perpetrators of heinous crimes in Nigeria are identified, other States should apprehend them if they are in their territories and prosecute them (sic) universal jurisdiction.”

To claim that Prof has called for military action against Nigeria is not correct. As a lawyer he laid out the procedure and recommended military action only as a last resort.

So how has Donald Trump promoted it to a first or second resort? Prof has listed a number of steps beginning with investigation, prosecution, judicial pronouncement that there indeed war crimes and genocide have taken place, then enforcement, before military action—“as a last resort”.

I think President Tinubu should dispatch Prof to Washington to help educate Trump that his threat to militarily intervene in Nigeria is a violation of International Law. Or he can ask him to write a new Legal Brief for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to that effect.

What I only find surprising is how Prof himself jumped the gun and concluded that genocide is taking place in Nigeria without waiting for any of the official investigation and judicial pronouncement he recommended. On this charge, I find him guilty of haste.

10. INEC Chair

After the revelation of Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter and his contribution therein, many people have questioned the moral standing of Professor Amupitan to chair our Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, given that it is a position that requires the fairness of a magistrate. Unless he has learnt his lessons, the Legal Brief, if tendered for magisterial examination even in Unijos, would be returned with a poor grade by any impartial examiner. In it, there is more than sufficient material for critics to argue that Prof displays a sectarian bias that borders, in their view, on hate for a section of the Nigerian population.

Ordinarily, in many climes, he woukd have reconsidered his position after this revelation. The president too would have revisited his appointment. But…”kai, Najeriya ce fa”, as Danbello would say. 

Conclusion

From the reaction of many Nigerians to his legal brief, I pray that Prof has learnt his lesson. He is now in a position where he must embrace all Nigerians, including those he sufficiently demonized in the brief. INEC headquarters is not an ecclesiastical building. It is not CAN headquarters. It is also neither the office of an academic in Jos nor the chamber of a legal practitioner waiting for recruitment by a client. It is a station for justice to all Nigerians. I know that this challenges his orientation and background but it is one which the nation hopes he will overcome during his tenure.

Meanwhile, he must—ironically—join other officials in telling his American partners directly or through writing a new brief that there is no Christian genocide in Nigeria. If Tinubu would perchance hear pim from him crying genocide again, he is on his own. Tam!

12 November 2025

————-

LIST OF SPURIOUS STATEMENTS

Below are 49 statements from Prof. Amupitan’s legal brief (as published in Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter report) that appear wild, exaggerated, or unsupported by credible evidence.

1. It is a notorious fact that there is perpetration of crimes under international law in Nigeria, particularly crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. (p. 36)

2. One word that the Nigerian authorities and international investigators and rapporteurs have not mentioned (or simply refuse to mention) in respect of the protracted violence in Nigeria is ‘genocide.’ Is this a deliberate omission or an oversight? (p. 36)

3. The alleged involvement of the State and non-State actors in the commission of crimes under international law in Nigeria has complicated an already complex situation. Consequently, the situation beckons the urgent need for a neutral and impartial third-party intervention, especially the UN and its key organs… (p. 39)

4. (There is an) urgent need for… intervention, especially the UN and its key organs, the military and economic superpowers, and regional or sub-regional organisations… (p. 39)

5. Prof. Amupitan declared that crimes under international law – including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity – were being perpetrated in Nigeria. (p. 36)

6. The Fulani herdsmen are predominantly Muslims and exhibit fundamentalist tendencies substantially similar to those of the Boko Haram sect. (p. 42)

7. The Boko Haram sect is a desire for the Islamisation of Nigeria. The Fulani ethnic militants, on their part, have engaged in the same anti-Christian violence as their Boko Haram counterparts.” (p. 47)

8. Since it is the agenda of the Fulani to Islamise the whole of Nigeria, they have used the machinery of the State, deliberately handed over to them by the colonialists, to advance their cause at all times. (p. 72)

9. The period of the military regime was used maximally to create States and Local Government Areas, and set boundaries, in a manner that gives economic and political advantages to the Hausa-Fulani ethnic group. (p. 72)

10. The military regime ensured that major strategic appointments went to the Hausa-Fulani group, while their promotions in the public service, especially in the military, police, and customs, were accelerated. (p. 72)

11. The well-orchestrated plan paid off for them because the other ethnic groups did not realise their agenda to Islamise the whole of Nigeria, and by the time the plan was being understood by some… the damage had already become too much. (p. 72)

12. The military, police, customs, and the public service as a whole have been taken over completely, with Islamic fundamentalists planted in strategic positions to supervise the final phase of the agenda. (p. 72)

13. Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen [are] responsible for an orgy of bloodbath and massive displacements in many States across Nigeria. (p. 36)

14. Although Boko Haram had been formally designated a terrorist organisation in 2013, the Fulani herdsmen — whom he directly accused of orchestrating widespread massacres — had not been officially recognized as terrorists, but rather ‘labelled a terrorist group.’” (p. 36)

15. There is evidence that genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed by both State and non-State actors. (p. 39)

16. The Nigerian Government has not demonstrated sufficient willpower to deal with the crises; hence they have persisted and proliferated. As there is delay in taking drastic actions, lives are being lost, thereby inching the country’s destination to another Holocaust, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur and Myanmar. Can the country survive it? (p. 108)

17. Nigeria risks repeating the mistakes of Rwanda and Sudan, where international hesitation led to mass atrocities. (p. 108)

18. Nigeria’s constitutional failure to protect its citizens has made international intervention both a legal and moral necessity. (p. 92)

19. The Fulani militants have engaged in a campaign of killing Christians in the Middle Belt Region of Nigeria, where their activities have been most felt, and indeed other parts of the country. (p. 47)

20. The victims of the crises are mainly the Christian population and the minority ethnic groups in Nigeria, and hence the need for remedial actions under international law. (p. 39)

21. In tracing the roots of Nigeria’s ethno-religious conflicts, Amupitan linked modern-day violence to the Fulani-led jihad of Uthman Dan Fodio in 1804, describing it as a ‘full-blown Islamization agenda. (p. 32)

22. The Fulani elite in government and security agencies have continued to manipulate international opinion and deceive foreign governments into believing that the violence is not a jihad to Islamize Nigeria. (p. 74)

23. Following the 19th century jihad of Uthman Dan Fodio, the Hausa territories were conquered and the Sokoto Caliphate established… The success of the jihad was one of religious triumphalism that aimed at expanding the caliphate to other parts of Nigeria in an irrevocable bid to dip the Quran into the Atlantic Ocean in Lagos. (p. 32)

24. He asserted that the caliphate thereafter became a dominant force in the North, and that subsequent governments had continued to protect its influence through political arrangements. (p. 34)

25. The IDPs have become stateless in their own country. (p. 73)

26. Churches have been desecrated and destroyed in large numbers – over 13,000 churches were reported to have been closed or destroyed in the Northeast alone during the Boko Haram insurgency (2009–2014). (p. 46)

27. Over 60,000 people have been brutally killed since 2001… This conflict is six times deadlier than Boko Haram’s insurgency.

28. The persistent silence from the government is further encouragement to Fulani militants to pillage and occupy land and to kill anyone who resists. The government’s response… reinforces [them] as a group of attackers without criminal repercussions. (p. 72)

29. Fulani herdsmen, with the support of government officials, have occupied lands belonging to indigenous communities and forcefully driven away the original inhabitants. (p. 74)

30. Amnesty International reported that Nigerian security forces committed war crimes in their campaign, including extrajudicial killings and torture, yet no one has been held accountable. (p. 83)

31. The 1804 jihad has now manifested as … Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen’s attacks and even the Sharia controversy.” (p. 35)

32. Hence this formal and urgent request for international intervention in dealing with the pogrom and attacks against the Christians and minority groups in Nigeria. (p. 35)

33. There is no source of international law under which a State … can intervene … except with the consent of the forum State. (p. 39)

34. Fulani herdsmen take advantage of the fact that their tribesmen control the Federal Government and most of the State Governments in Northern Nigeria. (p. 72)

35. The Federal Government … accepted that the kidnappers in every part of Nigeria are the Fulani herdsmen. (p. 73)

36. Miyetti Allah often takes responsibility for most of the killings by the herdsmen. (p. 73)

37. What more is to be said of State complicity and the actual agenda to fully Islamize Nigeria … This is the real reason for the violence. (p. 73)

38. Fulani elites have literally appropriated the executive, legislative and judicial powers in the country. (p. 75)

39. Communities are] immediately occupied and renamed … followed by the appointment of an Emir. (p. 75)

40. Fulani mercenaries engage in ‘retail killings’ of Christians and other ethnic or religious minorities. (p. 75)

41. This is one expansionist strategy … to depopulate many Christian communities in the Nigerian north central. (p. 76)

42. A Fulani person looks more or less like the ‘Caucasoid’ race. (p. 51)

43. The fusion of Hausa and Fulani into ‘Hausa-Fulani’ … is a grave error. (p. 51)

44. Colonialists handed over a polity fraught with dishonest census figures, political gerrymandering and favouritism … in favour of the Northern Region. (p. 34)

45. Impose sanctions … by the UN … as well as other … sovereign States pursuant to Article 52 of the Charter of the UN. (p. 109)

46. Set up a UN-backed tribunal in Nigeria … as was the case in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra-Leone. (p. 109)

47. (Have the Security Council pass a resolution) making call for jihad in any part of the world a barbaric act and a breach of the Charter … (an) inchoate act of genocide. (p. 109)

48. Military action by the UN, African Union and ECOWAS forces may be taken as a last resort: Article 42 of the Charter of the UN. (p. 110)

49. Other States should apprehend (Nigerian) perpetrators … and prosecute them (under) universal jurisdiction. (p. 110)

By Sa’adatu Aliyu

“I was Igbo before the white man came” is a saying by Chimamanda Adichie through her character Odenigbo in her infamous book Half of a Yellow Sun, reinforcing pride in her African heritage before the white man’s incursion, which destabilised the otherwise peaceful coexistence of African communal states.

However, it seems to me that she has been afflicted by the Igbo superiority complex over other tribes in Nigeria, especially the Hausa-Fulani in the North. This pride in being traditionally Igbo and human doesn’t extend to her acknowledgement of the Hausa-Fulani Muslim humanity and identity—held with equal pride—just as the Hausa-Fulani were before the Whiteman.

Ethnic Pride and Selective Humanity

Moreover, the likes of Adichie and her Igbo fanatics would rather make baseless and false claims about the Igbos being suppressed and ethnically cleansed in letters to Washington than sit to resolve their differences internally with their brothers in the North, solely because they are Muslims whom the Igbos do not perceive as human equals.

Generally speaking, the problem with the Igbos is that they believe all the lands in Nigeria belong to them. Their illusion of grandiosity makes them feel entitled to all locations in Nigeria beyond their region as places they have the right to live, seek better economic opportunities, and build a stable, secure life. In contrast, the same right is not extended to other tribes in Nigeria, especially the Hausa man, who, until today, faces all sorts of harassment whenever he is in the Southeast, sometimes stopped and asked by unscrupulous elements to pay “matching ground” money.

This is a form of tax collected from non-indigenous individuals seeking better economic opportunities over there—a thing that doesn’t occur in the North. Unlike the South, even though Muslims predominantly inhabit the North, it has a significant presence of churches, whereas the presence of mosques is not tolerated in the Southeast except in a few exceptional cases. Moreover, if the North was so brutal towards the Christians as they depict, why do Southerners/Eastern Nigerians seek greener pastures in the North more than the North moves towards their region? If it was so unfriendly to the Igbos and Christians, why not the Igbos remain in their regions, and the North remain in theirs?

Power, Entitlement, and the North–East Tension

While all Nigerian citizens have the right to live and build a life devoid of fear in any part of Nigeria, the Igbos particularly think they should be the ones solely steering the affairs of Nigeria and should be the sole tribe entitled to managing the juiciest positions in government, merely for being Igbo, not necessarily based on superior qualification.

Understanding the mentality of the Igbos has led to what I’d like to refer to as a “personality clash” with the Hausa-Fulanis. Despite being perceived as backwards in an educated population, they are like poor men who would never sacrifice their dignity for money, nor bow to any force that may seek to demean them based on possessing more Western education.

This has led to the long-standing tension between the two ethnic groups. The case of the North and the East is akin to a couple in their early years of marriage experiencing a clash of personality—not necessarily due to lack of love or to cause deliberate harm, but because one happens to blow issues out of proportion by arguing that the other insists on hurting them deliberately.

Instead of checking in with their ego, they engage in score keeping, accusing, and incessantly crying out for help, even if it means seeking a third party in the cloak of a certified therapist—who may hiddenly be a psychopath and has no genuine interest in the wellbeing of the couple, but instead has its greedy eyes on the money to be extorted from them, further destroying their home.

The West as “Therapist”: Foreign Meddling and Naivety

This is precisely what the Christians in Nigeria are doing by seeking the intervention of so-called America, peering underneath African countries’ beds looking for genocide, when the very foundation of the U.S. was built on the vile killings of Indigenous Native Americans.

This scenario has been fueling some of the false accusations circulating in the media about genocide against Christians in the North. It is no doubt Nigeria has been plagued by indiscriminate killings and kidnappings in the past few years, but this has involved the loss of lives and livelihoods of citizens across all ethno-religious groups—mainly by Boko Haram militias and banditry—and not killings affecting Christian communities alone, as the naive Christians of Nigeria, who still put the U.S. on a saintly pedestal, have been framing it.

This is mere fabrication born out of a myopic desire to destabilise the fragile peace still holding the nation together, forgetting that foreign powers have never and will never look out genuinely for the Black race, but have repeatedly set their eyes on how to invade and plunder the resources of our dear land.

Be it the U.S., Russia, China, or other subordinate world powers, they couldn’t care less if Africa burned. All they would do is not find a way of quenching the fire but find a means to steal our resources, all the while supplying the weapons we’ll use to maim our brothers with whom we share the same African Black DNA.

It is sad that, in the eyes of Nigerian Christians, America remains a demigod they rush to whenever facing a “problem.” in this manner. But this doesn’t paint the image of a race free from the shackles of colonialism—it looks to me like a remix of the same song to which we can’t dance, should any foreign power invade as is being threatened by the U.S currently. 

Nigerians should never forget Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and every other country the U.S. has invaded. It was never for goodwill or for the sake of the masses to have a better life; it was never about democracy but about the kleptomaniac instinct of foreign powers to pillage, to use the stolen resources of Africa to build their countries.

Colonial Mind enslavement and the Illusion of Freedom

When Chimamanda Adichie said she’s Igbo before the invention of the white man, I presume she was refuting the attempt of the white colonialist to redefine her ancestral root. She was rejecting the image of the indigenous people of Africa that the white man struggled to create to wipe out her identity.

I also want to believe the white man here is seen as foreign, intrusive, with no right to rewrite the history of the African people, nor to decide our destiny. But how come the same Nigerians, especially Igbos who pride themselves on being a fraction of the Black race, are quick to call for the intervention of the same white man to salvage them—to resolve a conflict with their African brothers on religious division, (the religions) on the basis which they’re stirring foment being a product nothing but a product of colonialism?

Yet they pick up their pens and still write saintly yet furiously about pride in Africa, Pan-Africanism, Negritude, and pride in the Black race they claim to represent. And one wonders with the level of hate projected towards Northern Muslims, whether they are not part of the black Africans. To me, this is nothing short of colonial mind slavery that still bedevils even our so-called intellectuals, blinded by religious fundamentalism and succumbing to it so effortlessly. Hence, one begins to question their education.

As Chuba Okadigbo once said:

 “If you are emotionally attached to your tribe, religion or political leaning to the point that truth and justice become secondary considerations, your education is useless.

If you cannot reason beyond petty sentiments, you are a liability to mankind.”

Mirroring a similar view, if the educated one cannot look beyond ethno-religious sentiment and live objectively, he has no business being called educated. However, this is a hat donned by several of Nigeria’s think tanks, sadly.

Similarly, Nelson Mandela reminds us:

 “It is not our diversity which divides us; it is not our ethnicity, or religion or culture that divides us…”

Can the African mind ever be decolonised? I doubt so. It might all look like we are free, but there’s no freedom without the freedom of the mind.

So, the quest of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o for Africans to free themselves from mental colonial slavery—which led to his abandonment of the English language and adoption of Kikuyu—doesn’t extend to this area for many Christian fanatics who happen to be influential writers from the Eastern part of Nigeria. And this is utterly disheartening.

In Conclusion

In the wake of all this commotion, I perceive the naivety of those spreading these lies to draw foreign intervention in Nigeria as an act of somnambolic foolishness—for which I am sure they will regret when they come face to face with the hypocrisy that lies in the heart of world powers, should they get what they are calling for.

I pray for peace, unity, religious understanding, and togetherness in Nigeria and the world at large. Let us always remember: a shred of peace is better than no peace at all.

Saadatu Aliyu is a writer and poet based in Zaria. Email @: saadatualiyu36@gmail.com 

By Abdussamad Umar Jibia 

Finally, you are there. Your “brother” from America has spoken. He is coming to “your disgraced country” to wipe out your enemy, an enemy who has lived above your pettiness. This enemy does not give attention to your blackmail, an enemy in whose presence you always feel inferior. That enemy is I, the Muslim Northerner. Out of your inferiority complex, you have given me different names, the most widely used of which is Hausa-Fulani.

I am Hausa-Fulani, even if I am Kanuri, who can speak no single word of Hausa or Fulfulde. I am Hausa-Fulani even if I was born to one of the minority tribes of Gombe, Bauchi, Kogi or, in fact, a Birom. To qualify as a Hausa-Fulani, I require only to be a non-Yoruba, non-Igbo Northerner who prays five times a day. 

At last, I have caught the attention of your big brother, who has never been to Nigeria, a person who has no respect for a black man like you and me. All you are now waiting for are his bombs and rifles to make you greater than the Hausa-Fulani, to make your presence arouse hate and fear in others, just like you feel when I am around. Congratulations. 

Your hatred towards me has a history which cannot be ignored. You and I have lived side by side for centuries. This is where our creator has decided to place us, just like He placed the Chinese in China, the Indians in India, the Arabs in Arabia, etc.

Living together always generates experiences, sweet and bitter. You have always emphasised the bitter experiences of living with me as the reason for disliking me. For example, you believe that before the coming of the British, you were oppressed by me through my emirs, who carried regular raids on your villages to catch slaves; slaves they sold to Arabs and your newfound brothers in Europe and America.

When the British came as colonisers, they no longer needed slaves. So, even though they ruled you through my emir, they banned slavery the way it was done at that time. However, because they sensed no wisdom in you, they taught you that the worship of one God, as done by your neighbour, was wrong. They taught you about three gods that can be considered as one. Depending on who taught you Christianity, you believe that these three gods (or parts of God) are the Son, the Father and the Holy Ghost or the Son, the Father and the holy ghost. Even if it didn’t make sense, it was handy. At least, you now had a religion just like the Hausa-Fulani had one. 

This raises one question. Are you a Christian because you genuinely believe in Christianity, or are you in Christianity because you want to compete with me? Actions are said to speak louder than words. Your later actions would answer this question.

For example, even before Europeans arrived in this part of the world, we travelled to Makkah, now located in Saudi Arabia, for the annual pilgrimage. To date, we have saved our money to go on Hajj without waiting for the Government. Even without Government agencies, we would continue to go on Hajj on our own because it is an article of our faith. Don’t worry, I know how your mind is working. You would be happy if your American brother would bomb the place we go to annually. To your chagrin, that wouldn’t change anything. We shall still perform hajj even if the Kaába is demolished. Islam has provided for that possibility.

Unfortunately, Christians do not have an organised system of worship that provides for an annual pilgrimage. Out of ignorance, you thought Israelis are your brothers because their grandfather is mentioned in the Bible. You thus put pressure on the Government to create diplomatic ties with Israel so that you can go there for pilgrimage, just like Muslims go to Saudi Arabia. So, you annually come back to tell stories about Israel just like Muslim pilgrims share their experiences in Saudi Arabia.

One thing you have forgotten is that Israelis do not even believe in Christianity. As far as they are concerned, Jesus Christ is an illegitimate child of an adulterous woman, and Christians are idol worshippers. Yet, you still believe that Israelis are better than you because they are the “God-Chosen”. I don’t even know which god chose them. Is it the God they claim to have killed, or is it another God? In any case, you need a solution to your slave mentality. 

You are very unlucky to be a tiny minority; otherwise, I would have been cleansed long ago. Your record of violence against Muslims in the few areas you control is well established. In some cases, like Tafawa Balewa, Zangon Kataf and Saminaka, you wiped off/displaced entire Muslim communities. In many other cases, you killed as many as you could by intercepting Muslim travellers, attacking them during prayers, etc., as you did many times in Plateau state.

You were enjoying your violence and playing the victim with the support of the Christian press when the Fulani herders conundrum began. The word “herdsmen” is a misnomer used to avoid ethnic profiling. The correct words are criminals, armed robbers, or bandits. These groups of people have no respect for human lives and property. The least they do is to drive their cattle into farms to devour crops, and when farmers react, they fight them without mercy.

In the extreme, they attack a village, hamlet or innocent travellers and kill, rape, maim, steal and/or kidnap for ransom. Thank goodness, the ‘’herdsmen’’ kept you in check as they always return whatever fire you release with multiples of it. Both of you are criminals, but they are more vicious and sophisticated. This is even as it is in record that your youth allegedly received training in Israel to fight Muslims.

In any case, you would agree with me that I have suffered from banditry more than you did. The whole thing began in Zamfara and spread to Katsina, Sokoto, Niger and Kaduna before it reached Plateau and Southern Kaduna. Yet, you go about lying that your fellow criminals are Muslims carrying out genocide against Christians. Your shamelessness is awful.

Once more, accept my congratulations. Your lies have paid. You may, however, be disappointed to know that Americans have never solved any problem. Whichever country they enter, they would be worse off after leaving it, except in Afghanistan, where they were shamed out. Should they come in here, we are determined to resist and drive them out like they were driven out of Afghanistan. We shall die honourably or triumph with grace, in sha Allah. For us, submission to the enemy is not an option.

Finally, let me note that there are many exceptions to the above. I have respect for peace-loving Christians from the North, and there are many of them.

Abdussamad Umar Jibia wrote from Kano, Nigeria, via aujibia@gmail.com.

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 Saidu Ahmad Dukawa 

Introduction

At last, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has made the decision he had long planned against Nigeria, following complaints by some Nigerian Christians who alleged that they were victims of religious persecution in the country.

Trump had once placed a similar sanction on Nigeria during his first term, but after he lost the election to Joe Biden, Biden reversed that “rash and unfair” decision.

This new ruling, however, requires Nigeria to take certain actions in line with America’s interests — or face a series of sanctions. For example, these “American interests” could include the following:

1. Any Nigerian state practising Sharia Law must abolish it.

2. Any law that prohibits blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) must be repealed.

3. Any location where Christians wish to build a church must grant them permission to do so.

4. Anything that Christians claim makes them “uncomfortable” in the country — such as businesses involving halal trade — must be stopped.

5. All businesses that Christians desire, such as the alcohol trade, must be freely allowed across the nation.

These are just examples of the complaints made by some Christian groups to the United States, which may also include political and economic demands.

This action by Trump mirrors what America once did to Iraq under Saddam Hussein — accusing the country of possessing weapons of mass destruction, just to justify an invasion.

If true justice were the goal, then both sides — the accusers and the Nigerian authorities — should have been listened to, including Muslim organisations that provided counter-evidence.

Even among Christians, many reasonable voices have spoken against these exaggerated claims, yet their words are ignored. Clearly, a plan against Nigeria had already been set in motion.

So, what is left for the Nigerian government and its citizens to do? Here is my opinion:

WHAT THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO

1. Use diplomatic channels to inform the Trump administration that the situation is being misrepresented. Even if America remains adamant, the rest of the sensible world will know that any step America takes against Nigeria on this basis is pure injustice, and that knowledge itself will have benefits.

2. Reduce dependence on the United States in key areas such as trade, education, and healthcare. Nigeria should instead strengthen its ties with other countries, such as Russia, China, and Turkey.

3. Unite Nigerians — both Muslims and Christians who do not share this divisive mindset — to resist and expose any malicious plots against the nation.

WHAT THE NIGERIAN PEOPLE SHOULD DO

1. All Nigerians — Muslims and Christians alike — should begin to reduce their personal and travel ties with the United States, especially visa applications, as it may no longer be easy to obtain them.

2. Those who hold large amounts of US dollars should consider converting their funds into other global currencies.

3. Muslims with good relationships with Christians should not let this tension destroy their friendships — and vice versa. Let unity prevail.

4. Muslims must not lose hope or courage. They should realise that they have no powerful ally. Non-Muslims are the ones with global backing. The Jews can commit atrocities against Muslims, and America will support them. In India, Muslims are being killed — America is silent. In China, Muslims face persecution — America is silent.

In Nigeria, there is no single town where Muslims have chased out Christians, but in Tafawa Balewa, Christians expelled Muslims and took over the town. Terrorists who kill indiscriminately in Nigeria have taken more Muslim lives than Christian ones — yet Trump publicly declared that only Christian lives matter.

Still, Muslims can take comfort in one fact: Islam is spreading fast in both America and Europe. Perhaps, one day, when Islam gains ground there, justice and fairness will finally return to the world — because today’s problem is rooted in the injustice that Western powers built the world upon.

5. Nigerian Christians themselves need to wake up to the truth — that the Western world does not honestly care about Christianity, only about controlling resources and power.

If they really cared about Christian lives, they wouldn’t have ignored what’s happening in Congo — a country with one of the largest Christian populations — where Christians kill one another. The same goes for Haiti, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Rwanda.

There are numerous examples of Christian nations facing crises. And when Nigerian Christians think of running to the US for refuge, they will realise that America will not take them in. Therefore, it’s wiser to live peacefully with their Muslim brothers and sisters here in Nigeria.

6. Finally, it is the duty of all believers to constantly pray for Nigeria — that God protects it from every form of harm and evil.

Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you all.

Dr Saidu Ahmad Dukawa wrote from Bayero University, Kano (BUK).

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.

By Misbahu El-Hamza

President Bola Tinubu has finally responded to the false accusation of a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria, a narrative that surfaced in late September. Yet as this claim gains traction in U.S. conservative circles, he should be more worried about his political prospects. The narrative—and U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent call to redesignate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC)—could give Washington both motive and cover to oppose Tinubu’s re-election in 2027, just as former President Goodluck Jonathan alleged of the Obama administration in 2015.

Former President Jonathan publicly claimed that he lost the 2015 election because of U.S. interference. Two issues broadly defined the diplomatic rift between the two governments. The first was Boko Haram’s insurgency and the abduction of the Chibok girls. In a 2018 BBC interview, Jonathan lamented that Nigerians in the U.S. joined public protests there, one of which famously featured Michelle Obama holding a placard with the slogan #BringBackOurGirls.

At the October 2025 launch of ‘SCARS: Nigeria’s Journey and the Boko Haram Conundrum,’ by former Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Lucky Irabor (retd.), Jonathan recalled: “When I was in office, one of the major scars on my government, and one I will retire with, is the issue of the Chibok girls. As Bishop Kukah said, no plastic or cosmetic surgeon will remove it.” The then-opposition under Muhammadu Buhari, which included Tinubu, exploited insecurity for political advantage, a factor that clearly contributed to Jonathan’s loss.

The second, and in my opinion, more damaging rift was Jonathan’s stance against same-sex marriage, reflecting the convictions of most Nigerians. In 2014, he signed the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, shortly after the Obama administration’s 2011 pledge to “use all the tools of American diplomacy” to promote gay rights globally. Washington’s reaction was swift. The White House warned of possible cuts to HIV/AIDS and anti-malaria funding, while Jonathan’s government held firm. Nigerians applauded him for that. But during the 2015 campaign, the Obama administration’s outreach, including direct appeals to Nigerian voters and a high-profile visit by Secretary of State John Kerry, was widely viewed as tacit support for Buhari, which many Nigerians, including Jonathan himself, believe shaped the election’s outcome.

Insecurity also played a domestic role in Jonathan’s downfall. Nigerians were increasingly alarmed by unrelenting violence—beyond Boko Haram, currently compounded by communal, ethnic, and religious clashes and by banditry mostly in northern Nigeria—that claimed hundreds of innocent lives. Regardless of how the world described it, the reality was and is still tragic. It eroded public trust and patriotism. Yet successive governments, rather than restoring security, have often appeared more concerned with foreign perceptions than with rebuilding national confidence and truly working to end the bloodshed of innocent Nigerians.

So, while Jonathan’s administration angered the Obama White House over the same-sex marriage law, many believe that Tinubu’s has irritated Washington for another reason.

In early September, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025 (S.2747) to the U.S. Senate. The bill seeks to sanction Nigerian officials allegedly complicit in “Islamist jihadist violence against Christians and other minorities” and those “enforcing blasphemy laws”. Blasphemy remains an offence under Nigeria’s criminal code and in the twelve northern states operating shari’a law. Yet, the Cruz bill’s language raises serious questions: how would the former officials be identified, and on what evidence? If Washington possesses proof, it has not presented any. Within Nigeria, such accusations often surface in political rhetoric but rarely withstand scrutiny.

Still, Nigeria’s greater “offence” under Tinubu—at least to American conservatives like Bill Maher, Mike Arnold, Ted Cruz, Riley Moore, and now Donald Trump—is its unwavering support for the Palestinian people. Successive Nigerian governments, whether Christian- or Muslim-led, have consistently condemned Israel’s occupation and called for a two-state solution as the only path to peace. This position, long-standing and bipartisan in Nigeria, clashes directly with Washington’s pro-Israel consensus.

After Nigeria’s firm statement at the 80th UN General Assembly in September, Maher went on his HBO show and declared, “I’m not a Christian, but they are systematically killing the Christians in Nigeria,” comparing it to Gaza and calling it “a more serious genocide.” Such claims, amplified by Trump’s rhetoric about “defending Christians,” serve U.S. political optics more than global justice. Recall Trump’s 2020 CPC designation for Nigeria. It was largely symbolic and carried no enforcement before he left office. His renewed posturing appears equally opportunistic.

Tinubu may believe U.S. pressure arises from concern for Christian victims of Islamist violence and that this aligns with Nigeria’s large Christian population. Yet the U.S. record tells a different story. The same establishment that condemns persecution in Nigeria supports Israel’s war in Gaza, where many casualties are both Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

If Nigeria accuses Washington of selective advocacy, it may find sympathy at home, but not in Washington, where lobbying interests dominate the narrative. Assuming that the “Christian genocide” argument will shield Nigeria from criticism would be a miscalculation.

Tinubu is not yet where Jonathan stood in 2015, but the parallels are unmistakable. The Obama administration’s posture during Jonathan’s re-election bid showed how U.S. influence can shape Nigerian politics. A sustained clash with U.S. policy on religious freedom and Palestine, coupled with insecurity and governance failures, could become a tipping point. Avoiding that outcome will require strategic diplomacy (which we have no doubt our president possesses), credible reform, and a domestic agenda rooted in accountability. Nigerians must see real action towards ending Boko Haram and banditry.

This moment demands political acumen and the disciplined management of both security and foreign relations. Tinubu cannot afford to repeat Jonathan’s missteps. In global politics, misreading Washington’s signals has previously cost Nigerian presidents, and history may not be kind to those who fail to learn from it.

Misbahu writes from Kano and can be reached via email: misbahulhamza@gmail.com

By Abdullahi Abubakar Lamido 

When Nigeria first introduced Islamic banking more than a decade ago, a section of the public, especially some Christian leaders, cried foul. They labelled it an attempt to Islamise the nation. The word Islamic became synonymous with suspicion. Yet, history has since given its verdict. The same Islamic banking and finance that was once denounced as a tool for religious expansion has now become one of the most credible components of Nigeria’s financial system. Today, the government of Nigeria, regardless of faith or political party, routinely issues Sukuk (Islamic bonds) to finance national infrastructure, build roads, and other developmental projects. 

If Islamic banking did not Islamise Nigeria, how on earth will the halal economy, a trade-based development initiative, suddenly do so?

Unfortunately, some commentators continue to see through the fog of prejudice rather than the lens of global economics. The recently developed Nigerian National Halal Economy Strategy is not a religious project. It is an economic vision. It seeks to position Nigeria within a rapidly expanding global market that respects ethics, transparency, environmental responsibility, and product integrity; values shared by all civilisations, not by Muslims alone.

Globally, the halal economy is estimated at USD 2.3 trillion, excluding Islamic finance. It is growing at an annual rate of around 20 per cent, making it one of the fastest-expanding consumer markets in the world, valued at about USD 560 billion each year. The halal industry, initially rooted in food and beverages, has long transcended its traditional boundaries. It now spans pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, health products, toiletries, medical devices, and even service sectors such as logistics, marketing, media, packaging, branding, and finance. With rising affluence and awareness among global consumers, it has further extended to halal tourism, hospitality, fashion, and lifestyle services.

This development is not driven by Muslims alone. Indeed, the modern halal market is non-exclusive. Increasingly, non-Muslim consumers associate halal with ethical consumerism, animal welfare, environmental stewardship, and quality assurance. The label “halal” has evolved into a global mark of trust, symbolising cleanliness, safety, and ethical production.

Countries far removed from Islam, such as the United States, the Netherlands, Russia, China, and South Africa, are already major players in the halal economy. In the United States, the halal market is worth USD 12 billion annually, with halal food sales growing by more than 70 per cent since 1995. Over 90 per cent of U.S. dry dairy ingredient manufacturers now produce halal products, primarily for export.

In the Netherlands, where Muslims are barely a tenth of the population, non-Muslim Dutch consumers spend approximately USD 3 billion annually on halal food. In the United Kingdom, six million people consume halal meat, three times the Muslim population. These figures prove one thing: halal has gone mainstream. Even Russia is experiencing explosive growth in its halal sector, with domestic demand rising by 30-40 per cent annually. The country now produces around 65,000 tonnes of halal meat each year and hosts major expos such as the Moscow Halal Expo and KazanHalal.

China, with its 23 million Muslims, records 10 per cent annual growth in its halal industry, with trade worth USD 2.1 billion and export products valued at USD 10 million annually from the Ningxia region alone.

Africa, too, is awakening to this opportunity. South Africa—with only two per cent of its population being Muslim—is now one of the five largest producers of halal products globally, thanks to a robust certification infrastructure. Kenya, with a fast-growing halal certification regime, already has more than 150 certified companies serving local and regional markets.

Nigeria, with its vast agricultural resources, strategic location, and large Muslim population, stands at the crossroads of opportunity. The halal economy offers three immediate advantages:

1. Export Expansion: By developing credible halal certification and production infrastructure, Nigeria can unlock access to markets worth over USD 2 trillion, exporting beef, poultry, processed foods, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and other halal-compliant goods. Nigerian products can enter Middle Eastern and Asian markets that strictly demand halal certification.

2. Job Creation and SME Growth: The halal economy stimulates employment across value chains—from farm to factory, logistics, certification, branding, and export marketing. It empowers micro and small enterprises while ensuring compliance with ethical standards that appeal to both local and international consumers.

3. National Image and Ethical Standards: Halal certification ensures higher hygiene, traceability, and environmental protection. It is compatible with international standards like ISO and HACCP, thereby enhancing Nigeria’s global competitiveness. In essence, promoting halal is promoting quality, sustainability, and integrity—values that no religion should reject.

The critics who fear the halal roadmap as a step toward Islamisation fail to recognise that halal is an economic term before it is a theological one in this context. It stands for what is wholesome, safe, clean, traceable, and socially responsible. These values are not confined to Islam. They are embedded in Christianity, Judaism, and secular ethics alike.

The halal economy represents a fusion of faith and fairness, ethics and enterprise. It provides a model for a more responsible economic system—precisely the kind of moral economy the world craves in the aftermath of global financial and environmental crises.

When the debate over Islamic banking first arose, the same fear-mongering dominated the headlines. Yet, today, Islamic finance has built roads, schools, and hospitals across Nigeria through Sukuk and other Shari’ah-compliant financing. Christian engineers, contractors, and civil servants have benefitted immensely. The country’s Christian-majority states have received as much as the Muslim ones. No mosque was built, no church destroyed, and no constitution rewritten.

If Islamic banking did not Islamise Nigeria, how will halal exports do so? On the contrary, the halal economy promises to diversify Nigeria’s trade, create jobs, enhance foreign exchange earnings, and promote industrial standards that protect all consumers, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Nigeria cannot afford to watch from the sidelines while other nations—Christian, secular, and atheist alike—harvest the fruits of the halal economy. The world is shifting toward ethical consumption, sustainability, and traceable production. The halal brand, far from being divisive, is a passport to global markets.

The Nigeria National Halal Economy Strategy is not about religion; it is about relevance. It is about integrating Nigeria into the trillion-dollar value chain that prizes quality, fairness, and responsibility. Those who see crisis where there is opportunity risk being on the wrong side of history, just as those who once opposed Islamic banking and finance, now benefit from Sukuk-financed roads.

The celebration of the halal economy is not the planting of tomorrow’s crisis; it is the harvest of tomorrow’s prosperity for every Nigerian, regardless of faith. It is time we remove the caps of emotion and prejudice and wear the lenses of reason, tolerance, and progress. Nigeria must embrace every opportunity that promises shared prosperity, job creation, and national development. The halal economy is not about division—it is about direction. It is about placing our nation on the map of global relevance, productivity, and ethical growth. So help us God. 

Amir Lamido wrote from Abuja via lamidomabudi@gmail.com.