Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

Following Sahara Reporters’ publication of Afenifere article wherein the famous migration of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from Mecca to Medina was likened to that of Sunday Igboho, many Muslims on social media sever ties with the controversial online news medium.

Many Muslims describe the comparison as horrendous, awful and disrespectful. Sanusi Lafiagi, a lecturer of Islamic Studies at the Al-Hikmah University, Ilorin, Kwara State, criticises the article, adding that Sunday Igboho is “NOTHING compared to Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)”.

The Muslims hurt by the article’s publication register their anger by “unliking” and “unfollowing” Sahara Reporters social media handles. The Daily Reality has been following the development closely and can confirm that Sahara Reporters has already lost several thousand fans.

Although the media house has tendered an apology and deleted the report from their website and all other social media handles, thousands continue to protest. Online petitions are being signed, hashtags created, and protest-themed profile photos added.

A Kano-based Muslim group, Muslim Youth Forum, describes a report by Sahara Reporters, which equates the migration of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) with that of the self-identified Yoruba activist, Sunday Igboho, as unethical, criminal and insensitive.

The controversial online news medium published a report by Afenifere, a pro-Yoruba organisation, comparing the two different journeys. In reaction to that report, the Muslim group urges all Nigerians to desist from making any utterance, which can create chaos, confusion and hamper the volatile nature of the country.

“Most Northerners have not known or care to know about Igboho and his criminal activities. However, it was on record that he spearheaded attacks on many innocent Northerners who reside in the South, just in the name of ethnicity, barbarity and criminality. He was praised and cheered by many ethnic jingoists and thugs in the country who see him as a champion of the Yoruba agenda. We didn’t mind what he was doing, though it was painful to see humans acting like animals and being applauded by other criminals”, the group says.

“We are surprised by the actions of Afenifere or whatever they are called who made the analogy. Are they representing an obnoxious, dissenting Christianization agenda? Are they representing evil Christians? Good Christians never say anything bad about any religion”, the group adds.

The group finally called on all well-meaning Nigerians and all Muslims not to take the law into their hands and call on the government and leaders to take action as this wrong move can throw the country into a state of anarchy. Muslims tolerate many things against their personality but not sacrilegious attempts to tarnish the image of their noble Prophet. This action alone can make Sahara Reporters lose value among the teaming followers it has laboured to gather over the years.

By Sanusi Lafiagi

The blasphemous and sacrilegious statement credited to Afenifere, a Yoruba socio-cultural group, (and published by Sahara Reporters) comparing the plight of Sunday Igboho to that suffered by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is a great insult to Islām and Muslims all over the world. It behoves every Muslim, especially of Yoruba extraction to publicly condemn this blatant disrespect to our religion and demand an unreserved apology from them. The ignorance exhibited by the group about the Prophet ﷺ shows how lowly the so-called Yoruba nation agitators think of Muslims. Why did the group deem it fit to travel far into the 7th century to find a comparison for a thug when I could have simply compared him to Afonja?

Sunday Igboho is NOTHING compared to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ for the following reasons:

1. Muhammad ﷺ was a Prophet and Messenger of Allāh. He was divinely anointed and heavenly guided. Sunday Igboho, by his own admission, is a political thug and hire-for-pay warlord whose conscience is sold to the highest bidder.

2. Muhammad ﷺ spent 13 years in the hostile plains of Makkah preaching Unity of Allāh and devotion to His worship. In spite of the persecution (including summary execution) that he and his followers faced, it is NOT on record that he instigated them against the system or called for secession. Sunday Igboho on the other hand resorted to self-help and terrorised innocent northerners (remember that only a court of competent jurisdiction can declare anyone guilty of crimes brought against them), leading to deaths and destruction of invaluable properties. He instigated a violent insurrection against the system.

3. Muhammad ﷺ advanced the cause of humanity and was vehemently opposed to tribal bigotry and jingoism. He abolished the class system and preached the equality of mankind before Allāh. Sunday Igboho on the other hand is a tribal bigot who advanced ethnic cause and preached the superiority of Yoruba to the Hausa and Fulani ethnic groups. He described the latter as parasites and cancer, who are feeding fat on the fortunes of the Yorubas.

4. Muhammad ﷺ belonged to all who professed faith in Allāh and submitted to His worship. Despite that, he treated even his worst enemies with fairness and justice. He never at any time supported the corrupt system that operated in Makkah.

Sunday Igboho on the other hand (by his own admission) is a bonafide member of PDP who participated actively in election malpractices that foisted insecurity and corruption in society. His last political outing with the current governor of Oyo State, Engineer Seyi Makinde, was in Kogi state, during the election that earned governor Yahya Bello for the second term in office. This, it is not far-fetched to say that Igboho’s agitation, just like his counterpart’s, Nnamdi Kanu of IPOB is LARGELY (to put it mildly) political!

5. Muhammad ﷺ migrated to Madīnah to establish an Islamic state where members will be able to live freely and practise Islām without fear of torture and persecution. As a precursor to this flight, he had earlier sent his followers in groups first to Abyssinia, and later to Madīnah to take refuge while he stayed back. Neither did he leave his followers behind, nor fly to hide from the powers that be. Muhammad ﷺ wasn’t a coward. Sunday Igboho, like Ojukwu and his mentee, Nnamdi Kanu, fled the scene after causing trouble (leading to the death and arrest of some of his followers) to enjoy the warmth of his wife and kids. He’s a coward and rabble-rouser who has no balls!

6. Muhammad ﷺ fought the Makkans ONLY after he had settled in Madīnah and established an Islamic state with all its political and administrative apparatuses. The first battle, Badr, came about a year after his settlement in Madīnah. At the time, the majority of his followers had fled Makkah. Thus, he was able to provide maximum protection and support for them in the friendly and serene terrains of Madīnah. Sunday Igboho on the other hand wants to cause an uprising that will not only destroy the lives of millions of Yorubas living across the country but will also ground the nation’s fragile economy and heap more difficulty on innocent people.

7. Muhammad ﷺ was severally persecuted and harassed on the street of Makkah, yet he remained undeterred in his mission. He didn’t run away or stockpile arms to force liberation. There were days that he was attached even while observing Salāt. Sunday Igboho on the other hand is an oppressor and lout who publicly harassed first class Obas of Yorubaland and threatened violence. He’s on tape to have threatened to kill the Ooni of Ife and Bola Ahmed Tinubu, attack the palaces of some prominent Obas, mocked pastor Adeboye over the death of his son, and traded insults with Gani Adams.

8. Muhammad ﷺ was NOT a magician. He didn’t practice magic or boast of diabolical powers. Sunday Igboho, as it turns out is a jester, a lousy idiot, a comic actor and an empty shell of nothingness. One would expect that by now, given his incessant JuJu braggadocio, the security forces that invaded his house would have turned into fowls or that he wouldn’t need to go through an airport to disappear into thin air. Alas! The acclaimed warrior of Ife-Modakeke communal clash disappointed his cheerleaders and fans by not living up to expectations!!!

Therefore, comparing the noble Prophet of Islām to a nuisance like Igboho is a great disservice to humanity and an insult to the sensibilities of Muslims all over the world. It should be retracted immediately and an apology tendered.

Sanusi Lafiagi is a lecturer of Islamic Studies at the Al-Hikmah University, Ilorin, Kwara State.

By Muhammadu Sabiu

Slaughtering of animals on the tenth day of Zul-hijja is one of the core forms of worship for that day. Those animals include rams, sheep, goats, cows, camels. However, the ram is always preferable to the other animals, especially with respect to the tradition of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

In Islam, this tradition of slaughtering originated since Prophet Abraham (AS), when Allahu (SWT) commanded him to slaughter his son as a form of sacrifice. However, on laying him to the ground to slaughter him, the divine command changed. Then the Almighty sent him a ram to slaughter instead of his beloved son.

With the coming of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), the final Messenger sent by Allah to preach to humankind, the tradition of slaughtering got attached a full-fledged form of worship.

As part of “ibadat”, it’s highly recommended for every sane, financially capable Muslim to get any of the animals mentioned above—preferably a ram—to slaughter on the tenth day of Zul-hijja.

Looking at how the nation has plunged into an economic quagmire that bites harder, ram buyers are groaning over the high prices of ram in Bauchi. We, therefore, tried to survey the cost of rams and a comparison as to how they were sold in 2020 and how they are sold this year.

A buyer of ram, who bought a ram from Durun market in Bauchi State alongside his other two friends and who pleaded anonymity said, “Rams that ranged from ₦30,000 to ₦31,000 now cost from ₦48,000 to ₦50,000 thereby amounting to an increment to the tune of ₦20,000 each. Each of us bought rams, whose prices were ₦48,000, ₦49,000 and ₦50,000.”

Also, a seller of rams, who also wanted his name not to be mentioned, said, “First of all, I am engaged in the business of selling animals, and Eid el-Kabir is just around the corner. But there is one problem.”

When asked what the problem was, he added, “The animals have become untouchable because their prices are too high. Money is not circulating among people. Only those that are financially strong come to buy. Common people no longer come; they can only buy a goat worth like ₦12,000 or ₦13,000 and get back home. Last year, people had money, unlike this year.”

He confirmed that there had been an increase of about ₦20,000 when compared to last year. “And again, a ram that was worth ₦30,000 last year would now cost up to ₦50,000,” he added.

Tuesday, July 20, was declared Eid Day and, thus, a public holiday in Nigeria.

By Muhammad Mahmud

The recent debate between AbdulJabbar and representatives of Kano Ulama on the former’s reprehensible method of uttering unprintable words on the person of the Messenger of Allah (Peace be Upon Him) on the pretext of deduction and/or inference has opened yet another question on the freedom of expression. Some few supporters of AbdulJabbar decided to hinge their support on the hype of freedom of expression, saying that they are supporting him because he represents their free speech advocacy.

Nevertheless, a simple glance will expose this fallacy because if criticising other ideas is sanctioned by the freedom of speech article, AbdulJabbar himself does not seem to believe in it given his radical stance on the right of different sects to propagate their understanding. He condemns other people (sometimes using all available invectives) for no reason other than expressing opinions that contradicts his stance. He attacks other sects with impunity, descending on the personalities of many revered sheikhs, who were not even aware of his existence, in order to hurt emotionally and psychologically injure their admirers who disagree with him on one issue or another.

It is, therefore, hypocritical to premise supporting the man on the shaky ladder of free speech advocacy. This is even more evident as the peddlers of this chicanery never, even for once, voiced their dissatisfaction with the man’s assault on others who spoke their minds.

Now that the issue of freedom of expression is introduced into the unfolding drama, it is pertinent to ask what precisely this freedom of expression is? What is its scope, length and breadth? To what extent is it applicable? Who determines what it is and who will decide who is guilty of violating its principles?

We must address this because without fully knowing and understanding these, we may never have the much sought “liberty” to express ourselves. Unfortunately, many questionable elements will hide under it to deny us our own right to express ourselves.

It looks like almost every blasphemer or assaulter of people’s sacred places and/or scripture will find a supporter among the advocates of freedom of expression. Are the majority of people whose religion is attacked NOT free to express their anger? Why the intolerance against intolerance? It seems we are faced with what we can call a tyranny of the minority.

Section 39 (1) of the Nigerian constitution says: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.” Why should this only be applicable when those opinions are from the minority?

Am I not free to hate and despise anyone who infringes on my liberty and attack me, my religion or culture? Put aside those reasons, am I not free to hate anyone, including AbdulJabbar, for no reason at all? Why should someone then try to gag me when I have a reason to hate and express my anger towards him when he attacks what I hold dear?

Some of them used to argue that we abhor dissent. This is also not true. We have been living with dissent throughout our history. Even after Sheikh Dan Fodio’s Jihad, there were non-Muslims who went about their businesses without any harassment. Throughout our towns, there are a handful of brothels known as Gidan Magajiya. There were singers and dancers. There were even ‘yan daudu in addition to prostitutes. They live here. None of them was reported to have been attacked by the people or the authorities, to the best of my knowledge.

Also, the Ulama differ. They write books for and against what they believe and what they do not believe. People follow any sect they feel they are more at home with. They form and join groups. All these existed in Arewa before Nigeria even existed; they still exist. What gave the impression that we hate dissent is yet to be enumerated. Therefore, this is not about disagreement; it is about attacking and insulting what people hold dear and sacred while waving the card of free speech.

By Abubakar A. Bukar

In an attempt to demystify what he regards as Salafists’ deification of Bukhari, ‘Jabbar ended up with this raw Rushdification of the Prophet (SAW). All these references and inferences of indecency attributed to the Prophet (wa’iyaz billah, except for the debate, very few knew that the profanity is such great in its filthiness) remind one of many passages in the Satanic Verse. To which, Kano cannot keep silent. To which, the North cannot be indifferent. Nay, nor the Muslim world as a whole. When Rushdie attempted, the Ummah reacted. No less when similarly caricatures oozed with the stench from Denmark. While France’s Charlie Hebdo got more than what it bargained. Of recent when Macron assented to such insanity, we’re all appalled and nearly went berserk in search of lines from Namangi’s Wakokin Imfiraji:

         Wa ya kai, wa yai kamarka?

         Wa ya san asali ya naka?

        Wa ya san matukar rabonka?

        Tun da Allah ya yabe ka,

        Duk wanda ya ki ka ma yi gaba

Where the honour of the Prophet is at stake, an average Muslim would accept being intolerant, antediluvian and worse descriptions far readily than expected in lieu of the desecration. The interrelation of the Prophet’s personality and its sanctity with a Muslim devout is beyond mere belief, obedience and homage. It’s about the latter’s existential significance. It is on this note the Muslim relates with any threat thus – which appears incomprehensible to non-Muslim. This signification is beautifully captured by the American anthropologist Saba Mahmoud in her engagement with Judith Butler. See Religious Reason and Secular Affect:…where she says, ‘the Aristotlean term schesis captures this living relation because of its heightened psychophysiological and emotional connotations and its emphasis on familiarity and intimacy as a necessary aspect of the relation.

What interests me in this iconophile tradition is not so much the image as the concept of relationality that binds the subject to the object of veneration. Those who profess love for the Prophet do not simply follow his advice and admonition to the umma (that exist in the form of the hadith) but also try to emulate how he dressed; what he ate; how he spoke to his friends and adversaries; how he slept, walked, and so on. These mimetic ways of realising the Prophet’s behaviour are lived not as commandments but as virtues where one wants to ingest as it were, the Prophet’s persona into oneself… Muhammad, in this understanding, is not simply a proper noun referring to a particular historical figure but the mark of a relation of similitude…  The sense of moral injury that emanates from such a relationship between the ethical subject and the figure of exemplarity (such as Muhammad) is quite distinct from one that the notion of blasphemy encodes. The notion of moral injury I am describing no doubt entails a sense of violation, but this violation emanates not from the judgment that “the law” has been  transgressed but from the perception that one’s being, grounded as it is in a relationship of dependency with the Prophet, has been shaken’.

And I think it is from this prism Bala Mohammed, former Trust columnist, wrote that where the Prophet is involved, we are fanatics or something of that import in his reaction to the Danish cartoons.

The Sheikh in question obviously feels so much saturated (if not intoxicated) with counter-argument that he severally warned his interlocutors not to send a “tiny” representative, which he would bulldoze in a matter of seconds. But they defied by seemingly playing out this logical David-Goliath with him. I have never heard of this Rijiyar-Lemu Jnr. beforehand. And since the Sheikh’s encounter with Alkasim Hotoro, one could notice his ill-preparedness for conventional debate; that he’s more well-exercised and blabbermouth only in the absence of an antagonist. In a word, he’s a disappointment to the usual assertiveness of dissident voice. This becomes clearer when one juxtaposes Tal’udis vs Ja’far Adams debate. You may argue that besides the clerical establishment, the government too is posed against the dissenting Sheikh, making it nearly impossible to win the card. The fact of the matter is that since Socrates and Milton, dissidents grapple in/with the same circumstances. It’s the power of their argument, the logicality of the presentation of their stand – which considers and surmounts their opponents’ in Millian fashion – that extricate and exonerate them at least in the view of current sympathisers and later generation of dispassionate examiners.

In all this, the biggest lesson is on the centrality of humility and sincerity in the acquisition and transmission of knowledge.

Similarly, I’d also felt our teacher shouldn’t have been the moderator in this debate. But upon listening through the 5 hours of exchanges, nothing could be fairer than Professor Salisu Shehu’s handling of the interlocking scenario. Partisan, yes he is, but I think he has ably transcended that with calmness and justice. After all, it was not a stark case of the Sufi-Salafi divide as many framed it to be, misleadingly. Among Sheikh Jabbar’s interrogators are representatives of Tijjaniya, Qadiriya, JIBWIS and Salafi.

Beyond winning and losing, the debate, to me, raises more questions than answers which calls for re-debate, or, once more, putting ‘Jabar on the dock – as it was. The Sheikh was, for instance, caught complaining that what was presented to the public by his debaters as his scholastic stand on the controversy was only a ‘text’ – with utter disregard to the context. In the name of fairness, could he be granted, in hindsight, the chance to hear him out through and through on the context? Or he just be asked to produce a book exhausting whatever burhan he has on this? Wouldn’t it be creditable if the classical Baytul Hikmah is reincarnated thus? To what extent is our toleration of dissent and dissidents in the name of freedom of opinion and expression thereof? Or are these concepts alien in our tradition? To what extent are the canons open to critique? What are the political and economic dimensions of these blasphemous shenanigans? And the international connections – how does it lubricate the engine of globalisation? Is it true that all the ahadith wherein the Prophet prescribed capital punishment were mere fabrication and distortions as the Sheikh lately claimed? Is the Sheikh alone in this, especially with regard to blasphemy? In the power asymmetry and contestation between the fringe and the mainstream, how do we save the truth from being the first casualty  – with apologies to Phillip Knight? Ad infinitum.

Bukar wrote in from ABU’s Mass Communication and can be reached via aabukar555@gmail.com.

By Prof. Yakuri Azare

I followed the entire debacle that lasted slightly over five hours with the attendant result from the moderator, Professor Salisu Shehu. It was thorough and the laid down procedural regulations were apt and full. I don’t intend to review what happened there; I intend to explain a phenomenon I viewed to have made Abduljabbar slipped. The entire dispute revolves around the concept of translation, which is seen as a primary machine that allows us to decipher messages encoded in another language. The whole concept of understanding religious principles is encapsulated in its translation into the language we fully understand. For any text to be wholly deciphered, there has to be suitable communicative translation and faithful in some instances—failure of translation results in catastrophe. As we often tell our students, a slight mistake in translation could trigger unrest. The case of Abduljabbar is one pointer.

Sacred texts should be translated with the uttermost caution to avoid pitfalls and possible uproar. Therefore, aspects of semantic addition and omission are not so much at the liberty of the translator. Of course, the translation author can be – and is – allowed to make additions or omissions, where necessary, to press meaning to the audience; however, in the case of sacred texts (mostly religious documents), such liberties are highly restricted. 

Overall, the whole saga was about Abduljabbar making unsubstantiated claims about certain prophetic traditions, which he claimed were mistakes by some of the finest scholars that history can never forget. He attributed certain heavy libellous statements to these scholars. Abduljabbar often reads the Arabic rendition with subsequent translation and exegesis of the tradition. This is a usual trend by all Ulamas intending to communicate across people of diverse linguistic backgrounds. What is worthy of noting here is how the original message is rendered and transmitted into the receptor language, in this case, Hausa.

Almost throughout the debate, there was a conspicuous absence of direct utterances of Abduljabbar in the original Hadith. This narrows down the accusing finger to Abduljabbar. No amount of denial or persistent argument would absolve him from the shackles of law and accusations. The exegesis cum translations here are, therefore, the root cause. Cultural nuances are essential to issues worthy of consideration when translating, as diverse cultures have varying ways of apportioning meaning to certain utterances. Abduljabbar was, quite evidently, never considerate of such slippery edges. Instead, he translated, explained and attributed conclusions to statements entirely out of context in the bid to attain heroism, demonstrate a more profound or better understanding of the scriptures.

Adding so much into translation in most instances has the tendency of making meaning obscure and or vague. Sacred texts are not only carefully knitted but are sometimes seen as dogmatic. In other words, religious texts express what they appear to have said. Making unnecessary additions may result in meaning change. Abduljabbar was attacked based on his utterances throughout, and in all the challenges posed to him, the central question is, where did you see this or that. Wrong translation understandably played a key role. In one such case, the moderator drew his attention to the contextual meaning and differences between “Haajaa and Shahawaa“. He explained that the former could not be given the contextual meaning of the latter. Each has its way of being expressed to denote what is intended.

Thus, between Hausa and Arabic, some cultural differences arise in how they attach meanings to ideas, subjects and so on; nonetheless, Abduljabbar was not so keen on that. Instead, he occupies the Arabic messages with haphazard translations that devour our cultural and religious context and, often, sensibilities. Both in our religion and culture, the place of the Prophet (SAW) is sacred, secure and untouchable. Therefore, making and creating controversial statements to his person is not only wrong but blasphemous. All the traditions cited by Abduljabbar and the other clerics, there was no one place, and I mean one place, that equates the heavy words of Abduljabbar in his Hausa explanation.

The central point here is, wrong and mismanaged translation played a significant role in this saga. It suffices to say, “Translation is a serious business and is not haphazardly done.” Understand, and master its art before engaging in it. Be vast in the cultural nuances of both languages, and understand that pragmatics is key to assigning meaning to words in certain situations. Also, know that sacred texts do not go with our whimsical preferences. Additions or omissions are made with caution to avoid slippery edges.

May Allah guide us always. May peace and blessings be on our most revered Prophet.

Prof. Yakubu Magaji Azare wrote from Bayero University, Kano. He can be reached via ymazare@yahoo.com.