Sheikh Abduljabbar Kabara

By Tijani  Hassan Abdulkarim

This may sound a bit controversial, but I’ve not seen a profession that promotes evil in the open like the legal profession. With the wig on, lawyers stand before the judge in defence of evildoers and plotters with a mandate of seeking their acquittal, using superior cunning arguments by looking for loopholes in the legal system and twisting the law for the sole purpose of earning monetary reward from their clients.

Doing the above is, of course, attributed to their training. I presume the training lawyers receive in the law school before being called to bar involves teaching them how to play down on their inherent personal conscience directly or otherwise. This leaves me pondering over the degree of good conscience left in the legal practitioners. Don’t get it twisted; many morally sound lawyers are equally in the profession across different chambers within the country.

Unfortunately, close discerning will reveal how the profession thrives best in deceit and feasting on the miscalculations of the appellant seeking justice before a competent court of jurisdiction.

Please permit me to cite two recent instances: one of a criminal offence and the other of a Shariah case, all in Kano State, Nigeria. We will need to pay close ear to discern how lawyers in the defence team are attempting to remodel the course of justice by dragging the cases to secure the release of the accused on all grounds.

It is no longer news that  Sheikh Abdul-Jabbar Nasiru Kabara, the controversial Kano preacher, has been charged to court by the state government for offence bordering on blasphemy according to Islamic law. However, knowing full well the gravity of the (expected) outcome of the judgement, lawyers got in to ensure the acquittal of the accused despite the volume of evidence against him.

Upon discovering the hidden antics of the lawyers who have promised to defend and clear him of all charges, Abdul-Jabbar rescinded their counsel, protesting that they were insincere to their pledge of seeking justice on his behalf. His vituperation was that the lawyers were capitalising on his ordeal to enrich their chambers through the series of legal bottlenecks they’re cracking. The infamous Sheikh opted to stand in self-defence. All this drama unfolded after his defence team’s complete assurance of being victorious at the commencement of the hearing. Though, the possibility is highly impossible.

The second scenario from the same Kano is connected to the late five-year-old Haneefa, whose teacher Abdulmalik Tanko kidnapped and murdered in cold blood. Again, the details are everywhere on the web. Therefore, it is no longer news that the culprit openly confessed on camera and before the whole public of conniving with his accomplices to commit the crime and even went further to seek the forgiveness of the mourning parents.

Fortunately unfortunate, when the case came up for mention before the court, the same accused pleaded not guilty to the charges of kidnapping, culpable homicide, and murder read against him. Guess who advised him to claim innocence after the entire nation and the international community condemned his evil action? The lawyers – his defence counsel.

I am sure it is now visible to you to connect the obvious dots between the law profession, self-centeredness, injustice, deceit and outright evil against society. It is further appalling to see that most of these legal minds who wore the mask of innocence always go with the slogan of protecting the accused from being deprived of their human rights. This beg the question of what now happens to the fundamental human rights of the victims who have been deprived of their right to life by these evildoers?

Moreover, what is the fate of the society and its members who have been thrown into a theatre of evil because evildoers have the guarantee of going free by the antics of lawyers who are trained in using the constitution for the good of themselves; nay the society.

My submission is not an over-generalisation. There are good lawyers, and the opposite ones are also in abundance. However, the current reality will require the good to rise to the defence of the common good to save the society from the evil of their colleagues. To do that, our justice system needs to be remodelled to guarantee quick justice delivery. Remember, justice delayed is justice denied.

Post Scriptum: Without prejudice, this is my sincere sentiment on the practices of lawyers who are bent on defiling the legal profession in Nigeria and the world over. This will not interrupt the fact that I admire the job and aspire to study and practice as a legal luminary, but it has to be for good.

Tijani  Hassan Abdulkarim is a graduate of Mass Communication from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

By Muhammad Abdurrahman

Today, the Abuja Central Mosque Imam, Prof. Ibrahim Maqari, formally withdrew his lawsuit against Dr Abdallah Usman Gadon-Kaya, seeking N20 million in damages for defamation.

The Daily Reality reported on September 1, 2021, that Dr Gadon Kaya’s lawyers had yet to receive any formal request to withdraw the lawsuit as of then. Instead, according to Barrister Ibrahim Umar Abere, all they saw was Prof. Maqari’s viral video alleging that he was compelled to withdraw it.

However, after appearing at the court today (6/9/2021) to defend their client, they got an official request from Prof. Maqari’s lawyers wherein the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit in pursuit of peace.

Reacting to the reports that the defendant and his lawyers were preparing to file a counterclaim, Barrister Abdulrazak Kabiru Kofa said they had also shelved that plan. He cited a Quranic verse that says, “Peace is best” (4:128).

Recall that on July 23, 2021, Dr Abdallah Uthman Gadon-Kaya delivered a Friday sermon in a mosque in Kano State. That sermon did not go down well with Prof. Ibrahim Maqari. Thus, he appeared in a video warning Dr Abdallah to withdraw parts of the statement or meet him in court, which he eventually did.

The court order showed the case was due for hearing on September 6, 2021. Maqari demanded that Gadon Kaya retract the said statements, publish an apology in national dailies or pay the N20 million in damages.

By Muhammad Abdurrahman

The hearing of the Kano State government lawsuit against Sheikh Abduljabbar Kabara over blasphemy ended with a new development today.

The court has ordered the cleric to undergo mental health evaluation before resuming its proceeding on September 16, 2021.

Recall that Sheikh Kabara was arrested and remanded in prison after he and some selected Ulama in Kano had a public dialogue over his teaching in July.

The Ulama and the presiding judge of the dialogue, Prof. Salisu Shehu, deemed parts of Kabara’s statements on Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his companions as blasphemous.

By Abdul-Hamid Abubakar Zubair

The ungovernability, which is crystal clear, toward the act of showing contempt and lack of reverence to sacred religious deity/deities is imminent and very alarming. If not seriously challenged and tackled by the constituted authorities, especially at the federal level, that may, unfortunately, aggravate severe tension even to the dogmatical secular democratic doctrine, believed to be a workable formula that has an answer to all national issues. 

It holds true, you like it or not, the fact that religion matters in Nigeria. Most people are firmly bound to one of the two major faiths, Islam or Christianity, and thus, it is a duty call for any person in power to uphold, respect, and support people’s various beliefs. The people have the right to practice their religion. Blasphemy is unacceptable and is punishable even according to national laws in the criminal codes as enshrined by both customary and Shariah laws. You can’t shift secularism to this place – at least, it is not yet the time.

Observing closely how cascades of blasphemous thoughtlessness and rashness have been unravelling in recent times, you can sense new dimensions and order of hidden treacherous agenda, purportedly insinuated by servile demonic elements. It is not by mere serendipity but a carefully thought out and planned memorandum.

In the North, there are more than four blasphemy suits filed in courts. The two trending cases include Yahaya Shariff Aminu, 22, a musician, and Umar Faruk, 16, both in Kano. The latter has been overturned and acquitted, and the former has been sent for a retrial by the Court of Appeal.

Another classic take-away example was the just concluded dialogue that features the controversial Shiite scholar, Abdul-Jabbar Nasiru Kabara, following his deliberate inciteful utterances and wrong interpretation and exegesis of Sunnatic traditions (Hadith), and after his request to the Kano State government to do justice and convene a physical dialogue with other Kano Islamic Clerics from the Salaf, Tijjaniya and Qadiriyya Sects. The aftermath of the conversation proved the bitter truth that was heavy and unfavourable to the eccentric Shiite cleric. 

I heard of a similar ordeal from Sokoto. A man allegedly made similar blasphemous utterances against the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). However, we were supposed to be brainwashed by the excuse that he was suffering from temporal madness. Meanwhile, dementia was his alibi.

Taking a close look at these, one may ruminate over some questions and conclude that all these are not coincidental but planned.

Insecurity is a current social issue at hand. It has perturbed the entire nation. A lot of societal menaces are happening.  This trending problem of blasphemy coupled with insecurity will produce a severe stale. If it finds a place to stay, it will add salt to an injury, and the pain will be intolerably excruciating. 

There should be no room for apology for a deliberate blasphemous act. Anyone found guilty must be seriously punished and his actions thoroughly condemned. The same thing goes for all media outfits. Through that only, peace can prevail. 

Some personalities and deities are insurmountable, untouchable in major religions that should be demarcated by the power authorities and declared as a “no-go” zone. In strong terms, it should be stipulated that anything the Christians, Muslims, or any other religion recognised by the authority; within the Nigerian Province, which is considered alien or goes against the standard teachings – especially blasphemous utterances must be punishable. The government should get a grip on these with a strong and clenched fist.

The government should seize the day while it’s still dawn and make hay while the sun shines before things turned out of hand.

Abdul-Hamid Abubakar Zubair
Federal University Gashua, Nigeria.
E-mail: ibntaimiyya@fugashua.edu.ng
Phone no.: +2348138171001

By Dr Muhammad Sulaiman Abdullahi

Tension grew as Prof. Ibrahim Maqari intends to sue Dr Abdalla Usman Gadon-Kaya based on what he (or his lawyers) called defamation of his character. It may be recalled that the main point of divergence between the two was their different religious affiliations, where Prof. Maqari subscribes to Tijjaniya Sufism, and Dr Abdalla is an Izala/Sunni scholar who preaches mostly against the teachings of Prof. Maqari and Tijjaniyya order in general.

Initially, the blasphemous and heretic teachings of Abduljabbar Kabara were the genesis of their misunderstanding, where Dr Abdallah erroneously cited a wrong reference when referring to an Abuja Imam. It was clear that the coalition of Kano Ulama, under the chairmanship of Dr Sa’idu Dukawa, lodged their complaint against what they found to be lies and concoctions against Bukhari, Muslim, some Sahabas, which in turn, ridicule and subject the sanctity of the Prophet’s household into questioning. These immoral teachings have negatively impacted some irate and ignorant youth, where they mockingly copy and paste anything from the sacred books and ridiculously call it a lie.

In response to this unprecedented religious turmoil, the scholars in Kano unanimously agreed to form a coalition to defend Islam’s sanctity. Abduljabbar directly targets Dr Abdalla and other prominent Sunni scholars in Kano as his reference point and as one of those at the forefront of exposing his evil antics. These altercations have taken a long time without Prof. Maqari featuring in the scene with either support or opposition to what Kano Ulamas have been doing.

After the debate session, the Muslims were happy as Abduljabbar failed to defend his heretical teachings. However, while everyone was happy and waiting for a verdict from the government, suddenly Prof. Maqari used his position from the Abuja Central Mosque and said that he perceived a form of propaganda in all that has been happening in Kano concerning Abduljabbar’s case. Thus, Prof. Maqari breathed life to all the supporters of Abdujabbar who died and buried their heads in shame.

Maqari’s submission made Dr Abdalla go berserk and even erroneously, out of emotions, mentioned many instances where an Imam in Abuja, which may be Prof. Maqari, used his position to delve into this – what no Imam in the history of Abuja Mosque ever delved into before. He cited instances where such an Imam said many things and even went to the extent of claiming to own classified audios of phone calls where that Imam, who may be Prof. Maqari, wanted to intervene in cases related to blasphemy.

In response, Prof. Maqari, in what shows his humility and humbleness, as usual, posted a video where he debunked all that Dr Abdalla said and called for peace. Later, Dr Abdalla also posted another video, clearly apologizing and calling for peace. Most poor innocent followers of these famous sheikhs were happy that the matter was settled amicably, only to wake up with another fresh video of Prof. Maqari saying he would go to court. I think this will be one of the first court cases that will generate high tension, cause a lot of damage, and divert people’s attention from the real cause of the trouble. It will indeed cause more harm than expected.

The decision may not ordinarily be  Prof Maqari’s. It may be that some people who are angry with Dr Abdallah may feel that this is the right time for them to score their cheap religious point by dragging Prof. Maqari and Dr Abdalla into the ring. How I wish it were done differently. How I wish it were not for Prof. Maqari and Dr Abdalla. Whoever knows Prof. Maqari knows a humble, soft-spoken, modest and religious personality. The way he doffs his Dara on his head can make everyone think of the kindest people of Magrib who devote their lives to the services of Islam.

On the one hand, Prof. Maqari is a Professor of the Arabic language, an Islamic scholar who triples as an Imam in the national mosque in Nigeria. He maintains a very cordial relationship with many people to whom he subscribes to their ways of religiosity and those he differs with. However, Prof. Maqari is tactically but unmistakably anti-Izali with a complete Tijjaniya Sufi disposition. These, he has never hidden and is found in many of his teachings. There are so many instances where he displayed anti-Izala inferences in his teachings, and this is not in any way bad as much as he is sure of his contrary opinions. Such disagreements and oppositions have been there among scholars since an immemorial time.

On the other hand, Dr Abdalla Gadon Qaya is a vocal, vibrant and versatile Islamic scholar who is also an Imam in an Izala mosque; he also triples as a lecturer of Islamic Studies at Bayero University, Kano. He has been known to talk during his Friday sermons fiercely against anybody who blasphemes, jokes, maligns or tries to tarnish the image of Islam. In addition, he has been known as a social media influencer, where he uses his position to viciously flatten his rude opponents, most of whom are not well-versed in Islamic studies, but trying to change the religious narratives, in the name of modernity or what they call modern Islam.

Looking at the delicate situation we are in now, I, therefore, call on these two gladiators in the ring to not allow their followers to use them to divide the Ummah further. We have many problems ahead of us, and that of Abduljabbar is not yet settled. Against whom are we to set our faces now? This may lead to another sectarian violence.

To me, both are good people. They are religious scholars; they are role models in their own rights. They are not infallible. Both have erred. Prof. Maqari emotionally chose the wrong time for his submission, while Dr Abdallah emotionally said something which Prof. Maqari didn’t say. All these are not supposed to come from Islamic scholars. Don’t allow those you call ‘YanBoko to play with your intelligence.

Your respected position will be trampled upon if you allow that. Both of you have lawyers who can give the last drop of their blood in protecting each of you; let these lawyers go and defend the sanctity of the Prophet. What will you gain if you see another person’s downfall just because you feel he wrongs you or he belongs to a different sect? What if the table turns? It isn’t socio-morally a welcome development for Islamic scholars to go to court. And who even initiated the idea of going to court? Who wants to use these reputable Malamai as his case study?

Finally, I am not in any way against going to court to look for justice. On the contrary, I support it. But, I won’t support scholars who are the mirrors to the Ummah to do that. What if one of your disciples learns from you that taking matters to court is the last good thing? Whether we like it or not, this will have sectarian colouration, and it will sow more rift than ever. Therefore, I kindly advise Malam Maqari to stop the court procession for good silently. I also kindly remind Malam Abdalla, Prof Maqari and all other Islamic scholars to guard and weigh their utterances and actions before uttering or doing anything.

Both clerics should silently sit, own the issue, discuss it and shame the detractors. Both Prof. Maqari and Malam Abdalla emotionally erred, and they apologised. That should have been enough reason to close the case. Why turning around and going to court? Otherwise, this will lead to digging more and more resolved issues by those rude supporters who don’t have much love for the religion, and it will lead to further disunity. Don’t we have other vital problems to deal with, please? And if both parties are doing it for the sake of Allah, then why court? Only the evil FOLLOWERS may propel their teachers to court cases just for them to laugh and continue to enjoy their ignorance.

Muhammad Sulaiman Abdullahi, PhD., is a lecturer at the Department of Nigerian Languages, Bayero University, Kano. He can be contacted via +234 80 65846225.

By Uzair Adam Imam

The embattled Islamic cleric, Sheikh Abduljabbar Nasiru Kabara, remains in police custody since his arrest yesterday (Friday) evening.

Kabara is a famous Kano-based controversial cleric whose commentaries and preaching the Coalition of Kano Ulama describe as blasphemous. On July 10, 2021, Kano State Government organised a debate between Kabara and some of the state’s scholars to defend himself.

However, according to the statement made by the judge of the debate, Professor Sani Shehu, Kabara failed to clear his name or defend his utterances.

The Sheikh was charged for blasphemy, incitement and insulting Prophet Muhammad (SAW), his companions, among others. A statement issued by the Commissioner of Information, Malam Muhammad Garba, on Friday states that Abduljabbar will remain in police custody until Monday, when he would be sent to prison.

The statement, in parts, reads: “The development followed the receipt of the First Information Report from the police by the Office of the Attorney General and Commissioner for justice which prepared charges against the cleric.

“Abduljabbar was subsequently arraigned on Friday, July 16, before an Upper Sharia Court Judge, Kofar Kudu, Alkali Ibrahim Sarki Yola, where the charges that included blasphemy, incitement, and sundry offences were mentioned.”

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 Suleiman

No thanks to his polemics, fiery tongue and boastfulness, AbdulJabbar Nasiru Kabara, the scion of the famous and revered Islamic scholar Shaykh Nasiru Kabara, has dominated the tongue and pens (though in the negatives) of most Hausa-speaking Muslims after the long-awaited debate has been laid to rest. He stirred the hornet nest and got stung from all directions.

Over the years, he has gained currency due to his unrestrained and unhinged attempts during preachments to create a hole in the validity of the Sunni Canons, especially Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim. Plus, he has also never relent efforts in casting doubts into the minds of his gullible and unsuspecting followers on the narrative integrity of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). He is actually not the first to cast doubts on authentic Prophetic traditions, but he is the most reckless one I have come across.

Tellingly, in all his attempts, AbdulJabbar bucked context, methodological principles in the science of Hadith, Arabic nuances and even cultural conceptualisations or idiosyncrasies, especially in translations. And these translations ended up impugning the sacredness of the Prophet. Moreover, save for Allah’s intervention through the Kano state government, his dogmatism and preachings might have led to bloodshed and loss of lives and property.

This saga should once again bring to the front burner the issue of regulating preachers and preaching in Nigeria. One’s ability to translate Arabic text or to graduate from an Islamic university or a Christian theological seminary in Nigeria or abroad should not automatically confer on anyone the authority or absolute freedom to preach or use media houses to propagate ANY kind of religious ideology devoid of a vetting process.

There is no gainsaying that some religious clerics have exploited or abused the freedom of religion or expression for both personal and even political gains through dangerous indoctrination, misinterpretation of religious diktats and the preaching of skewed versions of religion. AbdulJabbar is a good specimen of how to throw decency to the dogs with the help of jarring sounds from a cheering and unsuspecting crowd in preference for personal gains.

Unfortunately, as a society, we most times abhor regulations on seemingly everything. Unfortunately, this nonchalant attitude has often come with a huge and devastating price, as we have witnessed in the case of Maitatsine and, now witnessing in the aftermath of Muhammad Yusuf’s death and the subsequent upsurge of the Boko Haram insurgency and, also AbdulJabbar’s preachments.

Regulation in religious matters is a sensitive issue. Still, it is a pertinent key in taming extreme tendencies, reducing margins of errors in religious fatwas and enhancing positive social policy and social integration. Yes, we can contemplate the government’s tendency to enact laws on preaching in erecting barriers that would insulate them from accountability or criticisms as humanly possible. However, we cannot underestimate the effects or the grave consequences of leaving preachers of any kind unchecked in our current realities.

The government at all levels should, as a matter of urgency, collaborate with relevant religious organisations in building or tweaking existing institutions which shall be backed by law. The institution should be shouldered with the responsibilities of, among others, screening and issuing a licence to preachers, judiciously and sincerely implementing the enacted rules and periodically revising and amending the laws in tandem with current realities or evolving peculiarities.

The solution, as mentioned earlier, is not a one-size-fits-all. Still, we desperately need a system or mechanism to check religious excesses and undue preachments before the next ‘AbdulJabbar’ or religious demagogue rears his ugly head and throws us into another quagmire that may be costly to our lives, religion, time and wealth.

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

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.

Prof. Salisu Shehu, who is the Director of the Centre for Islamic Civilization and Interfaith Dialogue of Bayero University, Kano, in an exclusive interview with The Daily Reality (TDR), described how he emerged as the presiding judge of the dialogue between Sheikh Abduljabbar Nasiru Kabara and some Islamic scholars in Kano state.

“I want to believe that it was made by the grace of God. I know that several senior, elderly and important personalities were pencilled down and contacted, but some of them declined while others, unfortunately, were out of town. My name was among those that were suggested as options. And, by the grace of Allah, my name was anonymously accepted by the committee and therefore was presented to the Kano State Government. I received my appointment letter a day before the fixed date for this dialogue. I, too, have actually tried to decline because there are many people that are more deserving and competent. Still, the committee insisted and persuaded me to accept this appointment since State Government has approved it.”

There were speculations that those who rejected the offer to chair the session or refused to participate did that due to the gravity of the blasphemous remarks on the person of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W). They, thus, and see the whole issue as needless and a waste of time.

“Of course, these are terrible, sacrilegious statements and utterances. And it is disturbing listening to them because they are horrible and disrespectful to the Prophet (S.A.W). But from the perspective of a jurisdiction maxim: “Addarurat tubihul mahzurat“, we have to do something to bring an end to it. And I have seen how this person has been boasting and bragging that all his claims are valid and no one can face him. So I felt it was necessary to accept and participate in this capacity to bring an end to his misguidance That was how I convinced myself,” Prof. Shehu said.

Sheikh Abduljabbar has complained about the time given and has tried several times to provoke you. How did you manage his provocations?

“You see, dialogue should not just be conducted for an unlimited time. We don’t have to stay the whole day. Unless there is no orderliness and good organisation, he was the only one complaining about time. You have all seen how one of the participants open about five books or more in his ten minutes. Abduljabbar had a system [mobile phone or laptop] with him together with two of his disciples. What was their function? Why did he bring them there? Why they were not opening the pages of those books, he was asked to? It was obvious. So it was quite challenging in the sense that you have to control yourself. You have to exercise a great deal of patience because one can easily be provoked.”