USA

By Sadiya Abubakar Isa, PhD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Muhammad Sabiu

President of the United States, Joe Biden, is set to travel to Brussels, Belgium’s capital, amidst the invasion of Ukraine by Putin’s Russia.

President Biden is expected to hold a physical meeting with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) leaders in a show of support for Ukraine.

Press secretary of The White House, Jen Psaki, has confirmed to reporters on Tuesday that the meeting would be held on March 24.

Ms Psaki was quoted as saying, “The President will travel to Brussels, Belgium, later this month, where he will join the extraordinary NATO Summit on March 24 to discuss ongoing deterrence and defense efforts in response to Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine, as well as to refer reaffirm our ironclad commitment to our NATO allies.”

“He will also join a scheduled European Council summit to discuss our shared concerns about Ukraine, including transatlantic efforts to impose economic costs on Russia, provide humanitarian support to those affected by the violence and address other challenges related to the conflict.”

This is coming amidst condemnations and concern expressed by NATO allies as Russia continues to advance its invasion in parts of Ukraine.

By Sulaiman Badamasi (Mahir)

Russia of today is not the same as Russia yesterday. Russia used to be the Soviet Union, a superpower that sometimes acted with the West. The war of 1973, when the Zionists wanted both sides of the conflict taken to a draw and in 1954when Russia (Soviet Union) transferred the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine have said it all. Now, it is a post-Soviet Union Russia who toiled when the Soviet Union sagged, but within the breath-span of twenty-something years has grown now to a grandeur position.

The Western world has been ruling over humankind for the past 300 years or more, changing regimes worldwide, especially in the south and central America, which the famous Monroe Doctrine described as “America’s Backyard”. The West has been changing regimes after regimes all over the region. But have we ever asked why they have never changed the regime in Venezuela? America has done everything it could to change the Venezuelan government but to no avail because this can only be achieved through military intervention, and any move of such would mean facing Russia. They do not want to confront Russia. NOBODY WANT TO FACE RUSSIA because Russia is not Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, and of course, not Iraq.

What seemed to have convinced the world further to accept Russia’s predatory position was the tremendously dangerous step it took to intervene in Syria. This could have led to a nuclear war. Russia also took the world by surprise in 2014 when it took over or took back(?) Crimea in just two weeks. It seems like Russia is defeating the West in silence and stylishly repositioning itself back to the Soviet Union’s throne.

For the West to reduce the margin, it swiftly paid back with a regime change in Ukraine in 2014 in what was termed as “The Revolution of Dignity”, which saw the impeachment/replacement of the then Ukrainian (of course Russian loyalist) elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, and Petro Poroshenko (pro-West) became the president, who immediately began with leading the Russo-Ukrainian war in February 2014.

After three months, he forbade any cooperation with Russia in the military sphere and later signed the “Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement in June 2014.” Five months later, in president Poroshenko’s speech to the new parliament in November 2014, Poroshenko stated, “we’ve decided to return to the course of NATO integration” because “the nonalignment status of Ukraine proclaimed in 2010 couldn’t guarantee our security and territorial integrity”. Russia perceived all these, coupled with the ouster of Viktor Yanukovych, as a series of threats right at its closest border.  

Why does Russia detest/is against/is afraid of Ukraine’s alignment with NATO?

If Ukraine becomes a NATO member state, then Russia would have NATO on its very border, which means it will have its military bases a few distances away from Russian borders, where missiles could hit Moscow in minutes. Hence Russia does not seem to accept this security option. It could be said that Russia does not want to invade Ukraine because a full invasion MIGHT provoke a military response from the West (only time could tell, though). But certainly, all parties involved (Russia, Ukraine, and the West) hope the chaos ends through diplomatic means rather than war. Maybe Russia has a military strike as the only option for now?

Territorial control and elimination of perceived possible dangers around borders have become a norm or a widely practised approach by states nations. Let us digest in the following to shade more light:

Cuban Missile Crisis/Missile Scare: when the Soviet Union started installing nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1961 after reaching an agreement with Fidel Castro of Cuba, the Kennedy administration decided that this was too big a security threat to be contained. They put a “quarantine” (a station where weaponry logistics were searched) so that no nuclear missile could be shipped and demanded that all missiles in Cuba be taken back to the Soviet Union.

Syria and Israel: with Russia and Iran as Syrian friends and Israel sitting just 569.17 kilometres away from the Syrian border, it is not a surprise if Israel and her friends (America, Saudi, and Turkey) feel threatened or expect that the worst happens from Israel’s neighbourhood. The military campaign that aimed at toppling the Russia and Iran backed Assad’s government by the Saudi, Turkish and American backed rebel group, which began in March 2011 as an anti-government protest and later escalated to a full-scale war, could be understood as an effort to eliminate an enemy’s friend whose territory can be used to attack an immediate neighbour. Could America and Saudi afford to lose Israel?

Muslim Brotherhood and Israel: when Mohammed Morsi (may Allah have mercy on him) was sworn in as the first democratically elected president of Egypt on 30^th June 2012, he expressed dissatisfaction with the country’s 1979 policy which declared that it stands as a mediator between Israel and Palestine and determined to reset his country’s orientation to one of active support, not for a ‘self-governing authority and ‘autonomy’ in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but the attainment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of the Palestinian refugees to return.

In Morsi’s one year in office before his removal through a coup d’etat, he ordered the Egyptian authorities to open the Rafah Crossing, the only gateway that connects Palestinians to the outside world. This means Palestinians can travel any time without really passing through strict measures imposed on them by the Israeli government, and different kinds of support could reach them without obstacles. Trade began to flourish between Palestine and Egypt. The Israeli siege on the Palestinian land was eased. He became the first Egyptian president to declare rejection of Israel’s assault on Palestine since 1979. Israel and her friends felt threatened by the closest neighbour, and the result was his forceful ouster, imprisonment, the unjust killing of his supporters. The coup that ended Morsi’s regime has not been justified yet. Why was it done then? To eliminate a nearby perceived enemy.

Saudi and Houthi: the Houthi rebel group, which champions Yemen’s Zaidi Shia followers, took over Sana’a in 2014 and forced the then Yemeni president, Abdurrabbu Mansur Hadi, in March 2015, to flee the country. To many people, “a rebel group has taken over Yemen,” yet to Saudi and her allies, “Iran has succeeded in extending its proxy-war/proxy influence to the Saudi border.” There is no need to emphasise that implication on Saudi, thanks to the firing of ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia and UAE. Swiftly came a fierce joint reaction from Saudi-led coalition of eight(?) countries with logistics and intelligence support from America and France with Iran backing the Houthi rebels leading to the ongoing multilateral civil war.

Turkey and ISIS in Iraq: another interesting episode in the quest to defy near-border threats is having Turkey, a NATO member-state, fighting ISIS in Syria while ignoring the danger that the same ISIS poses in Iraq. Turkey has so far chosen to sit out the war to allow ISIS to fight the Kurdish militia group in Iraq. Turkey considers the Kurdish militia who craves a breakup to carve out its own country, Kurdistan, a more harmful enemy. Kurdistan encompasses southeastern Turkey (Northern Kurdistan), northern Iraq (Southern Kurdistan), northwestern Iran (Eastern Kurdistan), and northern Syria (Western Kurdistan). Some definitions also include parts of southern Transcaucasia. Certain Kurdish nationalist organisations seek to create an independent nation-state consisting of some or all of these areas with a Kurdish majority, while others campaign for greater autonomy within the existing national boundaries. Do you see? The same struggle to protect territorial integrity is seen at its peak here.

Iraq invasion and Iran: this is the same reason that encouraged Iran’s interest in Iraq after the US and its allies removed and killed Saddam Hussein. Despite having a not-so-friendly relationship with the West, Iran was in total support of the strike against Iraq (Saddam) in March 2003 when the US, under Gorge W. Bush, led a coalition of the UK, Poland, and Australia to invade Iraq.

This has remained part of history for centuries and means that Russia is not necessarily fighting Ukraine as Ukraine but trying to send a clear signal to whoever wants to near her border in any form of disguise.

Will the war be taken further? I do not think Russia could be smart enough to launch a full-scale war yet. However, if it continues, there is a slim chance of having NATO respond militarily, which could further lead to an unimaginable end. It is to the world’s knowledge that if external forces intervene to support Ukraine, it could mean facing Russia, China, North Korea, Serbia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Belarus, etc.

Are we about to witness another World War? We pray for the best.

Sulaiman Badamasi (Mahir) sent this article via sulaimanmahir@gmail.com.

By Aliyu Sa’adatu

Disturbing images and news keep coming out of India where Muslim men and women continue to be harassed and prosecuted by Hindu zealots, but little has been done or said about it. There has not been the intervention of International Human Rights Watch or the United Nations, much less an outcry from the United States. The US has, over the years, designated and paraded itself as the human rights violation police, overseeing and monitoring cases of abuse across the world.

Could the lens of the US be partial?

Lately, there has been a surge in Islamophobia across the US, Europe and other countries like India. Hindu elements beat Muslims, rip apart their homes and businesses and rape their women day in day out. These thugs are emboldened by the nationalist campaign to create an exclusive Hindustan by some of its prominent leaders of the BJP party and even the so-called prime minister Narendra Modi. Yet, the United Nations and the US have been silent over the years as more crimes against humanity are being perpetrated against Indian Muslims.

What set the Taliban apart from the BJP?

The Taliban in Afghanistan wishes to formulate a Muslim State where Sharia, in its strictest form, is used as the basis of governance. It has, over the years, fought foreign government out of the country, establishing the kind of state it wanted even though the system of governance put in place and proposed by the Taliban is considered to be inclined towards extremism as women’s rights to things like education and work continue to be denied.

Over the start of its rule in the late 1990s, records of violations and abuses have been filed of men and women subjected to public beating, amputation in case of theft. In addition, girls are forcefully taken out of schools as young as the age of ten and condemned to a life of early marriage, to mention a few.

The US and its allies have seen these as offensive and unacceptable, but it has repeatedly perceived these acts practised by the Taliban as highly condemnable and unprogressive. Whereas in 2002, Narendra Modi is said to have fuelled the brutal crackdown on Muslims in Gujarati when he was governor of the state and is doing the same as we speak, as he seeks to rid off the nation of Muslims to establish an exclusive Hindu state. Yet I do not see the prying lens of the United States shifting to cover the crimes committed against Muslims. I do not see it calling out the prime minister of India asking him to end every violence perpetrated against its minority religious population as Modi seeks to obliterate Muslims off the face of India.

To this day, his actions continue to fuel and encourage the Hindu majority population as they continue to terrorize the lives of their minorities like Muslims and Christians alike. Now I ask: what set aside the Taliban’s mandate from that of Narendra Modi? What even sets Modi’s nationalist agenda apart from that of ISIL, who brutally prosecuted minorities, like the Hazaris’ and Kurds’ in Syria and Iraq subjected to beheadings and widespread rape of women and girls in a bid to establish an Islamic State? We all have criticized their approach and activities. Why then is the West and its allies turning blind eyes to this crisis as Muslims continue to suffer in the hands of extremist Hindus’ and Narendra Modi as he rakes the path to establishing the so-called Hindustan?!.

The hypocrisy of the West and the Muslim witchhunt

The West is quick to find a faulting de facto Muslim leader of a country and have him investigated, slammed his government with sanctions and in some cases invade his country and eventually have him removed if ever found wanting on crimes committed against humanity. Still, when the leader in question is a non-muslim, they turn blind.

Some months ago, some Hindustani populace went online publicly calling for genocide against Muslims of India. The case went viral. We saw and read across media platforms in the world. The United States probably caught wind of the news, but strange is the way they never respond. When the Burmese military crackdown on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar six years ago, nobody did anything. Again, I ask why the United States and the rest of the international community are selective in their punishment in response to human rights violations against Muslims worldwide.

A boycott of Bollywood

We Muslims will not sit back and continue to watch the people’s faces who continue to kill our Muslim brothers and sisters in India. So, therefore, my suggestion is we call on the Muslims across the world for a boycott of Bollywood. We will patronize them again only and solely when the ban on Muslims right to worship peacefully without intimidation in India is restored. Their right to live in peace and use public spaces like other Hindu citizens should also be re-issued and guaranteed.

Sa’adatu Aliyu comes from Kogi state. She is a graduate of English Language from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and a Masters student in Literature at the same institution. Her email is saadatualiyu36@gmail.com.

By Aminu Rabiu Kano

The history of Afghanistan is one characterized by epic tragedy. The narrative of the “Afghan problem” has been diverse, with each actor telling their side of the story in a bid to justify their action or inaction as the case may be. A poor, landlocked Afghanistan is one of the few countries in the world which events happening in and around it have been dominating the headlines for decades. Both the mainstream and social media are obsessed with happenings in the country. Indeed, even the layman on the street is more or less interested in the Afghan problem to the extent that virtually everyone can say one or two things about it. The question that follows, therefore, is, why is the world interested in happenings in Afghanistan? In other words, why are developments in Afghanistan capable of generating reactions around the world? Also, why have the superpowers in history found it necessary to invade Afghanistan?

To answer the above questions, we must begin by establishing the geopolitical relevance of Afghanistan on the world map. Afghanistan is doubtlessly strategically located. It is at the crossroads of Central and South Asia. It borders Pakistan, China, Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is predominantly mountainous and inhabited by approximately 32 million people – nearly 45% of whom speak the Pashtun language. Moreover, the Afghan population is primarily Muslim. This reason, coupled with the fact that it borders Iran, Afghanistan is sometimes seen as a part of the “Wider Middle East.”

From the list of the countries bordering Afghanistan, one will realize the geographical importance of Afghanistan in the international political environment. Of the five countries that bordered it, Iran and China stand out. However, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan had been part of the former Soviet Union that fell apart in the 1990s. This implies that Afghanistan has been a neighbour to glorious powers both in the past and present.

Therefore, it was invaded severally by several empires across ages due to its essential, strategic location. For example, Alexander The Great of the Macedonian empire invaded Afghanistan in 330 BC as part of the war against Persia. Alexander saw that he could only get the Persian empire subdued by invading Afghanistan. Similarly, foreign powers such as the Persian Empires, the Mongol Empire led by Khan Ghengis, the Mughal Empire, the Timurid Empire, the Rashidun Caliphate, and the Sikh Empire conquered Afghanistan.

Little wonder, Afghanistan, even in the modern era, grappled with yet other rounds of invasions, but this time around by the “superpowers”. The superpowers being the USA and the USSR. During the cold war, these superpowers used Afghanistan, among other countries, to test their military, economic and political powers. It all started when, in April 1978, the People Democratic Party of Afghanistan overthrew the Afghanistan government. Nur Muhammad Taraki, secretary of the PDPA, became president of Afghanistan. But Taraki’s government was communist in orientation and enacted some policies that were not well received by the masses. Thus, the masses hated government, and, as a result, Taraki was overthrown by Hafizullah Amin in September 1979. Despite the change of government from Taraki to Amin, opposition to communist rule continued even under Amin. In December 1979, Amin was shot and replaced by Babrak Kamal, who was in exile in Moscow. Kamal’s government heavily relied on the Soviet military for support and protection against his vast opponents.

Opposition to the communist government continued, which prompted the USSR to invade Afghanistan, deploying more than 50,000 soldiers. This occupation was even met by fierce resistance by Afghans, who have joined the Mujahedeen – a guerilla movement that proclaimed to be fighting anti-Islamic forces in Muslim lands. The Mujahedeen would later be referred to as the “Taliban”. The Taliban was formed by Mullah Muhammad Umar, who recruited young Muslim students from Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan to fight the Soviet Military. Over the next ten years, hundreds of thousands of lives were lost. In the end, the Soviet military was forced to withdraw from Afghanistan.

However, the mujahedeen (or the Taliban, if you like) did not fight the war alone: they were heavily supported, armed and financed by the USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. USA was mainly instrumental in its support to the Taliban because it feared that if the USSR succeeded in occupying Afghanistan, its national interests would be threatened. In fact, the US’s intervention was informed by the need to resist the advance of what former President Reagan called the “evil vampire”. Then, the two superpowers – the USA and USSR – were in the heat of the cold war. Therefore, the US saw that if the Soviet Union succeeded in implanting communist rule in Afghanistan, the domino theory would materialize. This means that the USSR would also succeed in spreading communist ideology into those countries neighbouring Afghanistan. Most Fundamentally, by gaining the control of the Middle East, the USSR would determine oil and gas supply to the US and its allies in the West. This meant that the Soviets could do great harm to the US economy and those of its allies by cutting off the oil supply since oil was a vital product so crucial that military and industrial operations heavily depended on it.

After the withdrawal of the Soviet military from Afghanistan, the Taliban formed an Islamic government. Osama Bin Laden – a Saudi citizen – was instrumental in fighting the Soviet army. As the son of a rich and influential citizen in Saudi Arabia, Osama contributed substantial financial resources to the Afghanistan war that lasted for ten years. He later formed Al-Qaeda, which was said to be a terrorist movement determined to liberate the Muslim land from Western influence. On 11 September 2001, 4 aeroplanes were hijacked by, allegedly, the Al-Qaeda. Two were flown to the Twin Towers housing the World Trade Centre, one flown to the Pentagon and the other to Pennsylvania. As a result, more than 5000 people lost their lives, and critical government infrastructures were destroyed.

The US was quick to blame Osama’s Al-Qaeda for the tragic 9/11 event. The US President George Bush soon declared war on terror. The war was first on Afghanistan, which led to the overthrow of the Taliban government. After that, the American forces established a democratic government with its foundation in and allegiance to American imperialism. However, after 20 years of occupation, the Taliban expediently returned to power when the US forces willingly decided to withdraw from Afghanistan.

From the foregoing, three lessons can be learned. One, Afghans have a genetic history of resistance to foreign domination. Second, Afghanistan is a strategic country that played an important part in the Great Game power struggles for centuries. Finally, it is evident from the above that Afghanistan’s series of invasions was no end in itself, but a means to an end. Put it more succinctly, Afghanistan is a gateway for foreign powers. Its invasion would allow the superpowers to dominate the Asian continent, including the oil-rich Arab world. Overall, Afghanistan, despite its myriad of aggression by foreign superpowers, is still in existence. It survives!

Aminu Rabiu Kano is a political and public affairs analyst. He can be reached via 08062669232.

Record temperatures in British Columbia, Canada, and US cities, including Oregon, have resulted in the death of hundreds of people. The temperature reached up to 49.6°C (121.3F) on Sunday in parts of Canada, breaking a decades-old record.

The Oregon State Police said the state medical examiner’s office had received reports of 63 deaths. However, the heat is expected to subside by the weekend in most US cities.

The death toll is more devastating in Canada. According to a CNN report, at least 486 sudden deaths have been reported across the western coast of Canada near the US border.

“The 486 deaths currently entered represent a 195% increase over the approximately 165 deaths that would normally occur in the province over a five-day period,” British Columbia Chief Coroner Lisa Lapointe said in a statement.

Experts warn against associating this directly to the climate change the world witnesses. Others say the two are connected like lung cancer is to smoking. They added that other parts of the world, too, see unpredictable weather conditions.

So far this year, northern Nigeria has recorded a low rainfall. As most farmers depend on the rain in the region, they expressed concern over the situation. Nigeria may face a food shortage as a result.