I have decided to put this on my blog so as to afford my followers to have another idea on how best to analyse the Boko Haram insurgent.
I have an article on the way on this same topic coming shortly.
Just for your information, I have finally decided to start posting articles from other writers to allow for varieties. All articles would be posted as written by the original writer without any form of modification.
Thanks.
Discourse 338
By Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde
The New Challenges of Boko Haram
Within 48 hrs of publishing Jonathan and the Security of Nigerian
Christians on the internet and a number of Nigerian newspapers and
websites, Imam Abubakar Shekau, the leader of Jama’at Ahlus Sunnah
Lidda’wati wal Jihad – commonly called Boko Haram – released a video on
Youtube describing the objectives of its mission.
I feel that both the international and local press have not done justice to
the speech of the Imam. Though he has clearly given reasons behind their
mission, everything was just reduced to “Boko Haram has claimed
responsibility for attacking Christians in Nigeria”, without even stating
the reasons.
Given the relevance of the group to our national security today, I think it
is essential for the media to maintain a balance in its reporting of the
group. This is not to say ‘five minutes for the Israelis and five minutes
for the Palestinians”, but a coverage that ensures the message of each side
is passed to readers in the most comprehensive form possible is desirable.
In following 'few' paragraphs, I set out to discuss the most essential
points of Imam Shekau’s message – the category of Nigerians that the group
is targeting and its reasons for doing so. Of course, he has raised some
controversial matters in the province of contemporary Islamic jurisprudence
just as there are also many things he did not say which we would love to
hear from him directly. However, these are matters that can best be
discussed separately at a later date, hopefully, by more capable minds than
mine. As conclusion, the challenges the group posed by the group to
government, Muslims and Christians are discussed.
Targets
The video, according to Imam Shekau, was essentially directed at three
targets: President Jonathan, for whom the Boko Haram leader promised “more
troubling times ahead”; the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) for its
“vituperations” in the aftermath of the recent bombings; and, individuals
opposed to the group including those that see it as a “cancer or disease
among the people."
Imam Shekau was also clear on who the group regards as its enemies. First
on the list was security personnels who the Imam charged with persecuting
members of the group, including the cold blood murder of its leader in
police custody, killing many of its members and eradication of its centres;
two, Christians, for killing Muslims in various parts of the North in
various religious and ethnic crisis that took place during the past two and
a half decades; and, three, Muslim informants and moles, "yan chune", who
assist the government to identify and kill its members. “Apart from these”,
said the Boko Haram leader, “we have not targeted anyone.”
Let us discuss each of these targets separately.
Security Personnels
It is difficult for anyone to suggest an alternative for the group after
the treatment meted it by the Yar’adua administration in 2009. Instead of
abiding by rule of law, like arresting its leader and charging him -
maximum - with treason, the authorities deliberately chose to provoke the
group. The police killed a number of its members during a funeral
procession on the flimsy ground of not using a helmet. To date, nothing was
done to the culprits.
The group promised to retaliate after Ramadan in 2009. What happened after
that Ramadan when the group protested at some police stations in Bauchi did
not actually necessitate an all-out war against it. Many groups have
attacked the police before but they were handled by normal means without
resorting to extreme measures like massacres. Let us not forget the “finish
them” order that President Yar’adua gave to the security forces that
morning when he was leaving for Brazil. In fact, he even timed it that by
4.00pm that day, the job must have been completed.
In Bauchi, it was estimated that over seventy members of the group were
massacred at their centre behind the airport. Apparently, they were even
unaware of the conflict at Dutsen Tanshi police station that started that
morning. By evening, the state commissioner for special duties led a team
of government agents that leveled the centre with bulldozers. Passengers at
the Yankari Park in Bauchi also witnessed how eight unarmed members were
arrested and killed instantly by soldiers as the were boarding a bus to
Maiduguri. The governor, Isa Yuguda, would later claim credit for the
“decisive way” in which his government dealt with the group in his state.
In Maiduguri, what happened was pretty clear. Government went for total
extermination of the group without recourse to any due process. The world
was witness to how their centre was leveled by soldiers; how Muhammad
Yusuf, their leader, was executed; how Muhammad Foi, a former member of
Sheriff’s cabinet, was executed on the street after his arrest; and how the
police and the military went about killing anyone that resembled their
members to the extent that people started shaving their beard en masse
because a senior police officer was reported in the press saying that he
cannot guarantee the life of anyone wearing such features. So many were
arrested along with their wives. They remain in prison to date without
trial. Extermination is still the strategy of government in dealing with
the group.
While some ulama that were in the good books of government justified the
killings saying that the sect is Kharijite, the world condemned the
killings. We wrote essays then condemning both the ulama and the
authorities on the highhandedness they showed. The government apologized to
the United Nations after it was condemned for the human right abuses,
promising that it will bring the perpetrators to book. Actually, it did
nothing. No disciplinary action was taken against anyone until when Boko
Haram bombed the Police Headquarters in Abuja. Two police officers were
then reportedly dismissed from service for the murder of the Boko Haram
leader.
Boko Haram therefore was left with no option but to go into hiding. The
group did exactly that. It took time to heal its wounds, regroup and
re-strategize before returning to revenge what Imam Shekau described as the
“the injustice meted against it.” To my understanding this is why he chose
the following verses to open his Youtube video speech:
“Truly, God defends those who believe. Verily, God likes not any
treacherous ingrate. Permission to fight is given to those who are fought
against because they have been wronged, and, surely, God is able to give
them victory. Those who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only
because they said, Our Lord is God.”
The overwhelming opinion among Muslims then was that the group was indeed
treated unjustly. Public commentators from the North openly accused
Yar’adua of playing ‘Animal Farm’ with his brothers. The killing of Boko
Haram members came just some few month after the President negotiated and
granted a lucrative amnesty to more destructive militants in the oil rich
Niger Delta.
Beneficiaries of the amnesty were placed under a welfare package and chunks
of the federal government expenditure was sunk into the development of that
region in addition to the ‘lion share’ that its state governments collect
from statutory allocations, which is greater than the allocations of all
the 19 northern states. In addition, they receive 13% of Nigerian revenue
earnings. Finally, as it was clear in 2011, 76% of federal projects are
allocated to that region.
The result is peace.
However, for Boko Haram, the government chose to negotiate with bullets and
bombs. It is not surprising, therefore, that the group replied it in its
own language. In this context, one can easily understand its resort to
violence as a means of survival.
If Yar’adua was wrong in treating Boko Haram in the 21st Century with the
same strategy that Shagari and Buhari used to overcome Maitatsine in the
1980s, Jonathan did little to correct that mistake. He has not shown any
interest in dialoguing with the group, so far. The group has many times
cited this as another reason for continuing its struggle. Appeal to its
members to put down its weapons and negotiate with government and they will
rebut in this standard format: “How can we trust any negotiation with
people who are amassing arsenal to attack us?”
All that Jonathan did was to constitute a committee to study the group and
matters related to it. When it was insinuated that the mandate of the
committee included negotiating with the group, the Secretary to the Federal
Government quickly dismissed any such mandate. Months after the committee
submitted its report, its recommendation for peaceful negotiation between
government and the group continues to remain frozen.
The result is insecurity.
This is in sharp contrast to what happened to the October 1, 2010 bombers.
President Jonathan laboured hard in public to exonerate the perpetrators,
who claimed to belong to the Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta.
They said they did it; he said they didn't. Security officials told the
nation that they have evidence linking Raymond Dokpesi, the presidential
campaign manager of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida and owner of AIT to the
attacks. Security agents quizzed Dokpesi and some arrests were made.
The media guru transferred his support to Jonathan and allowed his channel
become the mouthpiece of the President. Behold, the bombing charges were
forgotten. The last thing we heard between Jonathan and Dokpesi ten days
ago was that the latter was reportedly paid N1.3 billion for ‘services’ he
rendered to the government!
Informants, Moles and Critics
When it reappeared in 2010, Boko Haram started to selectively start killing
people that assisted the authorities in identifying them. The initial
victims were grassroots traditional rulers, the lawanis as they are called
in Borno. After killing the first few, Boko Haram issued a warning that it
will go after all those that aided the authorities in persecuting them.
These included a number of ulama, traditional rulers, and the three
governors of Borno, Gombe and Bauchi states. It demanded pubic apologies
from the governors and got it from the last two. Though the group rejected
the apology, it is yet to carry out its threat against the big three. Among
the high profile killings made in this category was that of the junior
brother to the Shehu of Borno, the state chairman of the ruling party in
the state and its gubernatorial candidate during the last elections.
Immediately the group started the selective killings, the ulama realized
their vulnerability and none of them dire again to condemn the group
publicly or repeat to assign it the Kharijite nomenclature. At a point,
Boko Haram also issued a warning that they will also go against anyone who
publicly condemns its activities, including journalists who do not live by
the ethics of their profession in reporting it.
The government has been unable to protect its informants and other citizens
from these attacks. This partially explains the silence of the Muslim
community over Boko Haram. Generally, though, it could be argued that it
has not been the tradition of communities in Nigeria to criticize their own
militants. The Niger Delta and the killing of Muslims in Plateau and Kaduna
States are the bad examples that readily comes to mind.
While whoever decides to serve as an informant or a mole knows the risk he
is taking, it is my opinion that the group has gone far when it considers
criticisms as attack. By so doing, though the group would gain the
advantage of instilling fear in the population, it stands the chance of
losing public sympathy and gaining the benefits of correction, or nasiha as
it is called in Islam.
Islam, which the group is linking its cause to, is very wide and it could
harbour a variety of opinions on the same issue. Throughout its history,
given the diversity of the their environment, Muslims have benefitted more
than losing from such differences. Divergence of opinion is counted among
the blessings of the ummah. And even great Caliphs like Umar welcome
corrections by ordinary members of the society when they adopt policies
that are contrary to the scripture.
Likewise, there could be many other interpretations to the Nigerian
situation than Boko Haram’s and if the cause is truly for the common good
of the people as Imam Shekau has said, the door of constructive criticism
must remain open. In his video alone, there are a number of controversial
issues on which many Muslims would beg to differ with Boko Haram: the
status of Christianity, democracy, jihad, western education, etc. It is the
right of the Muslim community to debate them publicly in light of its
understanding of Islam and it is the right of Boko Haram to rebut such
points with superior arguments or accept them at its pleasure.
Having made this observation, I must hasten to mention that debates on
issues regarding Islam in Nigeria are very difficult even among Muslims in
particular. What I have realized in the past thirty-five years is that some
people are impatient, and many times unwilling, to listen to the other
side. Immediately I differ with you in opinion, the first thing I do is
brand you with heresy, infidelity, blasphemy, or other similar derogatory
words. End of discussion! That is why in Muslims and Rule of Law in Nigeria
(2009) I wrote strongly against the people who rushed to label Boko Haram
as Kharijite. Others before them have been labeled with equally disastrous
names, making it difficult for mutual understanding to be reached at on any
single matter that arises.
The very day their massacre started in 2009, the Bauchi State government
sought and got from the ulama in the town a fatwa which served as a license
for authorities to kill Boko Haram members without recourse to justice.
Only the most elderly sheikh in town opined differently, insisting that in
Islam no soul should be killed without a ruling from a judge. That is why
some of the ulama fled the country when Boko Haram made staged a return the
following year. The governor too has abandoned the Government House and
practically relocated to Abuja since after he received the death threat.
The reluctance of Boko Haram to engage this kind of ulama is therefore
understandable. Yet, if it will look around well, not the entire ummah is a
mouthpiece of government. There are hundreds of other ulama with whom it
can engage constructively.
Christians
Up to last Christmas, Boko Haram has not clearly claimed attacking any
church. As we did above, it is possible to see the angle from which the
group justifies its attack on security personnel, informants and the like.
However, making targets of innocent Christians is extremely hard, if not
impossible to reason with from the Islamic viewpoint. Justifiably, nothing
has negatively affected public sympathy for the group like those attacks.
The uproar that greeted the Christmas bombing among Muslims and Christians
alike is a testimony to that repugnance.
But let us be fair and examine the reasons of Boko Haram first before we
hang it. Imam Shekau based his justification on the brutal killings of
Muslims in various incidents Kaduna and Plateau State since the Kafanchan
crisis. He mentioned how Muslims were killed in the various crises, their
women subjected to dehumanizing treatments, and so on. The acts, and worse
ones, like the reported trafficking of children of victims and the
sex-slavery of their women did not receive any condemnation from Christians
or their leaders. Government also declined to prosecute perpetrators
clearly identified by their victims. It was against this background that
the Boko Haram leader rebuffed the vituperations of the President of
Christian Association of Nigeria “simply because of the few successes we
recorded recently,” apparently referring to the Christmas bombings.
There could be few Muslims who would concur with Shekau, privately arguing
that reprisal attacks are the norm in Nigeria. Christians, they would
argue, would know that if they continue to kill Muslims in their areas,
there are now in place a set of Muslims that will revenge it. The
overwhelming majority of Muslims, however, were disappointed with the
claim. I was planning to visit Gombe, Yola and Mubi to investigate the
recent attacks on Christians because of the widespread belief that those
attacks could not have been the work of Muslims. As I reclined on bed to
plan out the trip that Wednesday, the BBC Hausa Service broke the news that
Boko Haram has released a video claiming to target Christians in Nigeria. I
was completely devastated.
Like most people, I have my reservations about the recent attacks on
Christians in the Northeast. This is not like Jonathan's case of “they said
we did it, he said they didn't.” There is a mountain of evidence that
implicates Christians in activities linked to Boko Haram. The SSS has
shared some with the public. Some were reported caught attempting to burn
churches. The latest is in police custody right now in Kaduna. The last
person I spoke to in Yola regarding the bombings that took place there
recently. He said, “we don’t have Boko Haram here; all we have are
politicians who are using the bombings to canvass votes.”
Despite the above revelations, the speech of Imam Shekau must be given its
due weight. We must be honest to say that Boko Haram has unequivocally
declared Christians as targets of its attacks. Pure and simple. Whether the
group carried all attacks on Christians or not is a matter that is open to
debate, which like many, I thought the Imam will clarify himself.
Unfortunately, he did not.
If I were a consultant to Boko Haram, I would have advised it against
taking this measure on both religious and political grounds despite my
appreciation of their concern over the atrocities repeatedly committed
against Muslims in . many communities in Plateau and Kaduna States.
From angle of religion, it would be quite easy to prove, using
unquantifiable number of sources, that collective punishment to Christians
in Nigeria is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Qur’an.
It is haram. If the group had taken the pain to investigate the people or
the communities that perpetrated those atrocities against Muslims and
directed its anger against them, that would have put its mission of revenge
in a more proper context. But to hold a Christian in Madalla, Borno, Yobe
or Adamawa for the wrong done by some Christians in communities of Kaduna
and Plateau state is a cause that is difficult to support. Revenge in
Islam, even where it is chosen by the victim over the preferred option of
forgiveness, must be precisely surgical to meet the requirement of Shariah.
Politically, I will continue with my advice, attacking Christians sends the
message that, one, the group is losing in its battle with the Nigerian
authorities. Two, attacking armless and innocent Christian worshippers is
interpreted as going for a cheap target. Thirdly, it is a cheap way of
conscripting the entire Nigerian Muslim community into the conflict after
the group failed to earn its support in the ongoing conflict. In a
nutshell, it is a political blunder that it should not have ventured into.
In any case, attacking Christians does not solve any problem since it
exposes Muslims to retaliatory attacks in the communities where they are a
minority, thus feeding the vicious mill of violence with the blood of
innocent souls. It is doubtful if God will be pleased with such a bath.
Meanwhile, the attacks have introduced some favourable developments in
Muslim Christian relationship. Muslim groups, in both Northern and
Southwestern parts of the country, have started visiting Christians in
Churches, expressing their support for living in their communities. Some
have even taken the extra-measures to give protection to churches on
Sunday. The realization that some clerics on both side of the divide who
would not care to ignite a conflagration must not be allowed to succeed has
visited on many. Such Nigerians seem to say that these clerics have crossed
the line.
Challenges
In his comment on my blog after reading Jonathan and the Security of
Nigerian Christians, Dr. John H. Boer, a Canadian missionary that lived in
Nigeria for decades until recently, wrote the following few sentences,
which alerts us on the challenges ahead of us:
“Assuming your facts to be correct, this is a very interesting analysis. If
your analysis is correct, Christians, along with government and Muslims,
have a huge job to do, but everyone should start at home. I have circulated
your article to a lot of Christians for their consideration. Da godiya da
yawa.”
That was an apt observation from an elder. It is my firm belief that
government must take the lead, while both Muslims and Christians address
the problems of relating with each other in their communities. Government
must tackle Boko Haram, not by bullets and arrests, but by negotiation as
advised by its committee on the conflict. Fortunately, unlike Niger Delta
militants, the group is not looking for material benefit. There is no
reason why the government cannot dialogue with it, given the resources at
its disposal. There are sufficient ulama that understand its language and
may succeed in realigning its understanding with mainstream Islam. There
are also sufficient members of the group at hand that the government can
use to reach out to its leaders.
Government must be even handed in the manner it treats different
communities in Nigeria. Money for one, bullets for the other will not breed
peace. Prosecution to this and support to that is the differential
treatment that encourage violent reprisals.
Other matters are political and a common ground to handle them can easily
be discovered. There is nothing, once said the UN Secretary-General after
the bombing of UN headquarters in Abuja last year, which cannot be amicably
resolved through dialogue. Despite the reputation of the source of that
advice, the Nigerian government has shown little interest to take it.
Among the duties of the Christian community in Nigeria, from the Muslim
point of view anyway, is appreciating the frustration of Muslims with the
escalation of violence against them in minority communities in Plateau and
Kaduna States in particular. Horrific crimes have been committed. Silence
over such atrocities by Christians, their support for the perpetrators or
their manipulation of public opinion in the Christian dominated media to
shift blame to the victims only generates anger and retaliations. These
conflicts are basically ethnic and political, but a religious identity is
recruited to augment support for them. No true Christian will commit them.
But when CAN or Christians generally justify them or manipulate them
against Muslim victims, that will cultivate a fertile ground for suspicion
among Muslims.
The Muslim community has an equally great task before it. It requires a
unified voice that can express its spiritual and political aspirations. JNI
and SCIA cannot play this role since its members – mostly traditional
rulers – are government employees, unlike what obtains in the South or
among the Christian community in the country. The Sultan, by virtue of his
office, cannot employ the militant posture of the CAN president, for
example, neither could any Emir.The demand for such a voice in the past did
not exist for the simple fact that governance was better and the Muslim
community did not face the multifarious challenges it is confronting today.
Frustrations about ill-treatment of some Muslim communities, like those
articulated by Imam Shekau, must not be left to sediment so hard until
people resort to violence.
Jointly, Muslims and Christians, especially in the North, need to find a
common ground for social interaction. The gap between them in is too much
wide for stability. To reduce mutual suspicion and build trust among
members of the two communities, avenues must be created for such
interaction at all levels and spheres of human activity. Interactions in
schools, offices, parks, cafes, games, resorts, churches, mosques,
festivities, town meetings, and, of course, homes can all be revived to
achieve this goal as it used to be before the late 1970s.
Both Muslims and Christians need to check the activities of extremists
among them, people – mainly youths – with a lot of zeal to serve God but
with little appreciation of the complexity of life and of contemporary
Nigeria. They need to be guided accordingly by leaders of their sects and
relevant authorities. Otherwise, they will continue drifting away from the
centre until they reach a point where they dream of a whole world covered
by a tsunami of human blood. Certainly, this will not please God that has
described Himself as the Most Merciful.
Finally, we must all keep our guard against corrupt politicians, people who
for their irresistible penchant to loot our treasury are always ready to
exploit our differences and foment communal misunderstandings that often
translate into religious crises. Northerners are more susceptible to these
homo-viruses than others because religion in the region is the cheapest and
most inflammable vector at their disposal. From Borno to Kwara, the
realization that we are destined to live together forever is sufficient to
bring us together against the wish of many that would love to divide us for
their own gain.
The government may today succeed in subduing Boko Haram by arms or by
negotiations. But unless we meet the above challenges, another group will
rise tomorrow, among Muslims or Christians, to face us with similar or
greater challenges.
Abuja
16 January 2012
