First, the Nigerian federation is not a federation of
religions, but of states. Whereas states with overwhelming Muslim majorities
may legislate for themselves shari�ah laws for their Muslim populations, the
non-Muslim indigenes of those states are equal in every respect to the
Muslim majority. Their complete freedom of religion, including freedom from
harassment for non-conformity to the tenets of Muslim law in their choice of
dress or food or drink etc. must be guaranteed and protected. In this
regard, the various groups set up under the name of Hisbah corps must be
restrained from interfering in any manner with the lifestyle of non-Muslims,
particularly where the offence they are accused of is only an offence under
shari�ah law. Such incidents as attacks on bars or beer-trucks or hotels
arguably represent an attempt to force non-Muslims to live by the dietary or
moral laws of the shari�ah.
Second, even in mediaeval Islamic states where
non-Muslims were considered dhimmis or protected citizens, it was not a
crime for them to say things consistent with their religious identity, even
if those things constitute blasphemy in Muslim law if uttered by a Muslim.
For example, it is a fact that a Christian does not accept Muhammad as a
prophet of God, that he does not believe the Qur�an is the Word of God, that
he believes Jesus is the Son of God and that he died on the cross etc. If
his beliefs were otherwise he would not be a Christian. Recognition of the
right of a citizen to be Christian entails recognizing his right to believe
and say these things. A Christian in Sokoto who says Muhammad is not God�s
prophet is like a Muslim in Enugu who says that Jesus did not die on the
cross or that belief in the Trinity undermines monotheism. It is therefore
an established principle in Muslim law that a non-Muslim is not liable for
statements he may make which are expressions of that in which his non-belief
rests.
However, this right is not limitless. As the popular
saying goes, one is free to swing his arms around but that freedom ends
where his neighbour�s nose begins. Freedom to disbelieve in the prophethood
of Muhammad, for instance, is not the same as freedom to abuse him or
slander him or denigrate him. The recent unfortunate riots that took place
during the Miss World imbroglio were, at least so it seems, the result of a
newspaper article slandering the prophet. Freedom to say the Qur�an is not
God�s word is not freedom to desecrate it, as a Christian did in Kano in the
1990�s leading to his unfortunate death. It is striking that balance that is
critical on both sides and the responsibility lies with religious leaders
and opinion moulders to educate the citizenry on the need to claim and
protect religious freedom while respecting the sacred beliefs of adherents
of other faiths.
Finally, in addition to incomplete understanding of
religious laws, perhaps the most important source of conflict is the failure
of the state. Nigeria is an African country blessed with a large population
and tremendous natural resources but the living conditions of the majority
of that population are not better than those of poorer nations. Low literacy
rates, low per capita income, high unemployment, endemic public sector
corruption, starvation and disease, poor public services, drug trafficking
in high places- all the symptoms of social collapse are present in Nigerian
society. Many of those who claim to be in the vanguard of religious
reform-on the Muslim and non-Muslim side alike- are actively involved in the
processes accelerating this decay. In such an environment, every emotional
issue is an excuse for violence, an opportunity to release pent up anger and
frustration. This may be in the name of religion, or of ethnicity, or of
whatever presents itself as a credible excuse.
Conclusion: The future of dialogue
Given the forgoing one must conclude by commending the
Germans for initiating and encouraging this African-European dialogue. One
must however add the following caveat: Dialogues and seminars are good.
However, they must be part of a wider effort that addresses the many faces
of this hydra-headed monster called religious violence. Germany and France
must continue resisting the tide of religious fundamentalism fuelled by the
religious right in the US and Israel and sweeping across some European
nations. It is possible to engage fundamentalists at an intellectual level,
but their appeal rests not so much on their intellectual sophistication as
on the fertile environment being created for the growth of radical
movements.
Secondly, African Muslims and Christians must fight the
fanatical elements in their societies to a standstill. In places like
Nigeria, Muslim intellectuals must stand against the corrupt and
incompetent, half-educated elements that seek to appropriate religion as a
cover for the failure of the Nigerian state. Christian Nigerians must also
take responsibility for reversing the emergent trend of Christian
fundamentalism in the south and the middle-belt, a trend that is
ideologically strengthened by American and European �born-again�
evangelists.
Thirdly, good governance and improvement in living
conditions of African people is the most critical factor. Indeed my theory
is that the more overtly religious the political leaders of a nation the
more corrupt they are. In Nigeria, Muslim leaders have raised the flag of
Islam and defied the world in their march toward implementation of shari�ah
and Islamisation of society. Christian leaders, beginning from our
president, make public shows of church and prayer services. Indeed the
president is a self-declared �born-again� Christian who only contested
elections after holding private discussions with God almighty. Yet the
latest report of Transparency International ranked Nigeria as the second
most corrupt country in the world. (The joke in Nigeria is that we are
actually the most corrupt, but we bribed Bangladesh to accept the gold medal
on our behalf). Nigeria has churches, mosques, Imams, bishops (even
cardinals), shari�ah laws etc. But in the conduct of government neither
Islam nor Christianity is in evidence.
This brings me to one final point, a logical
conclusion from the analyses above. Can there be a dialogue between �Africa�
and �Europe� or �Islam� and the �West�, if these terms have no meaning in
the sense of representing a univocal position on world affairs? I personally
do not think so. What is clear to me is that there are two opposing
positions: One favours moderation, peace, respect for other values and
civilizations and tolerance. The other is fundamentalist, fanatical,
intolerant, aggressive and violent. Each of these positions has
representatives in all religions, all cultures, all governments, all armies
and all parts of the world. Those who believe in world peace must seek and
find persons of a similar disposition in other cultures. Peace loving
European Christians may find Arab Muslims who hold views closer to theirs
than their next- door neighbour who attends the same church. The dialogue
should aim at setting up a moderate coalition that confronts the forces of
destruction and extremism all over the world-and these include Islamic,
Christian, Jewish and Hindu fundamentalisms, among others. This view
challenges our conventional conception of common cultures or brotherhoods.
It is a clash of cultures, to be sure, but of the culture of moderation and
the culture of extremism. One sees religion as a force for peace, liberty,
justice and the better life. The other uses it as an instrument of hatred,
destruction, backwardness and oppression. The fanatics, be they Christian,
Muslim, Hindu or Jewish, rarely are changed through dialogue, especially if
they have secured positions of privilege through the agency of the gospel of
intolerance. They must be defeated intellectually and politically.
Unfortunately, in some cases, they resort to violence, in which case they
must be defeated through the use of force. In such situations, conflict is
inevitable as the only guarantee to peace and stability. Our task is to
avoid this by proactively managing the situation through the promotion of
justice, good governance and proper education and enlightenment.
