Usually, when you say anything critical of Islam as a non-Muslim, you get accused of not knowing what you are saying. You’re told you need to study the religion in-depth, practice it for a length of time, and understand how ancient and new scholars have interpreted Islamic texts before daring to have an opinion about the religion. Essentially, if you are not a Muslim, you don’t have the right to say anything about Islam. I don’t agree with that kind of exclusionary epistemology. Anyone should be able to hold any opinion about anything as long as we live in a plural society. Muslims themselves hold views about Christianity. Jesus, to whom Christians ascribe divinity, is a mere prophet, according to Islam. Christians could as well argue, by their logic, that Muslims don’t have the right to have any opinion about Jesus unless they converted to Christianity, studied the Bible in-depth, and understood how ancient and modern church leaders have interpreted the Bible.
When Muslims engage in extreme activities, it’s often the case that the rest of us have to walk on eggshells. We have to engage in mental and verbal gymnastics to avoid offending their mercurial sensibilities. We cannot call out the atrocities committed in the name of Islam without risking being tagged an Islamophobe. When it comes to discourses on religion, Islam is largely shielded from interrogation. However, that is changing lately, especially online.
I almost did not want to comment on the ongoing furore about the proposed establishment of a Sharia court in Oyo state. But, thankfully, I snapped myself out of that. I’ve written a lot to criticise what I view as the excesses of Christianity in the country. I’ve bemoaned pastors exploiting their members by staging miracles. I’ve criticised so-called prophets for their fake prophecies. I’ve called out the orthodoxy of prosperity gospel. But I’ve barely criticised the extremism of Islam. And even in those few times I did, I had to walk on eggshells. Not commenting on the ongoing Sharia controversy would not only be a double standard on my part, but it would be a contravention of the ethos of intellectual honesty I try to live by.
Those pushing for Sharia in Southwest Nigeria should understand why people have these reactions. It goes beyond the occasional Muslim vs Christian battle for supremacy we have in the country. Like I said, I don’t need to be a Muslim to have an opinion on what Muslims do. And I don’t have to be a Christian to oppose Sharia anywhere in Nigeria. Strictly from a constitutional standpoint, my being a citizen of Nigeria entitles me to my views. I am afraid that setting up a Sharia court in the Southwest would lead to extreme outcomes, even though proponents have argued that Sharia jurisprudence would not apply to non-Muslims. The North should serve as a cautionary tale on the extremism of Sharia. In states where Sharia is practised in the north, they have Hisbah, a morality police that goes about destroying alcoholic beverages, arresting young men for sporting hairstyles they deem untoward, and once attempted to ban men and women from riding tricycles together. And what about punishments, like amputations, that Sharia courts give to criminals? What becomes the fate of Muslims who become apostates? Would they be sentenced to death, per Sharia jurisprudence? What happens to anyone whose jokes offend the sensibilities of Muslims on their personal Facebook page, like Mubarak Bala, the incarcerated president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria? I am not an Islamophobe for having these legitimate concerns.
Nigeria struggles with division. We do not cohere along ethnic and religious lines. Ironically, the southwest, which is often touted as the most ecumenical region in the country, is facing stentorian opposition from Christians over this proposed Sharia court. Traditional leaders have registered their opposition to it as well. And, of course, atheists, agnostics, and nones of every stripe have voiced their opposition. Again, it would be dishonest to accuse anyone who opposes this as an Islamophobe.
Sharia is a dangerous move towards theocracy. We have a lot of examples to draw from in history to know that theocracies do not lead to development, something we desperately need in Nigeria. Theocracies are often not congruent with respect for individual freedoms, free markets, and the pursuit of happiness. Theocracies are not about the rule of law; they are about the rule of dogma. And they can easily slide into extremism. When Christianity wielded state power, it led to a lot of excesses. The inquisitions and the witch trials serve as grim reminders of the horrible things that could happen in a theocracy. The Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs committed unimaginable evils. Islam spread, for the most part, through conquest and violence, from which it derived theocratic legitimacy. The 19th-century violent jihad of Usman Dan Fodio in northern Nigeria readily comes to mind.
Religion and democracy don’t often mix well. And this means there has to be a separation between the state and religion, especially in heterogeneous societies like ours. I am naturally suspicious of any attempt by any group – ethnic or religious – to lobby the government for special rights. That creates a climate of suspicion and often leads to situations where other groups also demand special rights from the government. We then have an Olympics of groups seeking to one-up on themselves in their demands. An example of this is the profligate government-sponsored annual pilgrimages for Muslims and Christians. Understandably for Muslims, pilgrimage is an important tenet of their faith, but not for Christians. Since both groups live in mutual suspicion, it’s only fair that Christians demand the government sponsor their gratuitous pilgrimage to Israel as well. But here’s the thing: why the bloody hell is the government sponsoring pilgrimage for any religious group in the first place? Christians would have started pushing for their court by now if Christianity had its jurisprudence like Islam.
When the federal government approved an airstrip at Oyedepos’s Cannaland, some Muslim groups like MURIC spoke against it. Interestingly, MURIC has called out the Oyo state governor, Seyi Makinde, for being ignorant about Sharia, having expressed some concerns about it. Surely, MURIC whose shtick is to cry foul about everything churches do, should understand why non-Muslims have misgivings about Sharia in Oyo state. For the umpteenth time, this is not about Islamophobia. Many see this as an existential threat to their freedom and it would be dishonest not to acknowledge that.
I also find it ironic that while Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, is moving towards secularism, Nigerian Muslims are racing towards purism and puritanism. And that’s dangerous. Every terrorist group also brands itself as purist and puritanical. It is no wonder that theocratic societies tend to produce terrorist groups. I am not clairvoyant to say that if this proposed Sharia court is established, we’d have terrorism in the Southwest. But that possibility is not far-fetched. It’s understandable why the rest of us are vehemently against this. For us, this is an existential issue. It’s an attack on the famed tolerance and ecumenism of Yoruba people. Tolerance requires compromises. Reining in religion is a price we need to pay to sustain tolerance. Otherwise, the fabric of the Southwest as we know it would forever change.