11th August, 2014
By Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
As I rightly stated in my piece written in response to Alhaji Balarabe Musa, which was published by P.M.NEWS on June 24 and June 30, 2014 respectively, making reckless, unsubstantiated and indeed dishonest statements has simply become a major characteristic of many in our land. I stated this referring particularly to the malicious statement of Alhaji Balarabe Musa that Jonathan is responsible for Boko Haram menace in the country. Now, as usual, we have it once again—after the recent attack on General Muhammadu Buhari, APC politicians have maliciously accused Jonathan’s men of being the masterminds. The Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress in Lagos, Mr. Joe Igbokwe, came out a few days ago with an interesting theory about the “assassination attempt” on Gen. Buhari in an interesting article entitled, “Who Wants General Buhari Dead?” In this piece, Igbokwe says that Jonathan might not have been directly behind the attack, but it could have been people looking to curry favour from him.
Insisting that the attempt on Buhari’s life has everything to do with the 2015 elections, Igbokwe says that Mr. President needs to look within, and urgently. Hear him: “I am running away with the thinking that the crisis bedevilling the nation cannot be divorced from President Jonathan’s ambition to rule Nigeria beyond 2015. While this inordinate ambition is being pursued left and right, front and back, up and down, the nation is left bare at the mercy of insurgents, and mass murderers.
“If the truth must be told, Nigeria has to remain a political entity for somebody to become the President. President Jonathan should look inwards pronto. Those who targeted Gen. Buhari may be playing real politics for President Jonathan’s 2015 ambition. It may be right to push the blame to Boko Haram but nobody is a political idiot here.
“All things considered, General Buhari remains the greatest threat to President Jonathan’s ambition in 2015 and the handlers of Mr. President know this very well. Once Buhari is out of the way then it is a walkover for the President. But one basic truth is self-evident here: General Buhari of 2003, 2007, and 2011 is no longer the same Buhari. Time, space, and history have strategically positioned the man differently today and woe betides anybody who will not see the difference.”
Mr. Igbokwe wasn’t alone in making these amazing statements. His colleagues—with the aid of the media massively controlled by the opposition party—also propagated similar amazing statements, as we see in the statement All Progressives Governors’ Forum (PGF), which stated plainly that President Goodluck Jonathan should be held responsible for the bomb explosion that was “targeted at former Head of State, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd).”
A statement issued by the APC governors noted that the “assassination attack” on Buhari was coming just two days after he urged President Goodluck Jonathan to stop waging war on Nigerians and to devote more time and energy to the war on terrorism.The statement said: “The PGF also lends its voice to General Buhari’s statement to President Goodluck Jonathan, that it is unwise and against the spirit of social democracy that so many innocent lives should be lost simply in the quest to demobilize the APC and retain power at all costs. Clearly, the federal government has failed in its fundamental responsibility of providing security for Nigerians, yet it is quick to point fingers at the opposition in order to shift the blame for the low-intensity war going on in parts of the country.”
Well, enough of this nonsense! As I rightly stated in my previous piece, Boko Haram is purely religious. Members of the sect are fighting to Islamize the entire north and if possible even Nigeria as a whole. Abubakah Shekau has made this very clear several times but unfortunately, on each occasion politicians have always overshadowed his statements with their malicious lies. However, whatever be the degree of these lies, Shekau is determined to eliminate those he refers to as “Muslim infidels”, that is, Muslims who because of Nigerian democracy are betraying the faith of Islam. Certainly, there are many northern politicians who are sponsoring the sect, but most of these former Heads of State may not really be among these politicians as most Nigerians assume. Buhari, who is simply desperate to rule Nigeria at all costs and who had even spoken openly against the sect members, is simply on top of the list of the “infidels” whom the sect members have determined to eliminate. But the problem with many Nigerians is simply carelessness and consequently the tendency to forget things easily. Some people started linking Buhari to Boko Haram simply because of the statement he was said to have made after the 2011 general elections: that he would make the country ungovernable for Jonathan. But the truth is that this statement was about Buhari’s personal ambition to rule Nigeria under a democratic system which had nothing to do with Boko Haram agenda. While some people have said that that 2011 election was to some extent free and fair in several parts of the country, this writer was in the north at that time and really — frankly speaking — witnessed that Buhari, who was massively supported by many in the north, was actually frustrated by the ruling party at the end of that unfortunate exercise and hence can rightly testify that the General must have made that statement out of anger. In other words, the statement that he would make the country ungovernable really had nothing to do with Boko Haram, period. Boko Haram is out to fight all democrats, and Buhari is not just a democrat, but also a Boko Haram critic, is it logical then, to say that Buhari is using Boko Haram to make the country ungovernable? No, it is not! Now we recall that in February, 2014, Abubakar Shekau had, in a video released to journalists, threatened more attacks against Nigeria, saying his members would target Nigeria’s sources of revenue, and her refineries. Mr. Shekau also vowed, at that time, to kill major Islamic clerics and people that support democracy — including Buhari — western education, and Christianity. He said the state of emergency currently in place in Adamawa, Borno, and Yobe, could not deter his group, and called on his members in other states, particularly Kano, to attack civilians and government institutions. Since the time that threat was issued, we have been witnesses to all the things that have happened.
The full text of Mr. Shekau’s 28-minute video, delivered in Hausa, reads:
“My brethren…you should hold on to your weapons and continue fighting. Let them understand that our work is not confined to Yobe, Borno and Adamawa (states). Make them understand that we are not restricted by emergency rule. They should understand we are under the canopy of Allah.
“This is the beginning. Yes, this is the beginning.
“We Jama’atu Ahlissunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad are fighting Christians wherever we meet them and those who believe in democracy, those who pursue Western education wherever we meet them. By Allah, we will kill whoever practises Democracy.
“And you the infidels of Rivers state, Niger (Delta), the town of Jonathan, Shekau is talking to you (sounds of gunshots). Shekau is talking to you, that small boy that has become the nightmare of infidels is talking to you.
“Oh you the leader of the Niger Delta, you will soon see your refinery destroyed. You will in the incoming days see your refinery you are boasting about bombed. Our refinery is Allah.
“Niger-Delta you are in trouble. Jonathan you are in trouble…Banki Moon you are in trouble, Benjamin Natanyahu you are in trouble, Queen Elizabeth, you are in trouble, Babangida, Kwankwaso, Shekarau, Kashim, Buhari, you are in trouble.
“Yahaya Jingir…the cleric of Jos, the advocate of ‘Boko Halal’, right? We are Boko Haram, you are Boko Halal. You will see, bastard.
“We killed Albani of Zaria. We killed Albani of Zaria. Shekau killed Albani of Zaria. Tomorrow he will kill Jingir, the day after tomorrow he will kill Dapchia, the next day he will kill Wapchama, next he will kill Shehu of Borno, Ado Bayero. We rebel against you, between us and you is enmity and rancour until you believe only in Allah.
“The reason why I will kill you is you are infidels, you follow Democracy…Whoever follows Democracy is an infidel. This is Shekau, this is why I’m in enmity with you.
“Buhari is an infidel, Babangida is an infidel, Atiku is an infidel, late Yar’adua was an infidel, Shehu of Borno is an infidel. You are all infidels. What makes you infidels is Democracy and constitution and western education…I therefore call on brethren in Kano to rise up and replicate the Baga attack.
“All these infidels we are the ones killing them. We enjoy shedding their blood. The Quran must be supreme, we must establish Islam in this country. Not only in Borno, we will henceforth destroy any school wherever we see them.”
It should be noted that it was barely two months after this threat was issued that Shekau and his group kidnapped the Chibok girls. Now, as I pointed out in my previous piece, Shekau has several times made it very clear that he is only fighting Christians, the security personnel who are hunting for him and his members, and Muslims who are betraying the Islamic faith, period. His position, as I pointed out, is simply in accordance with the Islamic faith. For instance, we read in the Quran: (Sura 9 verse 123):
“O you who believe! Fight those of disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find hardness in you; and know that Allah is with those who are Al-Muttaqun (the pious).”
Again: “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” (Sura 9:5).
Shekau has also made it very clear that he is fighting modern democracy which he sees as evil. As he puts it, “The concept of the government of the people, by the people and for the people must be replaced with government of Allah, by Allah, and for Allah.”
Some Muslims who have argued that Islam does not support Shekau’s position on democracy are simply mere comedians. Modern democracy, it must be noted, unlike the type practised in ancient Greece, was actually propounded by ardent enemies of religion, many of whom were atheists. The origin of it is simply the French Revolution, particularly the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, which affirmed the so-called principles of civil liberty and of equality before the law. That is why it is simply alien to Islam and to all the ancient religions. In fact, even true Christianity also forbids modern democracy. For instance, in his June 29, 1881 encyclical letter entitled “Diuturnum Illud” (On Government Authority), Pope Leo XIII, countering the advocates of modern democracy, wrote:
“Indeed, very many men of recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in former ages assumed to themselves the name of philosophers, say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle.”
Put simply, this was and still is for traditional Catholics the position of the Catholic Church with regards to government authority until the Second Vatican Council, held in the 1960s, a Council which was evidently hijacked by the Church’s bitter enemies and hence which brought unimaginable changes to the Catholic world. Since then, the world has witnessed wonders, priest-politicians, bishop-politicians, cardinal-politicians and even, pope-politicians!
The above encyclical of Pope Leo XIII — as well as many other ancient documents — is currently on the internet and should be consulted in this regard.
Now back to Islam. What is the ruling on democracy and taking a leadership role in parliament or other levels of the democratic government? What is the ruling regarding voting for someone in democracy? How was the Islamic state organised and governed in the classical times?
Firstly, democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people and for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because in Islamic rule, as Shekau rightly says, is for Allah and by Allah, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is. But undoubtedly the democratic system is one of the modern forms of governance, in terms of obedience and following, or legislation, as it denies the sovereignty of the Creator and His absolute right to issue laws, and ascribes that right to human beings. In the Quran Allah says:
“You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) — you and your fathers — for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgement) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him (i.e. His Monotheism); that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” (Sura [Yoosuf] 12:40).
Secondly, anyone who understands the true nature of the democratic system and the ruling thereon, but still nominates himself or someone else (for election), is approving of this system, and is working with it — such a person is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam and approving of it and participating in it are actions that imply apostasy and being beyond the pale of Islam.
But as for the one who nominates himself or nominates others in this system in order to join the parliament and enjoin good and forbid evil, and establish proof against them, and reduce its evil and corruption as much as he can, so that people of corruption and disbelievers in Allah will not have free rein to spread mischief in the land and spoil people’s worldly interests and religious commitment, this is a matter that is subject to jihad, according to the interests that it is hoped will be served by that. Some scholars are of the view that getting involved in these elections is obligatory.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen was asked about the ruling on elections, and he replied: “I think that elections are obligatory; we should appoint the one who we think is good, because if the good people abstain, who will take their place? Evil people will take their place, or neutral people in whom there is neither good nor evil, but they follow everyone who makes noise. So we have no choice but to choose those who we think are fit. If someone were to say: We chose someone but most of the parliament are not like that, We say: It does not matter. If Allah blesses this one person and enables him to speak the truth in this parliament, he will undoubtedly have an effect. But what we need is to be sincere towards Allah and the problem is that we rely too much on physical means and we do not listen to what Allah says. So nominate the one who you think is good, and put your trust in Allah.”
The Standing Committee for Scholarly Research and Issuing Fatwas in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the respected scholarly committees of current times. It includes a number of senior scholars from Saudi Arabia, and it has a high level of credibility in scholarly and Islamic circles. It has done a great deal of work in explaining the rulings of shariah (Islamic law) to the people and issuing fatwas (verdicts) having to do with all aspects of life. In Algeria, the scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked: “Is it permissible to vote in elections and nominate people for them? Please note that our country is ruled according to something other than that which Allah revealed?”
They replied: “It is not permissible for a Muslim to nominate himself in the hope that he can become part of a system which rules according to something other than that which Allah has revealed and operates according to something other than the shariah of Islam. It is not permissible for a Muslim to vote for him or for anyone else who will work in that government, unless the one who nominates himself or those who vote for him hope that by getting involved in that they will be able to change the system to one that operates according to the shariah of Islam, and they are using this as a means to overcome the system of government, provided that the one who nominates himself will not accept any position after being elected except one that does not go against Islamic shariah.”
Here we pause to think about Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, a committed Muslim who, as the Governor of Central Bank, wanted to introduce Islamic Banking in Nigeria.
Scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were also asked: “As you know, here in Algeria we have what are called legislative elections. There are parties which call for Islamic rule, and there are others that do not want Islamic rule. What is the ruling on one who votes for something other than Islamic rule even though he prays?”
They replied: “The Muslims in a country that is not governed according to Islamic shariah should do their utmost and strive as much as they can to bring about rule according to Islamic shariah, and they should unite in helping the party which is known will rule in accordance with Islamic shariah. As for supporting one who calls for non-implementation of Islamic shariah, that is not permissible. Thus when—last year in Jordan—radical Muslims opposed the parliamentary election, they did so because they believe that democracy is in contradiction with Islam’s concept of the sovereignty of Allah’s law. They argued that Islam and democracy cannot go together, and they are obviously right, especially if one considers the experiences of people living under Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
“Thanks” to the “Arab Spring,” which has seen the rise of Islamists to power in a number of countries, Muslim extremists today feel free to express their opinion on political and religious issues.
Now just as Shekau stated, one of them, Abed Shehadeh, leader of the Salafi Jihadi movement in Jordan, ruled that democracy in its concept as “ruling of the people by the people” “should be forbidden in Islam.”
Shehadeh, who is also known as Abu Mohammad Tahawi, explained that sovereignty and government belong to Allah alone and not to the people.
He said that the parliamentary elections, which were scheduled for January 23, 2013, were forbidden and contradictory to Islamic Shariah “because the parliament legislates laws and regulations that contradict Allah’s law.”
Shehadeh also criticized electoral programmes presented by the candidates. He said that the electoral slogans used by the candidates were “impossible to implement on the ground.”
He urged Jordanians to boycott the elections because “choosing legislators other than Allah is forbidden.”
The Salafi Jihadi leader’s call for boycotting the election did not fall on deaf ears in Jordan, where many voters were simply determined to boycott the vote. Although it is banned in Jordan, the Salafi Jihadi movement has managed to recruit several thousand supporters over the past few years.
In April 2011, the movement held one of its largest demonstrations in the industrial town of Zarqa north of Amman. Eighty-three policemen were wounded, including four who were stabbed by Salafis.
Jordanian security officials have expressed deep concern over the radical movement’s involvement in the civil war in Syria. Dozens of Jordanian Salafis crossed the border to join various Islamist terror groups waging Jihad [holy war] against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s regime.
Today the Jordanians’ biggest fear is that when the Salafis are done with Syria, they will intensify their efforts to turn the kingdom into an Islamic state. The Jordanian Salafis who are fighting in Syria are not seeking to install democracy. Nor are they seeking to enable Syrians to hold free and democratic elections to choose their representatives. As their leader, Shehadeh explained, democracy and elections are forbidden in Islam.
The Salafis, like other radical Islamist groups, want to establish an Islamic empire and impose strict Shariah laws on Arabs and Muslims. They are convinced that sovereignty and “government should be only in the hands of Allah,” who has entrusted them with serving as his representatives and messengers on earth.
It is important, therefore, to understand the angle from which Shekau is operating, which is radically different from what people like Buhari, Babangida and others represent. Unlike these mere politicians, Shekau wants, if possible, to completely Islamize Nigeria, period.
As the National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki (retd.) rightly stated recently on the so-called “assassination attempt on Buhari”: “Well, the government was not responsible, and if you say that the government was responsible in the case of General Buhari, why don’t you say the same in the case of Sheik Dahiru Bauchi?…We said this not because we had facts but because it is what sells the paper. That is the most unfortunate thing.”
It should be noted that Sheik Dahiru Bauch had criticized Boko Haram to the extent of even saying that they are not true Muslims! And Mr. Shekau did swallow that amazing statement just like that? No, he couldn’t have!
We also recall that, just about two months ago, Jonathan welcomed Gen. Buhari’s call on all Nigerians to remain steadfast and work in unity to overcome “terrorists and other merchants of death, who currently threaten national security.” And Mr. Shekau also swallowed this insult simply because it came from Buhari? No, he couldn’t have!
Both bombings—targeted at Buhari and Sheik—are in line with previous attacks on prominent Islamic clerics, whom Boko Haram accuse of co-operating with Nigeria’s secular government, period!
•Ifeanyi wrote from Lagos. E-mail: [email protected]