|
Tolerance:The Answer To Every
Form Of Extremism
By Dr. I. Ndagi Adamu Newsdiaryonline
Thur Jan 5,2012
Dr Adamu
Abstract
Extremism is increasingly becoming a threat to the globalized
world. A review of the definition of the term shows that
extremism is a learned behavior or disposition. The dismaying
aspect of extremism is its being seen as synonymous with Islam.
Written from of the platform the Crescent Mission of Nigeria
(CMN) the Paper argued that it is not so much of religion but
the environment which serves as a veritable source for grooming
extremism. The Paper concludes with a call for infusing
religious mores that will prick the conscience and check
perfidious life style of leaders. This is because the prevailing
ostentatious posturing of the society cannot be divorced from
the manifesting extremism by the youths
who seek avenue to vent
their anger on the society that does not seem to care for their
present nor the future.
Introduction
A few minutes reflection on world affairs would immediately prop
the mental image of a “shrinking world” in the metaphoric sense.
The compression of
the world into a global village made possible by the ever
growing body of knowledge especially science and technology.
Consequently, events that occur in any part of the world are
instantly brought into the domain of the entire human family
within minutes.
Reasoning as a rural African bred that I am, the word
village conjures a
mental image of a community of families with individuals of
differing orientations, likes, dislikes, beliefs systems, and/or
pervasions, nonetheless coexist harmoniously and amicably within
the bounds of their unwritten rules. I wonder if the same
thinking could hold in the context of our world as a global
village.
My take is that the increasing globalization has generated
corresponding manifestations of extremisms: religious bigotry,
political and economic insensitivity, violence driven
intolerance and negative ethnicity and/or racism. In other
words, extremism has seemingy developed faster strides for
eroding the gains of a globalized world. The fact that this is
happening in the face of abundant knowledge in every field of
human endeavour must be worrying. It is against this backdrop
that these questions are asked:
·
What is tolerance?
·
What is extremism?
·
Why are people of the globalized world becoming increasingly
extremely intolerant towards each other?
·
Why has religion become the auspicious platform for extremisms?
·
Is extremism an end in itself or a means to an end?
·
Above all, how can tolerance be made the answers to extremism?
Important pointers as each of these questions are, time
constraint will not allow in depth discussion of each in a Paper
of this length. My focus will therefore will be on:
1.
The understanding of tolerance in relation to extremism;
2.
How extremism is fomented and sustained; and
3.
Anchoring tolerance to counter extremism.
Defining Tolerance
The United Nation through its subsidiary Organization: the
UNESCO in a document titled:
The Declaration of
Principles of Tolerance, defined tolerance as
…respecting, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity
of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways being
human. (Tolerance) is fostered by knowledge, openness,
communication and freedom of thought, conscience and belief.
Tolerance is harmony in difference.
The document further assert: “Tolerance is not only a moral
duty…but also a political and legal requirements”. It is the
virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement
of the culture of war by a culture of peace”
Considered against the backdrop of this definition, how would
the bureaucrats in UNESCO have felt when a few years ago its
parent body: the UN stood by when nations were embroiled in
wars; communities persecuted on religious grounds; and vicious
ethnic cleansing were prosecuted? Or how is the recent “Oslo
Massacre” to be explained? Or indeed the ongoing muzzling
intolerance exhibited by law enforcement agencies towards some
citizens across the length and breadth of the developed
economies, whose exhibited
extremism (?) is the
desire to actualize their “moral duty” of drawing attention to
the plight of 99% who constitute the lest of these? Could it be
that the concerned officials being devoid of “…respect, and
acceptance (of) openness, freedom of thought and conscience”
that are central to the charter which they have framed? Or could
they be the tacit protectors of other values that are not
expressly stated in the UNESCO’s charter?
Presently, in an attempt to define tolerance, Newman (1982)
found himself at an academic crossroad of
tolerance as a word
with “two different nouns” which corresponds to the verb
“tolerate”, “toleration” and “tolerance”. After an extensive
exploration of the words, he posits that “’tolerance’ is more
closely related to the adjective ‘tolerant’. ‘Toleration’ he
reasoned is merely instantiated in each instance of toleration;
(and importantly) the term is entirely behavioural…” Therefore
‘Tolerance’ unlike ‘toleration’ is often seen as a character
trait, a disposition, and usually a kind of disposition that we
call a ‘virtue’ (p. 5)
My attraction to Newman’s effort is his characterization of
‘tolerance’ in behavioural terms. In other words, tolerance is a
leaned behavior, conduct, reaction or response to whatever is
the stimuli.
Agreeing with the UNESCO’s definition of tolerance Peterson
(2003) appreciates that tolerance is underscored by “…the
appreciation of diversity and the ability to live and let others
live”. He however emphasized that being tolerant is not “…just
agreeing with one another or remaining indifferent in the face
of injustice, but rather showing respect for the essential
humanity in every person” (p. 1).
Reasoning from a socio-economic background, Marcuse (1965)
contends that an appropriate appreciation of tolerance must also
take into cognizance the fact that the person is distinct from
the environment in which he operates. It is therefore his
conviction that there is little to be gained in defining
tolerance on an abstract platform, because it is a
function of the society.
Consequently, a meaningful appraisal of the term has to be
against the backdrop of “…the degree of social equality
prevalent in the society in which tolerance” is expected (p.
84).
Schoenfield (2006) appreciates that “tolerance is a desirable
virtue”; but adds that the efficacy of term is relative to a
“minority and majority relationship”. This is because
fundamental to the concept of tolerance is the supposed
existence of a minority group that has to be tolerated by the
majority. This “stereotypical view of the minorities” to be
tolerated, in Schoenfiled view, would only create the impression
that they are by definition “…undesirable although an inevitable
part of the lives of the majority”. Tolerance in this sense
would imply that those to be “…tolerated are also asked to be
tolerant of those who seek to harm them”. To that extent,
tolerance is only a palliative term and will remain so unless
and until the “…social conditions that made tolerance necessary
in the first place” are altered or addressed.
Driven by his passion for the revival of religious and moral
values, Gulen (2011) sees the connection between religions and
moral virtues on the one hand, and a person’s threshold of
tolerance on the other. He articulated this to the effect that
tolerance is more than the endeavour to understand and embrace
“people regardless of differences of opinion…ideology, ethnicity
or belief. It also means putting up with matters we do not like
by finding strength in deep
conscience, faith and
generous heart… (p. 46). Stemming from this is his
‘conscience rooted in faith paradigm’ of tolerance.
This paradigm is understood to mean that to the extent
that one’s conscience
determines his threshold of tolerance to a given situation,
event or words; it follows that a conscience molded by religion
should ordinarily be more appreciative of the common bond of
humanity and therefore more tolerant.
Considered from the Islamic perspective, tolerance is simply
defined as the
natural disposition
in the
human being to
“hold something acceptable or bearable”. This implies
that tolerance “a religious moral duty” which should be
discharged as long as doing so will be transparently just, it is
equitable and fair to
all.
The content of the Islamic position tolerance is however
relatively different from the preceding positions in two
respects:
1.
Tolerance in Islam is always positive in orientation. This would
suggest that the faith does not accommodate negative tolerance
as Schoenfield’s position implies. It therefore follows that in
Islam, unless tolerance is driven by the need for it to serve as
a barrier that keeps man in check or away from doing injustice
and/or depriving others the protection granted them by the
Supreme Creator, it has failed to serve in its function. The
imperative is that to the tolerant Muslim all human beings are
either his brothers in faith, or brothers like him in creation
to which he owes a religious and moral duty of tolerance.
To ensure that mankind is positioned to this type of tolerant
disposition, he is first and foremost as the vicegerent of the
Almighty God created in the best of all forms: “We
have indeed created man in the best of moulds” (Quran 95
v. 5). In this capacity, it goes without saying that man must
necessarily manifest such sterling qualities like: loving and
compassion of his Creator. Beyond this, because God is all-Wise
(hakim), whatever He chose to do must be for “some exactly and
carefully pre-studied purposes”. Most certainly therefore, He
wouldn’t have chosen to create man to be unjust and intolerant
of his fellow Creatures.
“We made you to be a
community of the middle way (i.e. of tolerant disposition) so
that (with the examples of your lives) you might bear witness to
the truth before all mankind” (Quran 2 v. 143).
And
“Goodness
and evil are not equal.
Repel evil with what is better. Then the person, with whom there
was hatred, may become your intimate friend! And no one will be
granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and
self-restraint none but people of the greatest fortune”
(Quran 41 v. 34-35).
2.
Tolerance in Islam does not automatically translate to unguarded
concessions in matters of Islamic doctrines. In other words,
Islam emphasizes respect for pluralism that is inherent in
societies and cultures. Diversity of races, families and
ethnicities, has by the grace of God a healthy and constructive
purpose of enabling us to know each other (Quran 49 v. 13).
However, this must not be interpreted to mean trading Islamic
off the principles and morals for things that are contrary to
the dictates of the religion.
Defining Extremism
The word Extremism apparently acquired some new potency beyond
the ordinary since the attacks on the World Trade Center and
other sites in the US on September 11, 2001. If anything, this
situation has compounded the difficulty in defining a word
already known to be problematic in definition. The matter is not
helped either by the endeavour in this regard by the academia
and/or the print and electronic media.
It would however seem that since the September 11, saga,
extremism has
been codified to be driven by “negative tendencies”:
Wikipedia’s entry state extremism is presently “…used in
reference to those who use or advocate violence…or use violence
to enforce the will of the social body…” By way of definition
therefore it offered that extremism is “any ideology or
political act far outside the perceived political center of a
society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral
standards”.
Appraised from the perspective of the cognitive psychology, Beck
(2000) defined extremism as “…a perspective or viewpoint that
demonizes those with opposing viewpoints…”
Viewed from a psycho-social position, Gruen posits that
extremism arises as a result of difficulties of the oppressed to
find outlets to vent their frustrations. Consequently, the
frustrated turns his self-hate into hatred for others. This in
his view generates the compulsive feeling which kills humanness.
Extremism is therefore “…not a tactic, nor ideology, but …a
pathological illness which feeds on destruction of life”.
Wilcox laments that the inherent difficulty with the usage of
the word extremism is
the fact that it “is often hard to see”. Therefore attempts at
defining it are bound to be fraught with subjectivity which has
often not only resulted in discrete “name calling and labeling
(but also the)… tendency to view opponents and critics as
essentially evil”.
Dickman postulates that at the background of definitions of
extremism will be found power relations. He asserts that “when
in conflict, the activities of members of the lower (social)
group tend to be viewed as more extreme” than similar activities
by “members of the group advocating the status quo”. This
position raises a question that might be pertinently asked at
this point: Granted the wave of
OCCUPY…this and
OCCUPY that
which is presently sweeping across our globalized world, which
of the
two groups
entrapped in the crisis could be defined as an extremist: Is it
the 99%
claimed pauperized
occupiers that are demanding equity and social justice,
or, the 1%
labeled barons
who are
allegedly
cornering the wealth of the nations?
In effect therefore, the telos about extremism if there is one,
and which has not generated much controversy, is it’s “not a
standalone characteristic”. Ordinarily therefore, what amounts
to
extremism depends on ones position on a given spectrum.
Usually such spectrum ranges from “extreme left” and “extreme
right”. An act that is for example considered by a person or
groups of persons to be typically
extreme by “just
and moral” standards may be seen by another to be exactly the
opposite: “unjust” and “immoral”.
This position is readily illustrated by the persona of Nelson
Mandela. The world was at one time led to believe that his
guerilla war fare approach to fighting for the freedom of South
Africa from the clutches of the apartheid regime was too
extreme, and therefore jailed. Today, the same man is celebrated
as an icon of endurance and tolerance with a Noble Prize for
Peace to show for it.
Within the Islamic context,
extremism is
literally given to mean “…being situated at the farthest
possible point from the center. (Appraised figuratively too the
term) indicates a similar remoteness in religion and thought, as
well as behaviour” from the center (Kalin 2011). He further
observed that one of the main consequences of extremism is that
it exposes the society to danger and insecurity! This is why
Islam in categorical terms states that God’s anger shall be
visited upon those who go out of their ways to bring danger on
people.
It is however a reality of the present that the floating of
extremism as the
other side of
Islam has gained ground around the globe. Should this be the
case?
Logic suggests that no one should pass a judgment on a matter
that he does not have reasonable knowledge about. Islamic
doctrine is emphatic to the effect that those who profess to the
faith must at all time uphold justice and moderation. At another
instance the Quran call on the faithful to reject and oppose all
kinds of extremism:
ghuluw, (excessiveness), and
tanattu’(transgressing
the defined rights of others).
The Quran state:
“We made you to be a community of the middle way (i.e.
tolerance) so that (with the examples of your lives) you might
bear witness to the truth before all mankind” (Quran 2 v. 143)
And
“And verily, whosoever shows patience and forgives, that would
truly be from the things recommended by God” Quran 42 v. 43)
And
“Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he
has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it
shall be he has saved the life all mankind” Quran 5 v. 32)
Then from amongst many Hadiths connected with extremism we have
these:
“Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if
others treat you well you will treat them well, and if they do
wrong you will do wrong to them. Indeed, accustom yourselves to
do good if people do god and not do wrong (even) if they do
evil” (Al-Tirmidhi)
And
“The strong man is not one who is good at wrestling, but the
strong man is one who controls himself (while) in a fit of rage”
(Bukhari and Muslim)
The questions therefore arise: (1)Why and (2) How has Islam
become allied with extremism despite its doctrinal injunctions
that distanced the faith from such negativism?
The answer to WHY Islam has come to be connected with extremism
is simply its BEAUTY! This essence of the beauty of Islam is
captured in the verse of the Quran which states:
“Except for those who are
patient and do
righteous deeds;
those will have forgiveness and great reward” (Quran11
v.11).
In other words the faithful who looks forward to forgiveness and
reward from the Lord
should exercise patience at all time and be engaged in doing
good deeds. If this much is assured what more could one ask for
thereafter? Absolutely nothing!
It was the appreciation of this moderating force of Islam
against the backdrop of the growing tide of secularism driven by
those vain and insatiable desires: “the diseases of the soul”
that moved George Bernard Shaw to write:
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation
because of its
wonderful vitality.
It is the
only religion
which appears to me to possess that
assimilating capacity
to the
changing existence
which can make itself
appeal to every age…I
believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship
of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in
a way that would
bring the much needed
peace and happiness”.
The Genuine Islam
Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936
It is this same beauty of Islam which Winston Churchill so
blatantly hated that rattled him to write:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its
votaries! Beside the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in
a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic
apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.
Improvident habits,
slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce,
and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the
Prophet rule or live”.
The River of War,
1st Edition, Vol. II
You cannot miss the connection between Churchill’s exacerbation
and the coalescing effects of the Industrial Revolution:
exploitation, pollution and urban squalor for the poor; and
inestimable wealth for the investors.
Presently, it is the same
fright of Islam with its categorical doctrinal provisions
that abhors unguarded
passion, greed, covetousness, hatred, lust and such other
emotions that has come to dominate the world, and expectedly
gradually leading to the destruction of the humanness in
mankind;
that has activated the sitting British Prime Minister to
consider working a law that would widen the definition of
Muslim extremists.
Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims 'Draft
strategy brands thousands as extremists. Vikram Dodd
The Guardian, Tuesday
17 February 2009.
However, the unexpressed fact about this seemingly simplistic
repulse against Islam is that the dye to poison the world’s mind
against it has earlier been cast about 1143 when the Quran was
translated for the first time from Latin to English by the
English scholar Robert of Ketton.
“The motive for the translation” as Kalin () explained “was not
to gain a better understanding of Islam by reading its sacred
scripture but to
better know the enemy”.
Consequently Peter the
Venerable pronounced that the translation is a momentous
event for two reasons. First it was expected to shape “the scope
and direction of the study of Islam in the Middle Ages and
provided the critics of
Islamic religion with a text on which to build many of their
anticipated criticisms”. Secondly, and most importantly,
the event proved to be a successful strategy of introducing “Islam
as a villain faith…”(Kritzeck 1964 p. 24).
Norway shooting shows extremism in all faiths
Posted: August 2, 2011 - 9:32 PM
Updated: August 16, 2011 - 11:40 PM
Michael Zhang The
Daily Illini
Testing the Efficacy of the Mind Conditioning Negativism Against
Islam
The immediate world reaction as the news of the dastardly
killings of 91 people in Norway on 22 July 2011 filtered through
the air waves was: ‘the Muslims are at it again!’:
“…many commentators leaped to the prompt conclusion that
the vicious Friday attacks in Oslo represented the work of
Muslim extremists”.
One commentator
was significantly of the position that:
“Terrorism
(which encompasses extremism)…has become defined as
essentially foreign
and
particularly Muslim.
Breivik, however
is a blonde-haired, anti-Islamic nationalist, and a
self-described Christian...
Breivik is
not a Christian, that’s
impossible…No
one believing in Jesus commits mass murder”.
A cartoonist
satirized the incidence thus:
White Christian + Anders Breivik= ?
Terrorist?
The Computer responded: DOES NOT COMPUTE
Do I need say more before I rest my case that EXTREMISM is a
learned behavior?
Those still in doubt may wish to goggle and flip through the
content of the following sites:
Winning an Oilfield, Losing the World:
http://disclosureproject.org
and
http://mathoum.com/press2/cia276_files/home
to have an insight into how Saddam Hussein was found and groomed
for double purposes.
And:
How We Created Our
Own Terror: Bin Laden’s CIA Roots.
The fact therefore is that extremism irrespective of whatever
platform is considered from is firstly, indeed a problem of
significant scale and complex in manifestations. Secondly, it is
to be noted that the effects of extremism are not limited to,
nor are they the exclusive preserve of a particular region or
race in our globalized village.
The Challenge of Making Tolerance the Answer to All Forms of
Extremism
It has to be appreciated from the foregoing discuss that there
is no want as to schools of thought that definitions extremism.
Similarly, the consequences of extremism have been reasonably
established. What is however critically yet to be addressed is:
How is the intemperance that is characteristic of extremism to
be addressed?
A variety of approaches have been advanced:
·
Using military might to eliminate the extremists,
·
Using third parties to broker peace,
·
Employ community leaders,
·
Bring in foreign experts,
·
Employ covert actions, etc.
The problem with each of the suggested options is that it is
fraught with the mistaken belief that extremism is an isolated
incidence which is in turn driven by isolated individuals. This
type of thinking may not hold water in most developing
countries.
This is because, as studies have consistently shown, extremism
in such environments may not be openly supported by the larger
segment of the society, but that does not also negate the fact
that some of the non-violent components of the extremists
actions represent what the larger society is unable to
represent. State more succinctly, “Violent (extremism)…may be a
fringe not supported by the population because of the use of
violence, but are in tune with the larger group’s desire to
obtain the same political goals”.
This position is saliently true of Nigeria, particularly so
since the return of the country to democratic governance in
1999: over engagement with things that do address improving the
life of the ordinary citizens; the widening gap between “the
haves” and “the have nots”; the grinding to a virtual halt of
the social delivery systems; all in the face of reported largest
revenue earnings the country ever had.
These developments have not only fed into heightening
inter-ethnic and/or religious tensions across the land, but also
to the psyche of some hitherto quiescent extremists who feel
betrayed and bitter towards the now shielded political class who
they believed to have used and dumped them.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is emphasized that these
precipitations of extremism are
not deliberately
hatched and orchestrated by the political class. If anything, it
is appreciated that the absence of democratic political culture
from the country over a period is perhaps responsible for some
of the things that the media report about them. For the same
reason, the political class does not seem to appreciate the
power relation between the elected and/or appointed leaders and
the millions of Nigerians that they are supposed to be
representing.
This Paper’s stands on how to address extremism are therefore:
1.
A call for review and re-conceptualization of what democracy
should be in the environment in which operates; and
2.
The mobilization of the citizen for effective participatory
governance.
Democracy
Democracy is the platform on which Nigerian
politics and
politicians
interacts to (1) plan how to win elections, and (2) how to apply
their delegated powers to control and influence governmental
policies and activities for the utmost benefits of their
constituents.
Political history instructs to the effect that the word
democracy has its roots in the ancient Greece. The word is said
to have been formed from the two root words of kratos:
i.e. rule; and demos: by the people. DEMOCRACY
has since then been praised and floated all over the world as
“the high water mark of civilization”. Strange enough the
conjuring of the two Greek words to form democracy in the modern
sense seems precisely to be where any attempt at meaningfully
understanding the concept start and end. This is because the
concept has consistently remained un-amenable to
practicable definition ever since.
The Philosopher Plato for example reasoned that scholars’
difficulty in defining democracy over time arose from the fact
that it is “an irrational and disgraceful” concept; so too, are
whatever institutions it is used to construct and/or nurture.
Plutarch (one of Aristotle’s disciples) was even more
categorical about the fluidity of the word democracy. His
position was aptly captured in the answer he gave to a man who
demanded from him on how he would go about establishing
democracy in his own country. Plutarch said to him: “Go thou and
first establish democracy in thy household”.
Nearer to the present, Abraham Lincoln (the 16th President
of the United States of America 1861 – 65) was credited with
defining democracy as “…a government of the people, by the
people and for the people”. David Webster was to later elucidate
that the thrust of Lincoln’s position with regards to democracy
in simple terms was “… the people’s government, made for the
people, made by the people, and answerable to the people”.
Democracy and Religion or Democracy or Religion?
Did you fail to notice the subtle functional
thrust to decouple democracy from God in the
affairs of mankind in Webster’s explanation of what democracy
means? Take another look at it.
The Godless orientation of democracy has subsequently not only
rendered it imprecise to define, but has also given it varying
“forms” and “shapes” amongst different nations.
In Britain, “the mother of parliamentary”, democracy means that
the monarch (a hereditary establishment) is the Head of State,
albeit that he/she only reigns, but has no power to rule in any
form.
Of the British bicameral legislature, “the House of Lord” is
constituted of “aristocrats with denuded power and pelf” who
only debate but do not decide.
The decision making function of the Government is rested in the
House of Commons. Yet every Briton of substance will proudly
say: “Our democracy was from an early period the most
aristocratic and our aristocracy is the most democratic”.
Noteworthy in this stance is the fact that the type of democracy
in the British environment has been successfully decoupled from
religion, i.e. it is fundamentally secularist in orientation.
Consequently the British society would see nothing wrong in a
parliamentarian claiming allowances for feeding his dog(s) while
the majority of the citizens languish in poverty and penury.
Democracy to the French means “Liberty, Fraternity, and
Equality”. Does this not sound even better than Lincoln’s
“Government of the people; by the people and for the people”?
Yet the very democratic France saw nothing morally wrong in her
embarking on a campaign of genocide against the Algerians whose
only crime was the demand for Independence of the country
from the mother of “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality”.
That is a classical imperative of democracy devoid of religion
i.e. a Godless democracy.
Democracy defies the axiomatic principles of Uniform
Applicability Irrespective of the Environment
Would it surprise you to know that by the virtue of its very
unique type of democracy, the President of America is
never elected by the popular vote? Rather, the voters elect
the State Electors who are in turn constituted
into Electoral Colleges. It is these electoral
colleges across the land that elects the President of the
supposedly most pronounced vanguard of democracy on the surface
of the globe.
This Constitutional arrangement you will recall, found
expression in why Al Gore: the Democratic Party’s Presidential
Candidate who received 543,816 of the popular votes more than
Republican Party’s George Bush; could not become the President.
Reason? George Bush received more of the electoral colleges
vote than Al Gore. An eloquent epitome of the “government of the
people, for the people and by the people” you would say.
The philosopher Bertrand Russell captured the glaring perfidious
contradiction that is inherent in democracy by asserting that
after all “envy” is at the basis of any form of democracy devoid
of religious checks.
Whither Nigeria’s Politicians: Religion and Politics or Religion
or Politics?
It is true that official activities in Nigeria are conducted
under the aegis of the secularly driven Constitution. It is also
true that religion has remained very significant in the nation’s
polity and social life. It is indeed reasoned that Nigeria
cannot be understood without religion. It is however also an
incontestable fact that the second generations of Nigeria’s
Muslims’ politicians have seemingly only perfected the dexterity
of exploiting religion and/or ethnicity to win themselves votes
at the polls. Thereafter hardly is anything heard of them until
the next polls are due.
It is the contention of that Nigerian has found itself in this
state of affairs because there is an obvious disconnect (largely
occasioned by the successive military interventions in Nigeria’s
body polity starting from 1966) in the virtue and value systems
between the present breeds of politicians and their first
generation compatriots who midwife the country to Independence.
Consequently, the new generation politicians would seem to have
found more meanings in the desires of the mind: (1)
Acquisitiveness, (2) Rivalry, (3) Vanity and (4) Love for power
from politics, as against selfless and transparent service to
their constituents and/or communities. The negative drift of the
Nation’s political platform from the cherished virtues of
dedicated transparent service and accountability, against the
backdrop of promoting positive welfare for all, to the secular
democracy propelled by greed, and personal aggrandizement has
left the society worse off in all ramifications.
Could that the implication of such a stance or deportment has
since the being of human history been known to be the foundation
for breeding malicious envy, hatred, antagonism, and extremism
is lost to the sensibilities the nation’s political class?
Or could it be that new breed of Nigeria’s Muslim politicians
have purged themselves of the virtues and values of the faith
the professed with regards to consideration for the less of
these, the poor and the needy, and accountability to self and
God?
Crafting a Uniquely Nigerian Brand of Democracy
Nigerians are known people of religion. This would imply that as
far as the citizens are concerned, faith is inseparable from
political activities. It should therefore be expected that
Nigerian politicians take a sincere and earnest peep into the
role model provided by their religion as a backdrop for not
only establishing a polity driven by the religious injunctions
to selfless; but also present themselves as models that should
dissuade young minds from drifting into extremist activities.
Considered from the Islamic perspective some of the positive
imperatives are: First, the Prophet’s (saw) amiable personality
and disposition to all, especially his transparent
“concern for others irrespective of (their)…religion and social
status (which) endeared him to the people. (This is because) He
would visit the homes of non-Muslims (just like he does of
Muslims)…and joined them in social gatherings and shared their
joys and sorrows…”
Secondly, in spite of the enormous power at his disposal, the
Prophet (saw) chose not to out rightly “do away with local
institutions, and aspects of (the) local culture. Rather, he
accepted those of them that were good and in accordance with
Islam, modified some others, and (only) rejected those that did
violate Islamic teachings. His was (therefore)…a middle
way that entailed reforming, adapting, restoring and
reconstructing the existing order, rather than wholly opposing
it”.
Thirdly, chronicles on the life of the Prophet also instructs
that he regularly worked with non-Muslims Makkans in the Hilf
al-Faduli i.e. a group of people who helped the needy.
Embracing this virtue should see the Nigeria’s Muslims being
equally disposed to working with well meaning people of other
faith “…on social, economic, cultural and development issues of
common concern”. This approach will not only facilitate the
establishment of “close and friendly bonds” with the people of
other faiths, it will also afford the former in “telling others
about their faith” thus breaking down stereotypes and as well as
mitigating extremism.
Finally, Nigerian Muslim politicians have a duty of proving to
the Nigerians that they indeed represent the best of all
communities;
they are committed to “protecting mankind against
suffering and blessing everyone (regardless of religion or
ethnic background) with happiness”. The Nigerian Muslims
politician is duty is to serve mankind. Consequently, their
presence in any environment should be considered a sufficient
guarantee for the protection of all, especially the non-Muslims
in our midst. The positive signal that this would send to
dissuading people with devilish thought from going any further
into their activities can only be imagined.
The Nigerian Brand of Democracy: A Government Rooted in Virtues,
Driven by Morals, and Inclusive of All [Government
by Virtues, Moral and Inclusive]
The Nigerian Muslim politicians’ crucial task at the
constructing of Nigeria’s Brand of Democracy that should guide
his conscience and relationship with others demand amongst other
things critical thinking and creative synthesis. Fortunately the
Almighty God (swt) has made this task easy for us. For He said:
We have sent Our Messengers with clear signs and sent down with
them the Book and the Measure in order to establish justice
among the people (Quran 57 v. 25)
You must not miss to notice the words: Our Messengers in
the Verse quoted above. The Verse is eloquent enough to the
effect that justice and fairness has been the goal of all the
Scriptures that have been revealed to mankind. It can therefore
be submitted that “all means, procedures, and methods that
facilitate, refine, and advance the cause of justice and do
not violate the Islam’s doctrines are valid”.
Application of the Government by Virtues, Moral and Inclusive
The critical component in any form of political arrangement is
the decision making process. This process is known
to rest on the tripods of:
1. by
whom?
2. for
whom? and
3. against
the background of what resources?
In an obvious answer to the question: How are political
decisions to be reached in a community, the Qur’an’s wise
counsel is: by Consultation.
And consult them on affairs (of the moment). Then
when thou has taken a decision, put thy trust in God (Qur’an 3
v. 159).
Meaningful consultation is so important to mankind’s existence
that a whole chapter: Chapter 42 of the Qur’an is dedicated to
it. The basics of the consultative process are to be determined
by the issue at hand and environment.
It therefore stands to reason that the Muslim politicians’
politicking, or managing or governing a community at whatever
level has to be on the sound basis of “mutual consultation”.
It follows that the meaningful application of the consultative
process against the background of God’s injunctions will see all
the elective and appointable offices or positions at whatever
level being filled by credible people who are prepared and
willing to work selflessly, tirelessly, transparently and
accountably in the best interest of their respective communities
or electorates; with little or no rancor, friction or violence.
Can you recall how the Electoral College system works in the
American democracy? The Nigerian Muslims can and should work
hard at putting in place a variant of democracy that will suit
Nigeria’s pluralist population. This is the surest approach to
enabling the citizenry to enjoy his God given freedom and the
common good inherent in democratic rights. This will by
implication position Nigeria’s Muslim Ummah to keep a positive
and fruitful date with history.
To answer “for Whom?” in the decision making process of our new
democratic construct must necessarily be: The Supreme God. He is
the Ultimate. This is because in our capacities as His
vicegerents on earth (Quran 2 v. 30), whatever decision we take
with regards to the resources that He has endowed mankind with,
must as a matter of course be on His behalf. This will
fundamentally activate and keep alive in us the consciousness
that the Provider of the resources that are being deliberated
upon is watching! Only the devil in human form
will in the circumstance risk to greedily pillage and plunder
such resources.
This is how the reinvented brand of democracy in Nigeria should
work and Nigerian Muslims should bring in to play in the
nation’s body polity. In other words, the Nigerian Muslims’
championed Government of Virtues, Morals and Inclusive of
all, will not be driven by secularists dictates, but
guided by the contents of the Revealed Books. Fortunately, the
Revealed Books are largely similar in their provisions with
regards to the conduct of civil life and responsibilities, i.e.
man’s interpersonal interactions vis-à-vis his application of
resources.
Presently, this effort by the Nigeria’s Muslim politicians have
seemingly left out the position of traditional religious
practitioners unaddressed. The Qur’an is emphatic as to why
Nigeria Muslim politicians must at all timeensure that even the
unbelievers amongst the polity are appropriately protected
irrespective of whatever they chose to worship:
And if any of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant
him protection so that he may hear the words of God (the Quran).
Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they
are the people who do not know (Quran 9 v. 6).
Similarly the Muslim have just have no ground what so ever to be
unjust to anybody:
And whoever commits injustice (of any kind to anybody) among you
– We will make him taste a great punishment (Quran 25 v. 19)
Conclusion
I am reluctant to draw any conclusions to this presentation now.
This is because I firmly believe that the endeavour to defeat
extremism is just about starting. How long this would last will
largely depend on the speed limit determined by all the stake
holders. The challenge of the moment therefore is extremism must
not be allowed to grow further than it has presently: we cannot
bring back any life to extremism back.
Salamunalykum.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Abdullah, A. (2007) Extremism! Who Defines It? (Article On
Line) Accessed September 15, 2011.
2. Ammara, M. The Vicegerancy of Man (Article On Line) Accessed
September 15, 2011.
3. Asad, M. (2011) Origins of the Poisoning of the Western Mind
Against Islam (On line) Accessed September 17, 2011.
4. Baker, A. H. (2011) Contemporary Extremism in Islam: A
British Context. (On Line) Accessed September 22, 2011.
5. Bartoll, A. (2010) Defining Extremism (Article On Line)
Accessed September 15, 2011.
6. Beck, A. T. A Definition of Extremism: What is Extremism? (On
line) Accessed September 17, 2011.
7. Gulen, M. F. (2011) Towards A Global Civilization of Love &
Tolerance: Tughra Books: Clifton USA.
8. Hamid, T. (2010) How Western Tolerance Breeds Intolerance in
the Muslim World. (On line) Accessed September 17, 2011.
9. Kalin, I. Roots of Misconception: Euro-American Perception of
Islam Before and After 9/11. (Article On Line) Accessed
September 15, 2011.
10. Kurtz, P. The Limits of Tolerance. (On Line) Accessed
September 22, 2011.
11. Marcuse, H. (1965) Repressive Tolerance. (On line) Accessed
September 17, 2011.
12. Nanji, A. (2007) Combating Religious Intolerance. (On line)
Accessed 17, 2011.
13, Prandoni, M. The Secret History of American Wars For Big
Business. (On Line) Accessed September 22, 2011.
14. Shaw, G. B. The Genuine Islam. (On Line) Accessed September
22, 2011.
15. Schoenfield, E. (2006) The Fallacy of
Tolerance. (On Line) Accessed September 22, 2011.
16. Siddiqui, H. (2006) Islam and Coexistence. (On line)
Accessed 17, 2011.
17. TeSelle, G (2001) Thinking About Religious Extremism. (On
Line) Accessed September 22, 2011.
18. Uddin, A. (2009) Why “Tolerance” Is Not Enough: A Muslim
Perspective. (On Line) Accessed September 22, 2011.
19. UNESCO (2008) United Nation’s Definition of Tolerance. (On
Line) Accessed September 22, 2011.
20. Veil (2010) Is racism taught or learned? (On Line) Accessed
September 22, 2011.
21. White, S. W. (2011) Medina Charter of Prophet Muhammad and
Pluralism. (On line) Accessed September 17, 2011.
22. Yusuf, H. Generous Tolerance in Islam and its Effects on the
Life of a Muslim
Dr. I. Ndagi Adamu
Chairman Board of Trustees Crescent Mission of Nigeria [CMN]
presented this piece at the
Conference on Establishing a Culture of Co-existence and Mutual
Understanding
Garki-Abuja November 18 – 19, 2011.Dr.
Adamu:
LL.B. [Hons]; M.ED; D.Sc. DFIAMN, FCAI, BL. Is a Public Sector
Administrator, an Academician, and Law Consultant. He has served
a number of both International and Local Voluntary Organizations
in various capacities. He is presently the Chairman Board of
Trustees of the Crescent Mission of Nigeria [CMN].
ndagiadamu@yahoo.com
|
