RE: IS THE NORTH A LIP? Category: Friday columnPublished on Friday, 02 August 2013 06:00Written by Adamu Adamu adamuadamu@dailytrust In the past, I have not carried text response to the writing in my column primarily for two reasons: one, that I feel reluctant to carry responses that praise the column, which is often the nature of the comments I receive; and, two, I regard these messages as private and personal to me only. Those needing response, I answer: those not needing one, I read and delete; because I have always felt that those who wish to see their views in print should send them directly to the editor. Now, there is need to briefly depart from that practice, especially in view of the issue raised in the last text below, so that I will have a chance to address it now. Excluding the laudatory ones, below is a selection of the responses to the second instalment of Is the North a Lip? with my answer [in square brackets]:· Compliments of the season. About your column of last Friday, you would have made your point without mentioning the name of late Mallam Gumi. IBB did more harm to the North & Islam than any living Northerner I can remember. Ever look back to that? Ma’assalam. Sidi Tanko Kyaure +2348099595959[Many thanks for your text and good morning. I wished to God I could do what you wanted me to do; but if we accept that those two statements he made had the impact I said they had on interfaith relations, then I can think of no useful way of approaching the issue without mentioning his name. And even if what you said about General Babangida is true, then going by your logic, I should be able to say all that without mentioning his name too. My only concern in all this is if I have said a truth that can help our society in any way.]· Who do you think you are going to impress by this writing against Sheikh Gumi who is more knowledgeable, respected than you? You think you know too much, but you doesn’t [sic] know you are doing more harm to the unity than good. I will never read anything about you. +2348036570446 [I am not trying to impress anybody; and you have the right to read only what you want.]· Re: Is the North a Lip? [II]. Well said but to me it seems like Fargar Jaji; it would have been better and helpful to all of us if it were in 2000 that this article was published when the situation was still manageable. Now, there is no trust among us, no tolerance, we cannot convince ourselves with a pen, action or lip. Everything is out of control. Every side is brainwashed by its preacher. We are either in disarray or in deterioration. Abu Maigoro Jos +2348090879540· Speaking bad[ly] of the dead is abhorred in Sunni Islam. Is it permitted in the Shi’a movement? +2348032311515[Just seen your text on my column; but I am afraid, for your answer, you may have to ask one of their members.] Previously, I never cared or accepted to have to do this since it has never worried me what they thought of me or my writing; and I therefore never considered such insinuations worthy of any dignified response, because in the final analysis it would not matter to them whether you were a Mason or an Elk.And even now, I am not doing it in order to have them change their opinion about me. I am doing it to avoid a repeat of what happened in respect of my previous writing on the destruction of the Haramayn. In their attempt to defend the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia over that issue, they ascribed my motive to Shiism without showing how that could have been. But it was obvious that these people, for their various but well-known reasons, were clearly more interested in defending the prestige of the government of former desert bandits than in worrying about the memory and prestige of their Prophet [SAW] and the prospects of the future of Islam without an authentically demonstrable past.Of course, there is always this tendency by superficial-literalists to blame something else, especially, as in this case, Shiism, and put what they imagine to be a derogatory label on their critics when they have no solid point with which to defend their position. Their trick is to introduce an emotionally-charged red herring in order to divert attention from the main issue, and then proceed to change the subject or ask a question that has no bearing on the issue, or answer a question that has not been asked. In other words, do everything but address the issue.As for this convenient bogey of Shiism that is being raised again, I have to say that I have lived in Iran and studied Shiism and can say, without boast, that I probably know it better than many of those in this country who consider themselves Shiites today. And I can say without any hesitation that from what I know of it, almost all the things I have read or heard about what its critics, especially the Wahhabis, have written or said about it are apocryphal and absolute rubbish that have no relation whatsoever with what Shiites believe or practice. But if people believe that ignorance is a better help to them than knowledge, that obviously is a choice they have a right to make.And for whatever it may be worth let me state that, for the moment at least, I happen to follow the Maliki School of law, which, in the circumstance, is probably no consolation, in view of the fact that this is one of the schools that they may succeed in pushing out of Islam; because nowadays, for some of them, following the teachings of a madhhab like Malikiyyah, is tantamount to following other-than-Allah!But the reality is that even if I am Hindu or Buddhist, the issues are, and remain, that Muslim unity in Nigeria is gone: who is responsible for its absence? And Christian-Muslim interfaith relations are no longer what they used to be in the past: who preached the kind of sermons that made this inevitable?No doubt, these things didn’t happen just on their own or in a vacuum; and it would therefore neither help in any way nor solve the problem to merely invoke Shiism anytime this or other important issues are raised. In the current case, a more helpful approach would be to show that what I said was not true, or to demonstrate that it didn’t cause, or contribute to, the problems at hand, as I implied that it had done.In any case, this is just my view; and those who think the Sheikh was the best thing that happened to Muslim unity, and that his followers are the best friends to Christians are doubtless entitled to their opinion. What I said was that what he said on two occasions that had been extensively reported in the press constituted the first dagger thrown at interfaith relations. But whatever anyone’s views, it is difficult to deny that the Northern atmosphere is one of a deliberately-created combativeness: from Sokoto to Maiduguri and from Jibia to Okene, the entire religious landscape has become charged with a full blare of cacophonous sanctimony that in turn breeds further resentment for no justifiable reason. What on earth, for instance, is the purpose of airing a recorded lecture at full blast at 3:00 am?And if for the moment we leave aside the question of the legality or permissibility of congregational tahajjud, why should this have to be broadcast to a sleeping world in way that disturbs those asleep, and makes it impossible for those at home lost in individual prayer to concentrate on what they are doing. We certainly need to get our spiritual priorities right.Perhaps with the exception of the Friday congregational prayers for which, because of the sheer number of worshippers attending and the centrality of listening to the sermon to its performance, a speaking aid may be required, no prayer should be conducted with a loudspeaker. Thus, ideally, after sounding the call of the adhan, all external loudspeakers should be muted, most especially during the prayers at dawn; because nowhere in Islamic theology has it been made incumbent on people in their homes to be forced to have to listen to the recital of the Holy Qur’an and conduct of the prayers going on in mosques, or to have their sleep disturbed by it.This equivalent of a spiritual ghetto blaster has nothing to do with Islam; rather, it may have everything to do with ignorance of it. Yet, in the face of it everyone has been rendered helpless and speechless, unable to do a thing. The government itself cannot speak because it fears being called anti-Islamic; politicians cannot speak out for fear of the imprecation in the qunut that will be recited against them by some of their constituents; the ulama cannot speak for fear of barbs from the caustic tongue of irreverent preachers; and, of course, non-Muslims dare not talk. But we cannot afford to continue to live in fear of confronting our own inequities. We will never be able to solve our problems if all we can do is pretend that they don’t exist, or that there is something that cannot be mentioned. [Note: Is the North a lip? [III] will appear next week . Sent from my iPad
Posted on: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 00:33:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015