By Iyke Obi Durumba
Online news outfit Sahara Reporters is currently under fire from a section of Nigerians who feel aggrieved at a story anchored on their portal. Yoruba socio-cultural group, Afenifere, had released a statement purportedly comparing Yoruba Nation separatist, Sunday Igboho, to Prophet Mohammed, Islam’s founder and central figure.
Commenting on Igboho’s flight from Nigeria and subsequent arrest in the Benin Republic, Afenifere had said, “We recall that Moses had to be taken away from the prying eyes of Pharaoh and his agents in Egypt. Prophet Muhammed (S.A.W) too had to leave his hometown, Mecca for Medina in order to escape persecution. Thus, there is nothing wrong in Igboho seeking a respite first to preserve his life and perhaps to re-strategise.”
In a country where religious harmony is at best tenuous, the comparison has generated a storm of reactions from Muslims. Some called for a boycott of Sahara Reporters for what they saw as blasphemy of the prophet, others called for the head of its Publisher, Omoyele Sowore. Some others swore him harm in the event of meeting him physically.
Even though Sahara Reporters has taken down the story and tendered an apology, many of the religiously sensitive are not mollified and want a total obliteration of the investigative digital news outfit.
It seems religious tensions in Nigeria would never go away. It appears Nigerians would always live under the dark threat of an imminent sectarian catastrophe. Between 1999 and today, there have been several bloody religious crises which have claimed thousands of innocent lives. From the Sharia riots of 2000/2001 to the Miss World riots of 2002 to the riots occasioned by the Denmark cartoons, Nigeria has witnessed the periodic shedding of blood on the altar of religious sensitivity. Human life, so sacred to all religions, appear easily dispensable if the exigency of religious bloodlust is to be satisfied.
In the present social media age, these religious sensitivities continue to be manifest albeit fortunately without any large scale sectarian crisis. Apart from the Jos sectarian crises whose root causes are largely local, Nigeria has been spared any Christian-Muslim bloodshed for well more than a decade in spite of many flashes and close calls.
Social media which guarantees instant transmission of messages and images has proven to be both a helper and an albatross to Nigeria’s resilience against religious intolerance. With social media, it has become more difficult to localize any crisis thus increasing the chance of a nationwide conflagration whenever religion inspires unrest anywhere. Conversely, social media can also be used to promote religious tolerance in a sustainable way.
The deeper integration and wider diversity of Nigeria’s society indeed calls for a change of reaction to alleged blasphemy.
On social media and indeed across Islam, we see characterizations of Jesus Christ as a prophet. In Christianity, that could very well be considered blasphemous because Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Denying this Truth is in itself blasphemous. But it would be difficult to find any Christian who would be so outraged as to call for the killing of anyone for this. In fact, the default Christian reaction would be to pity the blasphemer, not to seek his murder.
But that is as far as religious differences go. The tenets of religious freedom allow for diverse emotional feedback on issues sensitive or mundane. My default setting is to allow people their beliefs. My upbringing is to tolerate and accommodate diverse religious views while personally recognizing and validating the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord. My Christianity strongly emphasizes freedom of thought in the secular sphere. In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 was hugely influenced by the 19th-century NeoScholasticism of Catholic Social Thought. It emphasizes human freedom of thought and freedom of conscience.
This orientation of tolerance expressed itself when some years ago, I had business dealings with an Indian wholesale distributor in whose office I would sit for extended periods while his staff and I pored over invoices and whatnot. In one corner of the expansive office was a shrine with all sorts of orishirishi objects. It had an almost lifesize statue of Shiva sitting in a meditative pose. Painted in garish colours, multi-limbed with a snake adorning its neck, red candles and several other religious objects were placed at the feet of the god. It was the sort of figure Christian Pentecostals would shout ‘Blood of Jesus’ on seeing.
Ok, the first day I entered there, I was in shock for a few minutes but regained my composure and did the business. On subsequent visits, I grew a nonchalant disregard for the shrine. Wetin concern me for anoda man religion? His religion is entirely his business and as long as he doesn’t compel me to worship his god, it should not be my concern.
And the question really is, who are you to impose the reverence of your religion on others? The idea that any religion can use terror or threats to impose a respect for their own religious figures is a mortally dangerous doctrine that group should be weaned from! That sense of murderous outrage that arises when you read anything you regard as blasphemous is borne in the same womb as the sense of mission with which Boko Haram and other Islamist extremists operate. They’re ideologically inseparable forms of extremism, the only difference being the outward manifestation. If you feel like killing someone who blasphemes your religious icon, you could very well kill that person if you had the opportunity.
If you feel so outraged at any supposed slander of your religious deity, you are right in the same mental boat as the terrorist who kills for his religion. No difference.
Indeed, it is a matter of insufferable arrogance when any group in any heterogeneous society demands a co-reference for the religious figures which are exclusive to that group. It is not only insensitive to the feelings of those who do not distinguish that religious figure, it is also threatening to the very freedoms they cherish.
While respect for religious sensitivities must be pursued as a collective social direction by any society, such a pursuit must never be encouraged as a right. It is NOT your right for anyone to respect the precepts of your religion; it is NOT your right for anyone to honour your deities; it is NOT your right for others to hold holy what you hold holy. It is extremely important to emphasize this in the currency of heated opinions over religion in this social media age.
The campaign for respect for religious icons must never go beyond social advocacy. Once it is primed with intimidation, threats and actual killings, society becomes unbalanced and strife beckons.
It is a mercy that the traditional religion in Nigeria appears to lack the sense of entitlement that other religions wield. Their traditional objects of worship are among the most reviled, abused and hated on. In fact, even the Police derogatorily display traditional totems alongside dangerous weapons recovered from crime suspects. Some day Ifa, Amadioha and Sango worshippers will decide to assert themselves as other religions do.
Religious tolerance has a binary expression – respect for other people’s religious beliefs on the one hand and respect for their unbelief in your religion on the other hand. These two voices of tolerance guarantee a harmonious multi-religious society. Religious practitioners in Nigeria must allow the fact that non-practitioners reserve the right to discountenance and in fact reject the postulations of any religion. That is the consequence of true religious freedom. It is the language that Nigeria must speak to avoid the sectarian crisis which threatens its society.
