RE: VALUES AND IDENTITY IN THE MUSLIM NORTH

BY

Dr. Mahmud M. Tukur

I have gone through it Lamido Sanusi's article, VALUES AND IDENTITY IN THE MUSLIM NORTH which was a review and critique of some of the ideas expressed in my book, "Leadership and Governance in Nigeria: The Relevance of Values." In this article I intend to shed some light on some of those views and also make a few clarifications. I would like however to commend Sanusi for his courage and charity and also encourage him to continue. I entirely agree with him on the need for "distillation, analysis, simplification and dissemination of the ideas in "Leadership and Governance...... "

My own position since the early '70's, when I began to read up extra-European political thought has been that the civilisations developed in the valleys of the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Nile and the Mediterranean basin are the source of the universal values which the Judeo-Christian and Muslim peoples inherited and shared. Those civilisations are not, however, the same as that of the Liberal Age and the present day western society. The latter's thought processes have, among other ills, spanned imperialism, colonialism and racial discrimination in their most vicious forms.

For me, contemporary western thought is the source of selfish individualism, greed and agnostic liberalism. While Locke and Hobbes might have been its godfathers, it also appears to flow from the writings of the French philosophers and physiocrates later transformed by Cobden and Bentham into utilitarianism . They created a situation of 'relativeness of values' which, in turn, came to predispose individuals and whole communities e.g. hippies (and yuppies as well) to an urge for immediate gratification, crave for life more abundant (Action Group slogan), excessive consumption, unbridled materialism and sheer hedonism. From here on it is progression to lack of standards, perverted sexuality, sloppy dressing and gluttony. They further delivered society to violent crimes, insecurity, nihilism and a breakdown of community.

I am not comfortable with western liberal thought and westernisation and their influence on our educated elite. It is the "hybrids", the core of our westernised power elites, including Chief Awolowo, whom I accuse of thinking of freedom, knowledge and justice as values only in terms of western liberal thought. This is what I am getting at. My problem with westernised elites and Action Group in this particular case is that they ignored all traditions of the "natives" whether they are good or bad. This is what I wish to criticise. On the other hand, the Fodio triumvirate were against traditions which are bid'a - that is "accretion" which itself leads to syncretism. They did not, as far as I know, condemn all traditions or customs. In fact, Bello in particular worked to achieve a symbiosis between caliphal values and those of Hausa traditions which were not offensive to Islam. The triumvirate in general, but Bello especially, laid it down that the administrator has to take into account what is actually on the ground in all his policies. He should take what is good and do away with what is bad.

Sanusi is of course right to emphasise that "higher values" more than even laws, do not brook exceptions. In fact, it is leaders at all levels of society who are obliged, more than others, to work and live strictly within the parameters of these values. We should remember, though, that 'community interest', 'national interest' or even 'group interest' so long as they do not fly directly in the face of ihsan, are also values.

It is within this caveat that otherwise unviable positions and, at times, weak leaders might be defended. In the same vein, "patriotic intellectuals" can defend or condone otherwise unacceptable behaviour because of the attitude and posture of the other side. The justification for this 'sleight of mind' is that the Kole Omotosho's, the Bolaji Akinyemi's, the Rueben Abati's, the G.G. Darah's the Rotimi William's, and the Nwabuaze's do not appear to have values which they accept as yardsticks. For them whatever they wish for is right and there is only one side to an equation. Others have no rights or interests. This is what makes it difficult to be rational or objective or truly intellectual in the Nigerian environment. The others unfortunately do not recognise the rules. So, you are caught in a dialogue with the deaf.

When it comes to Islamic philosophy however, I leave the field to Sanusi. I hardly have any competence. Therefore, I am not in a position to argue as to whether Islam created or discovered values. My simple understanding however, is that Islam did not invent them. Essentially building on human experience, knowledge and behaviour, Islam created some values, enhanced others, authenticated some and combined some with others to achieve a specific impact e.g. in the concept of 'Adl wa Al-Ihsan. In this sense, I would have nothing to quarrel with in the contention that the political values identified in Leadership and Governance..... "are Islamic in the sense that Islam revealed them.....unveiled them and incorporated them into its teachings". Even so, I would say that, Greek philosophy, the Christian and other scriptures created values etc. in their own context. Islam did the same or similar thing in its own time and in its own sphere of operations.

Coming to the last but one paragraph of the piece, I would argue that my distrust is not actually of Christian thought but of evangelical prejudices. It is westernisation and colonial or capitalist culture that I distrust. I also have no problem with western thought when it does not degenerate into agnostic liberalism and ethnocentrism . But, I quarrel with western actions, interests, prejudices etc. which are dressed up as something more profound so as to justify exploitation, oppression, domination, discrimination and humiliation of the "dark races" (RUDYARD KIPLING and the IMF).

This leads me naturally to Sanusi's article, "Fasheun and the north's moral dilemma". I have just looked at it cursorily but would put down my worries for consideration.

First, on page 2, why should we in the fifth line of para. 2, limit our mention of violent occurrences in the south west to Shagamu? How about Ketu, Apapa, Ajegunle, Shaki and other flash points in the south west? My contention is that, the Lagos mayhem is different from Kaduna and of course Kano which was a mere reaction to Shagamu. Umelere was between the Igbo just like Ife-Modakeke is between the Yorubas. The thing about the south-west mayhem is that it is part of a larger canvass planned since at least 1997. The OPC is a military element of this larger plan the ultimate purpose of which, I learnt from those who should know, is either the secession of the south west or the permanent political domination of the rest of Nigeria by the NADECO - Afenifere - OPC conglomerate. So, my suggestion is that it should be judged by different standards and it in no way belongs in the same killings as the clashes that have taken place even in the south east.

The suggestion that failure to bring to book those who perpetrated the massacre was nothing more than the incompetence on the part of the leadership of our security establishment fails to take into account the painstaking effort that has gone into gathering "evidence" in the Bamaiyi, Mohammed Abacha etc. cases. If they were competent enough to organise the Rogers - Katako submissions, I cannot see why they would suddenly become incompetent when it comes to gathering evidence on the murder of over a thousand people in several areas of Lagos for over three to four days.

In the last page - the first few lines suggest that none of the accusers of the Bamaiyi/Abacha group have insinuated that their act reflect northern values and political strategies. This is not the impression I have. In fact, it is the burden of the south west media stories and editorials regarding the north even when they discuss power shift. Moreover, Adesanya, Ige, Adewale Thompson and Adebanjo have been saying this for a long time and Obasanjo has been acting it out. The script now know is simply this - if you are a Muslim and Hausa/Fulani then you are part of the Abacha crimes and you stand accused. But, however close you might have been to Abacha if you are from the south (Anenih) or even a northern christian (Jerry Gana), you are OK. What does this say to you?

In the last paragraph, it is rightly suggested we should wash our hands off these bad people. I would agree with this and it is also my gut feeling, but what do you do when the others are not doing the same to their criminals? Didn't Abiola, Babangida and Abacha belong in the same bunch? What is it that Ogbemudia, Ojukwu, Omenka, Adeosun, Orji Kalu, Ibru, Olajumoke and Anenih have not done that the north has done? How do we tackle the double standards, the stark injustice and the bare-faced lies and dishonesty which the actions of the leadership personify? Is there a level playing field? Can you, in this situation wash your hands off your brother criminals? Does that get us very far? This, I am afraid is the meat of the dilemma.

The writer is the author of Leadership and Governance in Nigeria