Negotiation with bandits: Between two Malams

 (Published in Daily Trust)

Malam Nasir El-Rufa’i, Malam Ahmad Gumi

Amid worries about the capability of the Nigerian military and other security agencies to end banditry in northwestern Nigeria, many observers including public commentators and religious clerics continue to propose alternative strategies.

A prominent Kaduna-based Islamic cleric, Malam Dr Ahmad Gumi doesn’t only believe in the imperative of engaging the bandits in negotiations but has taken it further by reaching out to them. His initiative has been welcomed by many and dismissed by many others.

The Kaduna State Governor, Malam Nasiru El-Rufa’i’s dismissal of Malam Dr Ahmad Gumi’s initiative triggered a clash of views between the two Malams. On the one hand, the former who got his “Malam” title at some point of his life perhaps in reference to some “Malam qualities” he had, or maybe he was simply named after someone of Islamic scholarly repute in his immediate or extended family, insists on the need to deploy overwhelming military force to crush the bandits once and for all.

On the other hand, the latter who obviously earned his “Malam” title from his training as an Islamic scholar albeit with a previous military background advocates negotiations and reasoning with the bandits to desist from banditry. 

Until the recent BBC Hausa interview with Governor El-Rufa’i where he stressed that stance, many observers had probably assumed that Dr Gumi’s initiative was at least approved by the Kaduna State Government, for, after all, other governors in the region have been involved in similar negotiations with bandits in their respective states.

Now, the question of who is right or wrong between the two Malams requires some considerations to address, for neither is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. The validity or otherwise of either’s stance depends on the extent of its pragmatism.

Interestingly, a typical competent government fighting, say, insurgency or banditry never sounds desperate for negotiation with the bandits or insurgents even when it's actually not strong enough to crush them. This is a common tactical strategy to preserve the prestige of the state and avoid inadvertently demoralising the security personnel and emboldening the criminals. Besides, doing so undermines the government’s bargaining position during any future negotiation and enables the criminals to blackmail the government into making unnecessary and costly concessions.

Anyway, during the interview Governor El-Rufa’i wasn’t talking from that tactical perspective; he instead meant exactly what he said.  And looking at his stance against the backdrop of the current circumstances, it’s hard to rightly dismiss it. Because, unlike Dr Gumi, being the governor of the state hence its chief security officer who has access to sensitive security intelligence he must have had compelling arguments to justify his stance. 

Besides, at things stand at the moment, nothing justifies let alone warrants negotiation with the bandits for now.  That could only be rightly considered when they have been largely eliminated with the survivors on the run desperate to cling to life.

The charades of reconciliations with bandits, which some state governors in the region oversee only embolden the criminals. A typical so-called reconciliation occasion where bandits show up well-armed and speak arrogantly suggests extreme desperation on the part of the government, which the bandits capitalize on to dictate their terms. For instance, a particular viral photo of Governor Masari of Katsina State posing with a ragtag bandit clutching an AK-47 rifle during one of such purported reconciliation occasions is particularly frustrating.

That also explains why after every so-called reconciliation the bandits only suspend operations for some time in the relevant area while probably still operating elsewhere before they resume operation in the same area as well. Meanwhile, other bandits out there who weren’t part of that “reconciliation” perpetrate their operations in any case. 

Anyway, though the controversy generated by Governor El-Rufa’i’s stance wasn’t unexpected, he should be challenged to, in return, challenge the federal government to order the military and the other security agencies to embark on an overwhelming operation against the bandits as he envisages since he believes it remains the only feasible option.

However, while I for one also have the same view in this regard, I believe Malam El-Rufa’i’s stance doesn’t downplay the importance of Malam Gumi’s initiative. The two strategies can be pursued simultaneously, for they aren’t mutually exclusive.

Yet, Malam Gumi can achieve better and more sustainable results by focusing more on persuading the bandits to first and foremost be committed to the teachings and values of the Islamic religion, which most, if not all, of them claim to believe in. Because having been accustomed to making easy money through banditry and kidnapping, only that commitment would enable them to develop sustainable spiritual resistance against the temptation to revert to banditry. After all, there have been many instances of some so-called repentant bandits resuming their activities.

Also, as Governor Malam El-Rufa’i rightly observed in that interview, mere negotiations cannot make a bandit who in the past could hardly make a hundred thousand Naira a year from a cow sale but now makes millions from banditry, to desist from 

Kano Kogo cleric

(Read it also in Daily Trust)

                                                                    Abdul-Jabbar

Even from afar one can perceive the extent of public anger in Kano and beyond over the heretical utterances of one Abdul-Jabbar, a Kano-based “cleric” on a mission to discredit the Sahaba and successive generations of Muslim scholarly authorities over the centuries.

Operating from his so-called As’habul-Kahfi centre otherwise known as Kogo in Filin Mushe, a Kano inner-city neighbourhood, he introduces blasphemous interpretations to authentic Prophetic Hadiths to deny the authenticity of the Hadiths and discredit its narrators i.e. the Sahaba and the subsequent generations of Muslim scholars who have over the centuries collected, preserved and disseminated it.

To prepare the ground for his purported logical questioning of the authenticity of any Prophetic Hadith he targets, he begins by interpreting it out of its context then subjects it to his flawed literal understanding of the Arabic language to come up with a heretical interpretation of his own and reject the Hadith on that basis.

He also adopts Mu'tazilite, Orientalist and Shiite philosophical criticisms of Hadiths albeit without citing the sources; he instead brags that they are his own conclusions following his profound intellectual efforts and critical analyses to purge Islam of what the Sahaba and their successors over the centuries ascribed to Islam, according to him.

Many people rightly wonder how Abdul-Jabbar who often struggles to just recite the Qur’anic verses yet hardly gets it right would claim to come up with the right interpretations of the Prophetic Hadiths contrary to the perception of the very generation who the Messenger of Allah (SAW) addressed i.e. the Sahaba.

His obvious and gross inadequacy in the basic Qur’anic recitation (not even memorization) skill disproves his claim to Islamic scholarship, for there’s absolutely no way anyone can be an Islamic scholar without mastering the Qur’an in terms of recitation skill, its science, Tafseer, jurisprudence and other related disciplines in all of which Abdul-Jabbar is grossly inadequate.

While any fair-minded fellow with a reasonable background in Islamic scholarship can attest to that, it isn’t a coincidence that he attracts largely narrow-minded, overzealous and thuggish followers who massage his ego to sustain his empty pride.

What’s hardly explicable, however, is how some others who aren’t necessarily his followers have turned themselves into his apologists just to spite those who challenge him. Out of sheer prejudice, some folks desperately struggle to justify or at least downplay the implications of his heretical views simply because most of those who challenge him are Sunni Ulama with whom such folks have underlying philosophical, ideological or sectarian differences. They are mostly Ulama-hating “liberal” Muslims, Shiites or bigoted Sufis.  

Though the Ulama in Kano and other states are doing their best in terms of countering Abdul-Jabbar's delusions with compelling scholarly arguments, they need to do more on addressing the implications of discrediting the Sahaba. Because many people don’t seem to realize the magnitude of those implications. Many people reject vilifying the Sahaba only because they consider it unethical, which is absolutely right. However, not many of them realize the real target and agenda behind it.

In reality, the Sahaba per se aren’t the ultimate target in this regard after all; the ultimate target is the Islamic religion itself. Because being the only generation fortunate enough to have learnt the Qur’an and imbibed Islamic religion including its fundamentals, worship rites, injunctions, moral values etc. directly from the Messenger of Allah (SAW); practised it in his presence, propagated and taught the subsequent generation, discrediting the Sahaba is necessarily tantamount to rejecting the authenticity of the Qur’an itself. Because you cannot discredit them yet claim to believe in the authenticity of the Qur’an since they were its only transmission source. In other words, you either believe in their trustworthiness or simply reject the Qur'an; a belief in the authenticity of the Qur’an and discrediting the Sahaba are and will remain mutually exclusive.

Though the Sahaba were fallible as individuals, their consensus was/is absolutely infallible as indicated in various Qur’anic verses. Besides, with the exception of the prophets and messengers of Allah, no human generation ever received the amount of Allah’s Accolade in the noble Qur’an close to what they received, which confirms His Pleasure with them that, in return, guarantees them Paradise as clearly mentioned in many verses in the noble Qur’an.

That’s why over the centuries, the integrity of the Sahaba has always been the target of anybody with a mission to irreparably undermine Islam and empty it of its substance. Shiites and Orientalists have been particularly unrelenting in this regard, but Allah the Almighty has always and will always preserve His religion.

Now, though the Kano State Government has rightly banned Abdul-Jabbar from public “preaching” and closed down his notorious Kogo, the Ulama shouldn’t relent in their commitment to refuting his delusions intellectually. After all, his books and lectures on video and audio formats would continue to circulate. He may also carry on his activities in other states.

In any case, as it has always been the fate of his likes over the centuries, he may equally last for some time propagating misguidance before he ends up in the dustbin of history in due course. And unless he repents and retracts, he will definitely stand before Allah the Almighty for a trial between him on the one hand, and the Sahaba and other individuals and generations he has spent his life vilifying, on the other.

Hopes, worries of post-Trump world

(Link on Daily Trust)

As much as one tries not to bother unnecessarily about the United States politics, one simply cannot ignore it at least to the extent to which it directly or indirectly interests one and one’s primary audience.

Since the end of World War II, the US foreign policies, actions and inactions have always had positive or negative impacts on global economic conditions, peace and stability more than any other country. This is primarily thanks to its sheer military power and economic size, which remain the world’s strongest and largest respectively, and which it has always leveraged in pursuit of its legitimate and illegitimate interests. 

And until it’s outpaced and overshadowed by another country, which is inevitable since, after all, it isn’t the first world’s superpower and won’t be the last either, the US would continue to be the most influential country in international politics.

Until then, therefore, US politics including the identities and underlying philosophical inclinations of major players in, particularly, the White House, the Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Federal Reserve, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), would remain of huge interest not only to the US citizens and residents but also to most, if not all, foreign governments and major multinational corporations, albeit to various degrees.

That explains why lobbying in Washington corridors of power on behalf of foreign governments, multinational corporations and international organizations remains a multibillion-dollar industry.

In addition to traditional US allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, many non-US allies like Russia and China, and even some purported US enemies like Iran maintain dedicated lobby firms in Washington who lobby for their respective interests. 

With the inauguration of the new US President Joe Biden last Wednesday, such governments and entities are already strategizing to secure US cooperation in pursuit of their respective interests. This is even though President Biden, unlike his predecessor, Trump, is already a typical Washington establishment politician, which makes him quite predictable in the light of his political antecedents over the decades. Yet, that doesn’t downplay the need to have a clear picture of his administration’s direction on various issues involving foreign interests especially after years of unprecedented unpredictability of the Trump administration.

Though the direction of any US administration is always primarily determined by the US strategic interests, the particularly inconsiderate approach of the former President Trump under his “America First” policy had made many foreign governments miss the pre-Trump America and wish that President Biden would revert to the status quo anyway.  

China, for instance, which has been particularly hit by Trump’s largely protectionist international trade policies is certainly pursuing an increased US commitment to international trade liberal policies under the Biden administration. 

Iran also, being arguably the worst-hit country by Trump would want to see the Biden administration reverting to the Obama era situation in US-Iran politics, for, after all, he was Obama’s deputy who supposedly played a key role in the formulation of Obama’s Iran-friendly policies in the Middle East.

Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy against Iran had devastated the Iranian economy after it had begun to recover following the ratification of the 2015 Nuclear Agreement between it, the US, Germany, France and Britain, China and Russia. Trump’s withdraw from the agreement rendered it effectively ineffective and signalled the beginning of America’s harsh measures against it that have significantly lessened the impetus of Iran’s geopolitical expansionist adventures in the Middle East.    

Even the United States traditional European allies would equally want to see the US back to its full commitment to their collective security under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the face of the Russian geopolitical ambition with its attendant security implications on the continent.

Former President Trump always blackmailed NATO member-countries for, according to him, not contributing enough in the organization’s budget leaving the US with the burden of protecting them.  He equally blackmailed US Far-eastern allies like Japan and South Korea and demanded that they pay the US for "protecting" them from the aggressive North Korean regime.

Other US allies elsewhere like the Arabian Gulf countries in the Middle East have equally been repeatedly blackmailed by Trump for “protecting” them from the belligerent Iranian regime on the other side of the Gulf. 

Now, notwithstanding the foregoing, President Biden is assuming office after exactly ten years from the eruption of violent protests that swept across many countries in the Middle East and North Africa purportedly to bring about democratic change.

However, the ensuing confusion degenerated into anarchy and bloody civil wars causing huge losses of lives and displacement of millions of people in addition to extensive devastation.  Some countries are still unable to even stop the wars let alone recover.

Given the roles that the Obama wing of radical democrats played in the instigation of that overwhelming chaos, there are concerns in the region that President Biden, being Obama’s deputy then hence supposedly involved in that strategy, may consider pursuing the same policy.

Already, beneficiaries who rode the wave of the protests to achieve their political ambitions e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood are particularly excited that the protests would come back now that Biden has been inaugurated. For instance, when, in the course of a chat I recently had with a staunch Muslim Brotherhood apologist Egyptian friend of mine, I referred to Biden’s appointment of some of Obama’s team members, he (my friend) couldn’t disguise his excitement that President Biden may end up adopting Obama’s Middle East policy.

Though people across the region have learned a lesson albeit the hard way, which makes the repeat of similar protests quite unlikely, it remains to be seen whether or not President Biden would follow the footsteps of his former boss, Obama, in his reckless determination to impose “liberal values” on nations regardless of their respective peculiarities. 

Politics of Ulama-bashing

(Link on DailyTrust site)

In northern Nigeria particularly, the increasingly intense philosophical struggle between “liberals” promoting outright westernization of the society, and the Ulama advocating the adoption of only what doesn’t contradict the society's value system features systematic and sustained Ulama-bashing, which has become a quite popular trend. 

For the sake of clarity, while the term “Ulama” refers to Muslim clerics in general, it’s used herein to specifically refer to those of them with a particular commitment to the promotion of the Pristine Islam as exclusively contained in the noble Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah according to the perception of the Sahaba and their successors. Because it’s such Ulama who are targeted the most with a view to discrediting and blackmailing them into a compromise on Islamic injunctions against Shirk, Bid’a and immoral worldly desires.   

Though, of course, none of them is infallible, for infallibility is an exclusive attribute of the Messenger of Allah (SAW), yet they, as a whole, remain the custodians of the Prophet Muhammad’s legacy, which underscores the sacredness their mission. They are, therefore, never beyond criticism; after all, sometimes some of them make inexcusable blunders thus expose themselves to concerted public bashing.  

Having said that, in most cases, the purportedly objective criticism against them suggests pre-existing prejudices and an underlying motive to achieve other objectives in disguise. 

The penchant of a typical Ulama-bashing northern Nigerian “intellectual” for vilifying them and exaggerating their shortcomings and faults is clearly driven by a desperate wish to undermine their credibility and frustrate their mission. 

Yet, on social media particularly, and apparently inspired by those “intellectuals", every attention-seeking northern Nigerian wannabe “wayayye” and aspiring “thinker” practices his “critical thinking" ability at the expense of the parts of the society’s value system he deems inconsistent with what he considers tolerance and modernity. Likewise, many an English language enthusiast seeking to improve his English writing ability practices on Ulama-bashing and vilification among other related things. 

Also, since the beginning of the current Buhari administration, northern Nigerian Ulama-bashing critics have excessively bashed the Ulama for their alleged hypocritical silence on the Buhari administration’s inexcusable underperformance in terms of the security situation in northern Nigeria. 

This is even though, the Ulama, both as groups and individuals, have never been silent as alleged; they have always spoken out in the course of their respective regular public lesson sessions and lectures in mosques and other places. They have always demanded that the government do all it takes to bring an end to the situation. 

Yet, a hate-filled Ulama-bashing critic who never attends such places nor follows their circulating video and audio clips would just accuse them of being hypocritically silent. In fact, many an Ulama-bashing dude would unearth or promptly shares -on social media- some maliciously unearthed previous video or audio clips of some Ulama speaking out on the security situation during the Jonathan administration in an attempt to prove the Ulama’s purported hypocrisy. 

Unfortunately, many gullible people have fallen for that hoax. Yet, it's even more unfortunate that even some otherwise respectable Muslim clerics who often get overly emotional when speaking out on the situation bash their fellow Ulama based on that unfounded allegation. Apparently, such clerics assume that speaking out on the security situation in the country should always be in an aggressive tone otherwise it’s tantamount to hypocritical silence. 

Now, while the Ulama should speak out on issues of public concern, they shouldn’t allow themselves to be distracted from their core Da’awah mission. They should ignore any public pressure on them to speak out unnecessarily on every topical issue. And even when they have to do, they should ensure the authenticity and adequacy of their information. They should also be realistic in their conclusions. Because, unfortunately, many otherwise discerning Muslim clerics often get carried away and end up making analyses, conclusions and even allegations based on unsubstantiated information they were clearly fed with by some people they trust, thereby exposing themselves to avoidable ridicule and possible prosecution. 

After all, there are people’s representatives at all levels of government who were elected or appointed and are paid from the taxpayers' money to not only speak out on behalf of their respective constituencies but to make a difference on the ground with innovative policies and appropriate implementation. So, if indeed the Ulama-bashing critics are sincere, their constant and relentless bashing should be primarily directed at those elected representatives and other public officeholders. 

Interestingly, the Ulama’s influence in the eyes of the authorities –if any- is actually extremely insignificant, contrary to what many among their respective followers and others assume. And though a typical Ulama-bashing “intellectual” realizes that, he deliberately implies and sometimes even asserts the contrary knowing that it would make it easier for him to convince the gullible that the Ulama are hypocritically silent being part of the beneficiaries of government largesse.  

Defeating terror: The imperative of pragmatism

(Link on Daily Trust site)

The Borno State Governor, Babagana Zulum’s recommendation for the federal government to engage mercenaries in the protracted war against Boko Haram has added impetus to the debate over the feasibility or otherwise of that move. 

If, however, there one thing that Governor Zulum’s recommendation implies, it’s certainly his conclusion that the Nigerian military and other security agencies cannot eliminate Boko-Haram terrorists, bandits and kidnappers, unaided. 

Obviously, as the Governor of the worst terror-affected state, Borno, who, by virtue of his position as the state’s Chief Security Officer has unhindered access to relevant confidential security reports, Governor Zulum’s conclusion must have been based on facts. His position, therefore, explains the authoritativeness of his conclusion, which must not be taken lightly, let alone dismissed.

Besides, he was backed up by his counterparts in the Northeast who had equally arrived at the same conclusion in the light of the same confidential security reports they, likewise, have access to. 

After all, in reality, it doesn’t necessarily take access to any confidential security report to arrive at that conclusion, in the first place. The incapability of the Nigerian military to end Boko Haram insurgency is too obvious to elude any discerning “bloody civilian”, as the military men condescendingly call an individual with no military background. 

Apparently, many Nigerians find it hard to come to terms with the fact that the Nigerian military is one of the world’s weakest compared to the country’s geographical size, population, economic and geopolitical potential. It’s quite clear that the Nigerian military is grossly weak in terms of advanced unconventional warfare techniques, sophisticated intelligence-gathering and processing capabilities, and appropriate technology. 

Though combat personnel of the Nigerian military are particularly undermined by low morale due to insufficient incentives, the foregoing challenges remain the main constraints behind their inability to eliminate Boko-Haram terrorists and bandit syndicates in the country. 

Arguments against the recommendation for engaging mercenaries are largely based on unrealistic expectations of the Nigerian military capabilities, exaggerated -if not unfounded- fear of its security implications, and empty pride. 

Those arguing against it cite instances of monumental collateral damage, excessive recklessness, human right abuse and even war crimes that some mercenaries were involved in, in some countries. 

Whereas, while those are quite reasonable worries, such incidents aren't that frequent. Besides, even when they occur, they occur mostly amid the confusion of urban warfare. Fortunately enough, in Nigeria, terrorists, bandits and kidnappers are hiding in the bush and remote areas away from people.  

Others arguing against the idea are only motivated by pride, or rather, empty pride. They are under the illusion of the purported intactness of Nigeria’s sovereignty, which they assume will be jeopardized by engaging mercenaries.  

Whereas, in reality, Nigeria’s sovereignty is already grossly compromised by terrorists, kidnappers, bandits and other organized criminal gangs. Apart from the extremely few who enjoy adequate state-provided personal security, and the super-rich who can afford it, almost everybody has been literally condemned to living with the endless nightmare of being either robbed, kidnapped or killed by armed robbers, marauders or terrorists.   

Even the worries expressed over the implications of engaging mercenaries on Nigeria’s strategic national security interests aren’t realistic enough to warrant ignoring the idea altogether. 

After all, the Nigerian state is already an open book particularly to the Euro-American countries and other interested foreign governments. For instance, the way individuals among Nigerian top leadership elite are falling over themselves to impress particularly western diplomats in Abuja by unsolicitedly sharing privileged information about the country with them is enough to conclude that access to any Nigeria’s sensitive secret -if any- doesn’t necessarily require an act of espionage.  

Likewise, many rightly or wrongly aggrieved individuals and groups among the elite equally and sometimes openly reach out to the US, UK or European Union diplomats in Abuja to seek their intervention on purely national matters. 

Interestingly, some WikiLeaks leaks exposed how Robin Sanders, a former US ambassador to Nigeria was regularly updating the US Department of State in Washington of her experience with individuals among Nigeria's top political elite who were privately sharing with her unsolicited information about the country and even gossip against one another. 

Now, the bottom line is that it’s high time Nigeria began tackling its security challenges pragmatically, for it’s obvious that its military and other security agencies are simply too ill-prepared to accomplish it. Recently, the Chief of Army Staff, General Burutai, literally admitted it when he hinted that the war could persist for the next 20 years. 

Nigeria is a signatory to The United Nations International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, which bans engaging mercenaries. However, almost all the world’s major military powers, e.g. the US, Russia, etc, have refused to join. Also, many countries including the US and even some signatories to the Convention engage mercenaries under various disguises. 

Nigeria can, in fact, should equally engage them under whatever disguise. Alternatively, it can reach out to any country with appropriate capabilities, for assistance with advanced intelligence-gathering technology, techniques, and even covert operations, since no country is likely to deploy regular troops.

Admittedly, though, following decades of the persistent decline of Nigeria's continental and global diplomacy, one doubts if it can secure such assistance from any country.  

Interestingly, during the Nigeria civil war in the 60s, the Nigerian Head of State, General Gowon had sought military assistance from his Egyptian counterpart, Gamal Abdel Nasser who deployed a unit of the Egyptian Air Force to assist the federal troops. 

Anyway, though it’s already long overdue, yet, still it isn’t too late for Nigeria to consider a pragmatic approach in tackling the Boko-Haram terrorists, kidnappers and bandits ravaging the country.