Muslim-Muslim Ticket: The real question is justice, not religion, by Bashir Adefaka

My response to an open letter addressed to Sheikh Yahaya Jingir, which questioned the essence of Muslims occupying political offices while Muslims remain hungry, deprived of their rights, and allegedly unable to freely practise their religion, is that the debate must go beyond who occupies political office.

A friend, Sina Fasakin, recently sent me a copy of the open letter, prompting me to reflect on a question that Muslims and Christians alike ought to ask: What exactly is the meaning and benefit of a Muslim-Muslim ticket in a country as religiously diverse as Nigeria if it does not translate into justice, good governance, security, prosperity, and freedom of worship for all citizens?

Nigeria is a country where Muslims and Christians constitute the overwhelming majority of the population. Therefore, the objective of political leadership should not be to create a system in which one religious group feels triumphant over another. Rather, leadership should be about justice, equity, security, economic opportunity and respect for the rights of every citizen, irrespective of religion or ethnicity.

Muslim or Christian Leadership Must Not Become a Substitute for Good Governance

The question we have repeatedly asked is this: When did we begin to allow a politician who may only strongly identify with Islam during an election season—and who may not even be able to recite Al-Fatihah properly—to determine how Muslims should understand or practise their faith?

The issue is not whether a politician in power is Muslim or Christian. The real issue is whether that politician governs with justice.

There are Christians who argue that Christians are numerically stronger and can defeat Muslims electorally whenever they choose. But the appropriate response to such a claim is not necessarily to insist on a Muslim-Muslim ticket. The stronger response is to demonstrate that a Muslim-led administration can govern justly and fairly, protect the rights of Christians and Muslims alike, and create an environment in which nobody is discriminated against because of his or her faith.

Likewise, a Christian-led administration should be judged by the same standard.

The Fourth Republic began with Christian-led administrations, during which Muslims in some parts of the country experienced serious discrimination. In Jos, Plateau State, and its environs, thousands of Muslims were killed or displaced in successive episodes of ethno-religious violence, while in parts of the South-West, Muslims complained of discrimination in employment, education and access to quality healthcare.

It was against experiences such as these that the thought began to gain ground among some Muslims that if Muslims occupied political offices, perhaps their lives, fundamental human rights and freedom of religion would be better protected.

But was the condition of Muslims, particularly in the South-West, significantly better simply because a Muslim, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, succeeded to the presidency?

As president, Yar’Adua faced the enormous responsibilities of governing the entire country, yet many of the complaints about discrimination against Muslims remained unresolved. Whenever the issue of discrimination against Muslims in the South is raised, the counterargument is often: “What about the North?”

But the situation in the North should not automatically be described as discrimination against Christians merely because Muslims constitute the dominant population there. Demographic and religious dominance, by themselves, do not constitute discrimination.

The argument would be more compelling if, for example, Christian female students were systematically forced to wear hijab in public schools; if Christian women were denied quality healthcare in public hospitals because of their faith; if Christians were routinely denied employment because they were Christians; or if churches were deliberately demolished to obstruct Christians from practising their religion.

That is not the standard by which religious discrimination should be measured.

Even in situations of religious crisis in the North, including incidents arising from provocations and reprisals, Muslim leaders have at various times intervened to protect Christian communities and appeal for restraint. There have also been instances in which Christians who suffered losses were compensated or assisted.

The contrast is that Muslims in some parts of the South, particularly in the South-West and Jos, have often complained that when they suffer destruction of lives and property, political authorities have not responded with the same urgency or attention.

Even today, we sometimes hear more about the reprisals than about the original incidents that triggered them. Yet, as the saying goes, when there is smoke, it is important to investigate the fire that produced it.

Experiences such as these naturally contributed to the desire among some Muslims to see Muslims occupy political offices, in the hope that their rights, security, welfare and freedom of religious practice would receive greater protection.

Examples of Muslim Leaders Protecting Christians

Some people conveniently forget examples in which Muslim individuals and leaders have protected Christians at great personal risk.

They forget the widely reported case of Imam Abubakar Abdullahi, who sheltered hundreds of Christians in his mosque and home during violence in Plateau State, thereby helping to save them from being killed.

They forget that, following the destruction of a church in Kano, the then Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II, was involved in efforts that led to the rebuilding of the church and its return to the Christian community.

They also forget the longstanding tradition of the Sultanate of Sokoto of accommodating different communities living within and around the traditional domain.

When Deborah Yakubu was killed in Sokoto in May 2022 after an incident involving an alleged blasphemous statement, the Sultan of Sokoto, His Eminence Alhaji Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, was among the prominent Muslim leaders who condemned the killing and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. The Sultan’s position was consistent with the principle that no one should take the law into his or her own hands.

𝕤𝕖𝕖 𝕞𝕠𝕣𝕖/𝕨𝕒𝕥𝕔𝕙 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕧𝕚𝕕𝕖𝕠 𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖