Article Index
Comments and Reflections on Aminu Baba's Rejoinder on the Jos Genocide
Jos
Jos
All Pages

The sectarian crisis in Jos was a terrible and horrendous situation for anyone that has carefully followed what happened during and after the crisis. Contrary to the way some people have characterized it, however, my opinion is that it is terrible and horrendous because human beings with human dignity died for no good reason.  I find people who feel bad about the situation because the people killed were Muslims, Christians, Minorities, or whatever as innocently shallow in their conceptualization of the situation.  People are human beings first before they are Muslims or Christians, Minorities or Hausa-Fulani.

 Fundamentally, the victims are human beings with dignity and my response to Aminu Baba's passionate rejoinder to Saratu Ali is inspired by the fact that while I share with him his passionate, deep, and sincere concern about the situation in Northern Nigeria, I am not going to premised my reaction to the situation as he did on the inherent superiority of Hausa-Fulani people, the superiority of Islam over Christianity or vise versa.  That way of responding to the situation in my view suggests a lack of deeper appreciation for the reality that all human beings have dignity irrespective of their religious beliefs, ethnic group, gender identity, social class status etc.

As far as I am concerned, a Buddhist or Rastafarian has the same human dignity as a Muslim and a Christian.  If Muslims and Christians think differently about this, they are confusing their power and privilege and how that shapes what they consider worthy of respect, with the right of all human beings to exist and freely practice the religion of their choice in so far as they do not harm other human beings.   This summarizes my vision for Northern Nigeria. I know this will be difficult for many Muslims and Christians to accept because the two religions at certain historical junctures and places have committed some of the most terrible violence in human history because each of them makes exclusive claim to universal truth.  Indeed, Baba cited "Human Rights Watch" but failed to appreciate the fact that at the deeper level, the values underpinning "Humans Right Watch" may not be acceptable to many Nigerian Muslims and Christians who would prefer to see the whole world believe only in what they believe or be treated as second class citizens because they do not belong to the right religion. All religions that make claim to exclusive access to universal truth are likely to be belligerent because they do not grant equal status to another person that believes in something else.  They may recognize the existence and sub-humanity of such a person but assign him or her a diminutive status.

I differ with many Northern Nigerians because I disagree with Christians who want to create a Nigeria where the main criteria for citizenship is Christian righteousness, and Muslims who believe that to be fully recognized as a  human being one has to be a Muslim believer.  The only way forward for Northern Nigeria is for everyone to recognize the humanity of each other and use that as the essential minimum criterion for full participation in the society.  Any other criterion over and above that should be treated with suspicion unless it can be established that the criterion introduced is based on the authentic goal of improving the welfare of all.

This does not mean that people should not be religious or that I am skeptical or against it.  I truly believe in the importance of religion as preparation for eternity but more than that, social science research has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that when properly practiced, religion is a source of social ethics and care for the "Other."  Note that I said when properly practiced.  I say so because religious people can commit some of the most horrendous atrocities against other human beings and feel highly exonerated in their conscience if they believe their religious ethics approve their behavior.  By the same token, genuinely religious people can make huge sacrifices for the welfare of others, if they believe their religious social ethics prescribed that.  Given this, we cannot from the social scientific perspective say that religion is absolutely good or bad, because religion throughout human history has never been practiced in social or cultural vacuum.  Indeed, some social science research confirms that religion promotes prejudice. Furthermore, no religious group interprets religious doctrine in social or cultural vacuum.  Interpreting scriptures and making meaning of it is a social act embedded in culture and social relationships, and the culture, social contexts and relationships shape the interpretation and the meaning making process.

Let me respond to a few issues that Baba raised that in my view need some interrogation.  First, I do not believe on methodological grounds that there is one "collective history" of Northern Nigeria.  The writing of history is a highly contested venture.  It is actually a terrain of class conflict and struggle no matter how sublimated this may be.  Briefly, one scholar argues that there are three types of ways people can write history. There is first what he calls "monumental history" which is history written from the perspective of the ruling class, winners in historical struggle, or upper class people.  This kind of history is very triumphalist in tone.  There are some elements of such triumphalism in the tone of Baba's rejoinder.  The second type of history he calls "antiquarian history" which is when the writers of history are fundamentally concerned about conserving the past, claiming their past antiquity represents the universal yearnings of humanity.  In reality, the antiquity such as the Egyptian pyramids only reflect the vision of life of a tiny group of people (i.e., the pharaohs who wanted to immortalize themselves), whether those people are social classes, or ethnic group etc. etc.  This kind of history sees the best of humanity as something that had existed in the past and the way to create a better future is to reenact the past into the present and future. Its subjective attitude to time is past in orientation.  The third type of history is called "critical history."  This is history written from the point of view of the oppressed and socially disenfranchised people, the masses, or history written from the bottom-up.  Contrary to monumental history, which focuses on the perspectives of the winners and the ruling classes or the powerful, this kind of history is written from the perspective of the socially marginalized or what Fanon calls "The Wretched of the Earth."  This is history written from the periphery or margins of society.

If one applies the three ways of conceptualizing history to the history of Northern Nigeria or any society for that matter, it is easy to conclude that there is no "collective history" except as elites have tried to socially construct one and impose it on the region or the country.  The ordinary peasant in rural Northern Nigeria, never had the same historical experience and privileges like that of the elites of the North, and this is true whether the peasant is a Muslim or Christian.   Social marginalization in Northern Nigeria is so pervasive and beyond the narrow confines of being Muslim or Christian.  Those are just diversionary categories from the real issues of the North, a region that has been misgoverned, though this is true for the whole country. Let us be honest with ourselves and we will admit this.  From my perspective, the term "our collective history" is somewhat simplistic and naïve.  If we want a collective history for Northern Nigeria, or Nigeria in general, then the voices of the masses will have to play a fundamental role in public policy formulation and implementation and how public resources are expended.  This is not the case and I believe Baba and I agree on this.

Historical Facts:  Baba's rejoinder itself proves one simple reality which is that there are no facts but "interpretation" of facts.  Baba is reacting to what Ali considers to be facts.  Yet, Baba believes he has the correct facts.  From this simple analysis, it is clear that it is naïve, simple and simplistic to assume that facts exist without interpretation.  Interpretation is made by human beings based on particular human interest; as one scholar asserts, knowledge is produced based on human interest.  Ali has a certain human interest and that shaped the way she interpreted the facts.  Baba has a human interest and that shaped the way he interpreted the facts.  We all have human interests.  The only way around this is for both of them or all of us to come together and recognize each other's humanity and agree on certain non-negotiable ideas about the kind of good society we want.  We need inter-subjectivity in order to develop common grounds.  If they cannot agree on some fundamental principles, then there is no way out.  Even if there are facts they are there because we humans developed certain criteria for understanding and used them to determine what the facts are.  But humans are rooted in culture and society and so all the variations in culture and social location shape how people assign meaning and decide whether something is a fact or not.