This piece follows my September 29 article on the crisis of religious authority in Northern Nigeria, particularly concerning blasphemy and the politicisation of Islamic discourse.
To further grasp the gravity of the current situation, one must recognise Kano’s historic role as the intellectual and spiritual hub of Islam in Hausaland. For centuries, it was not just a commercial center but also a beacon of Islamic learning and jurisprudence. Blasphemy gaining ground in such a place would have been unimaginable. As previously noted, the erosion of scholarly discipline and the rise of unqualified voices, amplified by social media, have dangerously shifted the religious landscape.
Traditionally, Islamic knowledge in Kano was preserved by the malaman zaure, the community-based scholars steeped in classical training and rooted in the Maliki tradition. The scholarly legacy left by Usmanu Dan Fodio and his brother Abdullahi Fodio was so strong that British colonial officials encountered nearly 50,000 such scholars in their tsangayas, many intellectually on par with English professors of the time, of whom there were a few hundreds in English universities.
Since Islam’s arrival in Hausaland, precolonial states that adopted it as a state religion followed the Maliki school. Key scholars like Sheikh Muhammad Abdulkarim Al-Maghili, Sheikh Muhammadu Dahiru Fairamma, Sheikh Usmanu Dan Fodio, Sheikh Abdullahi Fodio, and Muhammadu Bello based their legal and da’awa efforts on this tradition.
Today, a religious and intellectual crisis is taking a new dimension at the hands of self-styled scholars who have assumed religious authority. Many of them lack classical training and ethical grounding, yet have used the digital space to present their misinterpretations and ideologies without oversight or consequence.
The roots of the present crisis go back to the 1960s, following the establishment of the Islamic University of Madinah. Many young men from Northern Nigeria received scholarships to study there. The University promoted the Hanbali school and Salafi approach to Islam, which contrasted sharply with the Maliki-Sufi foundation that had shaped the region for over 800 years.
On their return, these scholars found themselves at odds with the dominant religious norms of their society. This tension culminated in the formation of Jama’atu Izalatil Bid’a wa Iqamatis Sunnah (IZALA) in 1978. Their mission was to eliminate what they saw as innovations in religion. In doing so, they directly attacked Sufi traditions and their leading scholars.
Sheikh Abubakar Gumi, Ismaila Idris, and other IZALA figures condemned respected scholars like Sheikh Muhammad Nasiru Kabara, Sheikh Sani Kafinga, Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi, and Sheikh Sharif Ibrahim Saleh and others. The Sufis, in turn, accused IZALA of lacking reverence for the Prophet and undermining traditional Islamic values.
In 1979, Sultan Abubakar III initiated a reconciliation effort. He advised that Sufi scholars restrict their teaching to their zawiyas, and that IZALA refrain from commenting on Sufi texts. For a time, this held. But when a new generation of IZALA scholars returned from Saudi Arabia, including figures like Sheikh Ja’afar Mahmud Adam, the ideological conflict escalated again.
Today, religious preaching in parts of Northern Nigeria has become less about guidance and more about fame and influence. The pulpit, especially among the younger generation of IZALA preachers, has become a tool for social recognition and sometimes political leverage. Without a grounding in classical scholarship or the ethics of adab al-ilm, many of these speakers have become careless with their words and dangerously rude in their statements.
This is the environment in which the man known as Lawan Triumph made comments that have been widely regarded as blasphemous toward the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The Kano State Shura Council is working toward summoning him for a formal muqabala to explain himself. Should he fail to do so, he will likely face a similar court case to that of Malam Abduljabbar Nasiru Kabara.
But what is more disturbing is the reaction from prominent figures within IZALA. During Friday sermons and other public lectures, they have openly issued threats against the Kano State Government. These threats are not mere reports or speculation. They are clear and deliberate, urging followers to register and vote out the current government should it continue with the proceedings against Triumph.
Some have gone further to suggest that what Lawan Triumph said reflects the foundational beliefs of IZALA itself. By this logic, prosecuting him would be seen as an attack on the entire movement. This posture is both irresponsible and inflammatory. No religious group should use its pulpit to intimidate a democratically elected government, especially in matters that concern the sanctity of the Prophet.
What makes this even more puzzling is that IZALA is already well represented on the Shura Council overseeing this matter. Professors Muhammad Babangida and Salisu Shehu, Dr. Aliyu Umar, Malam Bin Usman, Malam Abdulwahab Abdullah, Malam Aminu Ibrahim Daurawa, Malama Zainab Jaafar, and others are known members affiliated with IZALA. Furthermore, within the subcommittee assigned to review the petition against Triumph, there are three confirmed IZALA representatives.
So, the question must be asked: if IZALA’s own scholars are part of both the general Council and the petition subcommittee, what exactly is the purpose of the threats and agitation? Are these scholars now being portrayed as incapable of defending the movement’s position? Or is the noise a sign that Lawan Triumph’s actions are simply indefensible and that justice is closing in? Why all the outcry, when the system in place is already inclusive, transparent, and fair?
More troubling still is the attempt by some to trivialize the issue altogether. There are those who now claim that members of the United States Congress are in the process of blacklisting Nigeria from aid and loans because it applies Sharia law. This line of argument is not only false and misleading but also deeply unserious and absurd, especially when it comes from individuals who present themselves as Islamic scholars. It reflects a desperation to deflect from the real issue: whether or not blasphemy has occurred and what the lawful and ethical response should be.
Such threats undermine both religious ethics and civil order. They represent a dangerous politicisation of the pulpit and a distortion of the prophetic mission, which is one of mercy, wisdom, and justice. Since the IZALA movement maintains that what he said on different occasions does not constitute blasphemy, the appropriate and dignified path is to allow him to defend himself before the Shura Council.
This is a pivotal moment for Kano and Northern Nigeria. I call on Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf to remain firm, fair, and resolute. The Shura Council must be allowed to proceed with its inquiry without interference or intimidation. If Lawan Triumph is found to have made blasphemous remarks, he must face the consequences in accordance with the law, just as Abduljabbar did.
This is not a Sufi versus Salafi issue. This is about the collective duty to protect the honor of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It is about safeguarding the dignity of Kano’s religious tradition and ensuring that scholarship, not sensationalism, leads the way.
The only way to stop this dangerous trend permanently is to treat every case with firmness and fairness. If allowed to continue festering, this wave of recklessness will destabilize not only Kano but the country generally.
May Allah protect the Prophet’s honor, strengthen the hands of those who defend truth, and guide our leaders to justice. Amin.
