I found this article to be rather selective in its focus, more of a diatribe against Salafi-oriented groups than an objective critique. I find it very difficult to reconcile insulting Bukhari, Muslim and other authors of Hadith, who many Muslims hold in high regard, with the idea of challenging the ideological hegemony of militant extremism.
The preaching activities of Masussuka are as real and consequential as those of extremist groups when it comes to distortion of faith and dissemination of extremist ideas. How can rejection of some of the authentic texts of Islam lead to the preservation of faith, human dignity and safety? Condemning Sunnah and rejection of six authentic texts of Hadith amounts to a deliberate attempt to erode the very foundation of Islam.
Quranism, the idea Masussuka advocates as a formal organized theological movement expounding that the Qur’an should be the sole source of religious authority while explicitly rejecting the Hadith and Sunnah, did not exist in the first era of Islam. Linking such an idea to the first generation of Muslims is of doubtful historicity, hence its Islamicity has no validity.
That apart, how can a polarising figure like Masussuka, who condemned both Fiqh and Sufism, provide a clear pathway to building inter-faith harmony?
Public provocation that Masussuka is fond of, such as insulting Bukhari and Muslim as well as condemning Sheikh Tijani, the founder of the Tijaniyya sect, operates as a mechanism that directly opposes the core prerequisites of sustainable inter-group reconciliation. This is because it serves as a factor of the highest potency in triggering identity threat and inter-group hostility. As we all know, in Muslim society like in any other society, highly revered figures and foundational religious leaders serve as the core pillars of collective identity.
When such figures are insulted, group members typically perceive that not as a rational critique of an idea, but as a deliberate attempt to deride their leaders in a way that constitutes an existential threat to the group itself. The corollary of all this is heightening defensive in-group solidarity and amplifying out-group hostility, which will have the effect of dividing the communities further apart.
The propensity with which Masussuka engaged in what he called “mangara” contributes greatly to eroding psychological safety and trust. Inter-faith harmony, after all, depends heavily on mutual trust, respect and psychological safety. Sustainable dialogue, which is a bedrock for building inter-faith harmony, requires participants to feel that their core dignity and foundational beliefs are not subject to contempt. Experience of many a multi-religious state has attested to the fact that intentionally insulting the revered figures of the religious other tends to destroy the baseline of goodwill necessary for constructive engagement.
Mere episodic visit to the office of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) does not make Masussuka a hero and sweep away all those before him and after him. Others like Nuraddin Ashafa and the Zakzaky-led Islamic Movement in Nigeria had done that before him.
Building strong ties requires more than performativity.
Rather than effectively challenging extremists, Masussuka’s preaching activities ended up empowering them. Undoubtedly, insulting those whom the majority of people hold in high regard tends to polarize public discourse and shifts influence away from moderate, dialogue-oriented leaders toward extremists within the communities. This has the effect of opening space for hardliners on all sides of the religious divide to weaponize such derogatory remarks in order to mobilize public sentiments and grievances, enforce extremist dogma, and justify retributive hostility in a way that undermines peaceful co-existence.
It appears the author conflates constructive critique with contempt and condemnation. There is no denying the fact that building inter-faith understanding requires addressing difficult theological differences, but it is also necessary to distinguish constructive, respectful critique from derision or contempt, which ultimately shuts down channels of communication and prevents meaningful intellectual exchange.
- Muhammad Garba writes from Birnin Kebbi
