The responses to my article, Sheikh Masussuka and the Islamic Genealogy of Peace, provide an opportunity to clarify my argument and correct areas where my language may have been insufficiently nuanced. I welcome intellectual disagreement. However, disagreement must be grounded in evidence, consistency and a proper understanding of the argument being challenged.
Let me begin by acknowledging that even my own description of Sheikh Masussuka as a polarising figure contained an element of subjectivity, and for discerning readers, this already establishes my axiological position. Nevertheless, this admission does not invalidate the central argument of my article that Islamic intellectual history contains resources for peacebuilding, non-violence and interfaith coexistence, and that Masussuka’s advocacy deserves examination.
One troubling feature of the responses is the tendency to assess Masussuka through theological labels rather than carefully examining what he actually believes and practises.
Masussuka was not the first Muslim scholar in Nigeria to question particular Hadith reports or their interpretations. Sheikh Abubakar Gumi, for instance, engaged critically with certain Hadith traditions. The precise nature of these disagreements deserves a separate examination. But the broader point is that questioning particular narrations or their interpretations does not automatically amount to rejecting the Sunnah wholesale.
I have personally followed Masussuka’s teachings and, on at least two occasions, heard him categorically state that he cannot condemn the Hadith of Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam, and that anyone who rejects the Prophet’s Hadith altogether places himself outside Islam. His stated objection, as I understood it, concerns particular narrations which he believes compromise the sanctity of the Prophet’s personality, contradict the Qur’an or encourage violence.
One may disagree with his methodology, demand evidence for his conclusions or challenge his interpretation. That is legitimate scholarship. What is not legitimate is attributing to him a position he has repeatedly disavowed.
There is another distinction that deserves emphasis. Maitatsine was associated with violent religious mobilisation, and his followers engaged in armed violence. Masussuka, by contrast, has not been established as an advocate of armed violence. Since his assassination, his followers have not, to my knowledge, demonstrated a comparable pattern of violent mobilisation.
Indeed, Masussuka has, on different occasions, dissociated himself and his teachings from Maitatsine and Qala Qato. Why, then, should these figures be placed within the same analytical category? Is the intention to socially lynch Malam Masussuka, or is it sectarian expediency?
As a political scientist, I find such classification methodologically problematic. Individuals and movements must be examined through their stated ideologies, organisational practices, political behaviour and demonstrable relationship with violence. The fact that different religious figures actually challenged, and are still challenging, established interpretations of Islam does not establish equivalence between them.
My critics place considerable emphasis on Masussuka’s alleged disrespect towards Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim and other religious personalities. I agree that scholarly disagreement should be conducted with intellectual responsibility and respect. However, consistency requires that the same sensitivity be extended to the personality of Rasulullah sallallahu alai wasallam more than any being.
Perhaps the most conspicuous omission in Professor Garba Bala Muhammad’s response is his failure to engage with Masussuka’s stated motivation for challenging particular Hadith reports. In what I understand to be his final Tafsir, Masussuka reportedly stated: “The secret of my success is my defence of the Prophet sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, by exposing any Hadiths in the books that disrespect his honour.”
I have personally heard him explain that he does not reject Hadith wholesale but challenges particular narrations which, in his understanding, contradict the Qur’an, diminish the Prophet’s (sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) dignity or promote violence.
Professor Garba devotes considerable attention to Masussuka’s alleged disrespect towards Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim but conspicuously leaves this substantive question unaddressed. Should narrations perceived to compromise the Prophet’s (sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) dignity be immune from critical examination simply because they appear in established Hadith collections?
This is not an argument for indiscriminate rejection of Hadith. It is an argument for rigorous scholarly examination. Respect for Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim should not mean suspending critical inquiry into individual narrations.
There is also an issue of consistency. I recall watching a response by a cleric identified as Imam Ahlus Sunnah concerning allegations of blasphemy involving Abubakar Triumph, which I cited in my article last week. In that discussion, the matter appeared to be approached as a disagreement requiring conciliation. Yet, when Masussuka nicknamed his critics, including the cleric himself, the reaction was forceful and vociferous.
This raises an important question: Should the honour and sanctity of Rasulullah (SAW) not attract at least the same seriousness and sensitivity as the personal dignity of contemporary religious personalities?
I am not suggesting that every Izala scholar shares the same attitude of disrespecting the honor of the Holy Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam (although if we go by the statement of important Izala figure, one can easily generalize). My concern is the apparent inconsistency in the treatment of religious sensitivities. If the Prophet’s honour is sacred, its defence should attract seriousness regardless of who raises the concern.
I also find it necessary to revisit the reported intellectual challenge involving Kabiru Haruna Gombe and Masussuka. Gombe challenged Masussuka to answer 100 questions and promised to abandon Izala if Masussuka could answer even one. Masussuka answered the questions and subsequently posed another 100 questions, which his challengers did not attempt to answer.
The original recordings are publicly available and confirm this exchange. This raises an important question about intellectual accountability, particularly on the part of Professor Garba. A religious movement cannot consistently claim intellectual superiority while avoiding engagement with difficult questions.
Answering questions does not automatically establish theological correctness, but neither does belonging to an established religious movement confer immunity from intellectual scrutiny.
My original article was not an attempt to establish Masussuka as an unquestionable Islamic authority. It was an attempt to locate peace advocacy within a wider Islamic intellectual tradition.
Al-Mawardi’s Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah situates political authority within responsibilities towards religion and worldly affairs. Ibn Khaldun, in Al-Muqaddimah, warns that injustice leads to the destruction of civilisation. These classical authorities demonstrate the longstanding concern of Islamic political thought with justice, public order and human welfare.
Similarly, the First Hijrah to Abyssinia remains an important historical example of refuge and protection across religious boundaries. Its significance for contemporary interfaith relations cannot simply be dismissed because scholars disagree about the theological authority of particular historical sources.
The Suwarian tradition of West African Islam also deserves attention in discussions about peaceful coexistence and religious accommodation. These historical and political dimensions should not be displaced by arguments over Masussuka’s theological (non)conformity.
I have no objection to my critics challenging Masussuka’s theology, questioning his methodology or examining his public conduct. But intellectual fairness demands that we examine what he actually taught, distinguish him from movements associated with violence, and evaluate his contribution without predetermined theological classifications.
I am a political scientist, not Masussuka’s theological spokesperson. My interest is in understanding how religious ideas, historical traditions and competing interpretations shape political behaviour, social relations and possibilities for peace.
The question that I pose to Professor Garba is: can Islamic intellectual traditions contribute to peacebuilding and interfaith coexistence in contemporary Africa? This question cannot be answered by declaring one religious personality orthodox and another unorthodox. Nor can it be settled by defending an institution against criticism.
Islamic intellectual history is too rich to be reduced to sectarian monopolies. Scholarship must remain open to interrogation, evidence and disagreement. I welcome criticism, but expect the same intellectual seriousness from those who offer it. Let us debate the ideas and interrogate the evidence.
