Long before the emergence of Boko Haram, the Nigerian Muslim population-especially those in the northern part-has always craved for a unifying leader. A leader that would lead based on the Sharia system. The amalgamation of the southern and northern protectorates in 1914 saw to the end of the last vestiges of the Uthman Dan Fodio Caliphate. Ever since, abjuration of this Caliphate legacy has proved difficult for the Muslims to come to terms with. They have strived to find a replacement to it.
The Amalgamation gave rise to series of constitutional amendments, and eventually Independence in 1960. The twin impacts of the amalgamation and independence reduced the former Caliphate to a mere fragmented states within nations (Niger, Cameroun and Nigeria). To the Muslims in the north of Nigeria, it was a re-ordering on a scale never envisaged. Hence, the held notion that human rights and democracy are a western manifestation that must be debunked, and resisted. Senegal unlike Nigeria had that unifying leader before and after Independence in person of Sheikh Ibrahim Niass in the early and late 20th century. Even after his death in 1975, he is still being held as a source of inspiration and guidance to not only the Senegalese, but also to a large number of Muslims in West Africa. By this sheer fate, Senegal would build the most enduring democracy in the region with little or no sectarian strife. Or without any flirtation with the ever divisive and unstable Arab world. Essentially, they aren’t torn between the Sunni-Shia conflicts that have come to define Islam. The Tijjaniyya Islam which Sheikh Ibrahim Niass propagated has so far proved to be the safety valve, and most importantly as a hedge against radical Islam in Senegal.
Nigeria, on the other hand, has been searching in the wilderness for such a leader as the Senegalese had. This saw the Muslims in Nigeria to journey far afield in search of this. In the 1970s when Muammar Ghaddafi declared Libya a Jamhuriyya (a republic), it was common place to see male children named after him. Fast forward to the 1990s, the Gulf War to be precise. Male children were named after Saddam Hussein. The one personality with the most devastating impact was Osama bin Laden, who exploited one of the major ideological issues uniting the Muslim world: the statehood and sovereignty of Israel. This ideological sentiment that the leader of Al Qaeda used to coalesce an army of followers around the globe found a ready enthusiast in Nigeria. These factors further radicalised the Muslim population, and to some certain degree steeled them to great feats of endurance with the ultimate aim of re-establishing a pax Islamica. The clerical parvenu that was created, politically speaking, by above factors and personalities mentioned considers the re-establishment of the Sharia system as an elemental necessity-a precondition for justice and fair play. And the radical characters in this clerical assemblage conceived themselves as a divine will. This movement is at cross purposes with the Westphalian style of governance or international order where citizens are expected to obey a sovereign power other than God in return for security and protection.
A 21st century Nigeria finally bowed to terror. But something is missing in this gradual radicalisation of Muslims in Nigeria in the 21st century. In as much as a more extreme form of Islamic terror has replaced Al Qaeda, which is ISIS. We are yet to see parents naming their male children as Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi or even Abubakar Shekau-the leader of Boko Haram. So, what has changed? Truth is ISIS and Boko Haram has the same ideology, which is the total annihilation of any form of a secular society or government. The positive here is that, Nigerians have come to understand, first hand, what religious extremism is. The same way the Afghans and Pakistanis have come to the realisation that this cannot be the proper way to pursue a cause. This shift is what I prefer to call the positive, and governments around the world must seize it. Yes. They must make Islam and democracy as compatible opposites. Not even the case of Charlie Hebdo could reverse this positive trend in Nigeria. There was no rioting. Instead adherent of the Islamic faith took to the media-electronic and print-to registers(sic) their grouse with the Charlie Hebdo magazine. We must understand that terror groups latch on such rifts and divisions to loom large. Another salient positive is the issue of conventional banking that deals in interest. Muslims around the globe have always desired to have a banking system that incorporates ethical products. This feat was achieved not by war but by a simple democratic legislation in Nigeria. These positives have increasingly made the prospect of having an extreme individual or group as the fidei defensor diminished in the future.
However, the smooth elections of March and April 2015, and the now seamless transition process have denied these elements of terror what would have been their own opposite version of “The Miracle House of the Brandenburg”, if we have had a chaotic election.
In a nutshell, the war on terror cannot be about bullets alone, but above all, enlightenment on how far the world has become very much interdependent. Hence, the notion of universality of any one system must be aligned to work in tandem with an interdependent world shaped by what is unanimously agreed upon as a legit partnership.
The writer can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org