A lecture by Sheikh
Ibraheem Yaqoub El-Zakzaky
On the Occasion of
Nigeria’s National Day organised by the Muslim Students Society of Nigeria,
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria on 1st October 1992
NATIONALISM
Introduction The topic,
nationalism, obviously in a gathering such as this, is needless to say that it
relates nationalism to Islam. And this is to say we see nationalism through the
Muslim’s perspectives. The choice of October 1st for this lecture means that
the organizers want the topic to be discussed on what is called the “National
Day”, the day that what is called the Nigerian Nation is celebrating its
32years of “In-dependence”. In this occasion we will have a chance to examine
what nationalism is all about. Incidentally, for the past three weeks (in
September 1992) I have been giving a pre-khutbah talk in the central Masjid
(A.B.U Zaria) in Hausa language titled Musulunci da yankasanci meaning Islam
and nationalism. (This lecture will, therefore, be more or less a summary of
the sum total of these talks with due consideration to the differences in the
audience).
The topic nationalism
in itself is very wide. Doing justice to such a wide topic is beyond the scope
of a lecture such as this. What I will try as much as possible to do is to
first of all define the subject, then review some basic characteristics (of
nationalism), its background and how it spread and show some of its weaknesses
and perhaps some of the dangers of the concept and finally reach a conclusion
by making comparison between nationalism and Islam.
The Meaning of
Nationalism
By definition
nationalism comes from the word nation, which comes from its Latin word naita
or naitas (spelling mistake is from the transcribe) - meaning place of birth.
That is to say when talking about nation one is talking about his homeland that
is to say where he was born. Gradually, the word ‘nation’ came to be used as a
concept in sociology and political science, but with a wider meaning. In
politics, For example,, it denotes a people within a geographical area who
share common history and culture. Sometimes it is regarded that a nation must
not necessarily have to dwell in a particular geographical location but rather
a nation refers to a people who have a common identity. An associated concept
to nation is the state which refers to the territory or land that a nation may
be linked to. A state, therefore, refers to a geographical area while nation
refers to the people. For example,, Palestinians are a nation but without a
state because their state has been usurped by the Jews with the subsequent creation
of the illegal state of Israel. So Palestine remains a nation but not a state.
Similarly members of a nation can migrate from their birthplace and live in
different places. For example, the Jews themselves who, for many years before
the foundation of Israel have been moving around the whole world, and still
there are lots of Jews all over the world claiming Jewish nationality but not
living in a Jewish State. However there is no nation without the feeling of
attaching itself to a geographical location. When the Jews were roaming about
in the world without a homeland, they were actually tracing their origin to a
place which they after sometimes attacked and occupied and formed a state.
This two concepts,
state and nation, became interwoven such that you hardly can refer to one
without the other. We will consider this definition of a nation drawing many
examples with Nigeria as a case study.
Nigeria is of course a
state with geographical boundaries drawn on the map and imagined in the brain
and some how also believed in the heart. Whether the people living within that
geographical area called Nigeria can be considered as a nation is what perhaps
we shall find out in the course of discussion about the meaning of the nation
and it characteristics.
Nationalism is a strong
urge, desire and identifying one’s self with a nation. When somebody identifies
one’s self with a nation and feels he could devote all his life, even
sacrificing his life and properties in the course of promoting that nation,
then that act he is engaging in is what is called nationalism. Thus,
nationalism is actually a sort of ideology or so to say a worldview. It is an
idea holding a group of people emotionally and also running their own lives. A
government of a nation may be operating what is called nationalism and the same
concept may be the ideology or religion that is being taught to the citizens.
The activities of the media, electronic and print, as well as the educational
system may also be all centred on stamping this idea of nationalism in the
hearts of members of the nation-state.
The Origin of
Nationalism
Where did this idea of
nationalism originate? Was it naturally part of human beings or has it started
somewhere? However some aspects of nationalism as an ideology could be
considered as natural because it is a sort of instinct in human being. Here the
word “patriotism” may be better word to use than nationalism but both look
similar and in most cases are being confused, though they mean slightly two
different things.
Patriotism can be
considered to be love for one’s own country, town or village on account of his
familiarity with that place. For example,, if you are born in a hot area, in a
semi desert or even desert area with little or no rain but burning sun, growing
up in such a geographical environment will make you preoccupied with cattle
rearing which is the main job of people in that area and also hunting of desert
animals. After long period of time living in this area you will become used to
the area to the extent that when next you travel to a cold area where snow
falls you will be inclined to automatically attack the area as it is by saying
it is too harsh and extremely cold. You will say for instance, “I don’t want
this area”; “home is better where there is warmth, a lot of sunshine and very
beautiful people to speak with”; and so on.
The same story can be
said of someone that is been born in a cold environment if he goes to a hot
place, he will be inclined naturally to feel that cold area is better and the
new area is hot and he cannot tolerate it. It is, therefore, a natural urge
within man to love his own area and this is not only true for human beings but
also true of animals. For example,, cats love their own house very much and
become so much attached to it to the extent that even if they are taken away
from it to a far place, when released they will find their way back to the same
house. Cows also in villages graze around freely and still return home at the
end, likewise goats.
There is a case of
somebody who accepted Islam on the day of Khaibar, called Aswad ur Ra’i, who
came back with goats from grazing (employed to rear goats for the people of
Khaibar) and when he saw the Prophet at the gate of the city, he inquired what
was happening. He was informed that it was the Prophet of Islam that came with
the message of Islam, and then became interested in Islam and embraced Islam.
He asked the Prophet what he should do with the goats entrusted in his hands.
The Prophet replied that “goats know the house of their owner, release them,
they will go into the city and to their owner’s house”.
The love of one’s own
homeland, hometown or village, his own house or been familiar with his own
family or the love of his own family can be considered as natural in all human
beings. This is reported in a hadith of the Prophet (S) of someone that
migrated to Madina after the Prophet. The Prophet asked him “how did you leave
Makkah?” He started to narrate how the atmosphere was beautiful as of the time
he left Makkah, the eyes of the Prophet were seen to be changing and dropped
some amount of tears for the love of Makkah. I don’t know whether this is a
hadith, which says “hubbul watan minal iman” (the love of homeland is part of
iman) because a lot of people say it does not look like any of the
characteristics of iman because even non-believers share it with believers.
Even animals have it. And for anything to be a characteristic of iman it must
distinguishes a Muslim from a non-Muslim; a Mu’umin from a non-mu’umin but
“hubbul watan” is for everybody, so how can it be a sign of iman if everybody
has it? Somebody has said he does not believe that this is a hadith since it is
natural; everybody has it.
But this sort of love
can not be confused with the ideology of nationalism because ideology of
nationalism builds upon this natural urge an entirely new ideology and worldview
to which man should base his thinking. That is to say he views everything from
the point of view of his own nation.
We might understand
this better if we trace the origin of this idea. It all started in Europe
during the last century of the Christian era when Christianity as an ideology
holding European people together died down as a living ideology and became what
you might consider as a dead ideology. Christianity became unable to sustain
human society and run it; it blocked all his avenues of thought; it lacked the
ability to stimulate him to action. Christianity, even though it continued to
exist, became a sort of memorial club just like all memorial clubs like
schools’ old boys or old girls associations engaging in activities such as
conductance of meetings on scheduled times and dates, remembrances of dead
fellows and so on. After such gatherings the members normally enjoy themselves
and disperse only to meet again on another appointed day.
So Christianity more or
less became like that and the Church services on Sundays became a memorial
service to commemorate the death of Christianity about three hundred years ago.
As if to say they gather and say to themselves “once upon a time there was a
religion known as Christianity holding people together, stimulating them to
action to the extent that it created a civilization but now it is no longer
doing that so let us pray”. Thus they commemorate Christianity and disperse.
Furthermore, Christianity was not only dead to be found only in the annals of history
but became a standing block to all spheres of human endeavours particularly
scientific and educational. The Church would pronounce judgment on anybody who
would do anything considered against the church or against the persons of those
people running the Church.
When a scientist
discovered the movement of the stars explaining issues regarding the moon, he
was ordered to be put to death. So also was someone who suggested that there
might be other worlds apart from the one we live in was sentenced to be put to
death without a single drop of his blood meaning that he was supposed to be
burnt alive, for saying there were so many planets.
Whereas in Islam
everyday in our salat we say “Praise be to Allah the lord of the worlds”
indicating that there exist a lot of planets but for saying so somebody was put
to death. Now, it became clear that people had to revolt against the Church. I
am not saying that the action of the Church has agreed with the message of
Christ (upon whom is peace) because if it were to be so it would have been the
same with Islamic faith, but it was something else that they discovered, or
invented which they named Christianity.
Europe had to liberate
itself from the clutches of the Church and having revolted against the church
and invented the division between the state and the Church, it became also
necessary to invent an ideology to sustain the society and move it into action.
Hence the birth of nationalism, which became sort of fill-in-the-vacuum created
by the death of Christianity. Instead of Christianity nation became the moving
factor for someone’s thoughts and actions. Then the exponents of the idea of
nationalism started to say that after all it was not the Church that was
supposed to govern as after all this man, Christ, was a Palestinian Jew and not
a European. The French would say “we French have the best culture that is
better than that of the Palestinians Jews”.
In Germany where there
was this saying that Jews were hated most, those that wanted to maintain
Christianity had to canvass by saying, “well after all Christ himself was a
German” because they would not follow a Palestinian Jew as they considered the
Arian blood superior to that of all.
We might say this idea
started with the French revolution and spread all over Europe. I don’t have
enough time to give you much of history but in short after the death of
Christianity as an ideology, the vacuum created was filled by the exponents of
nationalism to extol their own nation, race and tribe above all others
stressing that they were the greatest in the world and their own civilization
was better than all other civilizations and their way of living the best and
ideal for all human beings.
The Germans said
similar story, so also the English, the Portuguese, and the Italian and so on
all stressing the same claim. Thus, within no time each of these states had its
own ideologues of the idea of its own nationalism and claiming superiority to
all others.
Bases of Nationalism
Another basis of
nationalism is territory and country. This may even be considered first of all
before the people living in the territory. This great urge to show love and
emotional feelings towards ones own place of birth and country (territory
demarcated geographically either as a result of war or otherwise) makes the
French to consider France as their basis for nationalism; Germans, Germany;
Italians, Italy and so on. One will not only extol his own people but even his
own geographical area by saying, For example,, that his climate is the best in
the world, the agricultural products found there is the best in the world, and
even the animals found there were the best found in the world, likewise the
grasses, the natural phenomena and features found within the geographical area
such as rocks and so on. That may even be considered the beginning of
civilization and the call for all human being to return back to its origin.
The third basis of
nationalism is language. Apart from the territory where the people live, common
languages spoken is a unifying attribute that brings them together and they
would consider their language as the best in the whole world.
The fourth basis of
nationalism is common history and culture as well as civilization. That is to
say they would proclaim after all they all share the same history, either they
were all born there or migrated at a point in time and moved to that place or
had a long history of being under the same umbrella for many centuries. This
makes them a nation sharing same history and culture. This will also become a
basis upon which they make nationalistic urges and appeals.
Accompanying the
history is the culture that is to say the habit of the people in form of dress,
food, music, dances and so on. Also their arts and literature are extolled by
their nationalists as being superior to others in the world. This was the case
with France after colonizing some parts of Africa. They felt they should
Françoise Africans as French people. So they invented the concept of assimilation
where some western educated elites among the black skinned Africans where given
the status of French men, dressing like French, drinking coffee and whiskey
every morning like the French people do. Thus they felt they have “promoted”
them to the status of French citizens. This idea of feeling that ours is the
best way of life also moved the French to annex Algeria and made it part of
France.
The fifth basis of
nationalism is race. Race can be considered as an advanced form of tribe, after
all one can say the whole of Europe is one race, but having French, German,
British, Portuguese and so on which cannot be considered as races. After all
what is a race? Race is a people sharing common ancestor; coming from one
descendant(one man); or all of them originate from one powerful king who did
this and that or they all originated from one tribe and expanded claiming
common ancestry. The idea of considering one’s own race to be superior to all
others in fact moved them to be condemning other races. For example,, the
Greeks and the Romans, at the height of their civilizations called all others
barbarians. The Greeks considered the world as containing the Greeks and the
barbarians. Likewise the Romans at the height of their civilization divided the
world into three, the Romans, their allies (second status) and the barbarians.
The sixth basis of
nationalism is political and economic organization. They consider themselves
having one political entity and practicing one political system as a basis of
their nationality. The system and forms of these associations would be
considered the best by the exponents of their form of nationalism.
Characteristics of Nationalism
Now we will like to
have a look at some basic characteristics of nationalism, which of course distinguishes
it from other ideologies like Islam, communism, capitalism and so on. though,
the last two isms are interwoven with nationalism as well, unlike Islam which
we shall soon see.
Belief and defence for
ones territory became widely accepted. You are expected as a citizen to usher
your strong belief and commitment towards your own country considering it
supreme above everything and its interest above every other thing, and its
citizen’s superior to all. Likewise you consider your own main concern to be your
nation, and all others who do not belong to your nation are considered aliens,
foreigners and of course also enemies. You should even consume your own local
products and consider those coming from elsewhere to be something to be hated
(opposed to your own), having an urge to hate anything foreign and love
anything national.
Coupled with this is
another characteristic: the revival of the tradition of the area. You have a
strong urge to revive your ancient tradition and customs in the name of
nationalism. For example, the Egyptians take pride in the Pharaohs. The same
pharaoh who was condemned in the Quran is considered a hero in Egyptian
nationalism. Likewise in the Iranian nationalism Islam is considered as alien
religion and Zoroastrian religion national and something to be proud of.
Nationalism gives rise to the urge to revive ancient tradition however bad it
may be.
Coupled with this is
another characteristic: the distortion of history. When you have the desire to
extol your own nation and say it is above all other nations (of course
obviously you are only telling lies as you very well know that your nation is
not above all other nations and your civilization is not the best of all
civilizations, likewise your language is not the best, and your heroes are not
the best of heroes) you will necessarily be inclined to tell more and more
lies. Sometimes they are forced to distort history by saying actually man
originated from their area. And that it was later that people dispersed to
other places. Or they may claim that all other nations are the bastards of
their nation who were expelled because they committed crimes and consequently
went and form other nations from this origin of man. That might not be true but
nationalisms always urge one to think he has to claim superiority of himself
and the inferiority of others, and then he will of course be inclined to
destruction.
Another characteristic
is the respect of the emblem of the state, which one will have to respect (in a
way like religion) like the national flag, national anthem, and coat of arm and
so on. There is also the strong urge to respect and even worship these state
emblems.
This obviously leads to
another characteristic of nationalism, which is a single religion, where there
are some sorts of rituals and national ceremonies, which are always observed,
which distinct a nation from other nations.
Of course one has to
say naturally because it is one of the bases of nationalism it becomes natural
that one of the characteristics of nationalism is that you have one form of
advanced tribalism.
In Nigerian context,
this is known very well and it is considered as one of the ills of the Nigerian
nation. The moment you mention the word “tribalism” one would say it is one of
the ills to do away with. Of course nationalism is one form of advanced
tribalism, Tribalism may be crude and raw form of nationalism, but nationalism
is an advanced form of tribalism. There is always this urge for one to consider
the criteria for judging what is good or bad to be ones own nation. In this
case your co-national or compatriot is considered to be right even if he is
wrong. And your compatriot is considered to be virtuous, righteous, and what
ever he does is good and foreigners inconsiderate of their achievement are
considered bad. One is supposed to support his co-national even if he is wrong
or guilty; since he is part of you (your own nation) must be considered as
right.
Even your own
criminals, committing crimes out of your own nation are considered as your
nationals, and therefore must not be imprisoned or punished in a foreign
country. While a person from a foreign country no matter his righteousness,
virtues, intelligence even if he is a genius is considered as a bad man, an
enemy and not wanted because he is a foreigner. You consider your tribe as good
and all others bad; your nation good, and all others bad.
Another characteristic
of nationalism is secularism. Secularism, of course, is not synonymous with
nationalism but there can hardly be secularism without nationalism. The two
concepts always go together. This is because religion comes as an obstacle on
the way of nationalism. After all, the birth of nationalism in Europe was a
reaction against Christianity. So nationalists either nationalized Christianity
(that is to say they made Christianity part of their national culture) or they
rejected Christianity all together. This was the case with two categorized
people of Germany; some said it was a foreign religion while others said no
Christ himself was a German, so that they could practice Christianity as their
own culture. So in most cases they ended up nationalizing Christianity.
Europeans to a large extent remained at least Christians in name and
nationalists at the same time. What they did was to make sure that their brand
of Christianity agreed with the principles of nationalism. Or to put it simply:
they nationalized Christianity.
The English revolted
against the Roman Church simply because it came from Rome and created their own
national church, the Church of England (Anglican Church or Protestant Church),
with an Archbishop of Canterbury as opposed to Church of Rome (Catholic) with a
Pope. It is possible for a Christian nation to become secular because after all
secularism is in itself a Christian concept which have been traced back to the
Bible (whether true or not they justified it). They traced it to the saying of
Jesus “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” They interpreted it to mean a separation of
the state and religion. For Caesar is the state and for God is the religion.
But the fact that Christianity was nationalized and at the same time separated
from the state gave birth to confusion of some sort. In England, For example,,
the king or queen of England is at the same time the head of the Church in
England. The crown is, therefore, head of state and religion at the same time
and yet the religion and state are separated! (I don’t know how separated but
the two are said to be separated here!)
It is possible to have
secularism going along with Christianity because the nationalists in Europe had
actually defined what Christianity should be instead of allowing Christianity
to define itself. This cannot be possible with Islam, which has got all its
needs explained in the Holy book.
A natural consequence
of all the urges we have enumerated is the desire to colonize other people.
This is because when you consider your own to be superior and all others
inferior as in Greece you are Greek and other barbarians, there arises the need
to Greeknize the “barbarians” or at least give them a measure of Greek
civilization so that you can accept them as second class Greeks. It is on this
basis they justify colonizing Africa and Asia. For example,, the French
considered their own way of life to be superior to all therefore all human
being must be under the French domination. There arose the urge to move around
and assimilate others. The Germans felt the same need as they considered the
Arian blood superior to all and all others must be subservient to the Arians.
So also the Jews as a nation (they indeed depicted the worst form of
nationalism if one studies it). They consider Jews as chosen people of God and
others are like asses (donkeys) to them created in order to serve the Jew!
Because of this belief (that is to say feeling of superiority over others) they
do not see anything wrong in all the atrocities being committed by them in Africa
and Asia during the days of colonization, trying to establish their superiority
over them.
Case for and against
Nationalism
I have spent much time
defining and giving characteristics of nationalism; I may not have enough time
to compare it with Islam. Nationalism as an ideology has a lot of shortcomings
and dangers. One of it of course has to do with its logical thinking. That is
its consideration of land (territory) and blood as criteria for what is good or
bad. How on earth can God use this as a criterion? Some of the basis of this
thinking I have enumerated earlier only exposes this (territory and blood as
criteria for judging everything). The territory itself is not even precisely
defined as such as it cannot be permanently defined because it keeps on
changing. We are living witnesses to what used to be the Soviet Union that no
longer exists today. Two years ago the map of the world reflected a nation, a
large one for that matter, known and called the USSR. Now the map has changed
as the USSR was dissolved and instead we now have the Russian Federation and a
number of Balkan and South-East Asian nations. So also Yugoslavia is now broken
into six nations (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia et al).
Therefore, the
territory cannot be used as a foundation for an ideology since it goes on
changing. Sometimes what may be part of a country today may not be tomorrow or
what is not today may become part of the country tomorrow. In which case when
new people are being brought in they find it very difficult to adjust into the
new nation. Likewise one of the reason why nationalism was preferred to
religion or any other thing was the fact that, they thought nationalism will
bring in people living within a geographical area if they identify themselves
with their own nation, they will forget all other differences like religious,
linguistic and cultural differences.
However, it has always
been true of all the nations that they have never solved the problem of the
so-called minority. The minorities in this nations end up being considered as
second-class citizens of the nation, with their grievances well documented,
Nigeria is a typical example, this can be read in the daily newspapers. There
is, for instance, this question that “must the presidency be the birth right of
some people” (they are right in this case if truly you are one nation, you
shouldn’t monopolize presidency since all nationals are one and equal. Are some
people more equal than others?). Instead of unifying people it ended up disuniting
and creating hatred among members of the same nation. Their exist small
packages of other nations raising up as the case of Zangon Katab in Nigeria,
where the Katafs consider themselves a nation within a larger nation. In fact
one of the staunch Katab nationalists refused to speak in Hausa language while
testifying in a panel because of the belief of his smaller nation. In short
nationalism always create itself packages of other nations within it. Thus
there will be counter nationalists within a nation and some small packages of
nationalists also creating their own brand of nationalism with the same view
that is been preached for the nation will also be preached to the sub nation.
As a result there will
always be conflict within it, at the end there wouldn’t be unity within a
nation. Even within one language there exist different dialects, and if you
have strong urge to say, your own language is best, some would say (even within
the same language) that their own dialect is the original and then you end up having
conflict. Similarly, when you say culture, some can say the origin of the
culture in this country of ours, others will say particularly in our own state,
therefore you may end up having problems and conflict within the nation.
This is true because nationalism
lacks objectives. People found themselves wondering, without anything to
sustain their society, and man being what he is has to be sustained with an
ideology so a baseless ideology was founded to at least sustain them, but it
ended in defeating itself.
Another argument for
nationalism is that it moves people into action. That is to say if people are
urged to promote their own nation above others they will work hard and produce
more. For example, farmers will work hard in order to feed the nation;
engineers will work hard in the construction industry and so on. You may be
asked is it always true? If it is true for a whole nation then it will also be
true for a sub-nation. When you are developing an area and making it very
beautiful with roads, electricity and so on some will, of course, say even
though it is within or a part of the nation, why is my village neglected? Then
you will begin to have sub-citizenship and sub-nationalism. Actually it hardly
moves people to action. Nigeria is a typical example on this matter.
Some of the dangers of
nationalism also are ego-centrism, superiority complex, tribal prejudice and
fanaticism. Ego-centrism means making yourself the focus of everything good and
others the focus of everything bad. Superiority complex makes you consider yourself
superior to all others. You automatically become fanatical not only as a
nationalist but also as a sub-nationalist or neo-nationalist promoting nations
within a nation (which is the worst form of fanaticism). Likewise, it narrows
mental horizon, that is to say making man to narrow himself to one area as if
to say the whole world should be narrowed into one pocket while all other parts
are ignored. All outsiders are considered aliens, foreigners and sometimes even
enemies.
Is Nigeria a Nation?
Let me ask some
questions with regards to the claim of Nigeria being a nation. Is Nigeria
really a nation? Are Nigerians members of one nation? Is there anything in the
hearts of Nigerians, which is burning within their hearts with a strong feeling
and commitment in their own hearts that they are Nigerians? Does Nigeria have a
common territory (geographical area)? Yes! Created by whom? Of course by the
enemies of Nigeria, for their own good and for the bad of the indigenes. It was
created against the wish of the people in favour of others. Not minding who
demarcated Nigeria with a line in Berlin. Hasn’t it changed the shape in such a
way that it excluded people who naturally should have been part of it and
included people who have been some part of other areas? For example, if it is
common history that is considered as one of the basis that we share, have not
the people living in this part of Nigeria at one time shared common history
with the people in what is called Niger today?
Haven’t the people of
south western Nigeria shared same common history with people of southern Benin
republic? Or haven’t the people of Adamawa, Taraba and Borno shared common
history with the people of northern Cameroon? This is to say the territories
were artificially demarcated and therefore can never serve as a foundation of a
nation in the Nigerian case.
However this can be
valid in Europe because territories were demarcated along the lines of language
differences, cultural affiliations and similar barriers. Thus if there is
strong instinct or urge of nationalism in a French man, there is every reason
for that. But I don’t know how similar urge can be stimulated and kept in the
heart and mind of somebody who is called a Nigerian.
Using language as basic
characteristics of a nation, one can ask, does Nigeria have a common language?
Then how comes a nation called Nigeria was formed? However they gave Nigeria a
common language, that is to say English. Can Nigerians say English is their
national language and be proud of it? And what is more, are Nigerians English
people? Because there is every reason for an Englishman to be proud of English
as his national language, but for us it serves as a second language, however
much you speak it the English man would shake his head and smile… you can tell
the rest of the story!
Since common language
is a common basis of a nation, would you say that it is also the basis of the
Nigerian nation? Would Nigerian people have that strong urge because they have
a common language? If the answer is yes, it is just fantasy, fallacy, hypocrisy
and self-deception because the force of a gun has imposed it, and I don’t think
you will be proud of it.
What about history? One
of the arguments for a nation is that they share a common history, what is
common to Nigeria as common history? Was it not that Nigeria was so unfortunate
to have been colonized by the British? That is the only thing we share
together, being colonized at one at the same time and by the same colonialists.
They formed southern and northern protectorates, only to be amalgamated in
1914. I don’t know what and who they were protecting; certainly not the people
but there own interests. If they protected the people, the British protected
the people against the French and it doesn’t matter to you and me whether the
invader is a Frenchman or an Englishman. In fact we see them as one and the
same thing.
So the only thing
Nigerians share as a common history is the misfortune of being colonized and
ruled by the British at one and the same time with the queen of England as
their monarch, ruled from Britain and latter been given the so called
“independence” which I would rather call “in dependence” that is to say being
in dependence for over 32 years now.
All nations share
common history that make them proud of. It is something that all nationalists
are always proud of. But I don’t think Nigeria has that common history to be
proud of. The only common thing upheld by the Nigerian nationalists is Lord
Lugard who amalgamated Nigeria and Lugard Hall where laws were made for
Nigerians (or rather against them) not minding how many people he (Mr Fredrick
Lugard) has killed or how much wealth he has stolen.
What about the common
culture serving as a basis for the nation? Just like the language that is so
many (in a single state there can be up to as much as 100 languages), Nigeria
has a number of different cultures. Language, therefore, has never served as a
rallying point for its unity. So also is the case with culture. What normally
happens is the normal national rituals in which they always invite people only
to be entertained with cultural dances, and what is considered as a Nigerian
culture will only be a culture of sub-nations within Nigeria. Call any musician
to do the Nigerian music; he will end up doing the music of his own area and
therefore not representing people from different cultural backgrounds.
What of civilization?
Is there anything, which can be considered to be the Nigerian civilization? Of
course when you go beyond the colonial time and take pride in former
civilization that existed before Nigeria, definitely you are only talking about
a different nation entirely, not this very one. Once you say “Danfodio” you are
not talking of Nigeria because Danfodio is not a hero of Nigeria, as Danfodio
came into being 100 years before the foundation of Nigeria.
So there was a
different nation established which was destroyed and replaced by Nigeria. Once
you mention Danfodio, you will find a lot of people who will exclude themselves
from identifying with Danfodio. And in fact during the regime of Shagari there
was a paper in the south-eastern part of Nigeria (I happen to be imprisoned in
Enugu then) which attacked the personality of Danfodio with worst abuses you
can think of (in the name of sub-nationalism). That is to say once you talk
about Danfodio some (Nigerians) will not be happy because they do not have a
feeling of belonging as they are not a party to it, despite the fact that
people in the present day Niger, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana and so on will
emotionally identify themselves with Danfodio, whilst they are part of
different nations today, not Nigeria.
In other words there is
hardly any relic of history before the formation of Nigeria that is accepted by
all Nigerians. Edifice, artefacts and so on are all considered to be coming
from certain group of people that are not shared by all Nigerians. If there is
anything that has been considered as Nigerian, it might be things like
kick-backs, corruption, 419 (obtaining through false pretence or breach of trust)
which might be considered as civilization of Nigeria! Even foreigners were
corrupted by Nigerian officials. For example, a Nigerian official can say (to a
feigner) “my government wants a certain good to be produced for the country.
How much will it cost per one for a total of 1 million units?” If, for
instance, one unit costs $10 the total will be $10,000,000. The official will
at the end of the day request for the production of cheaper one at that same
cost with some percentage of the differences lodged into his personal account.
In this instance a quality of five million dollars will be made for the ten
million while the difference will be shared between him and the manufactures.
What about race? Are we
one race? If we are by the colour of our skins by being blacks are the people
of Niger, Benin, and Cameroon and so on not blacks also? If we narrow the
horizon, can Nigerians say they descended from the same man, or that their ancestors
came from east, south, north, Atlantic and so on? The answer is just no! There
is just nothing that can be called Nigerian race. That is to say it doesn’t
exist and there is just no way you can create it. Thus you can’t be proud of
having a Nigerian race. Others can be proud of their races and form the basis
of their nationalism on their race but Nigerians cannot.
Nigerians can claims to
have a political culture. But when we look at it closely, is there anything
that you can call Nigerian political culture? When the British came they didn’t
give Nigerians their own type of polity, but instead they created a different
political system which they felt suited the people they considered “natives”.
In Nigeria there was indirect rule in the north and direct rule in the south.
They incorporated the sharia which is the legal system they found in system in
the north and incorporated customary laws in the legal system of the south.
Thus there was nothing like political culture of Nigeria, and this is one of
the reasons why when about fifty minus one “wise” men (they were fifty
initially but one of them declined latter) invited to write a constitution for
Nigeria, they simply went and copy (carbon –copy) American constitution and
called it the new Nigerian constitution!
Islam and Nationalism
I have for so long
discussed nationalism as it is, without making reference to Islam. To discuss
Islam and nationalism, will be an entire topic of its own, but I may go briefly
through some bases and characteristics of nationalism and compare them with
Islam. Islam like nationalism is also an ideology, having its basis in the
belief in the almighty Allah (SWT) and the message He Has sent through the
Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (S). Unlike nationalism, however, the two have
entirely different basis. Of all the bases of nationalism Islam shares almost
nothing in common with it. Nationalism bases itself on land and blood, Islam
destroys the idea of land and blood. Islam says of land, “someone created the
whole of the earth and that someone who created it is the owner of the earth,
and it is He, who sent this message that is to say Islam, and this message is
directed to the people who live on this earth”. The whole earth can be
considered as one single territory. Allah (AWT) said in the Qur’an “huwal lazi
ja’ala lakumul arda zhalulan fam shuu fi manakibiha wa kulu min rizqih”. From
the Islamic point of view the earth belongs to Allah not the people, or do you
think when Allah created the earth He said “this area is Nigeria, so protect
it?”
He created the whole
earth without any demarcations and placed man on it. He also sent a messenger
with a message for the people living on the earth. As he said “if it were to be
the angels living comfortably on the earth we would have sent an angel to be a
messenger among them”, but it is human beings, so human beings were sent to
human beings, then all the human beings living on the earth are considered to
be one nation.
The Prophet of Islam
was quoted to have cautioned somebody who was proud of his language, Arabic,
and he said to him “the language of Arabic is neither of your father nor your
mother”_ meaning neither the language of Adam nor Eve, and all of you are
children of Adam and Eve.
The idea of narrowing
man to his own narrow territory actually destroys him. Islam views the whole
earth as one country, created by Allah and man is being placed on it.
Narrowing people to a
particular blood is also negated by Islam, in the sense that all human beings
are seen to be members of one race. If the argument of racialists and
tribalists is that they descended from one person, why not use wider component
and say all humans share common father, Adam?
Tribalism is a narrow
form of racism, and it is from tribalism you move to racisms. As you move
higher the genealogy you will find out that you came from one root. That is to
say if you are members of a tribe that descended from a big king and your race
and others share bigger ancestors, as you go ahead if you are actually a
racialist, at the end, you end up being descendants of one man. So why not see
the universality of all human races and say that you are all members of one
nation based on blood? On blood basis Islam takes us as one race, and there is
little or no time for me to be quoting Quran and ahadith to stress my point. It
suffices to say if it is blood, then all of us are said to be one community, if
it is territory, the whole earth is said to be one country.
What about language?
Language can never be a foundation of a nation because one man can speak
different languages. And language does not serve as a barrier. The Arabs of the
jahiliyya days consider themselves people with a language and all others “ajam”
meaning dump, that is to say others cannot speak, only an Arab man that can
speak. But here is the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying “there is no difference
between an Arab and a non Arab; there is no superiority of an Arab over a
non-Arab, or a non-Arab over an Arab; and all of you are from Adam and Adam is
from a dust”.
Can culture be
universal? Human beings have so many cultures, and therefore it is not possible
to have a universal culture. Islam considers culture to be a foundation of
peoples’ identity, because the message of Islam is universal, for every culture
and race, based on believe and conviction.
When you consider
nationalism being compared with a religion, you will find it actually as a sort
of religion in the sense that it has an object of worship, that is to say the
state or country that is idolized, and has its prophets in the form of national
heroes. It also has its book of guidance in form of constitution, and even its
jurisprudence, fiqh, and mazhab, but these are limited to a narrow territory
and blood group. Here the object of worship is Allah (SWT) who created the earth
and man and placed man to live on it, and the national heroes of Islam are the
Messenger sent by Allah and those who believed in him and worked for the same
message. Based on believe there is Darul kufur and Darul Islam, if you surely
need to divide a territory, then that is the criteria for its division. And if
you want to divide human beings they are either Muslims or kuffar.
Are you a Muslim by
birth? No! You are a Muslim by conviction. People of all tribes, cultures, and
countries can accept Islam because it is a universal message and a living
ideology not a dead one. It can still stir man to action. One might say what
you have said of all races seems to be what is true of Islam, like some of the
weakness you have said. For example, it breeds fanaticism, some people are born
Muslims, there are barriers set up between Muslims and non-Muslims; there is
Islamic culture and history and so on. We can say agreed, but the fact remains
that this culture is not confined to a geographical location or a people. It is
open unlike nationalism which is close. Anybody outside the boundaries of a
state cannot enter it and if he does he is considered alien, foreigner, and
sometimes even enemy. Is Islam like that? It is open to all races, tribes and
cultures and can cut across the so-called national boundaries.
And that is why
nationalism sees Islam as a threat and the nationalists made Islam their main
target of attack. I don’t have to expantiate on this due to lack of time. But I
have discussed at length in the Pre-khutab in the Friday mosque, where actually
it became clear that when Islam came at the time of the Prophet, it were the
nationalists who attacked it. The main threat to Islam at that time was
nationalism, and when nationalists were established in the Muslim countries
(some thing which I have not got time to speak here also, that is to say how
nationalism was brought into Islam, but there in the masjid last Friday I have
spoken of how nationalism was imported into the Muslim nation).
When nationalism was imported
into the Muslim nation and became established it considered Islam also the main
threat, and even now, the heroes of the Nigerian nation and those that run the
Nigerian nation considers Islam as their number one enemy. They consider Islam
as number one enemy for the continuous existence of Nigeria as a state and for
the continuation of the system that runs it. That is why always their attack is
on Islam. Sometimes they just say religion, religion, but we know whom they are
speaking of. Certainly Christianity agrees with nationalism and secularism.
They have in fact nationalized Christianity in Nigeria. Typical example is the
national funeral conducted some two weeks ago (in Abuja after the death on
plane crush of a number of army officers at Lagos). It was nothing short of
Christian funeral- similar to wake keeping and other rites.
I will have to hurry up
and make conclusions, not because I feel I have treated the topic very well
but, because some how I will have to stop. Though, if you are interested, some
of the issues I have raised in the central masjid in the last three Fridays where
I have discussed this same topic, nationalism, there I have given details of
some areas discussed here.
The question to raise
here is since these two ideologies (that is to say Islam and nationalism if you
want to call them so) are at variance with one another can a Muslim be a
nationalist at the same time? They are actually two opposing ideologies. For a
Muslim to be a nationalist at one and the same time is similar to entering two
ships that are travelling in different directions; travelling in both at one at
the same time! Is it possible? Anybody that says he can combine the two is
actually deceiving himself. If you combine Islam and nationalism, then one of
the two has to take place. It is either you are a nationalist or a Muslim. And
we can examine which one are you. If you are a Muslim and a nationalist, then
you are combining two incompatible ideologies!
These ideologies are
two living ideologies, so you have to choose one, in order to make one alive.
If we find out that your urge, desire and commitment is to the nation and
building the nation and you can sacrifice your life and properties for the
nation, then you are a nationalist. Your Islamic ideology has died down, and
you can only go to the mosque to commemorate its death. But if you have the
urge to give your life and properties for the sake of Islam and Islamic unity
and Islamic nation then you are not a nationalist. These two are not
compatible, if you try to balance, you will end up being a hypocrite.
Thus most of
nationalists in Nigeria are nothing but hypocrites. In fact all of them are
hypocrites to either the nation or Islam, or both. And in fact those that try
to do some balance end up becoming hypocritically Nigerian nationalists. They
are hypocrites to the Nigerian nation because when they come here they say
things like we Nigerians; Nigerians must have to endure; thank you for the
sacrifice; this SAP (Structural Adjustment Policy of the IMF imposed by the
Babangida regime) must have to continue and you must have to be ready to sacrifice
more. But you will see the announcer with fat cheeks, and living comfortably
but asking you to suffer! Is he not a hypocrite to the country?
And when he says we
Nigerians he still have some feelings that he is a Muslim, and still making
comments like Nigerians should regard themselves as one in-respective of their
religion, though those that even say these words, still see Nigerians as this
or that, not as Nigerians, ending up being a hypocrite to your religion and
your nation. Whereas if you are to be sincere what you ought to do is choose
one and denounce the other. You can choose the Nigerian nation and denounce
Islam, change your name and don’t go to our mosque. When you call for sacrifice
for the nation, you should sacrifice more, because if suffering should hit the
masses it should also hit you. Or you can say you are a Muslim, then the nation
will mean nothing to you, and you can call towards the establishment of the
Islamic system of life, seeing all Muslims as your brothers and the non-Muslim should
be invited to Islam, then truly you are a Muslim.
In short one has to
make a choice between the two, if one wants to be sincere to one of them or
else he turns out to be hypocrite to both. And I think majority of Nigerians
prefer to be hypocrites, and this is why the nation has never been truly a
nation because those who run it are hypocrites to their nation.
We on our part see that
we can’t join this hypocrisy. Therefore we come out clearly and say we are
Muslims and we don’t care if Nigeria goes to hell! If Islam shall be
established at the expense of dissolution of Nigeria, let it be dissolved!
Because Allah has not created us and said “thou shall keep my Nigeria”. If
anybody has given that commandment, it is the British who created and are the beneficiaries
of Nigeria. As long as Nigeria survives, it is surviving in the interest of
those who created it (the former colonialists now neo-colonialists imperialists
or neo-imperialists).
One of those who lead
Nigeria, in fact it is Obasanjo, wrote and I quote “the British created Nigeria
and certainly she has an interest in seeing it being continued”. As long as
Nigeria exists, it is for the good of those that created it. And Allah (SWT)
created me and I am here to live up to the expectation of my Lord and not up to
the expectation of the British crown or the white house. I must have to live as
a Muslim. Those who think they can combine the two are actually deceiving
themselves and I would like to end up by warning them!
Be ware of Islamic
Nationalism
We should be very
careful also less we create what is called Islamic nationalism. There is the
tendency to have such, because nationalism like I said earlier on is a sort of
natural urge, where you have love towards your own area, your own people and
country, even if it is your home town. And those who created Nigeria and placed
those to run it on their behalf know this very well. Thus, they always employ
the idea of divide and rule. They can, for example, say if you don’t have an
urge for Nigeria as a nation let us give you the urge for a state or region
within it. If you can’t have such urge for a state, let us give you the urge
for local government. If not, the urge of being a Hausa man, if you don’t have
the urge let us tell that man he is Kataf, and only to descend at you, we will
give him gun to do so.
Islamic nationalism is
another evil just like nationalism generally; whereby the Muslims will choose
to call for the territory (we see them as a territorial group and also as a
tribe). For example they have been identifying Hausa with Islam, as if Hausa
and Islam are synonymous, (or Hausa, Islam and the North), and even some
Muslims have the tendency and urge to confuse these three.
Hausa to us is nothing
more than a language and anybody who so wishes can speak it. If you speak it
fluently, whether you are a Muslim, Christian or a pagan you are a Hausa man.
Islam is another thing entirely.
Similarly, the North is
a territorial area and in fact exists much more only in the imagination of the
people and belief in their own hearts. But the reality is that you can hardly
demarcate the North. However much you want to demarcate the North some will say
no this part is not Northern because they are not Muslims.
So let us not conceive
the message of Islam, which was sent to all mankind through the view of Islamic
nationalism. We are not saying “we Muslims”, rather we are saying Islam. When
you say we Muslims then you are including even those nationalist Muslims and
part-Muslims among you, considering them right and every other person wrong.
For example, about one year ago when there was an attempted coup de tat that
gave an opportunity to candle the fire of Muslim nationalism, with issues like,
‘look it’s a Christian that wants to overthrow a Muslim president’. Not minding
that this Muslim president is a hypocrite to both Islam and the nation. He
wanted to at one time to be a hero of the Muslims such that the Muslims would
say ‘oh! They want to overthrow our president, we Muslims!’
No!!! Islam is an
ideology not a geographical area or a cultural group. If it is (the issue) of a
geographical area, he belongs to you, that is to say your own geographical
area, if it is a cultural group, he belongs to your own cultural group, but
once you say Islam, you will find that he is at variance with Islam. Therefore
we should be careful not to promote Muslim nationalism in the name of Islamic
ideology.
Wassalamu alaikum wa
rahmatullahi Ta’la wa barakatuh.
NB: This lecture was
originally transcribed by Muhammad M. Ahmad but later edited with minor changes
to fit reading format by the lecturer himself.
No comments