CRS 3205; THE INTERACTIONS OF RELIGIONS {2CREDIT

UNIT}

COURSE LECTURER(S)
JOSHUA AONDOAWASE AJIM
DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF KASHERE
GOMBE STATE NIGERIA
ajimjoshuaa@gmail.com
07035849406

COURSE DESCRIPTION OR SYNOPSIS

This course deals with the idea of religious dialogue or interaction, the
purpose, rules and results of successful religious interaction such as
peaceful coexistence, conflict, mutual respect and relationship,
syncretism, compromise, tolerance among other related issues are
critically studied in all religions especially the three religions in Nigeria
namely; African Religions, Islam and Christianity. The course critically
reviewed the nature of religious interaction especially in Nigeria over the
years with the view of evaluating the interactions of religions to
determine whether it has been positive or negative.
Course Outline/objectives

1. Introduction; Meaning of Religious Interaction. ---------------week1

2. The importance of Religious Interactions, communication or
dialogue to peace building. -------------------------------------Week2-3
3. Religious interactions between Christianity and some major world
religions. ---------------------------------------------------------Week 4-5
4. History of religious interaction in Nigeria i.e. Christian-Muslim
relations. --------------------------------------------------------- Week6-7
5. The Role played by Religious bodies to promote positive religious
interactions. ---------------------------------------------------------Week8

1
References

1. Matthew Kukah: Religion, Politics and Power, see especially Ch 6,

Religion as Platform, p184-213.)

2. The Case of Jama’atu Izalat al-Bidia Wa Iqamat al Sunna (MA

Thesis. University of Jos. 1983).

3. Abdulkareem Haruna: Borno Police and the Struggle with

Religious Crises, Daily Independent, 31/3/06, p111).

4. Richard Nixon: Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One-

Superpower World
Simon & Schuster. New York. 1992) p195.

Introduction

A year before the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York,

on August 29, 2000, Kofi Annan addressed over a thousand religious

leaders who had gathered for the Millennium Peace Summit of World

Religious and Spiritual Leaders in the same city. The goal of this summit

was to identify ways that worldwide religious and spiritual communities

can work together as inter-religious allies with the United Nations on

2
specific peace, poverty, and environmental initiatives. In his address,

Annan recognized that “religion has often been yoked to nationalism,

stoking the flames of violent conflict and setting group against group,”

and urged these religious leaders to set an example of inter-religious

cooperation and dialogue (U N Information Service 2 000). This event

was a turning point in the recent history of world politics as it recognized

religion as a viable tool for conflict transformation and religious leaders

as important agents of peacebuilding at a time when religion is associated

with violence and conflict (Little and Appleby 2004: 3).

Inter-religious dialogue has an important role to play in

peacebuilding, especially in ethno-religious identity conflicts. Until quite

recently, the field of conflict resolution did not pay sufficient attention to

religious traditions as sources for resolving conflicts, and many

secularists contended that it was naïve to see inter-religious dialogue as a

path for resolving religiously fueled conflicts (A bu Nimer et al. 2007:

xi). Influenced by the philosophical and methodological traditions of the

3
Enlightenment, conflict resolution has viewed religion as an irrational

and unquantifiable phenomenon that cannot be studied from the point of

view of reason, and has expected the importance of religion to fade away

as modernization and reason triumph. However, Enlightenment thinkers

like Voltaire could not be further away from the truth when they

predicted that religion would be eliminated from politics, and that

religious superstitions and authoritarian religious order would be swept

away ( Appleby 1994 : 7–9). Evidently, religion continues to play a

significant role in political life in places as diverse as the United States,

Europe, the Middle East, and southeast Asia.

Many current-day conflicts involve parties that are defined along

ethno-religious lines. Religion is often a divisive factor in these conflicts,

used and abused to justify violence and war. Consequently, religious

fervor is associated with terrorism and violence in the minds of many

todays. Yet, as Arthur Schneier ( 2002 : 105) observes, religion is rarely

the cause of the conflict itself: economic or political competition over

resources or unmet basic human needs such as security, identity, and

food, among others, tend to be at the heart of many so called religious

conflicts. Eg BOKO Haram, and many other so called religious riots at

various instances in Nigeria.

4
 Virtually all religions incorporate values and principles promoting

peace and justice, and many faith-based actors have successfully played

critical roles in resolving conflicts. Different mechanisms have been

employed to resolve religiously motivated conflicts including mediation,

observation, education, training, advocacy, and interreligious dialogue

( Bouta et al. 2005 ; Sampson 1997 ). Each of these mechanisms has the

potential to make a significant contribution to building peace in conflict

torn societies such as Nigeria.

The Relevance of Inter-Religious Dialogue or Interaction to

Peacebuilding

Definition of Dialogue: Dialogue is a conversation on a common subject

between two or more persons with differing views. The primary purpose
of dialogue is for each participant to learn from the other so that he or she
can change and grow. Dialogue involves the sharing of understanding
and experience. It is a significant method of building community.
Dialogue is also a means of expanding self-knowledge.

Dialogue is defined as “The Natural consequence of the concern by

civilized people of all faiths to eliminate hatred and bigotry (Akinyemi
2001). The objective of dialogue is to prevent and remove all forms of
hatred, suspicion, jealousy and all vices that are manifestations of
religious acrimony.

Dialogue was further explained by Mala as a school of thought which

is concerned about person, meeting and encounter and co-operation in
work and worship as well as about sustained mutual involvement in local
level contact (Mala 1988). Essentially dialogue can lead to a common
desire for a search for thorough and reciprocal exchange of information
and insight with each other, thus deepening and strengthening our

5
knowledge of each other’s religious truth. Traditionalists, Muslims, and
Christians in Nigeria must remember that Nigeria is a pluralistic religious
society. The non-Muslims cannot afford to view Islam and Muslims
through the eyes of Western Europe, which has almost unitary belief
system (Badmos 1993).

Kenny (1982) enjoined Christians to enter into religious discussion

with prudence and charity for the purpose of positive results. He also
advised that while witnessing to non-Christians they should give due
respects to the faith and interest of such people by way of listening and
accept them the way they can reason rather than cohesive approach that
can lead to violence and unfruitful results.

Pope John Paul II on his visit to Nigeria in February 1982, submitted

as follows;

That because of the faith that we have in God, Christianity and Islam
have many things in common: the privilege of prayer, the duty of justice
accompanied by compassion and almsgiving and above all, a sacred
respect for the dignity of man

Christians and Muslims can engage in dialogue in order to understand

each other better at both the level of scholars and in person-to person
relationship, in the family and in places of work and play.

We can promote more honesty and discipline in private and public life,
greater courage and wisdom in politics, elimination of political
antagonism and removal of discrimination because of religion.

Christians and Muslims can thus spearhead the principle and practice of
religious education of children with the aim of promoting mutual
tolerance, respect and empathy. True dialogue and partnership demand a
constant reference of fundamental truth about man, the dignity and
equality of human persons, individuals and members of a society.

RULES FOR EFFCTIVE RELIGIOUS INTERACTION OR

DIALOGUE.

For inter-religious dialogue to be effective, the following rules must be

observed.

a) Partners must enter into dialogue so as to learn, change and grow

not that they can force change on others.

6
 b) It must be a two-sided project within each religious community
and between religious communities. That is to say each
participant enter into dialogue not only with his partners across
the faith line, but with co-religionists, to share with them the fruit
of the inter-religious dialogue.
c) Each participant must assume a complete honesty and sincerity
in the other partners. This is so because absence of sincerity
prevents dialogue from happening. Where there is no truth there
is no dialogue.
d) Each participant must define himself. It is mandatory that each
dialogue partner to define what it means to be an authentic
member of his religious tradition.
e) Each participant must come to the dialogue table with no hard-
and-fast opinion as to where the point of disagreement is. Rather
each partner must listen to the other partners with openness while
still maintaining their religious integrity.
f) Persons entering into inter-religious dialogue must be minimally
self –critical of both themselves and their own religious
traditions. A lack of such self-criticism implies that one’s own
tradition already has all correct answers to the question of
religion. Such an attitude makes dialogue unnecessary and even
impossible.
Religious Conflict in The World and the Role of Religious Dialogue
in Peace building.

The majority of conflicts in the world today are identity conflicts, in

which identity is defined according to ethno-religious lines, or where

religious traditions are used to justify violence and depict negative enemy

images. Referred to as “ethno-religious conflicts,” these conflicts often

take place among communities that live in close proximity, and whose

histories are filled with hostility, resentment, trauma, and violence

( Kadayifci-Orellana 2 009) . In these communities, religion is a key

7
identity marker, an integral aspect of social and cultural life, and an

important source of division. At times, some religious and political

leaders do not hesitate to use religious myths, symbols, and texts to fuel

intolerance, hatred, create enemy images, and justify violence towards the

“other,” thus perpetuating a culture of violence.

Johan Galtung (1996: 11) defined culture of violence as those religious,

ideological, or linguistic symbols that legitimize direct or structural

violence, cultural violence contributes to the continuation of the conflict

by teaching, preaching, or condoning those acts that dehumanize and

demonize the opponent, justifying discrimination, and inciting hatred.

Religious texts, images, and symbols hold reservoirs of meaning that

shape identities, and address the need for a sense of social, geographical,

cosmological, temporal, or metaphysical interest ( Seul 1999 : 558).

Religious norms and values often help to form the core of one’ s identity.

Powerful religious rituals and symbols often give expression to collective

needs and desires. Religion provides meaning to the life and death of the

faithful and offers a language and symbolism through which human

beings interpret reality, and through which we gain comfort for trauma

and injuries. Religion answers some of the most profound questions

regarding right and wrong, life and death, and good and evil (Kadayifci-

Orellana 2 009). Hence, religious feelings can mobilize people more

8
efficiently than any other element of identity. Because of this unique

power to mobilize populations towards spiritual and political goals,

religious traditions have often been abused to legitimize violence, define

group identity, and legitimate particular ethnic and national objectives.

Religion and peacebuilding

Transforming these violent conflicts requires first replacing cultural

violence with cultural peace by tapping into religious, cultural, and

national symbols, values, myths, and images that promote reconciliation,

coexistence, and peace. Because traditional conflict resolution tools fall

short of addressing and resolving ethno-religious identity conflicts,

scholars and practitioners are developing new approaches and tools to

address these complex and intractable conflicts. Often referred to as

“peacebuilding,” these new approaches are focusing on building and

repairing relationships as well as addressing the root causes of conflicts.

peacebuilding is a complex and dynamic process of changing

relationships, perceptions, attitudes, behaviors, interests, and underlying

structures that encourage and perpetuate violent conflicts. Engaging

multiple levels of society (i.e. high, mid and grass-roots), peacebuilding

involves addressing the root causes of the conflict through long-term

economic and social justice provisions, the reform of political structures

9
of governance, strengthening the rule of law, and healing through

reconciliation. It also refers to mechanisms and structures that can

prevent a conflict, terminate it, transform it, or resolve it.

Changing behaviors and attitudes by rebuilding trust is an important

aspect of peacebuilding. In deep-rooted conflicts “the parties are not

simply disputing over material interests but are suffering from deeply

damaged social relationships” (N otter 1 995: 8). Trust “facilitates

creative or integrative bargaining and cooperative solutions to the many

conflicts that arise between interdependent and interacting parties”

( Lindskold 1 978 : 777). Building trust requires clarifying

misunderstandings, removing negative perceptions and stereotypes, and

transforming enemy images.

When religious images, texts, and symbols are used to plant the seeds of

mistrust and suspicion between groups through demonization and

dehumanization, only the same religious tradition can provide the

antidote. Each religious’ tradition holds a variety of moral and spiritual

resources that can facilitate rebuilding trust, transform perceptions, and

inspire a sense of engagement and commitment to the peacebuilding

process (Abu-Nimer 2001: 686). Religious rituals, values, and principles

can facilitate healing and trauma management (Green and Honwana

1999; N olte-Schamm 2 006). Religious texts and prophetic stories can

10
provide examples of peacemaking, forgiveness, and compassion that can

lead to a change of attitudes and behaviors.

The field of conflict resolution is increasingly focusing on religious

peacebuilding, described by David Little and Scott Appleby (2004: 5) as

a range of activities performed by religious actors for the purpose of

resolving and transforming deadly conflict, with the goal of building

social, religious, and political institutions characterized by an ethos of

tolerance and nonviolence. Religious peacebuilding involves faith-based

actors and religious resources such as texts, images, and myths to reduce

violence, inspire peace, and build trust. One particular tool of religious

peacebuilding is inter-religious dialogue.

Dialogue and peacebuilding focus on the dynamic interpersonal and

intercommunal aspects of conflict, a conflict transformation approach to

peacebuilding views peace as centered and rooted in the quality of

relationships. This approach aims to reduce violence and increase justice

in human relations through developing a capacity for constructive, direct,

face-to-face interaction, while at the same time supporting systemic and

structural changes ( Lederach 2003 : 20). Resolving ethno-religious

conflicts requires first an understanding of how religious traditions and

identities contribute to a culture of violence. Second, it highlights

11
religious values, traditions, texts, and myths that focus on justice,

tolerance, coexistence, and peace to rebuild trust. Lederach ( 2 003: 21)

suggests that “a fundamental way to promote constructive change on all

these levels is dialogue.”

Dessel et al. (2006: 303) defines dialogue as a “public process designed

to involve individuals and groups in an exploration of societal issues such

as politics, racism, religion, and culture that are often flashpoints for

polarization and social conflict.” Dialogue involves both formal and

informal discussions as well as shared educational initiatives, music

performances, or art exhibitions, among other projects. In order to capture

this broader meaning of dialogue, Abu-Nimer et al. (2007: 8) define it as

a “safe process of interaction to verbally and non-verbally exchange

ideas, thoughts, questions, information, and impressions between people

from different backgrounds (race, class, gender, culture, religion and so

on).” Dialogue clarifies misunderstandings and illuminates areas of both

convergence and divergence through mutual sharing and listening ( Abu-

Nimer et al. 2007 : 8). As such, it helps rebuild trust and provides a space

for healing and reconciliation.

Inspired by their religious traditions to work for peace locally and

globally, many religious leaders and faith-based organizations have

12
worked with other faith communities towards peace and justice during

the past decades. What is new, however, is the consideration and use of

inter-religious dialogue in the wider field of conflict resolution. With the

rampant increase of ethno-religious identity conflicts, it has become

virtually indispensable for the field to tap into this understudied

peacebuilding tool.

David Smock (2002: 6) aptly emphasizes that “a dialogue is not a

debate.” Debate implies an intention to win the argument, to prove one

side right, or to change the views of the opponent. Dialogue does not aim

to eliminate differences of opinion and conviction, but to gain an

understanding and acceptance of those differences (Shafi q and Abu-

Nimer 2007). Inter-religious dialogue aims at enrichment, trust, respect,

and the creation of a sense of “us/we” through increased understanding. It

involves “a continuing process of learning and re-education” (Bray

Brooke 1993: 108) through honest, open, active communication.

Inter-religious dialogue does not aim at undermining belief, either. On

the contrary, an inter-religious dialogue is more constructive when people

who participate are firmly grounded in their own religious traditions,

allowing them to take seriously the practices and beliefs of others (C

illiers 2 002: 49). At times, the dialogue process can deepen and

strengthen one’s own religious identity; Boys et al. ( 1 995: 265) affirm

13
that “the power of encountering the deep faith of a religious person from

another tradition has the potential of unleashing a search for one’ s own

spiritual roots and yearnings” (see also Kozlovic 2003 ).

Inter-religious dialogue taps into the spiritual resources of the religious

traditions, creating opportunities for connecting participants at a deeper

spiritual level. Using spirituality as a main source of commitment to

social change is what distinguishes inter-religious dialogue from other

forms of dialogue (A bu-Nimer 2 002: 16). Religion facilitates

transformation because it tracks the deepest connections between the self,

the other, and the universe. Hence, incorporating spirituality into other

communication technologies makes possible “new modes of relationship,

new social, economic and political structures, and thus new ways of

understanding the human situation under God” (Sacks 2002: 136). This

view is supported by Stalov who observes, “when we engage in deep

positive interaction with each other about faith, we overcome prejudices

and fears and replace them with mutual understanding, respect, trust and

friendship” ( 2007 : 131).

Inter-religious dialogue encounters often include religious symbolism

and rituals. “Rituals are special contexts conducive to the symbolic

transformation of identity and the framing of conflict toward sustainable,

coexisting relationships”; they are “a way to celebrate and encourage

14
transformation” (Schirch 2001: 154). Rituals can effectively

communicate complex feelings and emotions in symbolic ways.

Believers connect to their religious tradition and observe their values and

beliefs through rituals and religious symbols ( Abu-Nimer 2002 : 18).

During inter-religious dialogue encounters, participants get an

opportunity to observe and experience the rituals of another tradition, or

participants may also co create their own rituals. Sharing symbols and

rituals opens a window to the deeper emotional and spiritual realities of

those involved in conflict ( Bercovitch and Kadayifci-Orellana 2009 :

197) and can enthuse community action, bring support for the wider

peace process, and generally transform a negative and malignant conflict

into a more positive one. Religious leaders’ involvement in and

endorsement of inter-religious dialogue in international conflicts can also

help to inspire belief, faith, and perseverance.

Especially in long standing and deep rooted conflicts, where parties have

suffered significant pain and lost loved ones, it is often quite difficult for

parties to acknowledge wrong-doings and ask for forgiveness. It is

equally difficult for parties to let go of deep wounds and forgive the

“other.” Religious texts and scriptures often richly articulate values

central to reconciliation and peacebuilding, including compassion,

forgiveness, and accountability, among others. Rooting these values

15
within the parameters of sacred texts provides legitimacy. Participants of

inter-religious dialogue often introduce verses and passages on the

designated theme or topic from their religious texts and invite other

participants to have a conversation about that text. These values and texts

inspire and provide guidance to the participants, especially when difficult

issues are being discussed, and provide a level of “certainty” and “truth”

(A bu-Nimer 2 002: 19). As such, they facilitate the transformation of

perceptions and help to rebuild relationships.

An important element of inter-religious dialogue is the use of religious

language and vocabulary. It is important to remember that each religious

tradition holds what A bu-Nimer (2 002) calls a “secondary” language

and a “primary” language. A “secondary” religious language emphasizes

what is common between different traditions, such as tolerance, peace,

and dialogue; while a “primary” language distinguishes that unique

tradition from other traditions through notions such as the Holy Trinity,

Jihad, the Chosen People, etc. Although it is important to address both of

these aspects of religious language in inter-religious dialogue, focusing

on primary language before necessary trust is built between parties can

undermine the effectiveness of the process.

16
Objectives of inter-religious dialogue

Within the context of peacebuilding, most dialogues aim to facilitate a

change from narrow, exclusionist, antagonistic, prejudiced attitudes and

perceptions, to a more tolerant and open-minded attitude ( Abu-Nimer

2001 : 686). Inter-religious dialogue increases awareness about how to

improve human interactions on multiple levels (locally, regionally, or

globally) by recognizing the importance of integrating religious identities

into inter-group dialogue (M erdjanova and Brodeur 2 009: 13). Inter-

religious dialogue fosters the (re)building of trust relations and enhances

social cohesion by tapping into the numinous world of strongly

experienced religious emotion. Based on the contention that violent

conflict is often a consequence of mutual ignorance and the absence of

meaningful interaction between parties, inter-religious dialogue aims to

foster mutual learning, clarify misperceptions, and provide opportunities

for constructive contact with the “other.” Religious understandings

become the lens through which parties recognize the irreducible dignity

of all human beings, including the specific conflictual “other.”

Inter-religious dialogue may bring diverse groups to break down

stereotypes and images; inspire hope; build trust for dealing with tough

issues; create a sense of social inclusivity; develop models of constructive

engagement; transform the conflict; or solve a specific issue facing the

17
faith communities involved. Inter-religious dialogue can be organized to

share grievances, facilitate transformation of relationships, highlight

similarities and differences, encourage apology and/or forgiveness, and

encourage mediation. It may involve a training component on a specific

area, such as conflict resolution. Whatever the particular objective,

establishing and communicating a clear purpose to participants is central.

Formats of inter-religious dialogue

Based on the objectives set by the facilitators, inter-religious dialogue can

take different forms. Cognitive dialogues are centered on exchange of

information and aim to provide a learning opportunity about the faith of

the “other.” Affective dialogues focus on building relationships and

concentrate on sharing stories, experiences, feelings, and thoughts.

Collaborative dialogues emphasize working together to address common

concerns ( Abu Nimer et al. 2007 : 16), such as HIV/AIDS, water

sanitation, or climate change. Educational initiatives or training programs

that aim to break down stereotypes through lectures, panels, and sermons

at religious sites can also be considered inter-religious dialogue.

Dialogue includes more than the formal gathering of religious leaders.

Spontaneous, casual interactions and gestures by religious leaders, such

as sharing a meal or even shaking hands, can be quite significant (A bu-

18
Nimer 2 001: 686). Joint concerts, art exhibitions, or other performances

such as plays or dances can bring communities together in a positive

environment and help humanize again the other through expressing and

sharing emotions. Joint prayers or standing side by side during a funeral

can also transmit important symbolic messages of peace as well as joint

celebration of religious holidays.

Levels of inter-religious dialogue

Inter-religious dialogue can take place at different levels. These include:

high, mid and grass-roots levels. Each of these levels have their own

strengths and limitations.

High-level inter-religious dialogue

Inter-religious dialogue can take place at high leadership level, which

involves religious authorities such as the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or the

Chief Rabbi. As Garfi nkel ( 2004 : 2) indicates, various high-level inter-

religious dialogues have taken place over the last decades to speak

collectively as advocates of peace, including the Alexandria Dialogue,

which led to the Alexandria Declaration. High-level religious leaders

have a significant degree of authority, legitimacy, and credibility, so that

19
their actions can send a strong message. However, these leaders often

lack the necessary time to commit themselves to long-term inter-religious

dialogues. In addition, their involvement tends to attract a lot of media

attention, which can undermine initial dialogue efforts. Also, due to their

social location as communal representatives, they may be hindered from

talking openly and sincerely. For these reasons they are more effective as

legitimizers of the inter-religious dialogue process.

Mid-level inter-religious dialogue In a press conference, the Dalai Lama

expressed the wish to see followers of different religious traditions

interact in four distinct ways: meetings between religious leaders;

pilgrimages to one another’s religious sites; meetings between religious

practitioners, such as monastics, regarding contemplative life; and

seminars and dialogues between scholars (Mack 1997). Mid-level leaders

include clergy as well as scholars, professionals, business people, and

artists, among others. Although they are not as visible as the high-level

leadership, they have access to both high- and grass-roots levels. As such

they can influence both the grass-roots level and connect with high-level

religious and political leadership. They also have relatively more time

and resources to devote to inter-religious dialogue. For these reasons,

middle range leaders are often the best candidates for inter-religious

dialogue.

20
Grass-roots level inter-religious dialogue Recognizing the importance of

perceptions of the “other” at the community level, conflict transformation

theory argues that in order to build sustainable peace, it is necessary to

build relations first at the grass-roots level. Inter-religious dialogue at a

grass-roots level includes cross-community dialogues to foster

reconciliation. Participants of these dialogues, including youth groups,

women’s organizations, and other local organizations, come together

across religious divisions to promote cross-community interaction and to

develop participants into agents of reconciliation. Although building

constructive relations at this level does not guarantee the resolution of

conflict, it may contribute to healing and repairing of relationships,

especially during the post conflict reconstruction phase. Furthermore, in

democratic societies, top-level leaderships are often susceptible to the

needs and demands of their constituencies. Therefore, a change among

the attitudes of the population in general towards the “other” and to the

conflict can lead to substantive political policy changes. So, while

transforming perceptions and attitudes at the grass-roots is not an easy

task, inter-religious dialogue at this level is critical to establishing lasting

peace.

21
Conditions for Effective Inter-Religious Dialogue

I t is important to note that inter-religious dialogue cannot be effective in

every conflict or in every community, nor is it an alternative to official

peacemaking and peacebuilding efforts. It is a complementary track that

incorporates important, but often neglected, social groups: faith-based

actors such as religious leaders and institutions, as well as religiously

inspired individuals and nongovernmental organizations.

The effectiveness of inter-religious dialogue depends on the presence of

various conditions. These include the identity of the parties and nature of

the dispute, the articulation of a clear purpose, careful selection of

participants, a safe environment, the balance of power, a focus on both

similarities and differences, the development of collaborative tasks, intra-

faith meetings prior to the inter-religious encounter, and follow-up

engagements.

Identity of the parties and nature of the dispute

In order to be effective and successful, the inter-religious dialogue

process must be perceived as legitimate by the participating communities.

If the legitimacy of the process is questioned, peacebuilding efforts will

most likely fail, and this legitimacy largely depends upon the identity of

22
the parties and the nature of the dispute ( Bercovitch and Kadayifci-

Orellana 2009 : 194).

Faith-based actors have a unique advantage in ethno-religious conflicts

where religion plays a key role in the social life and identity of the

conflicted parties (Bercovitch and Kadayifci-Orellana 2 009). Particularly

when religious leaders themselves foment violence, using religious texts

to incite hatred and intolerance, it becomes critical to engage religious

peacebuilding resources to form commissions or councils, or to engage a

religious group recognized by all parties as impartial, fair, and legitimate

(see Kadayifci-Orellana 2009).

When the religious identities of the parties are an important dimension of

the conflict, and when religious values and principles are viewed as main

sources of legitimacy, religious actors can legitimately tap into religious

resources such as texts, images, stories, myths, and prophetic examples to

highlight values of tolerance, compassion, coexistence, and peace –

resources that secular leaders often cannot access.

Clear purpose

For inter-religious dialogue to be successful, it must have clearly

articulated purposes and objectives, including ultimate resolution of the

conflict, solving particular problems between the communities,

23
addressing common issues such as HIV-AIDS, rebuilding relationships,

breaking down stereotypes, developing methods to effectively handle

grievances, reconciling differences, and healing wounds. The objectives

of the dialogue must be realistic, for unrealistic expectations can extend

harm by leading to frustration and disappointment among both

participants and organizers. These goals must be communicated clearly,

too. Having clear and realizable objectives makes assessment possible

and achieving objectives creates a sense of success, inspires hope, and

develops trust. Facilitators and organizers must also carefully design and

think through the dialogue process, understanding and incorporating

participants’ concerns through pre dialogue research and analysis. This

will help facilitators to set realistic goals, empower the parties, and create

a sense of shared ownership and responsibility.

Selection of parties

In order to build trust in a fragile environment, facilitators must make

sure interreligious dialogue participants are balanced in terms of their

qualifications, numbers, education, and influence. The hierarchical

position and social locations of the participants must be comparable, too.

Inter-religious dialogue is often a long-term process, requiring a

commitment to meet regularly over an extended period of time. Inviting

well-versed clergy from one religious tradition, for example, while

24
inviting lay-persons from the other, would create an imbalanced situation

in terms of religious authority and confidence. Middle-range leaders such

as clergy, educators, journalists, and business people, on the other hand,

are often open, available, and capable of influence both up and down the

social ladder (Steele 2002: 76). Inviting hardliners is another complicated

issue. Even though resolving any conflict must eventually engage

hardliners who can spoil the process, engaging them too early,

immaturely, or without necessary preparation can sabotage the inter-

religious dialogue process. Facilitators must understand the context,

decide on the objectives of the workshop, and assess the possible synergy

of potential participants very carefully. In this process, facilitators play a

critical role. Facilitators bring parties together in a safe space and

facilitate dialogue by a thorough process that encourages and cultivates

empathy, reflection, and clarification of misunderstandings and

stereotypes. They are responsible for constructively channeling the

emotions of the parties (Schirch 2001: 154).

Balance of power

Selecting participants is closely linked to addressing balance-of-power

issues. It is often the case in conflict situations that parties do not have

equal power. Members of majority groups may have access to political,

economic, and social resources that the minority might not. Structural

25
injustices may inhibit freedom of expression, or participation in social

and political life. Power asymmetry may also “express itself in the nature

of the encounter, its language, structure, and cultural ethos” (G opin 2

002: 43). These power imbalances must be addressed carefully by

choosing a neutral space where both parties feel comfortable; by paying

attention to social and political realities; and by empowering the weaker

party. In addition, the importance of flexibility cannot be

overemphasized: although it is important to prepare carefully, and to have

an agenda, flexibility and adaptation are critical factors for the success of

inter-religious dialogue in contributing to conflict resolution. Facilitators

should be aware that each group brings with it different knowledge and

background. Different exercises, pace, or tempo might be required.

Overly structured workshops often fail to address these different

dynamics and create a sense of pressure and frustration. Facilitators must

be sensitive, providing cofacilitation while also including facilitators

from the religious communities themselves who can translate terms and

concepts into language that is meaningful and familiar to the participants.

Creating a safe and secure environment

The success of inter-religious dialogue depends on open and sincere

communication between participants, including recognizing stereotypes

and wrong-doings, addressing negative self- and other-perceptions and

26
emotions, and nurturing a willingness to learn and change. Inter-religious

encounters are not easy for participants who often have suffered

personally and lost dear ones during the conflict. Many participants are

filled with resentment. Some of them may even be traumatized. There is

often deep mistrust and apprehension. As noted by Cobb (1 990: 3), even

the most committed participants of dialogue may feel as if they are

betraying their communities.

I n this context, opening up and listening sympathetically can be

extremely difficult for the participants. As Gopin observes, most enemies

cannot or will not articulate their true feelings. “Either it is beyond their

present capacity or what they really feel is too shameful. Examples of

things too difficult to articulate may include deep envy, or shame at the

collective humiliation of one’s group, or an intense desire to humiliate, or

to take revenge, or to see the enemy suffer” (G opin 2 002: 34). This

could lead to “silence,” which is also an integral aspect of dialogues, as

“silence – what is not said – is intimately tied to the meaning of what is

said” ( Kellet 2 007 : 77). Lack of effective and clear communication,

expressed either as silence, resistance, or anger and frustration, can

become a major problem. Overcoming such a block requires building

trust among the participants and facilitators.

27
There are various ways to ensure that safety. Keeping the dialogue rooted

in specific c issues, and not on individual participants, facilitators can

encourage participants to share personal stories, loss, and hurt.

Communicating painful memories, sharing experiences of suffering and

trauma, and reflecting together on the possibility of healing can be a

bonding experience (Steele 2002: 78). By rechanneling the frustrations

and anger of the participants, facilitators can encourage mutual empathy

and active listening techniques, while giving voice to all parties in a

balanced manner. Especially at times of deep crisis and anger, religious

texts, values, and prophetic examples can help to break the deadlock and

invite participants to reflection. Religious rituals and texts help in this

process by providing a sense of God’ s caring presence and acceptance.

However, it is important to take care in choosing texts and rituals that

will not offend or alienate participants.

Providing appropriate exercises, dividing into small groups, or giving a

small break to allow participants to speak outside of the pressure of larger

group interactions, can all help to assist in creating a safe space.

Facilitators should pay attention to the specific needs of the participants,

and address them appropriately. They should also pay attention to

gestures and body-languages, which can reveal more than words.

Developing an understanding of cross-cultural/religious gestures and

28
body language can be extremely helpful in these contexts. Therefore, in

addition to being trained in dialogue and negotiation, facilitators of inter-

religious dialogues must be trained in the detection of other gestures of

reconciliation – actions and deeds that often mean much more, and are

trusted more, than words. Such training will allow facilitators to

recognize and address symbolic and nonverbal opportunities, and to

invent strategies to consciously align or engage the culturally and

religiously familiar conciliatory paths of adversary groups (Gopin 2002 :

37).

In addition to creating a psychologically and emotionally safe space, it is

also important to ensure the physical safety of the participants. Often

enough in conflict zones talking to the enemy is considered collaboration,

a betrayal of one’ s own community and values. Hardliners can incite

attacks on participants. If that is the case, organizers of the dialogue

process must ensure the secrecy and confidentiality of the meeting, and

take all the necessary precautions to provide their physical safety.

Otherwise, even the slightest incident can derail the process and can do

more harm than good.

29
Examination of similarities and differences

The examination of similarities and differences is one of the basic

principles of interreligious dialogue (A bu-Nimer 2 002: 22). Religious

traditions often have similar values, principles, and even practices. They

envision peace and harmony, and highlight compassion, justice, love,

caring for the needy, mercy, and divine benevolence as core principles.

Focusing on these similarities and universal values – or secondary

language ( Abu-Nimer 2002 : 20) – can help build bridges between

communities and clarify misunderstandings. This is particularly helpful

in the first stages of inter-religious dialogue, but for inter-religious

dialogue to be effective in transforming the relationship it is also

necessary to address differences and points of contention between the

parties. If “similarity” becomes the main theme of the inter-religious

dialogue, and is used to avoid dealing with inherent differences, “the

dialogue may create an artificial harmony – one that does not convey the

complexity of the inherent interreligious contradictions and

differences. . .” (A bu-Nimer 2 002: 23). Rather than serving to address

the issues that cause misunderstanding in the first place, such an artificial

harmony might lead to a sense of being misled, and could ferment a

deepened mistrust, especially if participants encounter “religious others”

who act contrary to that harmony. For that reason, it is necessary to

30
introduce the primary languages of the participants, explain the way they

are understood, and discuss different interpretations and opinions about

these terms within the respective religious communities.

Properly timing the introduction of primary languages can be tricky.

Focusing up front on primary languages may divide the participants from

one another. Focusing first on the similarities between religious traditions

can help participants to draw connections between them and to create an

atmosphere of trust. This helps, in turn, to create constructive

communication between the participants, using a set of “generic terms”

which may serve to avoid confusion over theological points ( Smith

1981 : 181). But such terms will not help participants develop a better

understanding of each other’s traditions without addressing the

differences between them. Primary language, on the other hand, can be

introduced once participants have developed mutual trust. If these

differences create a charged environment and lead to frustration and

arguments, facilitators can retract back to emphasizing similarities, and

allow participants to work on building the comfort level to discuss

difference. Facilitators should keep the pulse of the group to determine

whether the level of trust and safety is conducive to discussing more

contentious issues. In order to facilitate maximum understanding of the

31
differences rooted in the primary languages, facilitators need to have a

working knowledge of the faith traditions involved.

Collaborative task

Another critical component for effective inter-religious dialogue is the

development of a collaborative task. Especially for the minority group,

the end product of inter-religious dialogue is of great importance. As

stressed by Abu-Nimer (2002: 23), “for the religious majority, insight and

empathy may often be sufficient. But members of the religious minority

tend to demand more than ‘talk’ and ‘insights.’” Collaborative tasks

create opportunities for religious communities to work together in a safe

environment. Successful task-outcomes can address a significant need in

the society, contribute to credibility and trust between communities, and

help develop the minority community. It can also foster more interest in

working with the “religious other” in general. Continuing these

collaborative tasks is especially vital during times of crisis, to solidify

trust and solidarity between the participants.

Nevertheless, implementing projects requires a local presence (Steele

2002 : 85), time, and often financial resources. Religious leaders who

have access to a vast pool of believers, and who often have international

institutional support, maintain an advantage as they can reach out both to

32
their own congregation and to religious leaders from other faith

traditions. However, they are also sometimes faced with significant

challenges, such as competing interpretations of motivation and intent,

and campaigns of slander that depict them as traitors, etc.

Collaborative tasks may include organizing local events for the

communities, environmental projects such providing safe drinking water,

health projects such as establishing clinics and providing medicine, or

reconstructing sites destroyed during riots or violence. The success of

these efforts may contribute to inter-communal credibility, build trust,

and increase wider interest in the process of resolving conflict.

Intra-faith meetings

Another critical aspect for any successful inter-religious dialogue is the

organization of intra-faith meetings prior to the inter-religious dialogue.

Each religious’ tradition hosts an array of different interpretations,

understandings, and approaches. Participants in inter-religious dialogue

from a single tradition or community may hold different understandings

of sacred texts, religious images, and exemplars. Internal divisions are not

often addressed during inter-religious dialogues, and these differences

can lead to misunderstandings between and within the groups that

participate in the process. Clarifying both differences and points of intra-

33
faith agreement before inter-religious dialogue will contribute

significantly to the success of the process. Organizing an intra-faith

dialogue ensures that members of each religious group understand and

appreciate the differences and similarities in their collective religious

experience, and provides support to members who are indeed taking high

risks by participating in the process ( AbuNimer 2002 : 26).

Follow-up

A lthough participants may experience a change in attitudes and

perceptions for a while, once they go back to their communities they are

faced with the challenges of confl ict, violence, and a bombardment of

negative messages. Often called the re-entry problem, this post dialogue

situation can be quite detrimental to the ongoing process of conflict

resolution. As participants are faced with enormous social pressures to

change their views, or are treated as traitors, they become understandably

discouraged.

One important way to address the problem of re-integration into and

between communities following inter-religious dialogue is to organize

follow-up measures, such as meetings or joint actions. It is also important

to construct support systems to share the challenges of returning to the

34
participants’ respective communities and develop strategies to cope with

them.

Limits and challenges of inter-religious dialogue

M any challenges, faced by both scholar-practitioners and religious

leaders, make interreligious dialogue an extremely difficult endeavor.

These challenges also reflect some of the limitations of inter-religious

dialogue.

Convincing participants First of all, it is not easy to convince religious

leaders to commit to a dialogue process. During times of conflict, mutual

distrust makes any interaction with the “other” suspicious. “Inter-

religious dialogue becomes almost impossible if the ‘religious other’ is

considered a demonic force” ( Mack 1997 : 149), making it extremely

difficult to convince invitees to join the dialogue process. Providing

security to participants and their families, especially after the process, is

sometimes quite difficult for inter-religious dialogue organizers.

Competing interpretations Each religious’ tradition includes different

interpretations and understandings, which may at times contradict each

other. Based on these different interpretations, different religious leaders

might recommend different courses of action. While some may

encourage nonviolent methods of conflict resolution and reconciliation,

35
others may argue in favor of continuation of conflict, and self-sacrifice

for the sake of God. Those who hold extremist interpretations may

attempt to spoil the process. Facilitators must be aware of these

competing interpretations, and take care to involve authoritative

participants who can skillfully address relevant issues and questions.

Engaging hardliners Peacebuilding yearns to alter the attitudes and

behaviors of those hardliners who oppose interaction and dialogue.

However, it is a major challenge for organizers to include them in the

process, and if they are included, their capacity to sabotage the process

must be limited. Nevertheless, it is through more open-minded leaders,

who are respected in their communities and who have ties to these

extremist elements, that these more intransigent sections of the

community can be influenced. Again, an intra-faith or intra-community

dialogue can help to prepare and integrate a wider range of religious

actors.

Time and financial challenges Inter-religious dialogue is a long and

costly process. Participants in effective dialogues often meet for several

days at a time over a period of a few years. Overcoming deep-rooted

hostilities and building trust and strong relationship is a hard and long

process. The journey is not without obstacles: events on the ground, such

as terrorist attacks, torture, and other human rights abuses, can undermine

36
fragile relationships, and the process can break down at any time.

Securing long-term financial support is also quite a challenge for the

organizers, as funders give priority to immediate-term crisis situations,

and would like to see results. However, demonstrating the effectiveness

of long-term initiatives and complex initiatives such as inter-religious

dialogue is a challenge. Losing financial support can also end the process

prematurely, and create a sense of failure, betrayal, and disappointment

among participants.

Gender disparity Another limitation of inter-religious dialogue is a

consistent disparity in the gender of participants. In most religious

traditions, official religious leadership consists mainly of men. Quite

often, women are excluded from religious education, or cannot be

ordained officially. Although many women hold unofficial leadership

positions, these forms of leadership are generally underrepresented in

religious peacemaking and inter-religious dialogue. Yet many women

religious leaders are actively reaching out across religious divides,

working both officially and unofficially in the area of inter-religious

dialogue. These initiatives are often ad hoc and informal, but are no less

important than more formal processes. In order to include women’s

perspectives and women’ s voices in inter-religious dialogue, it is

important both to broaden our conceptions of religious leadership, and to

37
ensure greater women’ s participation in formal inter-religious dialogue

as well.

Conclusion

No peacebuilding effort is without challenges. Addressing conflicts

where religious precepts, texts, or doctrines are used to justify violence

requires us to rethink our approaches to peacebuilding and conflict

resolution. It requires us to develop intervention strategies that emphasize

religious sources of tolerance, compassion, and cooperation, and

empower religious leaders as agents of peace. It can be argued that

making use of religious and spiritual resources such as sacred texts,

rituals, stories, myths, and values can be extremely beneficial in helping

religious actors to address ethno-religious conflicts. Here, it is important

to re-emphasize that inter-religious dialogue is not an alternative to other

conflict resolution and peacebuilding efforts, such as official

negotiations, mediation with the involvement of third-parties, or secular

conflict resolution tools such as problem-solving workshops. However,

while inter-religious dialogue is only one of many resources for conflict

resolution, it is a very important one. As M arc Gopin ( 2 002: 34) points

out, dialogue is merely a step in the peacemaking process, and cannot be

thought of as the answer to the entire conflict itself.

38
Christian/Hinduist Interactions

Hinduism and Christianity differ on fundamental beliefs on heaven hell

and reincarnation to mention a few. From the Hindu perspective,

heaven (Sanskrit varga) and hell (Neraka) are temporary places where

every soul has to live either for the good deeds done or for their sins

committed. After a soul suffers its due punishment in hell, or after a

soul has enjoyed enough in the heaven, it again enters the life death

cycle. There are no concepts of permanent hell. Permanent heaven is

called (Akshardhem).

However, also exist significant similarities in Christian and Hindu

theology, most notably in that both religious present a Trinitarian view

of God. The holy trinity of Christianity, is sometimes seen as roughly

analogues to the trimurti of Hinduism, whose members – Brahma,

Vishnu and shiva are seen as the three principal manifestation of

Brahman or God head.

Christian Hindu relations are a mixed affair. On one hand,

Hinduism natural tendency has been to recognize the divine basis of

various other religions and to reverence their founders and saintly

parishioners. On the other hand, perceptions of aggressive proselytism

39
 on the part of some Christian groups have led to occasional incidents of

anti-Christian violence, often fueled by nationalistic political parties.

ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN/JUDAISM RELATIONS

The historical interaction of Islamic and Judaism started in the 7 th

century with the origin and spread of Islam. There are many common

aspects between Islam and Judaism, and as Islam developed it

gradually became the major religion closest to Judaism. As opposed to

Christianity which originated from interaction between ancient Greek

and Hebrew cultures. Judaism is very similar to Islam in its

fundamental religious outlook structure jurisprudence and practice.

There are many traditions within Islam originated from traditions

within the Hebrew Bible or from post biblical Jewish traditions. The

historical interaction between Christianity and Islam connects

fundamental ideas in Christianity with similar ones in Islam. Islam and

Christianity share their origins in the Abrahamic tradition although

Christianity predates Islam by centuries. Islam accepts many aspects

of Christianity as part of its faith with some differences in

interpretation and rejects other aspects. Islam believes the Quran as the

final revelation from God and a completion of all previous revelations

including the Bible.

40
Islam shares a number of beliefs with Christianity. They share similar

views on monotheism, judgment heaven, hell, spirits, Angels and a

future resurrection. Jesus is acknowledged and respected by Muslims

as great prophet. However, while Islam relegates Jesus to a lesser status

than God in the Quran Mainstream (Trinitarian) Christianity believes

quite formerly and without question that Jesus is God, the son one of

the three Hypostases of Christianity Holy Trinity, equally God as God

the father and the Holy Spirit. The religions both share a belief in the

virgin birth of Jesus, his miracles and healing, and that he ascends

bodily into heaven. However, Jesus is not accepted as the person of the

son within the Trinity by Muslims except in the sense of being

someone loved by God. They believe in God as a single entity, not as

the Trinity accepted by the vast majority of Christians neither do

Muslims accept Jesus crucifixion. Since Muslims believe only in the

worship of a strictly monotheistic God, who never assumed human

flesh, they do not accept the use of icons, and see this as shirk

(idolatry). Muslim influence played a part in the initiation of

iconoclasm and their conquests caused the iconoclasm in the

Byzantime Empire. For the same reason, they do not worship or pray to

Muhammad, Jesus or any other prophets excepts to God (Allah).

41
Adherents of Islam have historically referred to themselves, Jews and

Christians (among others) as people of the Book since they all base

their religion on books that are considered to have a divine origin.

Christians however neither recognize the Quran as a book of divine

revelation nor agree with its assessment of Jesus as mere prophet,

Muslims for their part, believe that parts of the Gospel, Torah and

Jewish prophetic books have been forgotten, misinterpreted or distorted

by their followers. Based on that perspective, Muslims reject belief in

the Trinity or any other expression of the divinity of Jesus, as

incompatible with monotheism not surprisingly, the faiths have often

experienced controversy and conflict. At the same time, much fanciful

dialogue has occurred as well. The writings of catholic theologian,

Thomas Aquinas frequently cite those of the Jewish philosopher Moses

Maimode, as well as Muslim thinker Averoes. On May 6 th, 2001, Pope

John Paul II, the first Pope to pray in a mosque, delivered an address at

Omayyad Mosque in Damascus, saying:

“It is important that Muslims and Christians continue to explore

philosophical and theological question together in order to come to a

more objective and comprehensive knowledge of each other religious

beliefs. Better mutual understanding will surely lead, at the practical

level to a new way of presenting our two religions not in opposition as

42
 have happened too often in the past but in partnership for the good of

human family”. In countries denominated by Islam, Christians

typically practice their faith under severe restructures. proselytizing

Muslims is often a criminal act, and any Muslim who converts to

Christianity would likely face severe censure from family and friends,

if not also legal repercussions/ in contrast Muslims in countries

denominated by Christians are generally allowed to worship

unhindered.

CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM INTERACTION IN NIGERIA

In order to appreciate both the opportunities and the constraints that

surround Christian-Muslim interaction in Nigeria, we need to appreciate a

few key issues. First is the nature of the historical experiences that

characterized the emergence of the colonial state project in Nigeria.

Second, we need to appreciate the peculiar historical nature of the

coming of both Islam and Christianity into Nigeria and their impact on

the Nigerian-state.

Third, we also need to pay particular attention to the cleavages

created by the many years of sustained brutal and corrupt military

dictatorship, the malfunctioning political experimentations through

43
Constitutional Conferences, dubious Transitional programs and their

implications for heightening ethno-religious tensions in Nigeria( Michael

Lewis: Nigeria: An End to the Permanent Transition? (Journal of

Democracy - Volume 10, Number 1, January 1999) pp41-156.)

Fourth, there is also the need to appreciate the role of external

agencies in exacerbating similar tensions in Nigeria. For example,

developments in the Middle East, whether it is the political changes in

Iran, access to resources from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates,

Kuwait, Libya, September 11th attack on world trade center in America or

the war in Iraq and Israeli-Palestinian Conflicts, all these have created

and placed severe strains on Christian Muslim relationship in Nigeria.

Sixth, an appreciation of the internal dynamics, processes and

developments within the theological developments both within Islam

and Christianity is also important in helping us come to grips with the

issues in question. For example, the inter and intra Brotherhood

tensions within the Sunnis in the 60s and 70s or the emergence of such

radical movements as the Jamaat Izala AlBidia Wa Iqama Al Sunna,

popularly known as Yan Izala in the 80s and the Boko haram movement

in the 90s, which all had serious impact on the relations within the

44
Islamic community and the larger society. (see: Muhammad Sani Umar:

The Case of Jama’atu Izalat al-Bidia Wa Iqamat al Sunna (MA Thesis.

University of Jos. 1983).

The tensions within the Christian community characterized by the

Charismatic Movement within the orthodox Churches and the

emergence/the crisis generated by the Pentecostal movement.

A combination of these negative forces within the faith communities

has weakened their capacity to foster unity and mutual co-existent in the

Nigerian state such that religion has become very vulnerable to lingering

crisis and manipulation by various agencies in the polity. It is a

combination of these forces that has made Nigeria a country of bigots and

fanatics/extremists, where ordinary social events like plans for a Beauty

pageant, an ordinary legitimate procession by Christians even in a

democracy, or the news of cartoons of the Holy Prophet which no one

saw, the issue of the location of a Church or the position of a Cross in a

University community, would lead to outbreaks of violence, characterized

by death and destruction. It is against this backdrop that we must look

critically at the very complex issues of Christian-Muslim interactions in

Nigeria.

In dealing with these problems, we will address four main issues namely;

45
1. the historical origins of the so called crisis between Islam and

Christianity in Nigeria. This is necessary so as to help us understand the

fact that these problems are deeply embedded in our collective history.

2. Federal and State government policies which has shaped and

exacerbated negative relationship between Christians and Muslims in

Nigeria. Amidst allegations of Favoritism or Jealousy by either side over

a government policy such as the Hajj or the building of a Mosque, both

sides have often behaved like two wives of a polygamous husband 1. We

will discuss how poor policy articulation and execution by some Northern

and Muslim leaders especially under the military led to a deepening of

suspicion between Christians and Muslims.

3.Some strategies that would help douse the anxieties and fears that have

made Christian-Muslim relations frosty.

4. Opportunities that can be exploited to enable Religion play its role in

the consolidation of democracy in Nigeria.

A Brief review of the colonial history of Christian-Muslim relations:

The history of Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria is rather fractured.

This is because most of this history is closely tied to the nature of

Nigeria’s colonial history. In seeking to impose its hegemony, the

46
colonial government adopted and applied divide and rule strategies

among the various segments of the areas of conquest. Thus ethnic,

regional and religious identities became the tools for bargaining and

representation with the state. The processes of these inter and intra

communal bargaining would later engender hostilities and animosities

among the different groups as regional and religious politics played out.

For example, when the leadership of the Northern region sought to rally

its people under the threat of an army of bureaucratic invaders from the

South threatening to take over jobs from the Northerners, the Christian

minority was compelled to see itself as a Northern bloc. But, internally,

faced with exclusion and discrimination, they were compelled to

organize under a political umbrella known as the Non-Muslim League.

Subsequently, they also set up the Northern Christian Association of

Nigeria to defend the interests of Christians in the same region. (For a

summary of these arguments, see: Matthew Kukah: Religion, Politics and

Power, see especially, Ch. 2, The Emergence of Northern Hegemony, pp

36-66).

These tensions still continued to manifest at different levels after the

emergence of independent Nigeria. It is important to draw attention to the

nature of the evolution of these crises and to explain them as they occur

47
within the Muslim community itself and how they further impact on

relations with the non-Muslim communities in Nigeria.

However, a major area of crisis between the colonial state and the

Muslim community arose from issue of the status and scope of Islamic

(Sharia) Law within the colonial state. These themes have already been

very well studied12. However, in all of this, relationship between Islam

and the state remained problematic largely because the Muslim

community continued to see the colonial state as illegitimate. They also

perceived that their traditional rulers who were collaborating with the

colonial state were traitors, colluding to perpetuate injustice. The

anxieties of the common people were based on the fears that this marriage

of convenience had eroded the legitimacy of both institutions and

therefore corrupted and distorted Islamic principles of justice and equity.

Another serious area of colonial state policy which has exacerbated

Christian-Muslim tensions and sown the seeds for suspicion is the way

the colonial state dealt with relations between what the British called the

Muslim North and those non-Muslim communities which the colonial

state contemptuously referred to as the animist communities in the Middle

Belt. After conquering the Sokoto Caliphate in 1903, the colonial state

strangely turned around to establish an enterprise of collaboration with

the vestiges of the feudal establishment. In doing this, the colonial state

48
created both an umbrella of protection for the Muslim communities and a

wall of suspicion between the communities in many major cities in

Northern Nigeria. Consequently, for the most part of the colonial period,

these communities had very little in common in terms of social

integration. Suspicion grew with the non-Muslims feeling that the

colonial state was perpetuating their subjugation by imposing an Islamic

hegemonic class whom they had successfully resisted for over a hundred

years of endless raids and wars.

The attempt by the colonial state to introduce some semblance of

modernization did not seek to incorporate these communities. Non-

Muslims were not allowed to live in the same environments with the

Muslim communities on grounds that they had distinct cultural

differences. The colonial government created new settlements known as

strangers’ quarters, Sabon Gari (New Town). These enclaves would

subsequently constitute a haven for the predominantly Christian Non-

Muslim communities in the Northern states. Ironically, these areas would

later become the most modern parts of these towns as they were to

become the centers of commerce, health services, education and other

forms of development. By these policies, a sense of the Other had

gradually developed among citizens of the same country. A more

simplified and popular interpretation of these realities has narrowed them

49
to what has been framed as the basis for the conflicts between Christians

and Muslims in modern Nigeria. Despite the limitations of the colonial

state, time has not healed these wounds because subsequent government

policies, especially under the military served to deepen the anxieties, the

fears and the prejudices.

Politics and Muslim-Christian Relations in Nigeria

Whatever may be the limitations of the colonial state, the British did

lay the foundation for emergence of a viable state now known as Nigeria.

However, shortly after independence in 1960, the military, not trained to

govern, seized the instruments of power and control and terminated civil

democratic rule. Military rule, characterized by arbitrariness did not only

destroy the fabric of the Nigerian state, it deepened regional, religious,

ethnic and communal differences. The nature of these differences and

their impact on Christian-Muslim relations today tend to be lost on most

Nigerians. Thus, most of the negative policies adopted by certain military

leaders in Nigeria, further divided the nation along the lines of religion.

Whatever the differences, they did not spill over into violence until much

later as the political space opened and various communities began their

struggle for power. Although the Sharia debate in 1977-8 has been

identified by most scholars as providing the spark to the rise in the tone of

debates around religion in Nigeria, subsequent developments have shown

50
that these debates were more about the control of power than the practice

of religion. Despite the tensions over the Sharia debate in 1977/78, things

changed dramatically with the return to democratic rule and new vistas

opened up for improved relations between Christians and Muslims in

Nigeria.

Many Nigerians feared that the tensions generated by the debate over the

status of the Sharia would poison the new democratic government. It was

feared that the collaboration would be very difficult and that religion

would occupy the front burner. Fortunately, all these predictions proved

to be wrong, thanks to the dexterity of the political class. For example,

although Alhaji Shehu Shagari, (representing Sokoto Federal

Constituency) had also walked out of the floor of the Constitutional

Conference like other Muslim representatives in 1978, it was instructive

to see how he transformed himself after the Conference. As many

Nigerians now know, the Constituent Assembly has always been the

nursery bed for the sowing of the seeds of politics. Thus, Alhaji Shagari

teamed up with others within and outside the Constituent Assembly to

form what would later become the ruling political party, the National

Party of Nigeria, NPN. That Party won the Presidential elections and on

October 1st, 1979, Alhaji Shagari became the President of Nigeria. As a

President, he poured balm on the wounds inflicted on the body politic as a

result of the Sharia debate. He formed a broad government that included a

51
Christian Vice President from among the Igbos and also some of the

strong critics and opponents of the Sharia. The emergence of an Igbo man

as a Vice President and the fact that the defeated rebel leader, Col

Ojukwu was allowed to return from exile and even contest elections, less

than 10 years after the civil war is a remarkable statement and testament

as to the sagacity of the political class. It is also instructive to note that

the rebel leader’s failure to secure a place in national politics was as a

result of his rejection by his own people as opposed to those he fought. A

second dramatic event that boosted Christian-Muslim relations was the

invitation extended by President Shagari to the late Holy Father, Pope

John Paul 11, to visit Nigeria. This visit was momentous because it was

the first time a Pope would visit Nigeria and with the President himself

being a Muslim, this was considered a boost for Christian-Muslim

relations. It was really remarkable that Alhaji Shagari’s government

managed to achieve stability in the nation within such a short period of

time.

After the visit, the Cardinal led a delegation of Bishops to express

gratitude to the President for the successful visit of the Holy Father.

President Shagari welcomed the Bishops and used the opportunity to

remind the audience that: In other parts of the world, people are killing

themselves because of religious differences. But in our country, Nigerians

52
are living harmoniously together without quarrels. Responding, Cardinal

Ekandem expressed his own optimism by stating that: Our country is

noted for good behavior and tolerance. It is a country where wonderful

peace prevails. (Quoted in Matthew Kukah: Religion, Politics and Power,

p158).

A few months after the Holy Father’s visit, President Shagari,

capitalizing on the goodwill of the visit, set up what he called, the Ethical

Revolution Committee. This broad based body, chaired by one of the most

respected Traditional rulers, the late Etsu Nupe, Alhaji Shehu Ndayako,

drew its membership from across the top leadership of the Christian-

Muslim community. The ideal purpose was to lay the foundation for a

just and equitable society beyond the fray of politics. By October 1 st,

1982, on the occasion of the celebration of the Nation’s 22 nd

Independence anniversary, President Shagari decorated His Eminence,

Dominic Cardinal Ekandem, the Bishop of Abuja and the first West

African Cardinal, with a National Honour. Things were looking good and

if only successive political leaders had continued like this, the story of

Christian-Muslim relations would have been totally different today.

However, sadly, this reservoir of goodwill was soon squandered

when the government of Alhaji Shehu Shagari was overthrown by a cabal

of Northern Muslims within the military and its security agencies. The

53
new Government led by Major General Muhammad Buhari broke the

unwritten laws regulating and ensuring the diversity of the nation by

appointing another Muslim and also a Northerner as his Deputy instead of

a Christian or Southerner. In a nation as diverse as Nigeria, this was not

only an assault on the sensibilities of the citizens, but also what many

ordinary citizens saw as a sign of the quest by the Northern Muslim elite

to impose its supremacy on the nation. Whatever reservations citizens

had, there were many who seemed ready to give the new administration a

chance especially when they showed what Nigerians mistook to be a high

level of commitment to discipline and a cleansing of the temple of

corruption. The government arrested and detained hundreds of politicians,

organized show trials headed by military men with no legal training. But,

by Easter that year, when the same Government cancelled the Easter

Monday as a public holiday, Christians rose up in protest. Again,

Christians saw this as an assault on their faith.

Barely one year later, the Buhari led government was overthrown by yet

another military coup in 1985. Another Muslim and Northerner, Major

General Ibrahim Babangida also a Muslim, replaced General Buhari.

Many of Babangida’s policies both deepened and widened the divide

between Christians and Muslims on the one hand and the North and

South on the other. This came in the backdrop of other social convulsions

54
precipitated by the ill-advised pursuit of the Structural Adjustment

Program me, SAP. This in turn had serious impact and consequences on

the social lives of the citizens. Nigeria would later literally become a time

bomb of deep frustration waiting to explode. In less than one year, the

nation began to reap the seeds of intolerance that had been sown. The gulf

between Christians and Muslims widened, and in the absence of a

political space for opposition politics, religion took Centre stage in an

already volatile environment.

For example, by 1987, what looked like a minor altercation among

students at a tertiary institution set the nation on the road to violence

that would become associated with religion. The incident in question

was said to have occurred as the result of an allegation that a Muslim

who had converted to Christianity had come to preach at a Campus

Crusade organized by the Christian Students. It was alleged that in the

course of his sermon, he had made references to the Holy Quran,

something the Muslims students objected to. The violent outbreak that

followed within the institution in a town known as Kafanchan in Kaduna

soon spread to such major cities in Kaduna State as Kaduna, Funtua and

Zaria. (Details of this see Matthew Kukah: Religion, Politics and Power,

see especially Ch 6, Religion as Platform, p184-213.)

55
 The response of the Babangida led Government; its subsequent

policies in pursuit of a dubious transition programme would later propel

the nation to the path of suspicion and a severe weakening of the social

fabric of national life. The Government remained merely concerned with

clinging to power at all cost. In the end, an accumulation of certain

negative policy decisions further weakened an already traumatized

community and created doubts in the minds of citizens regarding the

sincerity of Government. Some of these policies were;

• Purported entry of Nigeria into the Organization of Islamic

Countries:

Nigerians woke up to the news that the country had been admitted into

the international organization set up by mainly Arab countries as a forum

for Muslim countries to aid need countries. Coming in the wake of the

anxieties already created by some of the developments mentioned above,

the fears among the non-Muslim communities in Nigeria of alleged

domination by the Muslim community in Nigeria were understandable. It

was actually later realized that the application for Nigeria to have an

observer status had been sent in during the regime of General Yakubu

Gowon, a Christian. But the tensions generated among non-Muslims were

more a reflection of the frustration resulting from the non-transparent

system of government that goes with military rule.

56
 • An imposed Two Party Political Arrangement:

In 1986, President Babangida set up a Political Bureau to draw up a

programme for the transition to civil rule. The Federal Government, in

response to the Report decided to slightly open up the political space

for the formation of Political Parties. Nigerians eagerly responded to

this challenge, but were shocked when the President decided to ban all

the 16 Associations which applied for registration and arbitrarily

created two Political Parties himself and forced Nigerians to operate

within them. In the absence of other cross cutting identities such as

region or ethnic affiliation, religion became a major tool for

mobilization. The result of this was the increasing tension over

whether the next President would be Muslim or Christian.

• Fears that the Government would perpetrate its stay:

There was somehow, many major policy somersaults that tended to create

the impression that General Babangida merely wanted to go through the

motions and then mutate into a civilian President. The Government

continued to ban key political actors, changing the rules of the game and

shifting the datelines for the much awaited termination of his tenure.

Consequently, Nigerians began to worry that this would lead to the

perpetuation of Northern, Islamic rule in Nigeria. Again, whatever the

57
merits, this development did help to heighten the anxieties of non-

Muslims.

• Concentration of Muslims in key positions in Government.

For some strange reason, the President kept reconstituting the Provisional

Ruling Council, replacing Governors and Ministers. At a point, the

President decided to place almost all the key security positions in the

hands of select Muslim members of the military elite. Coming in the

wake of the humiliation of key Christian military officers, this sent out

the wrong signals, poisoned the climate of Christian Muslim interactions

and furthered deepened perceptions of Muslim domination, for example,

the un-ceremonial removal of Ubitu Ukiwe, the Chief of General Staff

was to precipitate a domino effect seen in the sudden removals of people

like General Domkat Bali among others.

• Allegations of government interferences with Religion:

Over the years, there have been accusations of Government patronage

of religion, and here, the accusation is specifically levelled against

Muslim led governments in favor of Islam. For example, in the old

Northern region, the late Premier of Northern Nigeria and Sardauna of

Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello, made no bones over the huge expenses

that were spent on the delegations for the annual Muslim pilgrimages,

58
the usage of Government funds for the building of Mosques and the

controversial Conversion Campaigns. This trend persisted all through

the years and it had always been a cause of worry for many non-

Muslims especially in the Northern States. Today, there have been

reports of entire State Governments shutting down business because

the Governor, his Commissioners and Local Government Chairmen

along with other senior staff had undertaken the annual Hajj. In the

late 90s, the Federal Government gave in to pressure from Christian

bureaucrats and members of the Christian Association of Nigeria,

CAN, and finally set up a Christian Pilgrims Welfare Board which

was received with much glee by the Christian community and seen as

a palliative. Along with the sponsorship of pilgrimages there has been

the issue of religious structures such as Mosques and Churches in such

public places as Federal and State Government Houses, Secretariats,

Airports and so on. Encouraging as these developments are, they have

constituted a source of difficulty for Christian-Muslim relations based

on the perception that the Federal and State Governments have not

been even handed. These criticisms however have not been cased on

the love for the principles of separation of religion from state.

Alternatively, whenever a President or a Governor has intervened on

the side of Christians, the Christian community has tended to justify

the same action, with a feeling that justice has been achieved. When

59
 President Obasanjo built a Chapel upon entering the Presidential Villa,

many Christians celebrated this with a feeling of victory and

accomplishment.

• The Takeover of Schools and Hospitals from Churches.

After the civil war ended in 1970, the Federal Government unilaterally

took over schools from Voluntary Agencies across the country. With

Education being on the Concurrent List in the Nigerian Constitution,

State Governments have been allowed the freedom to pursue educational

policies without the overbearing interference of the Federal Government.

This has meant that in the course of time, many states have continued to

reconsider these decisions in the face of the falling standards of education

and the total lack of capacity on the side of Governments. The situation in

the North on the other hand has been more acrimonious. Despite falling

behind very badly in performance at the levels of National Common

Entrance and University Examinations, and the collapse of control and

discipline in schools, the State Governments have refused to entertain the

idea of the return of schools. It is bad enough that these schools were

taken over, but to add insult to injury, the names of the schools were

changed. For example, Queen of Apostle’s College is now Queen Amina

College; St John’s College is now Rimi College and so on. For those who

live in Kaduna for example, it is almost inconceivable that anyone would

60
countenance changing the name Sardauna Memorial College to St

Matthew’s College! The issue of schools has sown the seeds of suspicion

because some members of the Muslim elite have come to see the takeover

of Schools as a trophy of honor. Many Muslims believe that the takeover

of schools has worked well as a strategy for controlling the spread of

Christianity. This sad phase in the life of our nation continues to obstruct

genuine collaboration for the growth of our society.

In summary, it is plausible to argue that the persistent sparks of violence

along these so called religious lines is the result of the absence of other

legitimate means by a frustrated populace to engage government.

Similarly, the presence of democracy and the pursuit of democratic norms

is the best antidote against violence and the facilitator of dialogue and

harmony among Christians and Muslims as shown in the civilian

administration of Alhaji Shehu Shagari. By way of conclusion, let us turn

our attention to the challenges offered by democracy and then examine

the prospects of deepening dialogue across religion in Nigeria.

• The Introduction of Sharia Law:

One of the first shocks that hit the nation after the return to civil rule was

the introduction of Sharia Law in the Northern States. The nation was still

in the euphoria of return to civil rule when Zamfara State announced the

61
introduction of full blown Sharia Law. The decision was received with

equal euphoria by the Muslim community. In less than one year, other

Northern states with predominantly Muslim populations followed suit.

Within the first year, the state claimed its first victim when a man alleged

to have stolen a goat had his hand amputated by the agents of the state.

Next was the arrest and subsequent trial of another poor woman, Safiya

who was alleged to have committed adultery and borne a child out of

wedlock. Subsequent arrests and trials of poor and helpless women on

allegations of adultery soon followed. All of these were greeted with glee

by the poor who imagined that one day, the Sharia Law would catch up

with their corrupt elite and subsequently force them to live according to

the dictates of the faith. In a rather strange twist of dubious politics, the

same Governor who initiated the Sharia was said to have received a

Religious Award from an innocuous and faceless Christian congregation

rather than the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs for his efforts. To

push this charade further, the same Governor who wrapped himself up

with the Sharia and insisted on its supremacy to the Nigerian

Constitution, threw the joke of the year by seeking the Presidency of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria. Thus many Muslims who believed these

politicians, have realized the fact that these politicians were merely

struggling for political survival and not religion. Thus, since the initiative

was driven by politics, it has now got stuck in the murky waters of

62
politics leaving its believers in the lurch. Although the initiative is largely

in a coma and has deteriorated to a mere whisper, the harm to religious

harmony and national integration had already been done. Let us now turn

our attention to examining some of the ingredients that can create the

right atmosphere for religious harmony and help ensure national

integration.

Some Mechanisms for Enhancing Christian-Muslim Dialogue or

positive interactions

1.Confronting the Socio-economic challenges:

There is no doubt that at the heart of the lingering crises that have become

associated with religion especially in the Northern states, is the problem

of the social conditions under which many young people live. On its own,

joblessness and poverty among the youth are not enough reasons for the

prevalence and predisposition to violence. The manner of education and

culture that young people are exposed to is a vital index in assessing these

behaviors. For example, it is evident that young people in similar

conditions but from different environments and some access to functional

education are likely to behave differently when confronted with situations

of frustration. Or else, why is it that in Ibadan, Lagos or Port Harcourt,

Youths who are also Muslim are likely to demonstrate using placards to

state their case while in the Northern states, the same Muslims are likely

63
to resort to destruction and molestation of passersby to make their case?

How is it that the Muslim Youths in the North sees no problem in saying

Allahu Akbar and then going on to cut off the head of an innocent person?

It is believed that although many factors account for this, elite behavior

also has a role to play. In an environment where patronage can serve as

antidotes, many young people in the North have become frustrated by

what they consider to be the selfishness of their own elite.

For example, recently, a group calling itself Arewa Youth is seething

with anger and claiming that its elite have betrayed them. But, rather than

demonstrate peacefully to make their case, they have, in their own words

stated publicly that: Northern Youths have vowed to disrupt all meetings

of Northern Elite by physically assaulting their leaders…From now,

anywhere they are holding their meeting, we shall storm the venue to

disrupt their meetings, enough is enough! The Northern Elites have

deceived the North and they are living only for themselves only. The 19

Governors were unable to raise funds to save the Bank of the North, they

could not resuscitate Kaduna Textiles Ltd…most of us have graduated

from street begging…4 out of every 5 children are not in school, we

register almost 100% failure in our WAEC exams. (See John ADI: The

Grouse of Muslim Youth Against Elites… Sunday Independent, February

5th, 2006. p5). They proudly announced their achievements to include the

64
fact that they disrupted a January 14th meeting commemorating the death

of the Sardauna held in Kaduna, disrupting the meeting of the Northern

Senators and another meeting of the State Governors. The point here is

that many non-Muslims have come to associate these youths with

predisposition to violence perhaps due to the kind of messages they

receive from their teachers.

Indeed, it is against this background that when a so called Peace

meeting was called for Christian and Muslim Religious leaders in

Maiduguri after the cartoon riots where hundreds of Churches and

properties belonging to non-Muslims were burnt or destroyed, one of

the Christian leaders spoke the minds of many Christians when he

remarked that he saw no reason for Christians participating at the

meeting. His reasons were based on his own experience with violence.

According to him: During the periods of eclipse of the moon in Borno

state, youths often take to the streets chanting Islamic songs of worship,

attacking houses and properties of non-Muslims in the erroneous belief

that it is their disobedience to God’s will that causes the eclipse. In

countless instances, non-Muslims in the state have suffered loss of

properties and even places of worship. During such events which often

occur at night, places such as Hotels, Brothels, Churches and sometimes

properties owned by Christians are often torched by the rampaging

65
youths who allegedly often act on instructions of Islamic clerics. (See

Abdulkareem Haruna: Borno Police and the Struggle with Religious

Crises, Daily Independent, 31/3/06, p111).

Although the meeting was called to explore ways and means of

finding peace, the same Pastor stated that he did not really see the need

for the event because: As far as Christians are concerned, the meeting,

though commendable had nothing to do with them because Christians

have always been victims of religious upheavals. On no occasion have

Christians ever taken up arms to fight any cause in the state…. Not a

single Christian went out and attempted to set ablaze any mosque no

matter how small. It is in our faith not to encourage or support violence.

Thus, if Christians have reservations about the sincerity of the Muslim

community and even Governments to address the issues of violence,

their predicament needs to be appreciated. Between 1987 and now, the

Christian community has suffered the destruction of over 300 churches

across the Northern States alone. Christians have been brutally trapped

and murdered in their homes and in Church premises. At the level of the

leadership of the Churches, dialogue has been made even more difficult

by the fact that in at least three instances, apart from the destructions,

Muslims youth have brutally murdered Church men in their Churches

66
and homes in the wake of these crises. In all these situations, the

leadership of the Muslim community has not responded in any

significant manner beyond the whispers of polite condemnation and

exhortations for peaceful co-coexistence well after the havoc has been

wrecked. It is this frustration that has led many otherwise, peaceful

Christians to rethink the theory of turning the other cheek. This is what

has led to the upsurge in reprisal killings across the country.

2: An appreciation of the Structural Differences in both faiths: It is

important for us to note that there are fundamental differences in the

leadership cadre of both faiths. This has an impact in the behavior of

adherents of both faiths. Thus, whereas the Churches have their Priests

and Bishops, the Muslims have their Ulama with no central hierarchy.

Thus, even within the Ulama, there are made layers of sometimes

competing identities, ranging from Traditional Rulers, Imams,

Businessmen, Scholars and so on. This has implications for Dialogue. In

summing up this problem, Archbishop Onaiyekan, the Catholic

Archbishop of Abuja captured this predicament when he said: Religion is

not the problem; it’s people with another agenda. The politicians often

get their fuel not from the emirs and sultans, but the imams, who are

sometimes young, hot headed Islamic fanatics. Many have studied in

Iran, Afghanistan, at Al-Azhar in Egypt. These imams have a power base

67
among the poor people. The emirs originally didn’t like the Shariah, and

they claim to be the legitimate leaders of the Muslims, pointing to the

caliphate that existed for 200 years. They’re often skeptical of what they

call the “little preachers” in the squares. The imams, meanwhile, say

there’s no room for emirs and sultans, that the Quran makes no provision

for these offices. The governors who are elected in Muslim-majority

regions need popular support and generally line up with the imams. The

emirs thus end up going along with the currents. One told me personally

that he was opposed to Shariah, but if he said so publicly, they would

burn down his palace tomorrow.

These competing and conflicting ranges of elites tend to have their

own agendas and all these weaken their capacity and ability to mediate in

times of crises. The result of this is that there has been a lack of a

mechanism for the demonstration of solidarity among both faiths.

Christians who have had their properties destroyed, Churches burnt all

these years in the Northern states have no record of any group of Muslims

standing up in solidarity either by way of solidarity visits or even token

show of economic support. Perhaps it is possible to say the same thing for

the Muslims who have also been caught in similar situations. However,

the point here is the need for us to realize that post conflict situations do

68
offer opportunities for show of solidarity which could be an antidote for

reoccurrence of these ugly spates of violence.

3: Difficulties in the interpretation of the Secular Status of the State:

For a long time, one of the sore points in the efforts towards dialogue has

been the issue of the religious status of the Nigerian State. Both sides

seem to have taken some very simplistic view of things with Muslims

claiming that Christians are preaching Secularism and thereby promoting

godlessness. This assumption can be dismissed by arguing that what non-

Muslims call for is the pursuit of the Secularity of the State as a

mechanism for freeing religion to fulfil its very important role without the

constraints of the state. The Muslims on the other hand argue that in their

view there is no contradiction in the state supporting and embracing

religion. This is why today there are offices for Religious Affairs in all

State Government Ministries in the Northern States 2. Whereas the

Traditional Rulers in Islam who are often confused with the Bishops in

Christianity are given their Staffs of Office and have their salaries and

allowances paid by the Governments of the States, the same cannot be

said of the Bishops of the Christian denomination. The result is that it has

been impossible for the leadership of the faith communities at the national

69
level to issue a common statement attacking a policy of any government

for fear that, in their case, who pays the piper has to dictate the tune! This

difficulty has muffled what otherwise would have been a very formidable

moral voice to hold the Governments of Nigeria in check. Indeed, the best

way to appreciate this difficulty is to see the way the national leadership

of the faith communities behaved during the Sharia crisis in 2000.

Despite their many meetings, they were unable to present a common front

one way or the other. And, each time the Federal Government has set up a

National Religious Body, the initiative has always collapsed without

achieving anything substantial. An example is the Advisory Council for

Religious Affairs, ACRA, which President Babangida set up in 1986 in the

wake of the purported admission of the country into the Organization of

Islamic Countries. The body could not agree on a Chairman and in the

end, it folded up without achieving anything. Secondly, in 1999, a body,

set up through the initiative of the President’s Chaplain, Professor Yusuf

Obaje known as the National Inter-Religious Council, NIREC, was

ostensibly meant to advise the Federal Government on religious matters.

Even while it lasted, the body suffered similar internal constraints which

seemed to send out negative signals on the larger society. Just like in

earlier initiatives, the body was stuck in the debate about the nature of its

internal leadership. The issue of the Chairman of the body was later

settled both bodies decided to have joint-Chairmen. Although there was

70
no Youth representation, it was interesting to note that it was only the

Christian community that decided to include a woman on its delegation.

5: Strengthening security and enforcing the law:

The Nigerian state has often fallen back on moral persuasion as a basis

for enforcing the moral order. There is for the state to distinguish between

sin and crime when it is dealing with these issues. But, in our situation,

both the media and the Government seem totally lost as to how to deal

with the problems of violence that it continues to attribute to religious

bodies. The Federal Government of Nigeria has laws against Arson and

murder. These laws do not make any reference or distinction between

residences and religious places in a case of arson. Therefore, those who

burn churches should be charged with arson and punished accordingly

and not be presented as Muslims or Christians who burnt churches or

mosques. The issue is that once these crimes are cast in a religious

garment, then these criminals become, in the eyes of their constituencies,

heroes/martyrs. Sometimes, the law enforcement agencies stand aloof for

fear that they may be accused by adherents on either side. Indeed, only

recently, the Catholic Bishops Conference captured this predicament

when, in their Communiqué that: The destruction of life and property in

the name of religion puts Nigeria to shame. It is to be noted in some

cases that while Churches, Mosques, shops and homes were being set

71
ablaze by arsonists, and innocent people being attacked and viciously

killed by mindless murderers, law enforcement agents did not come to

their rescue. The government is responsible for safeguarding the

constitutional rights of every Nigerian everywhere within Nigeria. No

Nigerian should be made to feel unsafe anywhere, due to religion, tribe

or tongue. We state that failure of security agencies to secure life and

property is failure of government. When government fails to live up to its

responsibility in matters like this, the people are provoked to take laws

into their hands3.

One could argue, that the source of almost all the violent eruptions in

the name of religion in the Northern states has been the persistence of

the Almajiri/Gardawa system in Northern Nigeria which has not become

integrated with modernity. Although this matter has occupied the

attention of Muslim elites, very little has been done to confront this

problem. The greatest threat posed by the Almajiri system is the fact

that it remains hostile to modernity and education. Thus, both its

apostles and disciples are trapped in a pool of poverty and they live in a

world that is almost akin to the men in Plato’s cave. Successive

governments and scholars in the Northern states have tried to wrestle

3 Communiqué issued at the end of the Second Plenary of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria
held at, Sabon Lugbe, Abuja, March 6-11th, 2006.

72
with this problem, but they have achieved very little success. An opinion

piece by a concerned Muslim recently captured the Almajiri system. The

writer, Jaafar Jaafar has argued that: Anytime the children attain a

certain age (say 5 years or less) (the parents) will send them to these

schools. The children are deprived of parental care, no food, let alone

balanced diets. No good shelter. How can a child of five years be left on

his own, to feed and clothe himself? How cruel! What on earth would an

adult, least of all a child of five learn with an empty stomach? They learn

by rote and recite parrot like without knowing the meaning of the text.

The teachers mainly recite the Koran… They engage themselves in shirk

like fortune telling, giving charms, amulets or talismans to their rich

clients most of whom are our leaders, for success in businesses, elections

and other earthly pursuits. Adolescents engage in hard labour and often

beg for food for the pedagogue. They fetch the water that he uses in his

house, wash his clothes and engage in part time jobs in rich residences

around. They come early to take the children to school, they are hapless

errand boys of our wives and children, they wash our clothes, get abused

anyhow, scolded all the time and are forced to do jobs that surpass their

abilities… Think of any nauseating task, a stinking food that a dog or a

pig would put its snout, grimace and kick it away with its paw, our wives

73
would say, sai dai (except) Almajiri. Think of the task that only a crane

can do, a broken down vehicle that only a towing van can tow and call

them to man the job…. These schools have no graduating time; it may

take up to 15-20 years. And even after the graduation (from Quranic

memorization), they still remain while the young ones are admitted in

hordes. When they become adults, they engage in mobile nail clipping

and shoe shinning (Hausa exclusive preserve), achaba (motor cycle)

riders or they join the underworld. ( Jaafar Jaafar: Tackling the Menace of

Almajirci. (Weekly Trust, April 24th, 2006) p8.)

The issues raised by Mr. Jaafar underpines the dilemma that the

Northern States face in dealing with the problems of religion and its role

in national integration. Clearly, for many years, non-Muslims have

continued to bear the brunt of the excesses of those the Muslim

community has continued to refer to as miscreants who desecrate the

religion; the same Muslim elite must take full responsibility for not

attending to this ticking time bomb especially in the light of social,

political and economic developments across the country.

6: Ensuring the Supremacy of the Constitution:

74
 The colonial state and the subsequent military dictators who ruled

Nigeria continued to manipulate ethno-religious identities to consolidate

their hold on power, but in the process, they deepened anxieties among

these communities. Therefore, to reduce the anxieties created by this

artificial way of framing the issues, there is need to ensure the supremacy

of the Constitution as the guarantor of the rights of all citizens of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria. Despite the fact that a substantial section of

the faith communities rejected the decision of the Federal Government to

remove Religion and Ethnicity from the nation’s recently concluded

Census, it was a wise decision and one major step towards ensuring that

citizenship triumphs religious or ethnic affiliation in Nigeria. But does not

suggests that the state is superior to our religious claims, but this is the

trend in all civilized, plural and secular societies. After all, when we

travel for our Pilgrimages, none of us carries a Christian or Muslim

passport. What we carry is a Passport of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

which transfers all our liabilities to the Government of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria. Similarly, when a Pilgrim dies or breaks the law in

Jerusalem or Mecca, it is not his Church or Mosque that will take up

his/her case but the Foreign Mission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

We do not announce that a Yoruba, Hausa, Christian or Muslim pilgrim

has died. We record that a Nigerian has died and as such, being Muslim

or Hausa only becomes a matter of domestic detail! It is only after we

75
have established common citizenship that citizens can be punished or

rewarded according to the Laws of the land. This has to be based on our

acceptance of the Supremacy of our Constitution.

EFFORTS OF THE CHURCH IN ENCOURAGING DIALOGUE

BETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS IN NIGERIA

In the area of Dialogue between Christian and non-Christian

Religions, the Catholic Church has been at the forefront. In three

Documents, namely, The Decree on

Ecumenism, Nostra Aetate (The Declaration on the Church the Relation

of the Church to Non-Christian Religions), and Ut Unum Sint: That All

May be One, the Catholic Church opened its doors to Dialogue within

Christianity and Dialogue with non-Christian religions. Through these

Documents, the Catholic Church asserted clearly its historic change of

heart from the earlier position of its teachings (which stated that there

was No Salvation outside the Catholic Church) to a more open, tolerant

and inclusive position. To that extent, it signaled the fact that Conversion

is fundamental to building confidence and creating the atmosphere for

76
Dialogue. In the Decree on Ecumenism for example, the Church stated

that: There can be no Ecumenism worthy of name without a change of

heart. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be

genuinely self-denying, gentle in the service of others and have an open

attitude of brotherly generosity towards them 4. The Church realized that

historic injustices had occurred even within and outside its own ranks.

The Inquisitions and the Crusades for example stand out as the more

prominent of these sins both against self and neighbor. But the Church

acknowledged that true conversion based on the Gospel was indeed

imperative if Dialogue was to take place. The Church therefore stated

that: Each therefore ought to be more radically converted to the Gospel

and change his or her ways of looking at things…. There is an increased

sense of the need for repentance, awareness of certain exclusions which

seriously harm fraternal charity or certain refusals to forgive, of certain

pride of an evangelical insistence on condemning the other side 5. The

Catholic Church further reinforced this position by extending this same

spirit to believers in Islam and Traditional Religions by remarking that:

The Church regards with esteem, the Muslims who adore God… We

cannot invoke God, Father of All, if we refuse to conduct ourselves

fraternally towards any person created in the image of God6.

4 Decree on Ecumenism (Vatican City. 1965) Paragraph 7.

5 Ibid, par 17.
6 Nostra Aetate (Vatican City. 1965) Paragraph 5.

77
Under the Papacy of Pope John Paul 11, these relations attained their

greatest heights around the world. Nigeria was not left out in this

experience. The Holy Father had audience with Muslim leaders. In his

address, the Holy Father called on both Christians and Muslims to work

hard to ensure peace and reconciliation in Nigeria37.

Indeed, the appointment of His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze to the

office of the President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious

Dialogue in 1986 posed a further challenge to Nigeria on the issue of

Christian-Muslim Dialogue. It was after this appointment that Muslims in

Nigeria began to receive the annual Good Will Messages from the

Council on behalf of the Holy Father to Muslims. Muslims in Nigeria

have come to appreciate and look forward to these Messages yearly. In

recent times, the translation of these Messages into two prominent

Nigerian languages, Hausa and Yoruba generated some excitement and

appreciation from Nigerian Muslims.

At the local and Regional levels, the Catholic Bishops Conference of

Nigeria and those of Anglophone West Africa, AECAWA, all have set up

national and international offices headed and Chaired interchangeably by

Bishops. These offices have priests as Secretaries who coordinate the

activities and disseminate information. Similarly, here in Nigeria, the

Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria has a full Department known as the

78
Department for Mission and Dialogue. Despite these difficulties and the

untiring efforts, there is still a long way. Despite the efforts at healing the

wounds, there is still a lot of bitterness still on the ground.

For example, the Christian community in the Northern states has

experienced violence in an unprecedented manner. The States have

shown very little capacity and interest in punishing criminals and, with its

reluctance to compensate victims, victims are genuinely and legitimately

angry and saddened. Non-Muslims have felt randomly targeted and

attacked at the slightest provocation over issues that have nothing to do

with them. For example, who would imagine that arguments over a

planned Beauty Pageant, the Danish Cartoons, or the request by non-

Muslims to legitimately exercise such basic rights as rights to embark on

a Procession, would unleash so much violence?

Amidst these crises, Nigerian Christians and Muslims have demonstrated

resilience by their willingness to quickly put their houses in order and get

on with life. For example, in Kaduna, despite the difficulties of the last

few years, citizens have actually tried to build stronger ties. From the

debris of the crisis, there has now emerged what is known as the Network

for Peace Initiative. This initiative arose from the debris of the crisis in

2001 and climaxed with the signing of the Peace Declaration. The text of

the Declaration reads as follows:

79
In the name of God who is Almighty, Merciful and Compassionate, we

who have gathered as Muslim and Christian religious leaders from

Kaduna State pray for peace in our state and declare our commitment to

ending the violence and bloodshed, which has marred our recent history.

According to our faiths, killing innocent lives in the names of God is a

desecration of His Holy Name, and defames religions in the World. The

violence that has occurred in Kaduna State is an evil that must be

opposed by all people of good faith. We seek to live together as

neighbours, respecting the integrity of each other's historical and

religious heritage. We call upon all to oppose incitement, hatred, and the

misrepresentation of one another.

1: Muslims and Christians of all tribes must respect the divinely ordained

purposes of the Creator by whose grace we live together in Kaduna

State; such ordained purposes include freedom of worship, access to and

sanctity of places of worship and justice among others.

2: As religious leaders we seek to work with all sections of the community

for a lasting and just peace according to the teachings of our religions.

3: We condemn all forms of violence and seek to create an atmosphere

where present and future generations will co-exist with mutual respect

80
and trust in one another. We call upon all to refrain from incitement and

demonization, and pledge to educate our young people accordingly.

4: Through the creation of a peaceful state we seek to explore how

together we can aid spiritual regeneration, economic development and

inward investment.

5: We acknowledge the efforts that have been made within this State for a

judicial reform and pledge to do all in our power to promote greater

understanding of the reform, so that it can provide a true and respected

justice in each of our communities.

6: We pledge to work with the security forces in peace keeping and

implementation of this Declaration in the State.

7: We announce the establishment of a permanent joint committee to

implement the recommendations of this declaration and encourage

dialogue between the two faiths for we believe that dialogue will result in

the restoration of the image of each in the eyes of the other.

This declaration is binding on all people in the State from this day of

22nd August 2002 and agrees that any individual or group found

breaching the peace must be punished in accordance to the due process

of the law.

81
 In conclusion, many Muslims have found it convenient to speak about

what they refer to as the hatred for Islam while non-Muslims continue to

associate Islam with such excesses as fanaticism, fundamentalism and

now terrorism, believers in Islamic religion must stop looking for

scapegoats and face their image problem. In his book, Seize the Moment,

the late President Richard Nixon noted that: No nations, not even

Communist China have a more negative image in the American

consciousness than those of the Muslim world 38. Nixon lists the basis of

the stereotype as: three wars by Arab states to wipe out Israel, seizure of

American hostages, Black September attack at the Munich Olympics,

slaughter in Lebanon, bombings of airlines by Syria and Libya and the

annexation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein in 1990.

38
Richard Nixon: Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One-

Superpower World

Simon & Schuster. New York. 1992) p195.

Reactions to September 11th have further deepened the hatred and

prejudices over the role of faith in general and the way the world sees

Islam in particular. However, the most profound statement issued so far

82
in this regard is the observation made by the former Prime Minister of

Malaysia, Dr Mohammed Mahathir who argued in a very powerful article

that: Islam has become vulnerable now because proponents of the

religion have abandoned scholarship and the renaissance for which

Islam was famous. The difficulty that Islam faces is that the many voices

which have taken upon themselves the interpretation of the Quran are

learned in religion alone and not in the sciences. The result is that they

abhor science. Today’s oppression, killings and humiliation of Muslims

occur because we are weak. We feel victimized and criticize our

oppressors, but to stop them, we need to look at ourselves. We must

change for our own good. We cannot ask our detractors to change so that

Muslims can benefit. …Muslims fatally weakened their ability to defend

themselves by neglecting and even rejecting the study of allegedly secular

science and mathematics and this myopia remains a fundamental source

of the oppression suffered by Muslims today…. Ataturk saved Islam

turkey and saved Turkey for Islam…. The Quran is not a Talisman to be

hung around the neck for protection against evil7.

All believers therefore need to appreciate the fact that there is now, a

growing body of opinion in the western world which believes that

Religion is no longer relevant in the lives of people. The scandalous

debate in Europe over whether to acknowledge the Christian origins as

7 Mohammed Mahathir: Islam’s Forsaken Renaissance, Strait Times, November 9 th
, 2005, p22 .

83
part of its Constitution, coming after the collapse of Communism which

set out to destroy religion show that indeed, the architects of the new

world order did not seem to have considered religion as part of the

building material for the new world. Thus, the real challenge that faces

faith communities across the world is the need for all believers to rally

round and see that it is Religion that is under threat and not just

expressions of religious excesses. When many in our societies talk about

the religious problem in politics, you get the impression that if they had

the means, they will legislate religion out of existence. So, the first

challenge is for us believers to put our House in order and assure a

respectable place at the table of nation building for religion. It is when

this is done that believers can deal with the problems posed by the

excesses expressed by those who preach hatred.

On balance, it must be stated that we have not really made much

progress as one would have loved to see. In each of the two visits by the

late Holy Father, provision was always made for a session with the

Muslim community. In 1982, internal disagreements within the Muslim

community along with political differences made a scheduled meeting

impossible. However, in 1998, things were different. The Holy Father

was able to address the Muslim community in Abuja. He made the usual

appeals about the need for Christians and Muslims to work together.

84
 Finally, Archbishop Onaiyekan when asked his assessment of the

current state of relations between Christians and Muslims, he noted that:

We have many ordinary people who are daily struggling for their daily

bread. They’re not thinking about Christian-Muslim difficulties. What we

have to deal with are small groups on both sides. With time, we should be

able to liberate religion from political manipulation. It won’t be easy, but

I’m looking forward to it. On average, we have a Christian/Muslim clash

maybe two days out of the year, but it will certainly get the attention of

CNN and the BBC. It’s too bad they don’t bother to find out what we do

the other 363 days of the year. We suffer together, and face the same

political issues. The dividing line between oppressors and oppressed cuts

through both groups. By the way, the Christians don’t have a common

position either. There’s a wide gulf between the relatively positive view of

Islam of Catholics, and those Pentecostals and evangelicals who say that

Allah is nothing more than an idol in the Arabian Desert. That

complicates things8.

Thus if there must be positive interaction between Christians and

Muslims in Nigeria, dialogue has to be based on respect, a respect that is

not artificial or borne out of fear or the need to be nice. There ought to be

some legislation to ensure that we place all citizens on an equal level.

This can be achieved by setting up of an Equal Citizenship Commission.

8

85
The duty of this Commission is for those who feel discriminated to have a

basis of appeal. Whether it is discrimination based on gender, caste,

religion, or whatever, citizens will know that they have a place they can

turn to. Unlike the Public Complaints Commission, this body should have

powers of enforcement. It could actually merge the work of the Human

Rights Commission, Public Complaints Commission and provide a legal

basis for the enforcement of compliance by all segments of the national

agencies. It is important to note that while Religion is a moral force, it

lacks the capacity to enforce sanctions. After all, no one can be taken to

court for refusing to go the Church or the Mosque. When a citizen breaks

the laws of God, he/she is guilty of a sin. But when he/she breaks the laws

of the state, they are guilty of a crime. So, while the Sacred Texts remain

the final sources of moral authority for the believers, the Constitution of a

nation must remain the secular sacred text and the final arbiter in the

affairs of all citizens. This is why it is wrong to speak of Christians

burning Mosques or Muslims burning Churches. It is a misnomer that,

the laws of our nations have no sanctions against those who murder

Priests or Imams, or burn down churches or mosques. But they have laws

against those who murder human beings or burn down buildings. They

ought to be tried as murderers or arsonists and not as Christians or

Muslims whether they claim to burn or kill in the name of Allah or Christ.

86