Tag Archives: Nigerian Humanist

Blasphemy and Evil of Silencing Other Opinions: Humanist Message to Muslims at Ramadan

2021-04-13 Leo Igwe

By Leo Igwe

I salute you all, Nigerian Muslims, as you commence your holy month of Ramadan. As you mark this month of prayer and fasting, I would like to draw your attention to an issue that is deserving of your reflection at this time. That is, allegations of blasphemy and reactions to purported cases of insulting the prophet of Islam, Allah, or desecrating the Quran. Recently we have witnessed accusations of blasphemy from Muslims, by Muslims, against other Muslims and non- Muslims. These allegations reflect negatively on your religion. They make many people feel that Muslims are intolerant, but we know that some Islamic traditions have taught tolerance, that everyone’s human dignity must be respected, regardless of his or her faith, race, ethnic origin, gender, or social status.

There have been cases where Muslims have perpetrated arson, assault, and the murder of suspected blasphemers. Allegations of blasphemy have led to unlawful arrests, imprisonment, mindless violence, savagery and bloodletting. While some of you may think that these abuses and heinous criminal activities are deserved responses to ‘insults’ to your religion or your prophet, it may be time you gave blasphemy allegations a second thought?

Look, allegations of blasphemy dent the image of Islam and Muslims. They reinforce the notion that Islam is a religion that thrives on intimidation and violence. I understand that it is not all Muslims that indulge in allegations of blasphemy or related abuses. But you would agree that this is a position that is difficult to maintain because supposed moderate voices are seldom heard when these allegations and atrocities take place. There is usually little or no opposition or outrage from within Muslim communities. Instead, there is an overwhelming support or deafening silence from Muslim individuals especially Muslim leaders and clerics. And this is unfortunate. Isn’t it? Has Islam not taught that it is by Divine Will that God’s human creation follows different religions, or no religion at all, and that we have the right to freedom of religion?

Take the case of the Nigerian Humanist, Mubarak Bala. You are already aware of his case by now. He has been arbitrarily detained since last year following a petition by some Muslim lawyers that he insulted the prophet of Islam in a Facebook post. He has been imprisoned without being formally charged or prosecuted. Muslims in Kano want to silence him as in other cases of blasphemy charges because he holds a different opinion of the prophet of Islam. They want him to spend the rest of his life in jail because he espouses views that some Muslims find offensive. Muslims are threatening to murder him if he is eventually released. But, has Islam not taught that freedom of religion is a god given right, and that the final judgement of men lies with the creator?

Early in this 21st century, Muslims in Kano and other places across the nation need to consider the following: Islam is not the only religion in Nigeria. Islam is not the only Abrahamic religion. Islam is one of the religions of the world. For Muslims to harmoniously co-exist with persons of other faiths and none, they must tolerate other and sometimes offensive views and expressions. Truth be told, Islam is a form of blasphemy and owes its spread to blaspheming against other religions, prophets and gods. How do you really justify protests, anger, violence and the threat of violence over blasphemous posts and cartoons when your faith is a form of insult to others’ faiths, beliefs, gods and prophets?

Muslims profess views and expressions that persons of other faiths or none deem or could regard as offensive and disrespectful to their beliefs. Muslims make declarations which persons who profess other Abrahamic religions consider, or could consider, insulting to the prophets and gods. Islamic beliefs and practices offend the sensibilities of other believers and non-believers. Islamic teachings make a mockery, and a caricature of other people’s beliefs. While Islam teaches tolerance, there are also provisions in the Quran and Islamic traditions that literally sanctify hatred, violence, oppression and persecution of non-believers, apostates and blasphemers, gays and women.

If persons of other faiths and none were to attack, kill, persecute or prosecute Muslims for entertaining different and offensive opinions to their religions and belief systems, their prophets and philosophers, as some Muslims do to non-Muslims, and approve of in places where Muslims are in the majority, there will be no peace in Nigeria. There will be no peace in the world. Human beings will be entangled in a bitter and endless conflict. Just as you Muslims want your religious views and opinions of other prophets including those that offend others’ sensibilities to be tolerated, then you should learn to tolerate the views and opinions of others, whether they be offensive or not offensive. On the issue of your prophet, Muhammad, one understands that you hold him in high esteem. There is no doubt about that. But others hold in high regard other prophets, philosophers, holy men and women that you do not respect, or that you disrespect as a matter of Islamic faith and fact.

It is a mistake to think that others should treat and respect Muhammad as Muslims do. That cannot hold. That is not possible. It is like expecting Muslims to treat and respect Buddha the way Buddhists do. Look, there are billions of human beings who do not profess Islam, and who do not regard Muhammad as a prophet or as their prophet as Muslims do. There are billions across the globe who think or believe differently about Islam, about the Islamic prophet and the Islamic god. It is good to learn to live with others and to tolerate their views, to live in a world, or in countries and communities, where people think or treat your prophet differently, just as you think and treat other religious prophets and gods differently.

Now to another point. I draw your attention to the ideas of the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan quoted him in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. John Stuart Mill argued in his little book, On Liberty, that silencing an opinion is “a peculiar evil.” According to him, if such an opinion is right, we are robbed of the “opportunity of exchanging error for truth”; and if it’s wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in “its collision with error.” He further states that “if we know only our own side of the argument, we hardly know even that; it becomes stale, soon learned only by rote, untested, a pallid and lifeless truth”.

We are a religiously diverse nation, a nation of religious and non-religious persons, of theists and non-theists, of believers and non-believers. By using allegations of blasphemy to silence others, you commit a “peculiar evil”, and make Islamic extremism an article of faith. You rob other Muslims and humanity at large of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth and deepening their knowledge and understanding. You do humanity a great disservice. Blasphemy is a right, not a crime. Apostasy is a right not a crime.

Please consider a change of heart, mind and attitude towards views and expressions that you find offensive as you observe your Ramadan! Consider tolerance, as some Islamic traditions have long taught, for the sake of peaceful co-existence with persons of other faiths and none. A peaceful world is a tolerant world.

Human Rights

Mubarak Bala: 300 Days in Detention Without Trial

2021-02-23 Leo Igwe

By Leo Igwe

Yesterday marked 300 days since Nigerian Humanist, Mubarak Bala has been in detention without trial. Last year, some Muslim fanatics in Kano accused him of blasphemy. They petitioned the police, who arrested and detained him. He has yet to be formally charged, three hundred days after his arrest. While Kano authorities have worked together to resolve other cases of blasphemy, they have tactfully ignored Bala’s. For instance, the ministry of justice through the appeal court, the correctional services department (the prisons), and the police collaborated in processing the appeals of Yahaya Shariff and Umar Farouk. The appeal court ordered a retrial of Shariff’s case but acquitted Farouk. Also, it took the joint effort of the police, the Kano state ministry of justice including the magistrate court at Gaydi Gaydi, the director of public prosecution, the attorney general, and the correctional services department to acquit the Christian barber and two of his clients, who were accused of blasphemy.

USCIRF Condemns Arrest of Prominent Nigerian Atheist, Mubarak Bala

In the case of Mubarak Bala, this institutional synergy is missing. This combined action has not been happened. And it is a deliberate scheme by Kano authorities to frustrate the case and ensure that Bala remains behind bars. The police and the ministry of justice continue to deceive the outside world. They are using all sorts of lies and misinformation to ‘justify’ the illegal detention of Mubarak Bala. For the past 300 days, the police, and the attorney general of Kano state have not disguised their faithful commitment to a miscarriage of justice in the case of Mr. Bala.
For instance, the police arrested and disappeared Bala for the first 180 days. They gave him no access to a lawyer and refused him family visits They also refused to charge him. Following some local and international pressures, the police approached a magistrate court, obtained a warrant through a back door. They remanded him in prison. Yes, the police got the court to transfer him to prison. It took another court order and some pressure on the authorities for the police to allow Mubarak Bala to meet his lawyer. Unlike the cases of Shariff and Farouk, the police and Ministry of Justice have refused to prosecute or acquit Bala. The police and the ministry of justice have worked together to achieve one thing in Bala’s case- a remand. They have worked together to give a semblance of legality to the illegal detention of Mubarak Bala. So it is not the case that these departments cannot working together or join efforts to resolve Bala’s case. They can. But they will not. Kano authorities do not want to resolve the case. Yes, the police and the Ministry of Justice in Kano are not interested in freeing Mubarak Bala. They are only interested in appeasing the Ummah, especially the Islamic base in Kano.

Even after 300 days without trial, the Kano authorities are still putting up with this judicial charade. They are not willing to formally charge or release Bala. Instead, they are forging and fronting all sorts of excuses. For instance, in reaction to the court order (in December) that asked the police to release Mr. Bala, the police in Kano said Bala was no longer in their custody. Is that not absurd? In whose custody is he? The police arrested him and got a court to remand in a prison in Kano. Didn’t they? Based on this court order, is it not the duty of the police to ensure that Bala is released since they (police) were instrumental in his ‘remand’? Why are the police and the Ministry of Justice making a caricature of themselves and the justice system in Kano? Why are they being cowardly and mischievous in handling his case?

Look, in the case of the Christian barber who was accused of blasphemy, the police prosecutor, a state lawyer, the director of public prosecution, and the attorney general liaised and resolved the matter. It is important to mention that within this period, the police moved the Christian barber and two other accused persons from a police cell to a prison. Still, the matter was speedily settled. There were no buck-passing and alibis. The police or the attorney general did not make excuses when the accused were moved to prison. The various sections worked together and ensured the accused were acquitted.
Unfortunately, this has not happened in the case of Mubarak Bala, and this combined action should happen. After three hundred days in detention without trial, Kano authorities should release Mubarak Bala. No more excuses!

A case against blasphemy in Nigeria

2020-08-24 Leo Igwe

Nigeria’s blasphemy laws have been of focus locally, nationally and internationally following the arrest and detention of Nigerian Humanist, Mubarak Bala, the sentencing to death of a Muslim singer, and the imprisonment of a 13-year-old boy for blasphemy in Kano State in Northern Nigeria.

It would appear that Muslim theocrats – within the police and the courts – have gone to great lengths to subvert constitutional provisions and international human rights norms in their quest to enforce the ‘blasphemy’ provision. For instance, the police arrested Bala, who is the President of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, at his residence in Kaduna on April 28, 2020. They took him to Kano the following day, where they have held him incommunicado ever since. The arrest was at the instance of lawyers who lodged a petition with the Kano State Police Command complaining that Bala had insulted the prophet of Islam in a Facebook post.

Before his arrest, Bala received death threats from Muslims who were angry over his posts and comments on Facebook, including a Kano State police officer. Police have failed to meet their Constitutional obligation to charge Bala within 48 hours of his arrest. Efforts to enforce Bala’s rights have met a brick wall. The police have not given Bala access to a lawyer. They have not formally charged him in court. There is no information regarding where he is held or the condition of his detention. There is no independent confirmation that Bala is still alive. Bala has a wife and a 6-month old son. His wife has petitioned the police and the parliamentarians urging them to give her access to her husband without success.

Kano is among the 12 states that uphold Sharia laws in Northern Nigeria and is notorious for jailing or murdering alleged blasphemers or desecrators of the Quran. Under Sharia law, the punishment for ‘blasphemy’ is death; however, in the parallel Common Law system, the same crime is seen as a misdemeanour punishable by up to two years in prison. In Northern states allegations of ‘blasphemy’ can end in the extrajudicial killing of the accused.

In the case of Bala, the police and government in Kano State are in a dilemma. They are unable to try Bala in a Sharia court and sentence him to death as many individuals in Kano are demanding. Only Muslims are subject to Sharia law; Bala is not a Muslim. He was born into a Muslim family but Bala renounced Islam in 2014. If the police must try Bala, it would be in a secular state court, not in a Sharia court. Even if the sentence is passed on Bala, the penalty would not placate the extremist base that is behind the petition. So, it would appear that, instead of prosecuting Mubarak Bala as required by law, the police and government in Kano disappeared him to appease the Muslim majority base.

In the cases of the 22-year old singer, Yahaya Aminu-Sharif and 13-year-old Umar Farouq, the allegations of ‘blasphemy’ have been handled differently. Both are Muslims and were tried and sentenced in Sharia courts. Aminu-Sharif was accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam in a song that he circulated on Whatsapp in March. His ‘offense’ was that they lyrics suggested that the Senegalese scholar, Ibrahim Nyass, was greater than Prophet Muhammad. Whilst Farouq was accused of making remarks that insulted the Islamic god, Allah. Even though Aminu-Sharif has 30 days to appeal, some Muslim bodies, like the Muslim Lawyers Association, the Council of Imams, and the Supreme Council for Sharia have issued statements urging the Kano State Governor, Abdullahi Umar Ganduje to immediately authorize the execution of Aminu-Sharif. If some counter pressure is not brought to bear on the Kano State Governor, Aminu-Sharif will be executed. Or he may, as in the case of other members of the Sufi Order convicted for blasphemy in 2015, be left to languish in jail.

Nigeria is a religiously pluralistic country in which an individual’s ethnicity has a bearing on religious demographics. The Hausa-Fulani ethnic group, which is most populous in Northern Nigeria, are predominantly Muslim while the Igbo, a major ethnic group in the south is predominantly Christian. Meanwhile no single religion is in the majority throughout the country. Muslims, who are in the majority in the north are in the minority in Southern Nigeria. Whilst Chirstians, who are in the majority in Southern Nigeria, are in the minority in the north. Nigeria has a volatile ethno-religious mix and ethno-religious violence often erupts. The application of ‘blasphemy’ laws reinforces ethno-religious hatred and intolerance.

Nigeria needs to repeal laws that legitimize religious violence, oppression, and persecution. ‘Blasphemy’ laws are enshrined in both the Sharia and state penal codes. However, these laws are seldom invoked, except in the Muslim dominated states in Northern Nigeria. ‘Blasphemy laws are incompatible with human rights, tolerant pluralism and peace. ‘Blasphemy’ is a victimless crime. ‘Blasphemy’ laws make a mockery of the justice system in Nigeria because laws are there to protect individuals, and not to protect ideologies, beliefs or dogma – however important these may be to people.

Laws are made to guarantee and not violate the rights of human beings. Incidentally, blasphemy laws are used to flagrantly deny basic human rights, including the rights to life, freedom of religion or belief, and freedom of expression. As the cases of Bala, Aminu-Sharif and Farouq have shown, blasphemy laws sanctify religious tyranny and impunity. They are used to legitimize the oppression of minorities, to justify extrajudicial murder, arson, and attacks.

‘Blasphemy’ laws are only a legal recipe for chaos, anarchy, and conflicts in Nigeria. In the interest of peace, justice, and progress, Nigeria should abolish these unjust, incoherent and archaic laws.

Opinion

Mubarak Bala: In Defence of Free Speech and Critical Inquiry

2020-08-10 Leo Igwe

In the rabid quest to justify the disappearance of a Nigerian Humanist who made an innocuous post on Facebook, some Muslim fanatics have continued to peddle the notion that the said post crossed the limit of free speech. Did it? They have been relentless in voicing out this misguided notion and in publicizing a mistaken thesis: “You have a right to free speech, but you cannot insult another person’s religion”. One wonders if this set of Muhammadans ever listens to themselves or tries to discern the contradictions and inconsistencies therein. In this piece, I argue that this proposition encapsulates an acute misunderstanding of the limit of free speech amongst the jail-or-execute-Mubarak-Bala Muslims. Blinded by hate and ignorance, these Muslim fanatics have not understood the inherent contradiction and the counterproductive nature of their supposed limit to free expression.

Expressions that highlight other sides of a prophet or a religion are consistent with the values of free speech and critical inquiry because they are manifestations of independent thinking. Such expressions enrich knowledge and understanding of the prophet or the religion. They are not violations of moral or religious decencies as Muslim fanatics suppose. To hold a critical view is not a crime. Free speech and critical expressions are important for the generation and spread of ideas and beliefs. They are necessary for meaningful navigation of a world characterized by a diversity of thought and rapid flow of information and misinformation. Islam owes its origin and spread to free speech, to an unfettered expression of ideas. Islam is a religion that is critical of other religions. Islamic teachings contain views and opinions that differ from pre-existing notions; they make a caricature of faiths and beliefs. The prophet of Islam was critical of other religions and espoused ideas that ridiculed and sometimes radically departed from the knowledge and ideas of his time.

Thus if views that are critical of any religion are insults then Islam is an embodiment of insults, contemptible, and provocative ideas. If holding views that are critical of a prophet or a religion means insulting the religion or prophet, then, the prophet of Islam was a partaker in this exercise. The prophet of Islam proposed teachings that could be interpreted as insulting to pre-existing and successive prophets, to Christianity and other religions. By implication, the Quran is a codification of insults, of disrespectful and annoying propositions. The Hadith is a scroll of blasphemies. If, as some Muslim fanatics have proposed, the said Facebook posts by Mubarak Bala crossed the limit of free speech, then the teachings of Islam and the preaching by Islamic scholars and clerics also cross the limit of free speech. Muslim sermons are verbalized disparaging remarks on other religions and other prophets or philosophers.

But critical views are not insults on any religion or any prophet. To hold a critical idea is not a crime but an intellectual duty to humanity. Unfortunately, for centuries, Islamic demagogues have held people intellectually hostage in many places. They have censored the thoughts and writings of individuals. Islamic authorities have demonstrated a disdain for freedom of expression and criminalized Islam-critical expressions. Muslim clerics and theocrats have used various means and mechanisms to silence the voices of dissent while trying to perpetuate their religious doctrines, dogmas, and absurdities. It is pertinent to draw attention to their mistaken sense of limit to free speech, and the necessity of critical inquiry and independent thinking, tolerance of religiously offensive remarks in a culturally pluralistic Nigeria.

Police: Grant Bala Access To A Lawyer And Formally Charge Him

2020-06-22 Leo Igwe

Nigerian Police Arrest Humanist Leader Mubarak Bala for Alleged “Blasphemy”

To appease the international community, Nigerian authorities have told British parliamentarians that Nigerian humanist, Mubarak Bala, has been charged in court in Kano. They claimed that he was charged with insulting religion. This is not exactly the case. This representation is another attempt by Nigerian officials to misinform the world, misrepresent issues, and become a party to delaying and denying justice. Police arrested Bala in Kano on April 28 and whisked him to Kano the following day. Since April 29, the police in Kano have held Bala incommunicado without access to a lawyer and family members. The police have consistently undermined Bala’s legal representation and frustrated efforts by the lawyer to meet Bala. At first, the police in Kano denied knowing the whereabouts of Mr. Bala. They took the lawyer to the various police cells to confirm that Mubarak Bala was not in their custody. For some days, there were speculations that police detectives might have murdered Bala on their way to Kano. Efforts to get police officials in Kano and Abuja to confirm the fate of Mr. Bala proved abortive. Both the Commissioner of Police, Habu Sani, and the police public relations officers in Abuja, Frank Mba were not picking or returning calls. They were not providing any useful information or lead to what happened to Bala. After some days, information emerged that Bala had been ‘charged’ in court in May. Further investigation revealed that the ‘charge’ was only a ploy by the police to obtain a remand, that is a mandate to remand him. Bala has not been formally charged. Several pre-hearings have been scheduled but due to one excuse or the other, they were postponed. In all the pre-hearings, the lawyer made efforts to see Mubarak Bala but the police blocked them.

First of all, the lawyer and the police prosecutor met and agreed on the date to meet Mr. Bala. However, on that day, the police prosecutor did not turn up. When the lawyer contacted him, he claimed that he was sick. At subsequent pre-hearings, the police did not allow the lawyer to Bala. The police have refused to produce him in court. In fact, at a point, the police prosecutor claimed that Bala had been taken back to Kaduna. Some persons contacted the Commissioner of Police in Kaduna and he confirmed that Mubarak Bala was in his custody. At the last prehearing, the lawyer had to formally apply to see Bala and the application will be heard next week.

So it was improper and unfair for Nigerian officials to tell the world that Mubarak Bala had been charged in court. Do you charge a person in court without giving him or her access to a lawyer? Is the case of Mubarak Bala that of prosecution without legal representation? Is that not against the constitution? Why are Nigerian officials misrepresenting the situation in this case? Look, today marks 54 days since Bala was arrested, he has not been produced in court, he has not been allowed to see a lawyer. Why are Nigerian authorities making it clear that Bala would not receive a fair trial in Kano or anywhere in Nigeria?

There have been repeated calls to the Nigerian police to transfer Bala’s case to Abuja or another neutral ground. But these requests have fallen on deaf ears. The police have either refused or ignored these prayers. The police are not handling this case as required by law. They do not want to transfer the case to a neutral ground, based on legitimate concerns. The police do not want to grant Bala access to a lawyer or formally charge him. At the same time, they are giving the impression that they are prosecuting Mubarak Bala as required by law. They are not.

Why is Nigeria eager to create the impression that state officials are going about the case of Bala in line with the constitution? Meanwhile, the Nigerian authorities are acting in flagrant violation of Bala’s human and constitutional rights. Nigerian officials should not forget the legal maxim: quod approbo non reprobo (that which I approve I cannot disapprove). They should stop approbating and reprobating in this case. If as Nigerian officials have told the world, Mubarak Bala has been charge, then they should, as a matter of urgency, end this legal charade going on in Kano and Abuja. The police should grant Bala access to a lawyer and formally charge him in court.

Opinion

Blasphemy is a right, not a crime

2020-06-09 Leo Igwe

The arrest of Nigerian Humanist, Mubarak Bala, has generated heated debate on the issue of blasphemy on various platforms. Opinions are divided regarding the status of contempt of religion and how alleged blasphemers should be treated. In this piece, I draw attention to a perspective that analysts often overlook-that blasphemy is part of everyday discourse. People indulge in one form of blaspheming or another.

Contempt of religion is part of the universe of faith and belief. I suggest that it is utterly senseless for some religious believers, Muslims in this case, to accuse somebody of blasphemy. I submit that blasphemy a right, not a crime, and should be respected and not penalized.

As a backdrop to my argument, a quote by George Bernard Shaw is instructive. It states: “All great truths begin as blasphemies”. Yes, all great truths! It may be important for those who lodged the petition against Mr. Bala to ask: Do those Facebook posts contain some truths? What if Bala has drawn attention to a veritable side of the prophet? Look, truth claims need not be pleasant. They need not be comforting or good to hear and behold. Truths are not necessarily meant to soothe the nerves.

It is in the very nature of truth to reveal and open the eyes of the recipients. So truths are bitter and painful to hear and bear. Especially in this case where people have been mentally conditioned not to question or think; people have systemically been lied to, and been told to unquestionably embrace falsehoods as truths. So proposing new truth claims could be painful and irritating. Consider the case of the inmates in Plato’s allegory of the cave. The light of truth is unsettling and unnerving to the extent that recipients become hostile and attack truth-bearers. Along the line of Shaw’s quote is another saying that the truth that is bitter is the truth that liberates. Thus blasphemy is a trigger, a harbinger of great discoveries, discomforting insights, painful liberation, and enlightenment.

Apart from being a facility for human enrichment and nourishment, blasphemy is a human entitlement that is at the foundation of every religion. Yes all religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are blasphemes, they are sets of sacrilegious ideas. All founders of religions were blasphemers. Abraham was a blasphemer. Jesus Christ was a blasphemer. Muhammad was a blasphemer. Buddha was a blasphemer. Confucius was a blasphemer. Even Nigeria’s Sat Guru Maharaji is a blasphemer. It was in blaspheming that they departed from the truths of their time and proposed unsettling news teachings that formed the foundations of their respective religions. All religions and philosophies begin as blasphemies and are characteristically sacrilegious.

By implication, all those who profess these religions and philosophies are blasphemers. Traditional religionists, Christians, and Muslims are blasphemers. One faith is an exercise in contempt of other faiths and philosophies. Humanists, atheists, freethinkers, existentialists, materialists, empiricists and rationalists are blasphemers. They are espousers of truth claims and ideas that provoke or annoy others.

So if one’s religion is relatively a set of profane ideas how can one meaningfully accuse another person of contempt of religion? How can a sacrilegious speaker accuse another person of making a sacrilegious speech? In the case of Mr. Bala, there is no justification for the allegation of blasphemy because those Muslims who lodged the petition are blasphemers. What they believe and what Bala believes are mutually profane.

Muslims who petitioned the police should have realized that the prophet of Islam was a blasphemer and was in contempt of the religions of his time including Christianity. It can be recalled that the prophet of Islam at a point fled Mecca to escape persecution. Just like the petitioners and their Muslim supporters, the people in Mecca at the time of Muhammad were angry and upset by the prophet’s blasphemous propositions.

Incidentally, it was based on his contempt for other religions and philosophies of his time that Muhammad along with his followers founded Islam. By extension, Muslims are partakers in this tradition and heritage of profanity. As a habit, Muslims blaspheme against other religions and philosophies including humanism and traditional religions every day as they pray and practice their faith. The Qur’an is filled with passages that speak disparagingly about infidels and other nonbelievers. Even there is saying in Hausa, arne arne ni, an infidel is an infidel. This expression is a demeaning epithet that Hausa Muslims use to reference nonbelievers.

Relative to other religions, the Islamic declaration: There is no other god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger is a blasphemous statement because other religionists believe in the existence of other Gods and do not recognize Muhammad as a messenger or a prophet. So how could someone who blaspheme as a religious habit daily justifiably accuse another person of blasphemy? That is difficult to comprehend. And it will be more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. As espousers of one religion or philosophy, human beings are all blasphemers. Blaspheming is a part of everyday religious and philosophical discourse and practice. Blasphemy is a right, not a crime. It is a right that all those who founded religions including the prophet of Islam exercised. It is a right which all who practice religion including Muslims exercise.Free Mubarak Bala.

Regional

Mubarak Bala: Facebook Posts and Freedom of Expression

2020-05-19 Leo Igwe

Some Muslims have asked the police to prosecute Nigerian Humanist, Mubarak Bala for making some posts on Facebook. They claim that his posts insulted the prophet of Islam. And for that reason, they want Mr. Bala penalized. Others are threatening to execute him. The police have arrested Mr. Bala and may soon charge him. In this piece, I argue that the police should unconditionally release Mr. Bala because what they said he did was not an offense against the state.

I am aware that some Muslims are unhappy with the posts, and would want Mr. Bala punished. But I do not think it is a sufficient reason to prosecute or threaten to kill him as some Muslims have proposed.
Muslims make offensive, annoying, and provoking posts and comments both online and offline, don’t they?

I am of the view that the said posts of Mr. Bala were within his right to freedom of expression and belief.
I submit that if the police, in an attempt to appease the petitioners, prosecute and convict Mr. Bala based on the said comments, they would be setting a legal precedent that would negatively reflect on the right to freedom of expression of all persons including Muslims. In fact, the legal precedent would later come to hunt, hurt, and hamper the rights of Muslims especially in parts of Nigeria where they are in the minority. Why do I say so?

First, let’s take a look at the said posts as contained in the petition and find out if something criminal exists therein. According to S S Umar who made the complaint, Mr. Bala has, on his Facebook page, called the prophet of Islam “denigrating names pedophile, terrorist”. Umar said that Bala made “other statements that will incite Muslims and provoke them to take laws into their hands, which may result in public disturbance and breach of the peace”. Umar later referred to a post where Mr. Bala compared Prophet T B Joshua and Prophet Muhammad of Saudi Arabia, and stated that the former was better because he was not a terrorist. In making their case for the arrest and prosecution of Mr. Bala, the petitioners noted that Bala’s posts crossed the line in terms of freedom of expression and should be seen as an offense against the state.

Now I understand that Muslims hold prophet Muhammad in high esteem and would not be happy if the prophet of Islam is described in irreverent terms. But these are personal positions and dispositions. I am also aware that some Muslims may be offended by comments that designate the prophet of Islam as a criminal or a villain. That is a fact. But my question is: is that enough reason to ask the police to investigate and punish Mr. Bala? Is that a justification for the numerous death threats that some Muslims have issued against Mr. Bala? In a religiously pluralistic setting such as Nigeria, statements or posts such as the ones attributed to Mr. Bala abound. Muslims make them. Christians make them. Atheists make them. Similar statements are found in the religious texts, in the Bible and the Quran. Clerics use such statements in the preaching and sermons. Against this backdrop, who determines which posts are respectful or disrespectful? Who decides which comments are insulting and not insulting, and to whom? Even if by some means these distinctions could be made, does making disrespectful and insulting comments warrant police arrests and prosecutions? Does making insulting posts justify death threats? I do not think so.

The police must try not to validate the sentiment of the petitioners that anybody who makes any adjudged insulting posts on Facebook is a criminal, and breaches public peace. Such a position has a wide range of implications for free expression of ideas and beliefs.

In a culturally pluralistic society such as Nigeria, Muslims should not expect everyone to speak, write, and comment about the prophet of Islam in a reverential and respectful manner. Both Islam and the prophet are objects on the table on inquiry and analysis. So both muslims and non muslims write and speak about them from different perspectives. Everybody is not a Muslim and not everybody believes in Islam and Muhammad as a prophet. Millions of Nigerians profess other religions and beliefs, and do not recognize the prophet of Islam. There are Muslims who may agree with Mr. Bala’s statements but who may not publicly say so. Muslims should not expect all persons to talk about the prophet of Islam as if they are believers. Mubarak Bala is not a Muslim could not have commented about Muhammad as Muslims would do. He could not have represented the prophet of Islam in ways that all Muslims would appreciate and find acceptable. He made posts that reflected his belief and unbelief, his thoughts and outlook. Even if Mr. Bala were to be a Muslim he has the right to hold own view and express his thoughts about the prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Muslims who think that he was mistaken should engage him. They should make Facebook posts and comments to correct and educate him. Muslims should not ask that Bala be jailed. They should not use violence or death threats to respond to any adjudged ‘denigrating’ posts. That is not a peaceful and non-compulsive way to respond to offensive remarks. Is it? The use of violence and threatening violence against those who make posts and comments which some Muslims find disagreeable reinforce the notion that Islam is a violent religion

On their part, the police should not forget that if in their quest to appease the petitioners, they secure a judgment against Mubarak based on the said posts, they will set a legal precedent that could be used against Muslims particularly in parts of the country where Muslims are in the minority.

Muslims also make posts to express their faith. They post comments about prophets of other religions on Facebook and social media. Muslims make statements that describe non-believers and infidels in very disparaging terms. Muslim clerics try to convert traditionalists, Christians, and atheists in other parts of the country. In the process, they declare the nonexistence of other gods but Allah. Muslims make it clear that other gods are fake, false, and fetish, and that Allah is the only true and existing god. They openly declare that the prophets of other religions are inferior to Muhammad. As in the case of Mubarak Bala, persons of other religions could also petition and ask that the police to arrest and prosecute Muslims for expressing ideas and beliefs that are annoying and provoking.

If Muslims would not sanction the incarceration or execution of their clerics and scholars for ‘insulting’ the prophets of other religions, why do they sanction and endorse imprisonment and murder of those who make ‘insulting’ posts on Facebook as in the case of Mr. Bala? Like Muslim clerics and scholars who hold and express different views about prophets and gods of other religions, what Mr. Bala is said to have posted on his Facebook page is an exercise in the free expression of ideas and beliefs. It is not a crime. I agree that some Muslims find the posts offensive and annoying. But that does not make the action an offense against the state. Prosecuting Mr. Bala for making the said post is a waste of judicial resources. That Muslims or persons of other religions are offended by posts made on Facebook does not entitle them to engage in public disturbance or in activities that will breach public peace. Muslims should learn the culture of nonviolent reactions to online and offline posts that insult the prophet of Islam. They should embrace the culture of free expression and civilized debate

Free Mubarak Bala.

The Maravi Post