Wole Soyinka, the Nigerian Nobel laureat for literature and one of Africa's foremost men of letters, has written a very insightful piece that purports to dissect the origins of the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group in Nigeria, Boko Haram. Anyone familiar with the unholy exploits of this group would surely want to know what makes it tick. This is precisely what Soyinka attempts to do. He thus traces the background of this group to other forms of Islamic fundamentalism such as in Iran and Afganistan. The piece, I think, is worth reading.
However, Soyinka makes two mistakes in that piece. The first is that he considers Boko Haram to be motivated by bad Quranic education that leads to an unquestionable allegiance to authority. Because the education of the typical Boko Haram consists in memorizing the Quran, they hardly develop the mindset to question authority and so blindly follow the dictates of their Mullahs. However, Soyinka surely knows that there are many well educated people who blindly follow the dictates of their superiors. You will find many of these people in Nigeria and in the Nigerian government itself. These people, have, however, not killed en masse, as Boko Haram does. Further, there are other Islamic groups in Africa, such as the Mourids of Senegal, who would fit Soyinka's description of the kind of education which a typical Boko Haram follower receives, yet the Mourids are not violent.Thus, it seems that for blind allegiance to be pernicious, it needs more combustion. Bad education is not the only issue here.
Perhaps bad education will have to be coupled with pernicious beliefs, as it appears to be the case with Boko Haram. However, Soyinka misses a more significant point here. The significant point which he misses is the fact that he makes a distinction between religion and politics. He seems to think that religion should have nothing to do with politics so that when one uses religion to gain political opportunity, Soyinka sees them as not being true believers. Like the Boko Haram which he claims sees orthodox Islamists as not true Muslims, Soyinka sees Muslims who use their religion to gain political power as not true Muslims. Prof. Soyinka should know that religion is politics. Politics, like religion, have their positive and negative sides. To see religion as somehow missing the mark when it becomes political is not an inadequate view of religion. A more adequate view of religion is to see it as politics so that those who appropriate religion to gain political power are not being irreligious. They are simply doing what religion, like politics, does. That is what Boko Haram is doing. Thus, it is not a good argument to fuss that religious people use religion to gain political power. The question should focus on the method which religionists, just like secularists, use to gain power in a political arena which includes both religionists and secularists.
However, Soyinka makes two mistakes in that piece. The first is that he considers Boko Haram to be motivated by bad Quranic education that leads to an unquestionable allegiance to authority. Because the education of the typical Boko Haram consists in memorizing the Quran, they hardly develop the mindset to question authority and so blindly follow the dictates of their Mullahs. However, Soyinka surely knows that there are many well educated people who blindly follow the dictates of their superiors. You will find many of these people in Nigeria and in the Nigerian government itself. These people, have, however, not killed en masse, as Boko Haram does. Further, there are other Islamic groups in Africa, such as the Mourids of Senegal, who would fit Soyinka's description of the kind of education which a typical Boko Haram follower receives, yet the Mourids are not violent.Thus, it seems that for blind allegiance to be pernicious, it needs more combustion. Bad education is not the only issue here.
Perhaps bad education will have to be coupled with pernicious beliefs, as it appears to be the case with Boko Haram. However, Soyinka misses a more significant point here. The significant point which he misses is the fact that he makes a distinction between religion and politics. He seems to think that religion should have nothing to do with politics so that when one uses religion to gain political opportunity, Soyinka sees them as not being true believers. Like the Boko Haram which he claims sees orthodox Islamists as not true Muslims, Soyinka sees Muslims who use their religion to gain political power as not true Muslims. Prof. Soyinka should know that religion is politics. Politics, like religion, have their positive and negative sides. To see religion as somehow missing the mark when it becomes political is not an inadequate view of religion. A more adequate view of religion is to see it as politics so that those who appropriate religion to gain political power are not being irreligious. They are simply doing what religion, like politics, does. That is what Boko Haram is doing. Thus, it is not a good argument to fuss that religious people use religion to gain political power. The question should focus on the method which religionists, just like secularists, use to gain power in a political arena which includes both religionists and secularists.
No comments:
Post a Comment