REPLYING SANUSI LAMIDO'S ARTICLE ON SHEIKH JA'AFAR (I)
Until recently when Sunusi Lamido wrote about Sheikh Ja'afar Mahmud Adam, he is finally exposed as a wobbling underdog suffering from delusion, schizophrenia and megalomania; desperately seeking cheap recognition through heretic discourses, fictitious arguments and all sorts of bunkum.
Sanusi Lamido's wanton growing wings and looming air of self-worship began to show few years back when he wrote, gropingly seeking to debunk Shari'a provisions and prosecutions on certain connection with a widow Safiya Hussein in Zamfara State and similar cases. Also when Sanusi subsequently wrote cherishing reverend Mathew Hassan Kukah, he was seen by many observers as attempting to open yet another flood-gate of controversy for a pea-nut market-place measure of self importance.
Sanusi's depth of bellicosity and hot-tempered hostility is very vivid by virtue of being so easily provoked to the extent of oozing out such a frenzied and out-pouring passion at a helpless Islamic scholar, just because the Mallam made a mild reference to Sanusi's earlier articles in a newspaper interview. Part of Sheikh Ja'afar's statement in that interview, it reads as follows:- "Anyone that who reads theses people's writings will know that they don't know where they came from. They don't have the identity of the religion they belong to." The statement above and the press interview itself was on the issue of marginalization cried out by the northern leaders of thought for their concern about how the northerners, largely the Hausa-Fulani northerners were alienated from scheme of things and positions of responsibility in the present regime under chief Olusegun Obasanjo.
While Sheilh Ja'afar is one of those at the fore front in protesting the marginalization for his patriotism and loyalty to his people, nothing would stop him from defining those northerners who opt, for the sake of being seen as "philosophers"; they see nothing good for one to cherish tribal or regional identity, talk less to fight for due right of people in his region. Agreed that advocating regional or tribal identify is sometimes used by some selfish individuals as caveate to perpetrate their selfish ends and pursue their ulterior motives. Such identities also often serve as means to fan embers of disunity and ethnical vendetta, particularly in a multi-cultural society like Nigeria. However, all the above mentioned negative effect of "identity" must never stop people from crying foul where there is one or seeking for just and fair treatment on an equal par with all other members of other tribes or groups.
Also this does not stop a person or group of persons to champion the cause of their tribes, cultures or regions or such other indices because most heroes and notable people in history were only able to succeed and come to limelight by upholding and protecting either their religion, their society, their political system, their economic theory, their culture or their social identity as contrary to all others. For instance, Mr Nelson Manldela became prominent for his protection and promoting the cause and rights of "Black" South Africa, likewise Malcolm-X, for protecting the "Black" Americans. In Nigeria, Chiefs Odumegwu Ojukwu and late Obafemi Awolowo gained recognition as tribal champions, while late Reverand Okogie became famous for championing the cause of Christianity. In fact, almost all important people of caliber could be seen to have held firmly and were proud of their natural identities such as sex, place of birth and tribe or race.
Even the Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who urged Muslims to shun promoting tribalism or sectarian motives does not mean one should totally discard his religion, his belief, his culture or his tribe in order for him to fully assimilate or become accepted by others in his society. However, impliedly, the prophetic tradition asks Muslims to hold to their "differences", so that it would enable them "know one another" very well and use such differences or identities "positively". It could be clearly seen in Sanusi's write-ups about identity that he is sheepishly employing what he was satisfied as "philosophical dialectics" to show that he is purely detribalized or value-free, to the equal satisfaction of his equally co-free-thinkers. However, where the need arises, he gleefully hides behind his faintly caste shadow of "values" and "identities" to launch his belligerent offensive on vulnerable individuals such as Sheikh Ja'afar Mahmud Adam. If Mr. Sanusi is desperate for a rapid recognition and general acceptance, he better revert to upholding and promoting "values" and "identities", positively. He is rather much chanced to achieve his goal of recognition even much quicker that way, than by holding to his present bizarre, rather unknown and untaught ideology of weird nihilism.
At a crucial point, one would stop to ponder why equally as a Muslim, could Mr. Sanusi dump and even condemn Imam Sheikh Ja'afar and endorse and revere Reverend Hassan Mathew Kukah; just in order for him to gain popularity as a true free-minded, unbiased and "value-free" Boko elitist". Also why should Mr. Sanusi believe that an "itinerant Almajiri", "Wahhabite apologist" and an "Ibn Tayamiyyah adherent" Sheikh Ja'afar is not qualified to discuss politics but a Christian indoctrinated Reverend Mathew Kukah is that capable? Mr. Sanusi Lamido must be seen as myopic, deluded lot, lost in his murky bush of no return.
Mr. Sanusi Lamido also appeared too callous to have craftily hijacked this simple chance to capitalize that far; in order to make a market-fair of his "Englishness" vis-à-vis his derision of an esteemed Arabic literate Malam, for not habouring enough knowledge of the colonial language Sanusi was opportune to learn. Sanusi roared at the helpless Mallam: "Whereas Ja'far may not have read the above books or articles he seems to at least claim that he reads my writing. I am assuming that his understanding of the English language is sufficiently deep for him to understand what he may have read without relying on amateur interpreters. The history of his life and education, which we will come to briefly below, does not support this assumption", Sanusi insinuated.
But despite his open braggadocio and faceless chest-beating about his self acclaimed knowledge of English language, I was able to figure out a nasty grammatical blunder Sanusi made in his very rejoinder to Sheikh Ja'afar where he wrote as follows:- ".an unknown quantity that rides on the back of religious fundamentalism to gain social relevancy". This is bullshit! The word "relevant" which is an adjective has its noun form as "relevance" and never "relevancy" as written by "Mr. Know English", Sanusi Lamido. This correction made by my humble self in Mr. Sanusi's English rigmarole is a simple grammar he supposed to have known as a Form Three student in Secondary School. I believe he must be above 50 years old by now.
I could observe also that the self sanctifying Mr. Sanusi is equally fancy of coining or rather "manufacturing" or even smuggling his own self-made words into his discourses, thereby harassing and intimidating readers to bow to his assumed power of possessing jaw-breaking vocabulary -to further scare away cowards from challenging him. For instance, his word "ambulant" he used to address Sheikh Ja'afar satirically is totally absent in any standard dictionary I glanced through. This further buttresses the fact about Sanusi's exposed scheming and "wayo" escapades in "rigging" English language. Now listen to a confused Sanusi Lamido: "The truth is that by virtue of divine providence and the circumstances of my birth, up-bringing and education, I have no need to announce my ethnic, religious, racial or family background, nor seek recognition on that basis. I take them for granted and I am more interested in who I am in the sense of how do I become an exemplar of what I am? This is something Ja'afar cannot understand, and that is as it should be, because that is the difference between an exile without roots and his opposite".
The question here is why is it that a man who does not attach any importance to values such as "ethnicity," "religion" and "circumstance of birth" is at the same time being proud about his "root" and condemning others as rootless? Sincerely speaking, for such a free-thinking person, both a rootless person and one with "root" ought to have been equal and the same, with no one better or above the other. At one point, Mr. Sanusi skewed into palace politics in a kind of rhapsody to senior political elites, possibly to gain certain gratifications as do the ubiquitous political jesters and mendicants in radio channels thus:- "This point was in fact made, thankfully, by the governor of Kano State, Mallam Ibrahim Shekarau to Ja'afar and his fellow travelers in the self appointed Supreme Council for Shari'a in Nigeria...". He might soon pursue his gratifying returns for his lip-service with the Chief Executive.
Only a merry-go-round and not an "intellectual" or a "philosopher" would make a wrong choice in any thing and still convince himself that he is right.
I think such a person should definitely have his head examined. The manner Mr. Sanusi lambasted Sheikh Ja'afar as "Wahhabite apologist" and "Whhabite evangelist" but falls for a Christian evangelist reverend Hassan Kukah, speaks volumes of the extent a pathological and so-called sufi follower could go in his hatred and show of animosity towards as Ahlul-sunnah follower.
In any case, whether Mr. Sanusi would heed this piece of admonish or he may interprete the Qur'anic message metaphorically (ta'aweel), the choice remains his, but Allah (SWT) said thus: "O you who have believed fear Allah as He should be feared and do not die except as Muslims (in Submission to him). And hold firmly to the rope of Allah altogether and do not become divided. And remember the favour of Allah upon you-when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you become by His favour, brothers and you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire and he saved you from it.
Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided . And do not be like the ones who become divided and different after the clear proofs had come to the in, and those will have a great punishment". (Aal-Imran, verses 102 -105).
Allah the Almighty further stated in Aal-Imran verses 118-120 as follows "O you who have believed, do not take as intimates, those other than yourselves (i.e believers), for they will not spare you (any) ruin. They wish you would have hardship, hatred has already appeared from their mouths and what their breasts conceal is greater. We have certainly made clear to you the signs, if you will use reason. Here you love them but they do not love you, while you believe in the scripture all of it and when they meet you they say "we believe". But when they are alone, they bite their finger tips at you in rage say, "Die in your rage. Indeed Allah knows of that within the breasts. If good touches you, it distresses them, but harm strikes you, they rejoice at it and if you are patient and fear Allah, their plot will not harm you at all. Indeed Allah is encompassing of what they do".
More admonish was given by Allah the Almighty in Surah Al-Nisa'i, verses 144-146 as follows:- "O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah against yourselves a clear case? Indeed the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the fire a helper -except for those who repent, correct themselves, hold fast to Allah and are sincere in their religion for Allah, for those will be going to give the believers a good reward".
At another point in the Qur'an in Surah Al-Ma'idah verses 51-52, Allah the Almighty warned: "O you who have believed do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are (in fact allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you -then indeed, he is (one) of them. Indeed Allah guides not the wrong doing people. So you see those in whose hearts is disease (i.e hypocrisy) hastening into (association with) them saying "we are afraid a misfortune may strike us". But perhaps Allah will bring conquest or decision from Him, and they will become over what they have been concealing within themselves, regretful".
On the issue of being "an exile" and being "fundamentalist" and "fanatic" Mr. Sanusi accused sheikh Ja'afar: "..an exile throughout his life, groping for terra ferma beneath his feet an unknown quantity that rides on the back of religious fundamentalism to gain social relevancy such a person needs an anchor desperately because of his inherent insecurity and instability, and he finds it in paranoid and parochial identifies ----- the fanaticism, the irresponsible propagandist, the absence of patriotic nationalism ---", and so on.
My question here is that who ever dared to condemn Mr.
Sanusi when some times in early 1990's he lodged in Sudan as a foreign student, from where he might have imbibed his Sufi apologist and quasi-Shi'ite creeds -the one that he jumbled up with western orientalist ideologies to emerge with this his confused mind set that haunts every body here? Or why else among the Muslim brothers ever dubbed Mr. Sanusi a fanatic or a fundamentalist when he was arrested and imprisoned at the wake of Kano religious upheaval in 1995, following the beheading one Gideon Akaluka for his (Gideon's) blasphemy of using Qur'anic scripts as toilet papers. Mr. Sanusi, you accused Sheikh Ja'afar of losing touch with his root and (according to you) because Ja'afar is "a man whose life has been a series of dislocations contradictions and alienation-------" That is why according to your assertion, Ja'afar behaves abnormally.
Is it because the Emir Sanusi family lost the mantle of power Bayeros as a result of political turmoil during late Sardauna the premier of Northern Nigeria that Mr. Sanusi Lamido, an offspring of the ousted house still behaves one kind and no body is safe? After that entire harangue, towards the tail end of his write up, a confused Sanusi displayed his true colour of contradiction. Hear him:- "From now, I will only note with pleasure that northern delegates at the National conference have come together and are speaking with one voice..." bla bla bla! You who detached yourself from values and identities and one whose place of birth (North) is by sheer "accident and conjecture" why now brother about northern affair? To a true free thinker, the north, south, west and east are all the same and can never claim to belong to only one, to the exception of the rest geographical zones. Finally, I would like to warn all serious minded people to boycott Mr. Sanusi and keep him at an arm length. More so, to stop inviting him to deliver any intellectual or educational paper hence forth, because to a close and careful observer, Mr. Sanusi could do more harm than good in his writings. To be fore warned is to be fore armed, they say. I shall come up with more drastic Big Bang soon!
Written By Isa Muhammad Inuwa
[email protected]