When Extremism Is Mistaken for Islam: Agunbiade Responds to Deji Yesufu

Context, not caricature, is the proper key to understanding Islam, the Qur’an and Shari’a in Nigeria

By Mallam Ibrahim Agunbiade

I have read with keen interest the article titled “Islam: An Open Letter to Edmund Obilo” by Mr Deji Yesufu. I appreciate his call for dialogue and peaceful coexistence, and I share the conviction that Nigerians must continue to engage one another honestly on matters of religion, security and national unity.

However, I strongly disagree with the attempt to explain Islam principally through the actions of Boko Haram and other violent organisations that claim Islamic justification for their activities.

As a student of knowledge and a member of Rabwa Islamic Propagation, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, I consider it necessary to state this clearly: Boko Haram does not represent Islam, and terrorism cannot be the standard by which Islam or Muslims are judged.

BOKO HARAM AND THE FIRST COMMAND OF ISLAM

There is a fundamental contradiction in presenting Boko Haram—or any violent extremist organisation—as an authentic representation of Islam.

The first revelation received by Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, began with the command:

tions requiring Muslims to hate or kilاقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ
Iqra’ bismi rabbika alladhi khalaq.
“Read in the name of your Lord who created.”
— Qur’an 96:1

The first revealed word was Iqra, meaning “Read”. Islam therefore opened its revealed message with a profound emphasis on reading, knowledge and learning.

The Qur’an further asks:

قُلْ هَلْ يَسْتَوِي الَّذِينَ يَعْلَمُونَ وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
“Say: Are those who know equal to those who do not know?”
— Qur’an 39:9

Whatever linguistic debate may surround the name “Boko Haram”, the organisation’s ideology and activities have been associated with hostility towards Western-style education, including attacks on schools, teachers and students.

How, then, can an organisation associated with the destruction of education be presented as an authentic expression of a faith whose first revealed command was Iqra—Read?

Islam began with knowledge, not ignorance; with learning, not the destruction of schools. Boko Haram should therefore be understood for what it is: a violent extremist organisation that has tragically abused the name of Islam.

THE QUR’AN MUST BE READ IN CONTEXT

Another major concern is the presentation of Qur’anic verses such as Qur’an 5:51 and 9:29 as blanket instru
cl Christians and Jews.

Such an interpretation is neither an adequate reading of the Qur’an nor a responsible way to approach a complex religious text.

The Qur’an states:

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
“There is no compulsion in religion.”
— Qur’an 2:256

It also states:

لَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ
“Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with those who did not fight you because of your religion.”
— Qur’an 60:8

These verses are important because they demonstrate why Qur’anic interpretation cannot responsibly be reduced to isolated quotations detached from the circumstances, language, audience and broader textual framework in which particular verses were revealed.

A verse addressing a specific conflict or historical circumstance cannot automatically be converted into a universal command governing every Muslim in every society and every period.

The same principle applies to hadith literature. A report relating to a particular historical circumstance, political conflict or community cannot simply be transformed into a universal instruction to Muslims living peacefully alongside Christians and Jews in contemporary Nigeria.

Context does not weaken scripture; it helps us understand it accurately.

TAQIYYAH IS NOT A UNIVERSAL LICENCE TO DECEIVE

The claim that Muslims practise taqiyyah as a general religious licence to deceive non-Muslims is also misleading.

Taqiyyah has a specific theological and historical development, particularly within Shi’a traditions, relating to the concealment of religious belief under circumstances of persecution or serious danger.

It is therefore inaccurate to present taqiyyah as a blanket Islamic doctrine authorising Muslims to lie to Christians or other non-Muslims.

Serious discussions about religion require precision. Concepts should be examined within their actual theological and historical contexts rather than presented as evidence for predetermined conclusions.

THERE ARE, INDEED, MODERATE MUSLIMS

I also reject the assertion that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

The lived experience of millions of Muslims in Nigeria tells a different story.

Muslims and Christians work together, conduct businesses together, attend the same schools, serve in the same institutions and live side by side in communities across the country. Interfaith families and friendships are also part of Nigeria’s social reality.

Of course, there are Muslims who commit atrocities, just as there are Christians and adherents of othe
r religions who commit crimes. But the existence of extremists does not make extremism the defining character of the religion to which they claim allegiance.

Judging Islam solely by Boko Haram would be no more intellectually sound than judging Christianity solely by the actions of violent individuals who claim to act in its name.

A criminal’s religious label does not automatically authenticate his interpretation of that religion.

IRAN, HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH AND THE HOUTHIS

The tendency to group Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis together and present them collectively as representatives of Islam also requires caution.

The Muslim world is neither politically nor theologically monolithic. It contains different schools of thought, political systems, legal traditions, cultures and movements.

Iran is a state with its own political and ideological system. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are separate movements with distinct histories, structures, political objectives and circumstances.

Their actions should therefore be examined individually and critically rather than presented as though they constitute a single expression of Islam.

At the same time, my position is unequivocal: deliberate attacks on innocent civilians are morally indefensible, regardless of who commits them or what religious or political justification is offered.

Condemning terrorism should be universal. It should not depend on the religion of the perpetrator or the identity of the victims.

SHARI’A IS NOT NEW TO OYO STATE

The suggestion that Oyo State must resist the “introduction” of Shari’a also requires clarification.

Shari’a is not new to Oyo State. Muslims have practised aspects of Islamic law and resolved personal and community matters according to Islamic principles for decades.

There is, for instance, a Shari’a arbitration panel at Oja’Oba Central Mosque in Ibadan, where Muslims may voluntarily bring certain disputes for resolution according to Islamic principles.

This is not Boko Haram.

It is not terrorism.

It is religious dispute resolution within a community.

More broadly, Nigeria’s constitutional framework recognises the place of Shari’a in the country’s legal system, including the provision for a Shari’a Court of Appeal under Section 275 of the 1999 Constitution.

Therefore, any discussion of Shari’a in Nigeria should be approached through the Constitution, the law and the actual practice of Muslims—not automatically through the lens of terrorism.

Muslims are entitled to practise their religion within the law, just as Christians and adherents of other faiths are entitled to practise theirs.

NIGERIA BELONGS TO ALL OF US

I equally disagree with any suggestion that
Nigeria’s development can be credited principally to one religious community.

Nigeria was built by Nigerians.

Muslims and Christians have made—and continue to make—significant contributions to the country’s development in education, medicine, law, politics, business, science, agriculture, security, public administration and countless other fields.

Our national challenges are not fundamentally religious problems.

Corruption is a problem.

Insecurity is a problem.

Poor governance is a problem.

Poverty and inequality are problems.

Injustice is a problem.

Religious extremism—whether expressed in the name of Islam, Christianity or any other ideology—is a problem.

The solution is not to turn Nigerian Muslims and Christians against one another. It is to build institutions that deliver justice, protect citizens and hold wrongdoers accountable irrespective of their religion.

MY POSITION IS SIMPLE

We can condemn Boko Haram without condemning Islam.

We can oppose terrorism without demonising Muslims.

We can defend Christians without portraying Muslims as their enemies.

We can defend Muslims without excusing criminals who misuse the name of Islam.

And above all, we can discuss religion with knowledge, context and intellectual honesty.

The first command of the final revelation was Iqra—Read.

Let that command guide the way we read, interpret and discuss Islam.

Nigeria does not need religious caricatures. It needs citizens who are willing to listen to one another, challenge ideas honestly and distinguish between a religion and those who misuse its name.

Our diversity should not be a permanent source of suspicion. It should be an opportunity to build a society in which Muslims, Christians and people of other convictions can live together under the protection of the law.

Dialogue, not violence.
Knowledge, not caricature.
Justice, not prejudice.

Signed

MALLAM IBRAHIM AGUNBIADE
Member,
Rabwa Islamic Propagation
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

agunbiadeib@gmail.com
10 September 202
6