Aftermath of 'Villexit': Between The Two Copycats

In as much as I distaste and refused myself the use of the term “moral police” as used sarcastically this week on the social media, I'm left with little options in this piece seeing that many had already subscribed. So there can be a tacit agreement between my readers and I. In what appears obvious, to me at least, whoever says ‘no’ to KADFEST (2017 Kaduna State Festival of Arts and Culture) and or a ‘no’ to DABing qualifies one to be termed a “moral police” and recently, a no to Kano State Film Village(what I refer as ‘Villexit’) also make one not just a “moral police” but a Kano clerics' social media copycat! 

 But then I told myself, if I will be blunt to address these set of people as “moral police”, what does that make me? Is either I lie to myself to be on the fence or embrace the bitter truth, that I’m an ‘immoral police.’ But whose copycat? I’m yet to arrive at this.

Aliko Makaho, a prominent Hausa traditional Gurmi singer from Wudil, Kano state, had on several occasions joined his league of ‘entertainers’ in late 90’s to mock and refute the then Kano clerics among which was Sheikh Kalarawi who bitterly preached against their sort of music and entertainments. Many a times, Aliko Makaho made a steady stream of derogatory remarks on those clerics to discredit them. In trying to prove the ‘moral’ and legitimacy of his ‘job’ – Gurmi song, he uses conceit and fanciful ideas which lack substance to a sound mind. In one of such deceits, Makaho once tend to prove that his Gurmi stick is from a (natural) tree, the leather is from an animal, all created by God, etc., as such, they as human beings are only enjoying their ‘natural state’ through a ‘natural means’. Why should anyone have problem with them? He argued. You can imaging such level of thinking compared to one who quotes verses of the Noble Qur’an to prove his stand.

So, the struggle between the immoral and “moral police”, isn’t new in northern Nigeria and the world at large. And it can never stop till man cease to exist. Moral or Immoral, problems and misunderstanding are bound to happen, by nature. What matters most is how we choose to live with such problems and misunderstandings. Bearing in mind that we will, one day, all be accountable to our choices.

To declare a war on Islamic scholars simply because they differ with you in your thinking is never a solution. In our society today, a lack of intellectual humility manifests itself, in discussions related to morality and Islamic sciences, in various forms. A common expression is for me to arrive at a certain opinion, say, related to a legal matter. I then imagine that I alone understand what’s right or a ruling ought to be, and that none other hold a correct view. “Worse is the nefarious corollary of such a belief, my belief that the fact this unique understanding is not being currently championed must be due to one of two reasons:One is that the vast majority of scholars are being academically dishonest and are hiding what is the correct opinion for their own ends. The other is that it really is the fact that the understanding I have arrived at has no precedent whatsoever in the inherited tradition. I then take this to be demonstrative of the fact that established scholarship has nothing serious to offer. This is, of course, wrongheaded.”

If I draw a metallic barrier between myself and these scholars, running to get their audios and videos only when I here they slid to the shoulder, of course I'm building intellectual arrogance within myself. This is what happen whenever I am quick to say Dr. Gumi spoke against Ali bn Abi Talib (r) without listening to him myself, it’s what happen when I make the claim that “no single scholar in the whole of Kano state, ever spoke on the pulpit against Boko Haram and their terrorist activities in Nigeria.” And this, is what has been happening when I never read their books, nor even know their history but follow the crowd to say “ibn Abdulwahhab was the teacher of ibn Taimiyya and both are the root of ‘Islamic terrorism’ today”. This is the peak of intellectual arrogance.

These sort of claims, are what I earlier described to be fantastically wrong (zuki ta malle) – an example of intellectual arrogance born out of unfair feeling of dislike, parti pris, and a misguided sense of my own academic breadth. When I make such a claim, I am arrogantly making claims about the absence of what is obvious, betraying my lack of knowledge of a preceding discussion[s].

Your viewing scholars at large with suspicion, and believing them to be unwilling to entertain what you deem right, would likewise be intellectually arrogant. This is because they are skirting an issue; they have simply chosen another opinion for other reasons which may, by all stands prove you wrong.

Why should one be so ridiculous simply because theirs is considered against his’? How many “battles” have you, the immoral police won against the “moral police”? You think you can win the battle between you and these scholars? Ga fili nan ga mai doki. All I know is that you’re going to add followers by the day, be more famous of course. But that’s not a win!

At least this time the “moral police” have won. Why wouldn’t you be hopeful they’re right in their argument? Why shouldn’t you retire home and prepare your armor against next time? Can’t you see, they’ve already forget about this issue of Film Village and move on with their normal life routine of “moral policing?” Save yourself some time, our dear critics.

Originally Written 27 JULY, 2016.