From Religious Fundamentalism to the Dialogue of Life and Philosophy of Tolerance in Nigeria
By SUNDAY EDOH ODUM Graduate Student, Department of Philosophy
Benue State University
P. M. B. 102119, Makurdi-Nigeria
Email: edohodum@gmail.com
Tel: +234(0)8104030790.
Abstract
Central to the discourse in this paper is the issue of the Nigerian state and the search for tolerance and peace. Differences in religious persuasions have been responsible for deeper divisions within communities than any other source of conflict and threat to world peace. This assertion, though sad, returns true in Nigeria. Contrary to the expectations that the heterogeneous nature, as well as the diversity of religious persuasions will be the source of our strength and a uniting factor, this have increasingly become a divisive element in the existential life of the Nigerian state. While it has been argued that conflict and crisis are essential part of the human existential condition, no crisis or war laden nation can be said to be on the part of development. This paper seeks to give the oxygen of publicity to the Dialogue of Life and the Philosophy of Tolerance and accordingly advocate for a move from religious fundamentalism to the accommodation of religious diversities and differences. To achieve the above, this paper engages the expository and crito-analytic methods of data analysis. In the final third, the paper found out that for mutual religious coexistence that allows the psychology of expressions over matters of faith and belief, a move away from religious fundamentalism towards the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance in view of the fact that we share the same humanity and that religious affiliations are not the substance of our existence is imperative.
Keywords: Peace, Religious Fundamentalism, Dialogue, Philosophy, Tolerance.
1
Introduction
It was Von Mises who intimated that if peace is not to be disturbed; all incentives for aggression must be eliminated. This thinking sets the tone for this discourse while at the same time constituting the motivation of the same. Central to development is peace but one thing that has historically constituted a hindrance as well threatened peace in Nigeria is the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism. In this wise, religion in Nigeria has failed to live up to its responsibility of being a cohesive factor and have rather assumed a divisive dimension. Ahmadu Bello (1956) quoted in Omolumen (2015: 75) corroborated the above when he intimated that,
Religion which has become a cohesive factor in many societies has proved extremely divisive in Nigeria. In their search for religious sect, Nigerians have fallen back on prejudices, bigotry, extremism, fundamentalism and a parochial antagonism that only promotes chaos, anarchy and disunity.
As apt as the above may be, it should not be read as undermining the power of religion to exact positive influence on a people in a manner that is considerable. Rather, it should be read as a deviation that stands in need of correction. Be that as it may, the above chronicles in clear and unambiguous terms, the Nigerian religious situation. That religious fundamentalism in Nigeria has assumed a destructive dimension threatening peace and stability in Nigeria is a statement of fact that coheres to the actual state of affairs. The consequence of fundamentalist dynamism has created scepticism and insecurity among Nigerians, which does not only occur at the intra-group, but also at the inter-group level in the country. The rising tide of religious fundamentalism in the face of the need for peace and development presents Nigeria as a country in dilemma and in a cross road.
Religious fundamentalism in Nigeria through the violent activities of fundamentalist groups like the Shi’ites group which preceded the Maitatsine and the Boko Haram fundamentalists and extremists groups have no doubt demonstrated the impact of religious fundamentalism on the collective peace, social existence and the development of Nigeria. The killings, the maiming and the destruction of lives and properties worth billions of Naira in history further gives credence to the fact that fundamentalist and extremists disposition does not count, as it were and as it stands, to the development drive of any nation but is rather retrogressive. It is in this regards that it has been argued that:
When government or communities provide schools, hospitals, electricity, good roads, life is made easier for any such fortunate community or communities. But where for any reason at all; religiously or otherwise these amenities are
2
destroyed hardship and retrogression sets in. If the individual society or government decides to replace the destroyed facilities, it will tantamount to double spending and wasting their resources that could have been use for new facilities lending sustenance to earlier developmental achievements. In circumstances such as this the community will just be marking time instead of marching forward. Religious fundamentalism in circumstances under review sets the hand of the clock backward contrary to sustainable development (Ukoma 2008:115).
It is sequel to the above that this paper seeks to argue that, for peace to ensure in Nigeria, the frontiers of religious fundamentalism and extremist tendencies must with some level of austerity be pushed back. The task before this paper is to give the oxygen of publicity to the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance and elevate the duo as the way out of the gradual but steady growth of religious fundamentalism and extremism in Nigeria.
Making Sense of Religious Fundamentalism
The term fundamentalism, as Vorster intimates was first used to identify a certain movement in Protestant Christianity which germinated in the United States in the 1920’s and spread to other parts of the world (2008:44). “Fundamentalism is an ideology that diverts people from the path of natural development of consciousness and undermines their personal right…” (Omolumen 2015:76). For Pavlovic (2009:55) quoted in Okafor (2017:55), “fundamentalism is a broad cross-cultural applicable concept with a variety of aspects. It is first and foremost characterized by a strong commitment to the basic truth of certain religion, belief, ideology or conviction”. Fundamentalists believe in a particular way of life; they want to put everybody in their particular straight jacket and dictates what an individual should eat, what an individual should wear, how an individual should live, life-everything would be determined by the fundamentalist authority. Fundamentalists do not believe in individualism, liberty of personal choice or plurality of thought. They do not encourage or enter free debate, they deny others the right to express their own views freely and they cannot tolerate anything which they perceive is going against their faith. Fundamentalism has appeared as:
A tendency, a habit of mind, found within religious communities and movements, which manifests itself as a strategy, or set of strategies, by which beleaguered believers attempt to preserve their distinctive identity as a people or group. Feeling this identity to be at risk in the contemporary era, they fortify it by a selective retrieval of doctrines, beliefs, and practices from a sacred past. These retrieved 'fundamentals' are refined, modified, and sanctioned in a spirit of shrewd pragmatism: they are to serve as a bulwark against the encroachment of outsiders who threaten to draw the believers into a syncretistic, areligious, or irreligious cultural milieu... (Marty and Appleby 1991: 835).
3
The dialectical link between religion and fundamentalism is what has given rise to the expression of religious fundamentalism. What then is religious fundamentalism?
Religious fundamentalism can be defined as a way of reasoning which breeds ideologies that are both religious and political in nature and mount themselves against a perceived threat or enemy in order to protect their identities. These ideologies elevate certain fundamentals of a particular religion or life- and worldview to absolutes and interlace their ideas and methods around these absolutes. With a strong reactionary attitude, fundamentalist ideologies and religions easily resort to extremism, militancy, abuses of human rights and even violence. The clearest example of this is the current Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and Africa (Vorster, 2007). It rest on the claim that some source of ideas, usually a text (in this case the Qur’an or the Bible) is inerrant and a complete revelation of the truth about God. It is the belief that religion or the believe in God have reached its watershed in the tenets of a particular religion or sect. Momoh (2003: 38) seems to be thinking in the above light when he avers of religious fundamentalism that:
…the belief by adherent that his own sect within his own religion is the one that truly and correctly espouses, interprets and lives by tenets, injunctions and doctrines of that religion; members of the other sects are either ignorant of the true teachings of their Founder or they are simply tendentiously being swayed by impurity, materialism and worldly pride. The fundamentalist makes it known that he is prepared to go to any length using all means – civilized or crude, peaceful or violent – to defend his sect or impose it on others.
Religious fundamentalism is usually caused by the fear of a perceived enemy. Fundamentalists define themselves in large by what they are against. It is, therefore, reactive and reactionary in nature. They always have a very real and easily identifiable enemy. It is this reactionary nature that differentiate religious fundamentalism from mere orthodoxy, traditionalism or conservatism. Vorster (2008:53) avers that it is the reactionary nature of religious fundamentalism that is the root cause of its prejudice against otherness and its intolerance towards other in its own midst. In the same thinking, Schwartz and Lindley (2005: 154) intimated that “adherents are trained to be prejudiced by leaders warning them against the people trying to destruct their identity and distorting the truth”. The reactionary nature of religious fundamentalism can furthermore be discerned in its intolerance towards people with other ideas and beliefs. Fundamentalists are seldom willing to enter into an open
4
debate with others. They rather tend to attach themselves with their own group and to demonise other perspectives (Vorster, 2008:53).
Corroborating the above, it has been argued that religious fundamentalism is a reactionary or revolutionary approach to circumstances caused by forces of modernity which is the promoter of religious and cultural liberalism. It is a quest expressed for the return to norm. Central to religious fundamentalism is therefore the expression of resistance against deviation from preexisting norms that governs a particular community. Religious fundamentalists beacons their approach on the ultimate “authority of the scripture and the necessity of righteous living” and “on right doctrine and the necessity of organized warfare against the forces of modernism” (Lenshie and Abel, 2012:44).
Consequently, Religious fundamentalists should be understood following the above, as folks who hold that their religion or sect is the true, and correct one, it is reactionary while at the same time possessing the propensity of going to any length to defend their position. Furthermore, it must be noted that contrary to public opinion in some quotas where the mention of religious fundamentalism is synonymous to Islam, religious fundamentalism is a tendency that cuts across all religions. Vorster (2008: 49) stated the above in lucid terms when he intimated that:
The “three religions of the Book” namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism have, in spite of deep-rooted differences in theology and ethics, one remarkable similarity. All three are prone to fundamentalism because of the danger of a literalist use of the respective scriptures. Scripturalism meets the need for certainty and authority for many people and gives them confidence in their pursuits.
The coming to mind of Islam at the mention of religious fundamentalism is not unconnected with the rising tide of Islamists terrorist groups all over the world with the like of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the ISIL, the Shi’ites, and in the last decade, the Boko Haram group in Nigeria which have threatened the peace stability of the Nigerian state surprisingly in the name of God.
Religious Fundamentalism: Nigeria in Context
Three major religious traditions exist side by side in Nigeria; they are Christianity, Islam and African Traditional religions. As a follow up from the above, religious fundamentalism is not a tendency exclusive to Islam, fundamentalist and extremists tendencies exist among those with Christian persuasion. The tasks before us in this section is a discourse on Islamic and
5
Christian religious fundamentalism generally and within the context of Nigeria is key as the duo constitute the most part of the practitioner of religion in Nigeria and the world over. To start with,
A Muslim has no country except the part of the earth where the Shariah of God is established and human relations are based on the foundation of relationship with God: a Muslim has no nationality except his belief, which makes him a member of the Muslim Community in Dar-Ul-Islam; a Muslim has no relatives except those who share the belief in God, and thus a bond is established between them and other believers through their relationship with God (Sayyid Qutb quoted in Agede, 2017:182).
The above quotation from the thinking of a very influential Egyptian Islamist who exacted so much influence on Osama Bin Laden could be read as the high point of the fundamentalist disposition that sums up Islamic fundamentalism and the thinking of Islamic fundamentalist in Nigeria. Islamic fundamentalists argue that the Qur’an, as God’s literal and eternal word, should be interpreted according to the literal meaning of the words and concepts. They use Islamic scripture as the filter through which all discussion passes. Scripture is used in a proof text manner, just as in the case of Christian fundamentalism. Islamic fundamentalists therefore tend to hold the Shari’ah in high esteem and aim to elevate the Shari’ah to the document that should form the foundation of all legislation in Islamic countries (Abdul, 2001:7).. These countries value themselves as theocracies with the Shari’ah as the judicial basis. This is the reason for the harsh penalties against crime, the inferior position of women and the justification of capital punishment in Islamic countries ruled by the Shari’ah. Agede (2017: 182) corroborated the above when he intimated that “Islamic fundamentalist are united in the belief that the society is a total system based on the Quran”.
Amongst many others, two features of this way of reasoning in Islamic fundamentalism should be emphasised. These are the notions of jihad and martyrdom. According to this kind of hermeneutics, fundamentalist Muslims understand the concept of jihad as a militant agenda on the basis of the military language of scripture. In a well-argued article, Heck describes how this concept is used in the written tradition and how it was, and still is, translated into a form of violent struggle to promote Islam rule, ideas and culture. He says that: The term in its various forms signifies a divine test (Q 47:31) to distinguish the lukewarm believers (Q 4:95; 9:81) from those who desire God’s satisfaction (Q 60:1) and strive body and soul in His way (Q 9:41, 88). Jihad, regardless of sphere of action, is a means of separating true belief from infidelity (Q 25:52) and ranking the intention and merit of those who believe (Q 8:72-75). It is the mark of those who take up the mission of God without fear
6
of blame or doubt (Q 5:54 and 49:15). Primarily at stake in the qur’anic significance of jihad is not warfare per se, but the degree of devotion to God’s cause over concern for worldly affairs (Q 9:19, 24; 60:2), and a righteous or right cause before God. In spite of these teachings, jihad was interpreted as military action to protect the Islam rule and culture in times of oppression or military aggression against the Islamic countries. The crusades incited jihads as defensive actions. Modern-day fundamentalist readings go back to these interpretations and find motivation in the idea that Islam territory and culture should be protected and even expanded by way of a jihad against the forces endangering Islam. Jihad is currently seen as a salvific and purifying act with the ultimate goal of establishing a messianic caliphal state encompassing all Muslims (Cook, 2004:129). Vorster (2008:56) corroborated the above when he stressed that:
In Islamic fundamentalism, the use of violence has nowadays become one of its main characteristics. The public worldwide witnessed terrorist actions, suicide bombings and killings in the name of Allah. In the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism over the last four decades, violence in the name of Islam and Allah appeared to be an important feature of all the new fundamentalist movements in Muslim countries, and was urged on by their leaders and clerics.
In Nigeria, the above returns true. From the north-western to the North-Eastern fringes of Nigeria, the activities of Islamic fundamentalists are crystal clear to everyone to see. The intolerant nature of fundamentalists Muslims who have time after time and again descended on Christians, referring to the as infidel in the process, killing and maiming them in their numbers in God’s name is evident. The activities of the Shi’ites movement in the 1970s and 1980s and most recently 2015, the Maitatsine uprising of 1980 to 1985 and the Boko Haram movement in the last decade, the killings in the Plateau, and the south of Kaduna among others, the statistics of which is both frightening and alarming further accentuate the fact of the prevalence of Islamic fundamentalism in Nigeria. Others are the Shi’ites attack of 1996 and 1997, the 1982 Fagge crisis, the Reinhard Bonnke Riot of 1991, the Akaluka Incident of 1994 etc. Running through all these movements is the rejection of the secularity of the Nigerian state. Adesoji (2011:103) avers in the above regards that:
Characteristically running through the fundamentalists’ doctrines are the declaration that the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a dagut or taagut (evil), unworthy of allegiance on the part of good and upright Muslims; sustained attacks on police posts and personnel; encouragement of members to drop out of schools; and the declaration that working in any form
7
of government employment is unlawful. These doctrines predispose the groups to violence.
Within the context of Christianity, fundamentalist’s propensities do exist. In the Nigerian context, Christian fundamentalists either belonging to the conservative Catholics, evangelical, charismatic or Pentecostal groups, are characterized by their strong loyalties to biblical inerrancy, a charismatic leader, creationism and millenialist dispensationalism, as well as an avid emphasis on the divine compelling mandate to convert and win souls for Christ, as well as the practice of free and democratic availability of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the same Vein, Gifford (1991) as quoted in Okafor (2017) asserted that dispensationalism and Faith Gospel (prosperity gospel on health and wealth based on the dual notions of the world as evil and human dualism) standout as the main characteristics of Christian fundamentalism in Nigeria, which flourished due to the preponderance of themes such as plagues, famines, and all kinds of disasters, drawn from the apocalyptic biblical books, and interpreted to designate all kinds of hardship and deprivation as revelations of the end-times predestined by God. Such a way of thinking engenders in the adherents “passivity and resignation in the face of poverty, sickness, deprivation”, promotes “an interpretation of suffering to designate a sign of blessedness”, and actively disempowers fundamentalist Nigerian Christians by luring them into downplaying the importance of development, or even in some cases dismissing it as irrelevant. The above is hinged on the fact that “there kingdom is not of this world”.
Towing the same line of reasoning, Christian fundamentalism in Nigeria has been defined by Nmah and Amunnadi (2011) in Okafor (2017) as a pluralistic moral maxim and a reaction against the ecclesiastical spiritual barrenness, unemployment, economic deprivation, tribalism, religious bigotry, the corruption of the secular government, social injustice, moral decadence, and the like, which is based on selected gospels and epistles centring on being “born again”, and the avoidance of illicit sexual relationship.
Okafor (2017:57) further avers that underlying such an ideology (Christian Fundamentalism) was a nationwide exclusivist theology of difference - some Christians in the bid to express their zealousness to evangelize, characterized both African Traditional Religion (A.T.R.) and Islam as evil. Shrines were burnt and the media evangelism was greatly utilized to spread their messages. Derogatory choices of words such as unbelievers were used during their evangelization outreach. The patience and tolerance of their host communities, the possibility of a gradual peaceful conversion and inter-religious dialogue were either neglected or not
8
properly observed; which led to series of deadly and violent communal clashes between the majority of Muslim and Christians communities respectively.
The high point of Christian fundamentalism can be seen in the designation of some churches as “living” and “dead” churches and the looking down on, as well as discriminating against members of the “dead” churches by those who think that they are serving a “living” God and that service to God has reached its watershed in their believes. It is also evident in the burning down of shrines and place of worships of practitioners of African traditional religion in the name of cleansing the land, it can also assume the position of killing priest, priestesses and other sacred personage of African Religion in the guise of fulfilling the biblical injunction of not “suffering the witch to live”.
Having established the Nigerian experience of religious fundamentalism, a distinction between negative and positive fundamentalism within the context of religion is here considered necessary. According to Ukoma (2008: 108), there are two different faces of religious fundamentalism which include positive and negative fundamentalism. On one hand, positive side of religious fundamentalism focuses on the practice of such generally accepted religious moral tenets which lead to the protection of the common good of the society. Take for instance Jesus teaching- The Beatitude (Matthew 5) and Pauline letter to the Romans on civic responsibility (Romans 13) which are the sources of good citizenship are not injurious to the society but enhance the same. The respect for the mother earth for the traditionalist produces piety which in turn promotes reverence for natural laws or the Muslim acknowledging that the people of the book are the same people of Allah they should not destroy, is the source of peace building and sustainable development. On the other hand negative fundamentalism manifests itself in violence, wanton destruction of lives and property and disruption of economic activities. This is inimical to sustainable development as prevalent in Nigeria.
Ukoma should therefore be read as advancing and arguing for the fact that religious fundamentalism is not one sided. In this thinking one can deduce from his argument as presented above that a positive and beneficial connotation of religious fundamentalism does exist. However, It is the negative fundamentalism with its dimension of intolerance and the claim that the Knowledge of God has reached its watershed in the one’s religion or the other that have hitherto been the problem and the source of violent conflicts and wars of attritions that have bedevilled the Nigerian state.
9
The above distinction notwithstanding, the activities of the religious fundamentalists in Nigeria which have assumed a violent disposition have led to the killing of many in the name of God, it has also led to the wanton destruction of life and properties, the displacement of people in their multitude and hence, a retrogression of the state. In this regards, a few objections are fundamental before the call for the movement from the dialogue of the deaf to the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance. One, the idea that one’s God is more God than the other’s God cannot stand erect before any court of human reason. Two, the attitude of domination, and discrediting other religions different from one’s own religion is itself irreligious, and mischievous. There must be a disposition to discuss values in the assumption that nobody has a monopoly of truth and that everyone has some share in it. Above all, there must be a preparedness to endorse publicly the values at the heart of all religious traditions and ethnic grouping. There must be a search for values which are in need of particular nuance to cope with life today (Ihuah, 2013:11, 12). In fact, only the lazy mind and the irrational commits the fallacy of concluding that religions other than one’s own have nothing to teach humankind. In the same vein, Agede (2017: 188) avers that:
It is contradictory to kill in the name of God that is all-loving and all merciful. It is unconscionable for one to expect heavenly rewards for killing in God’s name… the validity of religious claims are demonstrable only within the paradigms within which they are entertained. For example the truths of Christianity are valid and demonstrable only within the paradigm of Christianity, even as other religions may find the same objectionable. The same holds for the truths of Islam. What is more, the truth of one religion must not be annul or cancel out the truth of another necessarily in order for it to be valid or meaningful.
While the move from religious fundamentalism to the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance is here argued for within the context of Nigeria, it remains to say that this move should be guided by the above objections. Again, it must noted that religious fundamentalism in Nigeria through the activities of the Boko Haram sect amongst other in recent times is striving in the face of the government’s seeming unreadiness to put an end to the same. The approach of the government for the most part is both questionable and lackadaisical. It is in this respect that Ekanem (2012:51) quoting Ocheje intimated that “the nation (Nigeria) is battling for unity and survival occasioned by a weak political class, mainly comprising of selfish people that views the citizenry from a disdainful perspective…those saddled with the responsibility of preserving our unity and cultural heritage have put sentiments and selfish interest at the forefront”.
10
It is sequel to the above that this paper argues for the fact that the most part of the government so formed in history with respect to Nigeria whose legitimacy are being questioned do not posses as it were and as it stands, the capacity to bring Nigeria out of the woods of religious fundamentalism. Hence, the elevation of the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance which does not necessarily requires the blessing and actions of the political class as perhaps, the way out of the woods.
Moving from Religious Fundamentalism to the Dialogue of Life and the Philosophy of Tolerance
Religious fundamentalism is synonymous with the dialogue of the deaf, this is because, it is not amenable and open to the opinion of others and should fundamentalists enter into any dialogue, they are not predisposed to shifting grounds after any rational and far reaching intercourse. In this regards, for mutual religious co-existence that allows the psychology of expressions over matters of faith and belief, and that allows for peace that is central to development, a move away from religious fundamentalism towards the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance is imperative. What then, is the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance?
The concept of dialogue is contextually conceived as an ecumenical attempt to bring people of different faith together on the platform of peaceful co-existence, co-operation and tolerance (Toki, 2015:111). For Sintang et’al (2012:69),
Getting to know the others is a dialogical relation to promote amicable relationship with people of different religions. It begins when one encounters, lives and interacts with the others and participates in daily life activities together. The social interaction marks the involvement of non-elite participants in the inter-religious dialogue at the grass roots level. The nonelite participation in inter-religious dialogue is necessary to accommodate the challenge of pluralistic society. The process of social interaction in everyday activity is known as a dialogue of life.
Sintang et’al should be read as intimating that the dialogue of life does not involve elite participation and that is what makes for the accommodation of the challenges posed by any pluralistic society. The dialogue of life is one of the forms of inter-religious dialogue. Diana Eck (1986) defines dialogue of life or dialogue in community as inclusive categories that encompass most of the unstructured interaction between people of different traditions. These take place in markets and on street corners, at times of festivals, in the course of civic or humanitarian projects, and at times of community or family crisis. Regarding the nature of
11
the dialogue of life he further avers that this sort of dialogue takes place as people in communities think together about violence, militarism, or economic depression. These dialogues happen spontaneously or of organized, concentrate on practical issues of common concern. Unfortunately, these spontaneous dialogues are rarely recognized and celebrated for their value, and organized community dialogues are more often precipitated by a problem or crisis.
Similarly, Cardinal Arinze, a former president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID), as quoted in Sintang et’al (2012:71) describes dialogue of life as a form of inter-religious dialogue that is within the reach of anyone who lives or interacts with believers in a different religion. It is inter-religious relationship at the level of the ordinary relational situations of daily life: family, school, place of social or cultural contact, village meetings, workplace, politics, trade or commerce. When neighbors of differing religions are open to one another, when they share their projects and hopes, concerns and sorrows, they are engaging in dialogue of life. They do not necessarily discuss religion, but they draw on the values of their different beliefs and traditions. This kind of dialogue implies concern, respect and hospitality towards one another. It leaves room for the other person’s identity, modes of expression and values.
It must be stated that the dialogue of life or living dialogue consists of respecting people as believers on a neighborly basis and establishes constructive and positive relations. Certainly, because of the religious diversity that marks most urban communities, people of different faith traditions interact in ways that may encourage a deeper understanding of other people’s experiences and the way they live their lives. This form of living dialogue is most evident among those who work, study, transact business and live in urban communities. Not only does this approach foster mutual witness, it also causes one to come to a deeper understanding of his or her own faith and religious identity. Akinade (2002: n.p) seems to be thinking in this purview when he intimated, citing the Nigerian situation that:
This is a form of dialogue of life that operates on practical and day-to-day terms. Christians and Muslims live next to each other; mingle freely in all aspects of human endeavor, meeting in the market place and on the streets, in schools and other institutions. Both Christians and Muslims are awakened every morning by the strident voice of the muezzin from the minaret of the mosque, urging faithful believers that “it is better to pray than to sleep.” Christians receive Christmas and Easter greeting cards from their Muslim friends, neighbors, and relatives. Muslims are present in churches for the baptism, wedding, or burial of relatives and friends. In this dialogue of life,
12
Christians and Muslims are enriched by each other’s experience and spirituality, and strengthened by certain features of the faith of the other.
The uniqueness of the dialogue of life must be stressed at this point. This is evident in the fact that it has always been there. It is a way of breaking down cultural, religious biases and prejudices. It is a way of getting to know people of other faiths at the human level. This form of engagement will lead to next identities as dialogue of collaboration, where adherents of various religions cooperate for the promotion and human development and liberation in all of its forms. This form of dialogue is exemplified in social concerns inspired by religious motives, such as in the study and execution of development of projects and in initiatives to foster justice and peace. This reasoning will constitute good grounds for peaceful coexistence.
Deducible from the above is the fact that the dialogue of life is the foundation of peaceful coexistence. This dialogue consists some elements of daily interaction, namely encountering each other; involving non-elite participants from the ordinary people, who are not expert in religious teachings that are conducted in the form of informal conversation taking place at anytime and anyplace; and the people show their willingness to live together; the dialogue aims to know and learn from each other as well as to establish loving relationship regardless of their religious background. Most importantly this form of dialogue can be a mechanism to break cultural biases and prejudices among the people of living together. All these elements of dialogue of life are applicable to multi-religious Nigerian society and possess inherently, the tendency of institutionalizing the philosophy of tolerance.
The notion of tolerance is used in a number of sense and as a philosophy. Agius and Ambrosewicz (2003:11) sees the philosophy of tolerance as the formula of civilized coexistence of all the participants in social relations with their diverse opinions, convictions, beliefs, points of view and other characteristics. It can also be seen as the respect, appreciation and acceptance of someone else’s world views. The philosophy of tolerance is the “beginning, the first stage in a longer, deeper process of developing a culture of peace. It is the minimal essential quality of social relations that eliminate violence and coercion. Without tolerance, peace is impossible. With tolerance panoply of positive human and social possibilities can be pursued, including the evolution of a culture of and the convivial communities that comprise it” (Agius and Ambrosewicz, 2003:12). It is the willingness of the individual to accept the right of everyone to be different and to pursue different courses.
13
In his contribution to the discourse on the philosophy of tolerance, Asouzu (2004:165) avers that “one of the central ideas of the anonymous traditional philosophers of the complementary direction is their idea of tolerance. For them, the level of success achievable in any human society is commensurate with the level of tolerance obtainable within such a society”. He further intimated that:
By tolerance, they do not understand mutual toleration in tension but coexistence of divergent units in joy. For them tolerance is a positive integrative idea of close union between beings of heterogeneous backgrounds. Here tolerance does not imply painful bearing or endurance of pains in silence…it implies the necessity of co-existence in spite of human insufficiency (Asouzu, 2004:156).
Deducible from the above, Asouzu could be read as positing that the philosophy of tolerance is an ideology that elevates the imperativeness of human co-existence despite their heterogeneity and insufficiencies. All forms of human relationship as he further intimated depends on the mechanisms human beings devise to manage the fragmentation of our historicity. With this they affirm the fragmentation of human historicity as a necessary dimension of human existence that must be accepted as a fact. In such situation of tolerance, “the material no less the immaterial, the weak no less the strong, the spiritual no less the empirical combine to form the union of mutually co-existing units in service. Thus, they handle the idea of tolerance within a wider framework of the experience of transcendental complementary unity of consciousness” (Asouzu, 2004:156-7).
For believers in the philosophy of tolerance, the more the number of these interactive forces in harmonious service, the more elevated and valuable this relationship. For these philosophers, the philosophy of tolerance “offers the framework to realize fully the potentialities of the human person, in relationship with all the forces that enter into the definition of the human person. Thus, any act of tolerance must be seen as a positive act geared towards harnessing all the opportunities that combine to bring richness into the world in its totality” (Asouzu, 2004:157).
Sequel to the understanding of the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance, it remains to advance and argue for the move from religious fundamentalism or the dialogue of the deaf to the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance.
Religious fundamentalism, despite its being a threat to peace and development is not a problem that cannot be solved to pave way for peace and sustainable development.
14
Responding to the problem of religious fundamentalism and its consequences on the Nigerian state, Momoh avers that the solution to religious crises is tolerance, which is superior to peaceful co-existence, dialogue and toleration. For him also, tolerance is not the same thing as toleration, but can be found in “Naretism” which is “the philosophy that every religion has positive soul-redeeming messages which ought to be propagated formally and informally in order to promote a culture of religious tolerance in a multi-religious society (Momoh quoted in Ogunkoya, 2011:530-31). It is that metaphysical temperament that allows things to be, while at the same time knowing that no one has the monopoly of truth about ideas.
It is clear from experience that intolerance is at the peak of fundamentalists’ movements. Ogunkoya (2011:530-31) corroborated the above when he intimated that religious fundamentalism, coupled with the unhealthy rivalry between religious factions or sects or groups or denominations are due to the lack of tolerance amongst the believers. Religion is a “contagious malady”, and there seems to be joy in madness which can only be understood and best enjoyed by those who are mad. This is because everybody seems to be mad with his or her belief, and as he or she clings to it as the only truth, others who do not share the same belief with him or her are considered to be unbelievers or sinners or outcasts.
However, with such a philosophic temper that is guided by the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance, the response of practitioners of the diverse religious persuasions in Nigeria would be that of mutual respect and the conception one another’s belief system as “an alternative variant of the same phenomenon to be assessed by a common criterion of their effectiveness in mediating between God and man” (Peel, 2013:27).
The fact that Nigeria as a country is standing on its knees and is in dire need of development is an obvious reality. In fact, the need to leapfrog other African nation states and to get out of the derogatory club of the third world is long overdue. The fact that development cannot thrive in the absence of peace is truer and to argue against the same is to do so in the promotion of ignorance. Towing the path of Momoh, the solution to the lack or near absence of peace resulting from the violent disposition of religious fundamentalism and the tension that exist between Christians and Muslims is the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance. The oxygen of publicity that is here give to the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance has become necessary in view of the fact that inability of successive governments to stem the rising tides of religious fundamentalism and extremism. In response
15
to this failure, the dialogue of life which in its very nature does not require elite participation is quite plausible and appropriate. The same hold for the philosophy of tolerance.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have accounted for religious fundamentalism taking into cognisance, the fact that contrary to the thinking that religious fundamentalism is synonymous to or with Islam; it is a tendency that is inherent in every religion. It must be noted that peace is a precondition for development and that what a nation gets from the violent conflicts that characterises religious fundamentalism is retrogression. The conclusion that is here reached is that, Nigeria is a multi-religious state as well as a secular state. What this means is that, Nigeria cannot claim to be a purely Islamic, Christian or traditional religious state. Be that as it may, the fact that we subscribe to different religious persuasions is an accident and not the substance of our being. What is more importance and hence, constitute the substance of our existence is the fact that we share in the same humanity. In fact, the only way we can appreciate the things we cherish and hold unto is in reference to the other, this is because what we seemingly hold unto as superior will be meaningless without the other. In this respect, a mutual religious coexistence that allows the psychology of expressions over matters of faith and belief should be elevated and respected.
Finally, it remains to say that historically, no nation have developed and move towards the higher and the better in the face of violent religious fundamentalists disposition. Hence, for Nigeria to develop and reclaim her seemingly declining status of the giant of Africa, a move away from religious fundamentalism which is synonymous with the dialogue of the deaf to the dialogue of life and the philosophy of tolerance is both timely and imperative.
References
Abdur R. I. (2001) Shari’ahh: The Islamic Law. London: Ta Ha Publishers.
Adesoji, A. O (2011) “Between Maitatsine and Boko Haram: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Response of the Nigerian State” In Africa Today Vol. 57, Number 4,. Published by Indiana University Press.
Agede, K. A (2017) “A Philosophical Appraisal of Islamic Fundamentalism” Laleye S. A (Ed) AJAPHIL: Akungba Journal of Applied Philosophy. Maiden Edition. Vol. 1., No. 1.
Agius, E and Ambrosewicz, J (2003)”Towards the Culture of Tolerance and Peace” Published by the International Bureau for children’s right.
16
Akintunde E. Akinade (2002) The Precarious Agenda: Christian-Muslim Relations in Contemporary Nigeria being a lecture delivered in Professor Jane Smiths' "Essentials of Christian-Muslim Relations" class in the summer of 2002.
Asouzu, I. I (2004) The Method and Principles of Complementary Reflection in and Beyound African Philosophy. Calabar: University of Calabar Press.
David Cook, 2004. “The Implications of “Martyrdom Operations” for Contemporary Islam,” Journal of Religious Ethics. Vol. 32.
Eck, D. (1986) “What do we mean by Dialogue?” in the Current Dialogue. Vol. 11.
Ekanem , F. (2012) “Culture of impunity and the ambivalence of Nigeria’s political class” In the American Journal of Social Issues & Humanities Vol.2 No.2.
Ihuah A.S. (2013) Interrogating the God Question in Nigerian Politics: From the Dialogue of the Deaf to National Intergration. A Paper read at the Inauguration of the Benue State University Chapter of The Society for Peace Studies and Practice on Thursday, October 10th, 2013.
Lenshie, N. E. & Abel, J. (2012) “Religious Fundamentalism and Problem of Normlessness: Issues in Value System in Nigeria” In Global Journal of Human Social Science Sociology, Economics & Political Science. Vol. 12, Issue 9.
Marty, M. E., and Appleby, R. S. (1991) “The Fundamentalism Project: A User's Guide” In M. E. Marty and R. S. Appleby (Ed.) Fundamentalisms Observed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Momoh, C.S. (2003). “Global Principles of Religious an Ethnic Tolerance” in Journal of Contemporary Studies (JCS), vol. 1, no. 3.
Ogunkoya Dotun (2011) “John Stuart Mill’s “Harm Principle” as the Foundation for Healthy Social Relations” in The Journal of International Social Research. Volume: 4 Issue: 17
Okafor, J. C. (2017) “Rethinking Religious Ethnonationalism and Fundamentalism in Nigeria: Prospects for Cultivating New National Identity Weltanschauung and Values in a Global Age” In IOSR: Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 22, Issue 7, Ver. 8.
Omolumen, E. D. (2015 ) “Aspect of Intergroup Relations in 21st Century Nigeria: Emblem of Ethnicity, Religious Fundamentalism and National Security Crisis 2000-2014” in The International Journal of Arts and Humanities (IJAH) Vol. 4(1), S/No 13.
Peel, J.D.Y. (2013) “Engaging Islam in Nineteenth-Century Yorubaland,” NAMP Position Paper 27.
Schwartz, J. and Lindley, L. D. (2005) “Religious Fundamentalism and Attachment: Prediction of Homophobia”. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. Vol. 15.
Sintand et’al (2012) “Dialogue of Life and Its Significance in Inter-Religious Relation in Malaysia” In the International Journal of Islamic Thought. Vol. 2.
17
Toki et’ al “Peace Building and Inter-Religious Dialogue in Nigeria” in The Journal of Islam in Nigeria. Vol. 1. No. 1, June, 2015. P. 111
Ukoma, A. N. (2008) “Sustainable Development in Nigeria: The Problem of Negative Religious Fundamentalism” in Bassey Andah Journal. Vol. 1, No. 1
Vorster, J. M. (2008) “Perspectives on the core Characteristics of Religious Fundamentalism today” in the Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 7, 21
18
View publication stats
