Blasphemy Allegations in Kano: A test of principle or a display of hypocrisy?, by Ahmad Shuaibu Isa
The recent directive by the Kano State Government to forward all petitions and counter-petitions concerning allegations of blasphemy against Ustaz Lawan Triumph to the State Shura Council for review and recommendation may appear procedural. However, it has inadvertently illuminated longstanding inconsistencies in how many Nigerians – particularly self-professed adherents of religious piety, engage with such matters.
Several religious organisations, including Safiyatul Islam of Nigeria, the Council of Jumu’ah Imams under the Qadiriyya movement, and the Committee of Sunnah Preachers, have submitted formal complaints. In response, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to peace and interreligious harmony, urging citizens to remain calm and law-abiding as the matter is deliberated.
Yet beneath this seemingly conciliatory tone lies a troubling reality: certain responses to the incident appear to be driven less by a commitment to religious sanctity and more by personal grievances and political calculation.
The Double Standard in Public Reaction
It is revealing that many of those now condemning the use of the term “blasphemy” remained conspicuously silent – or were even supportive – when similar accusations were levelled against Sheikh Abduljabbar Nasir Kabara. At that time, the prevailing public sentiment endorsed the charge, as it aligned with dominant opinion. Now, with the narrative reversed, those same voices find the terminology “unacceptable” when it implicates someone within their own ideological circle.
This inconsistency exposes a deeper malaise: religion is increasingly invoked not as a matter of principle, but as a tool for advancing personal interests and consolidating group loyalty. As one critic aptly stated in Hausa:
“Wato yanzu sam ba addini ake karewa ba, son zuciya da kungiyoyinmu muke karewa da sunan addini.”
(“What is happening now is not the defence of religion, but the defence of personal desires and our groups in the name of religion.”)
Vital Challenges Raised by the Case
1. Blasphemy as a Sociopolitical Catalyst
In northern Nigeria, allegations of blasphemy often provoke widespread unrest, sometimes escalating into violence. The emotional gravity of such accusations makes it difficult to retain impartiality , yet impartiality is precisely what justice demands.
2. Theological Context of Blasphemy in Islam
In Islamic tradition, both Sunni and Shia schools regard blasphemy – particularly insults or irreverence directed at Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as a grave offence. The Prophet is considered the final messenger and the most honoured of creation, whose moral and spiritual stature is beyond reproach. His sanctity is deeply embedded in the hearts of Muslims, and any perceived attack on his character or message is often met with profound emotional and communal distress.
READ ALSO: Mob burns woman to death in Niger state over alleged blasphemy
From the Sunni perspective, classical scholars such as Imam Malik and Ibn Taymiyyah considered deliberate insults against the Prophet as offences that could warrant severe legal consequences in an Islamic state, including capital punishment – provided a qualified judiciary presides over the case.
”من سبّ النبي ﷺ من مسلم، فإنه يجب قتله، هذا مذهب
أئمة الإسلام ومذاهب الفقهاء من جميع الطوائف.”
“Whoever insults the Prophet ﷺ from among the Muslims must be executed — this is the opinion of the leading scholars of Islam and the schools of jurisprudence from all sects.”
Ibn Taymiyyah
As-Sārim al-Maslūl ʿalā Shātim ar-Rasūl, Cairo: Maktabat al-Qāhirah, n.d., p. 3.
(الصارم المسلول على شاتم الرسول، ابن تيمية، ص ٣)
However, notable scholars within the Hanafi and Shafi’i schools have introduced distinctions between intentional blasphemy and statements made out of ignorance or error, often allowing room for repentance and correction.
READ ALSO: For blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad, Court sentences man to death by hanging
In Shia thought, similar reverence is given to the Prophet, alongside the Ahlul Bayt (his family). Blasphemy is likewise considered a serious violation, but its adjudication is typically subject to the discretion of senior jurists (marājiʿ), who evaluate factors such as intent, harm, and the broader societal impact. Both traditions historically situated such cases within structured legal frameworks, guided by scholarship and due process, not by spontaneous public outrage.
Thus, while strong emotional reactions to perceived blasphemy are understandable within devout communities, they must be channelled through legal mechanisms that reflect both the Prophet’s dignity and Islamic principles of justice, mercy, and procedural fairness.
3. The Role and Credibility of the Shura Council
Referring the matter to the Shura Council may appear to be a balanced approach, but several concerns remain:
Will its recommendations be regarded as legitimate by all stakeholders?
Does the council maintain autonomy, or is it susceptible to political and sectarian influence?
If the council is perceived as lacking neutrality, its credibility – and by extension, its authority, will be compromised.
4. Rule of Law, Legal Rights, and Due Process
No matter how offensive a statement may appear, every accused individual is entitled to a fair trial, legal representation, and adherence to due process. Religious sentiment, however fervent, must not be allowed to supersede the rule of law. To do otherwise is to legitimise mob justice and weaken the moral foundation of the society.
5. Public Hypocrisy and Selective Outrage
This episode has laid bare a common societal tendency: we denounce injustice when it affects our allies, yet tacitly endorse it when directed at our opponents. Such selective moral outrage erodes both religious integrity and the credibility of legal institutions. When public emotion replaces consistency and fairness, both justice and religion are diminished.
READ ALSO: Kano court sentences Abduljabbar Kabara to death by hanging for blasphemy
Broader Reflections
This matter transcends the immediate legal and religious implications; it serves as a moral litmus test for society. Are we genuinely upholding religious values, or are we manipulating them for political expediency and personal interest?
Authentic religious practice -regardless of tradition , demands consistency, equity, and humility. Yet the responses to this controversy often reflect the contrary: prejudice, parochialism, and vindictiveness masquerading as religious zeal.
If we are to mature as a society, we must commit to applying the same ethical and legal standards to both friends and adversaries. Without this consistency, justice becomes a privilege of the powerful, and religion is reduced to a rhetorical weapon rather than a moral guide.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the blasphemy allegations in Kano is not merely about one individual’s statements. It is a reflection of the integrity , or lack thereof – of our religious and judicial institutions, and a measure of the sincerity of our collective moral conscience.
If we are genuinely invested in safeguarding the sanctity of Prophet Muhammad (S.A.A.W) and the principles of our faith, we must begin by confronting our own hypocrisies and renewing our commitment to justice, truth, and due process. Only then can religion serve its true purpose: as a guide for ethical living, not a tool of social division or political gain.
ahmadeesir214@gmail.com
Follow the Neptune Prime channel on WhatsApp:
Do you have breaking news, interview request, opinion, suggestion, or want your event covered? Email us at neptuneprime2233@gmail.com
