KWARA HIJAB CONTROVERSY: WHY CHRISTIANS ARE THE REAL TROUBLEMAKERS By: TUNJI-LAWAL, Lawal Bolaji

1. If anything caught my attention over the recent hijab controversy in Ijagbo, Kwara State save for the killing of a muslim-parent, they were the comments which portray Islam as a religion of violence and Muslims as attackers against Christians and Christianity.

With the Kwara government yesterday reaffirming its earlier policy of making the use of Hijab permissible in Public schools for any girl who desires to wear it which is in accordance with Kwara State laws, the judgement of courts on the status of grant-in-aid schools and ultimately the constitution, it saddens that some pockets of ignorants and dunces from the Christian folks are still badmouthing Islam and rendering the governor to ridicule over the all-inclusive and peace-oriented policy.

I have always tried to refrain myself from commenting on religious matters when it involves other faiths especially Christianity because of my respect and tolerance for other people’s beliefs. It is however very unfortunate and upsetting that adherents of other faiths especially christians do not have any such respect for Islam and Muslims as in the midst of any religious controversy, all they do is to chant their everyday song of “Muslims are troublemakers” thereby changing the narratives of the reality.

Though I do not think I could make any comment which won’t be factually true about other faiths especially Christianity, I am always conscious of the fact that Christians and Christianity will only see all no matter how innocent as attacks because of their religious sentiments.

In this article nevertheless, I shall highlight a few reasons and explanations on why and how Christians are the real attackers while blaming the attacks on the defence of Muslims against their attacks. What is most surprising about all these attacks is that most of them are not based on the protection of the christian doctrines and beliefs but are rather results of their sheer hatred for Islam and Muslims. They do not like to hear of anything Islamic. Once they hear that, they attack.

Well, I am writing this to implore the conscious and literate good eggs in the Jesus-deified religion to call other bad eggs in the religion to order so that breathing space could be given to Islam and Muslims in Nigeria. It is also meant to wake unconscious Muslims who have always chanted alongside the christians their song of “Muslims are trouble makers” as a result of their erroneous liberalism thinking, from their slumber.

In the tail of the article, my opinion on the hijab controversy in Ijagbo, Kwara State and the policy of the government maintaining the status quo of permissibility of the use of Hijab for any desiring girl in public schools shall be given.

2. I may not be able to throw a long stone into the history of Muslims versus Christians’ controversy but, let us travel back to 2011 when approval was granted to Jaiz Bank International Plc to operate as an Islamic Bank. On 21 June, 2011, the Central Bank of Nigeria granted approval to Jaiz Bank to operate as an Islamic Bank in Nigeria.

Reasonably, should this be any source of concern to anybody talkless of a religious body? Does it infringe on anybody’s religious right? How does this affect Christianity when christians are not compelled to patronize Jaiz Bank? Is Christianity the only other faith in Nigeria? Why must it always be Christianity against Islam and Muslims?

These questions are asked because the attacks from the leadership of Christianity after the approval was given to Jaiz were massive. The Christian Association of Nigeria apart from disapproving the act of CBN granting approval to Jaiz in a statement, went ahead to STAGE A PROTEST in Warri, Delta state. The Christians during this protest held up placards against Islamic banking proposal as they marched to Word of Life Bible Church, presided over by CAN’s president then, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor.

Is the hatred of Christianity for Islam and Muslims not glaring when the only reason they had for this nerve-racking action was that same is a ploy to convert all Nigerians to Islam.

This is made glaring through the statement released by the Director of Social Communications, Catholic Archdiocese of Lagos, The Very Reverend Monsignor Gabriel Osu, Cardinal Okogie which reads:

“We condemn such move in all ramifications. We are against the operation of Islamic Banking in Nigeria because we see it as another deliberate move to subjugate Christians in Nigeria.” (See)

Everyone who is conversant with and who is in the know of the status of banks and other companies and how they operate in Nigeria will definitely know that such reason by CAN was a clear exhibition of ignorance bred by blind hatred for Islam which was obviously demeaning of their intellectuality and their pious calling and ministry.

Let me at this juncture borrow from the verbal attack of Muhammed Fawehinmi against Islamic Banking in Nigeria to pose a challenge to the leadership of Christianity and all Christians in Nigeria. Fawehinmi said:

“If the Muslims claim they are entitled to Islamic banking, the Christian lay claim to the fact that they are entitled to Christianic banking and the traditional practitioners want traditionalistic banking, should the CBN readily agree or grant licenses to such banks?”

My answer to the above question of Fawehinmi is an emphatic YES. The Christians instead of attacking Islamic Banking in the first instance should have tried to prepare a legal framework and come up with a system of Christianic Banking. Certainly, the Muslims will never go against this. Notwithstanding the fact that Islamic Banking has won against all these attacks in Nigeria, I still challenge all Christians and Christendom to come up with a Christianic system of banking fashioned in line with biblical injunctions. I believe the leadership of Christianity should be able to come up with this as today, Christianity owns the most of faith-based universities in Nigeria.

These Universities are not established to churn out graduates but to provide scholarly materials in various subjects. Thus, since literatures on Islamic banking and finance are in their thousands, getting similar publications from the Christian perspectives, and a system of banking fashioned in line with biblical injunctions should not be difficult to obtain.

Interestingly, it was reported that the Nigerian government at some point in time granted approval to the Christendom to establish their own Christianic banking. But till now, they are still wallowing in their quest to come up with a legal framework for Christianic banking.

Surprisingly, just as said above, most of these attacks from Christianity and Christians are not to protect their doctrines and beliefs. This is because, Islamic Banking as known globally is a financial model for investment alternatives. The prohibition of usury or charging interest on loans as well as investment in prohibited goods and products are not only abhorred in the Quran but also have references from verses of the Bible.

Some sections in the bible that prohibit usury for instance in the King James version of Bible include: Exodus 22:25-27, Leviticus 25:36-37, Psalm 15:1-5, Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Jeremiah 15:10 , Ezekiel 18:7-9, 17 and Matthew 25:27 just to mention a few. (See) I believe anyone not blinded by sentiments should reasonably be contented with the above that Christians and their leadership in Nigeria are the real attackers and troublemakers.

3. Furthermore, a more recent attack of the Nigerian Christendom against Islam and Muslims is their proposal for the removal of Shariah (Islamic Law) from the constitution. Why would the Christians want to wreck this havoc on Islam if not for their blind hatred for the religion and its adherents? Isn’t this a very dangerous attack on Islam and the Muslims? In a presentation to the House of Representatives Special Committee on Constitution Review at the South West Zonal Public Hearing in Lagos on Tuesday, June 1, 2021, the Christian Association of Nigeria said Shariah should be removed from the constitution because the sanctity of Section 10 must be upheld. Lagos CAN Chairman, Bishop Stephen Adegbite, said everyone can freely practice their religion without having it stipulated in the constitution.

“For us to have the same government and judicial system, let those areas (that recognise Sharia law) be removed from our constitution,” he submitted. (See )

As if this was not enough, The Catholic Bishops in another line of attack also insisted that Shariah (Islamic Law) or any references to it must be expunged from the constitution. Subhanallah! Because of what? Hmmn. In order to show that these christians are only being misled by their killer hatred and jealous for Islam and Muslims, it is important that I quote the reported part of the Memorandum presented by Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria to the Senate Committee on Constitution Review. The Memo of the CBCN signed by its president, Archbishop Augustine Akubeze and Secretary, Bishop Camillus Umoh stated that “there must be an end to the established status that Islam enjoyed in the constitution BEFORE NIGERIA COULD HAVE LASTING PEACE AND UNITY.” (With this statement alone, a reasonable person must be able to decipher the real attackers between Muslims and Christians) According to Punch, the Memo reads partly:

“The 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a product of and an imposition of the military… Bearing this in mind, therefore, the particular aspect we want to address for this review of the 1999 constitution has to do with THE PLACE ISLAM AS A RELIGION HAS ASSUMED IN OUR CONSTITUTION VIS-À-VIS OUR NATIONAL LIFE, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE 1999 CONSTITUTION HAS PUT CHRISTIANS AND ADHERENTS OF OTHER RELIGIONS AT A DISADVANTAGE in any place with a Muslim majority.”

If I may ask, what place has Islam assumed in Nigeria? A state religion? Is anyone compelled to practice Islam because of these provisions of the law? Are christians being forced to practice Islam as a result of these provisions of the law? Additionally, at what disadvantage has these provisions of the constitution put the Christians? Maybe the “disadvantage” these attackers are crying foul on would be seen through the following part of their Memo:

“The framers of the 1999 constitution created Sharia Courts for Muslims. This explains why a Christian cannot be appointed as Kadi under the laws of the States or Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal.” Lol

The above quotation is so cracking because the reason why these people want appointment as Kadis or Grand-Kadis is still unknown to me. Are they learned in Islamic law? Is there any disadvantage or harm done to the Christians in appointing Muslims as Kadis in SHARI’AH COURTS? The Memo further reads:

“Thus, we conclude that while Muslims EXCLUSIVELY have a court that regulates their affairs and to which they can EXCLUSIVELY be appointed as Judges, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR THE CHRISTIANS, or people of other religions. This shows a CONSTITUTIONALLY BACKED GAP OF INEQUALITY AND UNDER- REPRESENTATION in the Nigerian judiciary. ”(See)

With the above quotations, if at all the christians see the establishment of Shari’ah courts and appointment of Muslims as Judges of these courts as being disadvantageous to them and a constitutionally backed gap of inequality, I believe the most reasonable request that could come from a reasonable being is a similar establishment where Christians would also be appointed as Judges. Let me at this juncture impart legal education on these Bishops that appointment of Kadis of Shariah Courts of Appeal has no criterion of Islam as the religion of the person to be appointed. Thus, a christian can be appointed in as much as he satisfies other criteria such as being learned in Islamic law. It is my advice for the leadership of Christianity in Nigeria that instead of wearing armour and ganging up swords against Islam and the Nigerian Muslims because of all these aspect of Islam showing the beauty and the divinity of this faith, they should try to come up and bring into existence a replica of same if their religion is a TRUE RELIGION. The Qur’an has always challenged and still challenges that:

وَإِن كُنتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِّمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا شُهَدَاءَكُم مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

And if you are in doubt as to that which we have revealed to our servant (Muhammad), THEN PRODUCE A CHAPTER LIKE IT and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

(Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 23)

It should be noted that the above verse is a challenge daring any person who does not believe in the authenticity of the Qur’an to bring a similar book like it. Just like the above verse, I am challenging all Christians especially Nigerian christians to also fight for the establishment of CHRISTIANIC COURTS where CHRISTIANS would EXCLUSIVELY be appointed as Judges. This should not be a difficult task for the whole of Christianity just as the Lagos CAN chairman, Bishop Stephen Adegbite boasted that:

“Christians also have their own Canon law, but there’s no demand for its constitutional recognition because of Nigeria’s diversity.” (See)

It is my humble appeal to all Christians that they should please demand for the constitutional recognition of their CANON LAW as the time is ripe for it in as much as same is going to operate as Shari’ah where it will only bind the christians. This is more reasonable than the attacks as this will definitely ensure the EQUALITY they are clamouring for.It must be stated that Shari’ah is not even fully recognised by the constitution as the Jurisdiction of Shari’ah courts is limited to questions of Islamic personal law bothering on marriage, dissolution of marriage, family relationship, guardianship of infant, wakf (endowment), gift, will or succession, the maintenance or guardianship of a Muslim who is physically or mentally infirm and any other question where the parties being Muslims have requested that same be determined in accordance with Islamic law. (See section 262 CFRN, 1999) A careful perusal of the above will only make a reasonable person ask why this is a source of discomfort and unhappiness for the christians when these laws are not meant for them. Well, if these are the laws of Islam, the application of which is guaranteed by the constitution, the Christians should also come up with their own Christian personal laws, they should fight for its constitutional recognition and they should stop fighting the wrong parties (Islam and Muslims) by sponsoring the proposal for the removal of Shariah from the constitution.

4. This issue of Hijab as they planned to ban it through a court in Lagos in 2016 was another attack. Also, they exhibited a similar attack when Miss Amasa Firdaos was not called to the Nigerian Bar because of her hijab. I don’t need to go into the details of this as they must still be fresh in the memory of those who are conscious. Let me therefore put the recent Hijab controversy in Ijagbo, Kwara State into the proper perspective so that the real attackers between the Muslims and the Christians would be clearly identified.

5. The first is that there is a subsisting Court of Appeal judgment where the use of Hijab was held to be permissible in Public schools. In the case, CA/L/135/15, between Lagos State Government, Miss Asiyat AbdulKareem (through her father), Miss Moriam Oyeniyi and Muslim Students’ Society of Nigeria, the Court of Appeal held that “the use of hijab is an Islamic injunction and also an act of worship hence it will constitute a violation of the appellants’ rights to stop them from wearing hijab in public schools.”

The above shows that the use of Hijab in public schools is allowed as far as Nigeria is concerned as the holding of the court shows the position of the law even if this same position of the law is already well settled by the right to freedom of religion as enshrined in *section 38, CFRN 1999.

Though ignorance of the law is not an excuse but, assuming but not conceding that the authority of the Oyun Baptist High School Ijagbo were not aware of this position of the law, were they not aware of the KWARA STATE HIGH COURT DECISION which was affirmed at the COURT OF APPEAL, ILORIN where the permissibility of the use of Hijab in public schools was reiterated by the two courts. The court also unambiguously declared GRANT-IN-AIDED schools (such as Oyun Baptist High School) as PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Interestingly, these two judgements were given against these christians who are the authorities of these schools.

Is it possible for them to still be unaware of this position of the law?

In order to prove the truthfulness of the above and to show the hypocrisy of these corrupt elements of the christian faith, it is important that I nail down some facts through certain sections of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of

Incorporated Trustees of Christian Association of Nigeria & Ors V. Kwara State Government & Ors, Citation: LOR (20/09/2019) CA

(a) The appellants (the christians) submitted that they are the owners of the over 150 schools, having established same and that the government took over the schools under the cover of government grants-in-aid and have since then exerted control and management of the claimed schools to the discomfiture of the appellants. — the court refused this submission as the government DID NOT forcefully take over the schools as now being represented by the Christians but the christians voluntarily surrendered the schools to the government. This was evidenced by Exhibits MOJ 1

(a) which shows the clamour from various religious denominations including the Christians requesting the government to take over the schools established by them in order to enjoy the grant in aid programme when it was introduced sometime in 1974. It was based on the above that the government promulgate the Kwara State Education Law of 1974 which has been reviewed a lot of times and the extant or the existing one is the Kwara State Education Law of 2006.

(b) As a result of the above law, the court further held: (Note that the appellants are the christians while the 1st – 3rd Respondents is briefly a reference to the government) Kindly read the following parts of the judgment of the court:

“The appellants are not disputing the fact that the over 150 schools identified by them are beneficiaries of government grant, an arrangement whereby the 1st and 3rd respondents provide grants-in-aid for the affected schools, give regulations on the academic and administrative activities/programmes of the schools, recruit, post and transfer staff, pay salaries, allowances, benefits and other emoluments of staff of the schools, build class rooms, provide infrastructures and facilities for the schools, hence the affected schools in the light of all these are under the control and management of government as represented by the 1st and 3rd respondents, they are “public’ not “private” schools or institutions and this arrangement has subsisted over the years, since 1974 under a law known as the Education Law of Kwara State. The law has been reviewed a couple of times…”

I am not unaware of the submissions made by the appellants in this regard through learned counsel representing them. To them the introduction of certain policies to the schools under focus by government: such as the conversion of classrooms into mosques, the “flooding” of these schools with Islamic Teachers, the wearing of Hijab by female students and pupils among others, are policies or acts which are antithetical to Christian doctrines and values upon which the schools were established by the owners i.e. the appellants and for which reason there was an infraction of appellants’ rights to run, manage and propagate the Christian religion and values as guaranteed under section 38 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Mention was also made of section 44 of the same Constitution.”

“…Section 38 guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. A person or all persons are free to practice their religion without let or hindrance either in the public or private. This freedom of worship includes freedom of the individual to change his religion if he so desires. The person reserves the right to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

“The provision, particularly provision of subsection 1 of section 38, guarantees freedom therein contained to the appellants and all students admitted to schools under focus. Every person has a right to conduct himself in a manner permitted by his religious calling, but the provision does not permit any person under the guise of propagating his religion to impose his beliefs on another person who does not belong to the same religious calling with him.”

“The appellants have by no means alleged the restriction of Christian students from the practice of their religion or that Christian students were prohibited by 1st – 3rd respondents from the practice of their religion by reason of the control exerted by them in the management of the affairs of those schools. If that were the case, their grievance would have been understood as genuine. This is not the case. Rather it is the appellants, who are not happy to see the 1st – 3rd respondents continue to allow certain policies being introduced to those schools. They failed to realise that the schools under focus, some of which are co-educational, multi-ethnic and co-religious institutions, have been run or managed as such public institutions for well over a period of 40 years.”

“The control and management of those identified schools, in their own way, by the appellants in line with their Christian beliefs and value, not minding the heterogeneous nature of those schools, smacks discriminatory.

The constitution under S. 42(1) prohibits those tendencies which the appellants want to bring to bear. Section 38(2) also forbids it. It sounds rather ironic to me that the appellants who cry foul and shouted to high heavens that their rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion had been violated, are the same group who are hell bent to unleash their own practices on other people who are not of the same religious inclination.

The appellants see the wearing of Hijab by students of the schools under focus as provoking enough and an insult in school or institution established to practice Christian religious doctrines.”

“There is no evidence coming from them on record as would suggest that Christian female students were compelled to wear the Hijab. The Hijab, the practice, where Moslem female cover their heads with veil or head cover, is an act of Ibada or worship as recognized in the Islamic religious worship. This act or practice is also in tune with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).”

“THE APPELLANTS THUS HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN OF ACTS WHICH DO NOT IMPUGN ON THEM.”

“The submission made on behalf of the appellants that section 38(3) of the Constitution allow them or give them the exclusive right to make Christianity the only norm in the schools under focus is only wishful thinking. Such is not tenable in a heterogeneous set-up such as the schools under focus where students and pupils alike do not belong to the same religious community or denomination. Students and pupils of those schools came from different backgrounds and so there is no semblance of homogeneity amongst these students as to permit the imposition of the practice, the appellants have in mind over those schools.”

“In Esabunor v. Faweya (2008) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1102) 794, 870 the court held that every student must be given the right to choose the course of his/her life fashioned on what he/she believes in and reserve the right not to be coerced into acting contrary to one’s religious beliefs. There is no evidence on the printed record that the 1st – 3rd respondents have coerced the appellants or students of the schools in focus into acting contrary to their religious beliefs.”

“The issue raised by the appellants pertaining to compensation, not having been paid to them, as required under S. 44(1) of the Constitution, meant that they are still the owners of all the schools under focus. This does not arise. Since there is no evidence of compulsory takeover of the schools in dispute, the issue of compensation cannot arise. On the contrary, facts and evidence do indicate that the takeover of the schools in focus were in line with due process, the Kwara State Education Law No.6 of 2006, the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and the National Policy on Education. Accordingly, issue Nos. 3and 4 are also resolved in favour of the 1st – 3rd respondents and against the appellants.”

(c) On whether or not the grant-aided schools are public schools, the court held:*”…In any case all the hullaballoo surrounding the question whether the identified schools are “public schools” has been laid to rest by the definition of that term at section 41 of the Kwara State Compulsory Free Universal Basic Education Law to mean “A school which is assisted out of funds provided by the Federal or State or Local Government”, This means that the schools notwithstanding their Christianic names are public schools.

(d) You must have read in the parts of the judgment quoted above that the christians told the court that wearing the hijab is antithetical or inimical to the Christian faith, this is nothing but a blatant lie. There is no place in the one and only Christianic scripture where hijab is prohibited. Interestingly and on the contrary, covering of head is encouraged in the bible. See 1 Corinthians 11:5&6; Leviticus 10:6 This clearly shows that these people are not even fighting for their faith. They are only fighting Islam and Muslims because of their blind hatred for Islam and Muslims.

6. Now, let us foolishly agree that the Christian authority of Oyun Baptist High School, Ijagbo were still unaware of these judgments of the courts though given in their case, were they also unaware of the KWARA State government policy on the permissibility of the use of Hijab for any desiring girl in public schools? The government based on the position of the law on the use of Hijab had issued this policy and same was made known in Kwara State via circulars and various media such as Kwara radio stations, government social media handles and many more. In fact, it will be dubious for anyone in Kwara State to claim he/she is not aware of this recent government policy.

7. The question therefore is, with all the above, are the Bishops and Christians in the Oyun Baptist High School who stopped Muslim girls from entering the school because of their Hijab not the cause of the whole controversy? Were they not the attackers? In addition, according to the reports I watched on BBC Yoruba on Facebook detailing the happening from the two sides, the parents of these girls after their children were refused entrance into the school went there with the circular of the Kwara State government policy, yet, the christians did not grant the girls entrance into the school. According to the reports, the Muslim parents informed the commissioner for education and the woman went to Ijagbo and resloved the matter that the girls be allowed entrance into the school. Notwithstanding this, the christians did not allow the children to enter. The Muslim parents therefore resorted to a peaceful protest and in the course of this, a Muslim parent was shot dead in the head while several other Muslim parents suffered series of gunshots injuries.

8. With the above, are the Christians not the real fighters here? I am very certain that some bunch of ignoramus will despite all this still say ‘Muslim are troublemakers.’

9. Let me conclude by advising the christians just as I have done above that whenever you see anything Islamic that you are being jealous of, kindly find a way to get yourself a similitude of it instead of fighting for the eradication of that which the Muslims have. If you are being jealous of hijab today as an Islamic dress which doubles the dignity of Muslim women, instead of looking for all means to fight against it where you may eventually be infringing on the fundamental rights of the Muslim women, kindly invent for yourself what will stand as your own Christianic dress.

10. The reality you may find very difficult to live with is that ISLAM IS A TOTAL WAY OF LIFE.