Engaging Boko Haram: Exploring Options Beyond Military Approach

Engaging Boko Haram: Exploring Options Beyond Military Approach

By Sunday Bobai Agang

 All Nigerians can engage in just peacemaking, “because of the ten­der mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heav­en to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace” (Luke 1:78-79 NIV, emphasis mine).

In The Other’s War: Recognition and the Violence of Ethics, Tarik Kochi writes:

before The future casts a shadow, though its shape is not easily dis­cernible…. As if human life has not been bloody enough already, a shadow of apocalypse hanging over our heads, a grand suicidal act of our own making, plays the present with a melody of dreads… Catching this glimpse we might realize it is too early to talk about inevitability and that, even from the point of view of what is the worst in ourselves, the worst aspects of our species, we might still be allowed to hope after.¹

Yet, can we really talk about hope? Especially, when Michael Walzer states:

Before since the mid-nineteenth century, history has witnessed an upsurge of political violence committed by revolutionary groups. These groups typically act without state sponsorship, often attempting precisely to overthrow the reigning regime of the state in which they act. Yet they do claim to be involved in war of some kind, and certainly to be fighting a just after cause.²

In some ways these two excerpts represent the reality of what is going on in Nigeria, particularly with the Boko Haram insurgency. Each time I reflect on the Boko Haram sect, I am overwhelmed. But I was struck by reading Zechariah’s hymn in Luke 1:68-79. Zechariah’s hymn is com­posed of two parts: verses 68-75 and verses 76-79.³ The first part contains widespread allusions to Hebrew Bible passages. What struck me the most is the second part of the hymn, which biblical scholars call Benedictus. In the hymn, Zechariah anticipates the careers of the two children whom divine destiny has brought together. Though John is the child born to him, Zechariah’s hymn focuses on the person to whom John will point—the One promised long ago who would be sent to rescue and bless those who turn to Him. Like Mary’s hymn, this thanksgiving psalm is filled with Old Testament imagery and declares how the strong one from the house of David will be a light of rescue and guidance for his people, and will “shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death.”⁴

The aspect of God’s guidance is what prompted me to think of writ­ing this paper as it is. He is “to guide our feet to the path of peace.” Those are the feet of those who turn to Jesus Christ for salvation, so that they will serve Him “in righteousness and holi­ness” in spite of their circumstances.

Zechariah is aware of the fact that “the only way to walk righteously is to follow the path God sets.” ⁵ I admire Zechariah’s courage and attempt to come to grips with his circumstances: needing salvation from “the hand of all who hate us,” not able to serve God “without fear, in holiness and righteousness;” and being among “those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death.” This is much like the circumstances God some­times puts into our lives with which we must come to grips through an attitude of faith, trust and hope.⁶ The hymn reminds us that we are saved

 to participate in the path of peace, so that when everyone is speaking about military action toward Boko Haram, our Christian language is the language of peace, justice and love.

That Islamic extremism and terror­ism have put our global world at risk is not debatable. However, we face the difficult question of how to rid our­selves of this risk. Christians must ask, How can God guide our paths towards peace? This is the question to which we now turn by first defining Boko Haram, and second, by proposing a moral vision through an analysis of the efficacy and applicability of Glen Stassen’s just peacemaking practices in the context of terrorism, and finally suggesting other contextual ways of moving forward.

What Is Boko Haram?

Boko Haram is an Islamic-revolutionary group which targets, not only those the group perceives as representatives of a putatively oppressive regime in Nigeria, but also ordinary citizens living under that regime.⁷ The group began in 2002 as a small Salafish faction based in northeastern Nigeria, led by a chain of charismatic but crudely educated preachers, namely Muhammadu Ali, Mohammad Yusuf and Abubakar Shekau. These leaders believed that British colonialism and the Nigeria state that resulted from it had imposed an un-Islamic way of life on Nigerian Muslims. This led the group to oppose Western-style education, which is how the clique came to be known as Boko Haram. The phrase “Boko Haram,” which translates roughly to “Western edu­cation is forbidden,”⁸ was a label given to the group by outside observ­ers. But the group calls itself by the Arabic phrase Jama’atu Ahlus-Sunnah Lidda’Awati Jihad. This phrase has been translated as “People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad.”⁹ Such commit­ment to jihadi ideology is what makes the group a terrorist revolutionary movement.¹⁰

Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria forces us to re-evaluate the morality of terrorism. Can any form of terrorism be morally justified? This question requires us to understand the mindset of terrorists. The use of this term “ter­rorism” has its origin with the French Revolution, a time when the French government acted violently against its own people. It has also been used to describe the violent activities of labor organizations, anarchists, nationalist groups, minority political organiza­tions and religious movements. In the 21st century, “terrorism most frequently referred to the acts of non-state agents (individually or collec­tively) acting against another group, be it a government, a multinational corporation, or a dominant religious hierarchy.”¹¹ Most scholars agree that terrorists are indiscriminate in their actions.¹²

One of Nigeria’s biggest challenges is to avoid playing the game of the terrorists. Beyond the current military approach to the insurgency, there is need for a moral vision that will help Nigerians find a creative transforma­tion of the situation and a way for­ward.

A Brief History of Boko Haram The Antecedents of Boko Haram

A hasty characterization of the Boko Haram sect as a terrorist group might cause us to miss important information about the group. With the kidnaping of the Chibok girls on April 14, 2014, Boko Haram attracted global attention. But the question is what antecedents in the history of Islam are represented by Boko Haram. We have to look at the history of Islamic thought and the key ideas that have dominated that history. Basheer M. Nafi’s interaction with the history of the rise of Islamic reformist thought and its challenge to traditional Islam is one very useful tool in helping us navigate through

 the nuance of Islamic radicalism and intellectualism. Some of his argu­ments seem to fit the big picture of Boko Haram. For instance, Nafi tells of a situation where “In more than one respect, the Islamic intellectual arena during the twentieth century was a reflection of the late nineteenth-century intellectual rupture.”¹³ I sup­pose the same thing can be said of the 21st century intellectual arena.

The intellectual history of Islamic scholars and theologians has a cata­logue of various schools of thought. Prominent among them is the salafi-yya (reformist school of thought) founded by Ahmad b. Taymiyya (1263-1328). Nafi notes that “Central to Ibn Taymiyya’s reformist project was his emphasis on the primacy of the original Islamic texts, the Qur’an and hadith; beyond which he saw only the consensus of the Prophet’s Companions and the Companions’ Followers as binding.”¹⁴ Taymiyya was driven by the search for unity and the desire to confront foreign influences on Islamic culture. He endeavored to re-establish the ultimate authority of the earlier, unadulterated views of Islam.¹⁵ His project has influenced many Muslims, including Usman Ibn Fodio of Nigeria (1754-1817) who used those ideas to engage in con­structing an Islamic framework com­patible with the Qur’an and Sunna for emerging societies in non-urban envi­ronments and with strong local tra­ditional vestiges. Ahmad b. Taymiyya and Usman Ibn Fodio prepared the ground to continue challenging tradi­tional Islamic values. Western impe­rialism and capitalism, and a desire for the urgent renewal of the moral fabric of society and a new era of ijtihad.16 Boko Haram is an offshoot of the revivalist mission of the 18th century, but the group is also fueled by the social background of the 19th century reformists.17 In this revivalist mission the reformists see the Shari’a “as the only path for restoration and renewal,” because “the Shari’a is the prescribed organizer of life.” If that is the case, no limits were prescribed for laboring within its framework. It fol­  lows that ijtihad was not only desired or recommended but also required and imperative for Muslims in every age and place, through which the position of the umma in the world is continuously redefined.18

Boko Haram is agitating for a return to Islamic Shari’a Law. It is important to observe here that, prior to the colonial rule in Nigeria and throughout the period of the British rule (1903-1960), Northern Nigerian Muslims had largely followed the Maliki School of Jurisprudence.19 However, the situation changed with independence. John N. Paden described the enormous impact of this change. Paden tells of the role Sheik Abubakar Gummi played in the para­digm shift in northern Muslims’ intel­lectual quest. In his effort to revive the Islamic Shari’a Law in Nigeria, Gummi used his connection with Saudi Arabia to reevaluate “the histor­ic legacies of both the Maliki and Sufi traditions in northern Nigeria.”²⁰

According to Paden, “Gummi focused on going back to the original sources in the Qur’an and was one of the first to translate the Qur’an into the Hausa language. Until his death in 1992, he served as symbol for challenging the cultural legacies of Islam in northern Nigeria, insisting on Qur’anic-based reformation.”²¹ Gummi became a mentor to many of the younger generation of educated northerners, and Kaduna, as capital of the northern region and a “new” city, became identified with his Izala (anti-innovation) movement. Gummi’s links with the Saudis’ intellectualism eventually strengthened Nigerian Muslims’ ties to the custodians of the holy places and weakened those with the traditional West African roots of Islamic culture. 22

The Evolution of Boko Haram

Boko Haram came out of Gummi’s founded Izala sect in Nigeria. Since Boko Haram mutated from the Izala group to a full-grown rebellion move­ment in 2002, it has continued to metamorphose. The ingredients that fuel the fire of Boko Haram include, among other things, the way the secu-rity agencies in Nigeria have handled the group with blunt force. Someone has pointed out that “Christians are like nails; the harder you hit them the deeper they go.” But I would like to say that by default all human beings behave similarly; the harder you hit them the deeper they go. The Boko Haram sect is clear evidence of this fact. Kyari Mohammed has identified three overlapping phases of the move­ment that prove that human beings are like nails and further underline the importance of considering just peace­making as a paradigm shift in the war against terrorism.

The first phase, according to Mohammed, is the Kanama phase (2003-2005). During this phase, the group unsuccessfully waged war on the Nigerian state. It was repelled with casualties on both sides. The leader of the group of this first phase was Muhammed Ali, a Nigerian who was radicalized by jihadi literature in Saudi Arabia and who was believed to have fought alongside the mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

The second phase is the dawah phase. With the suppression of Boko Haram in July 2009, the group went into hiding and devoted itself to the proselytization, recruitment, indoctri­nation and radicalization of its mem­bers. This phase was characterized by intense criticism of the secular system, debates with opposing ulama (other Muslim clerics) on the propriety of Western education, Westernization, democracy and secularism, and unceasing criticism of corruption and bad governance under Governor Ali Modu Sherriff (2003-2011) of Borno State, as well as criticism of the con­spicuous consumption and opulence of the Western-educated elite in the midst of poverty.

According to Mohammed, the third phase began with the taking over of the leadership by Abubakar Shekau. After the 2009 suppression of the movement and the killing of its leadership in gory and barbaric form by Nigerian security agencies, Boko Haram again went deeper underground, only to reorganize and

 resurface with a vengeance in 2010. Since then, the group has not only attacked perceived enemies, but indis­criminately attacked security officials, politicians, businessmen and women and, in utter desperation, resorted to bombing high profile targets in Abuja such as the Nigeria Police Headquarters as well as the United Nations offices in June and August of 2011. As the military crackdown has intensified, the group has become even more aggressive and militant. It has resorted to more desperate mea­sures, which include burning school buildings, kidnapping students, attacking telecommunication stations, blowing up bridges, the kidnapping and slaughtering of foreigners, and so on.²³

Boko Haram lacks morality in its war tactic. This is demonstrated by the aimless and indiscriminate vio­lence directed at innocent citizens. Understanding the intellectual and social psychology of Boko Haram will help us to grasp the many facets of the group’s social life, thoughts, feel­ings, and behaviours towards Muslims and non-Muslims alike as well as the impact of its attitudes on the Nigerian people in general. The place to start is the group’s specific demands. From the sect’s outlook, its objective is a political one, even though it calls for the abolition of politics altogether and the replacement of the modern state by Islamic Shari’a jurisprudence. Yet, it has a comprehensive desire which includes religion, economy and poli­tics altogether.

A Moral Vision: Proposing the Way Forward; Why Engagement Has Failed in the Past

Nigeria is facing its defining moment. From all indications, the Nigerian government cannot engage the Boko Haram sect in just peace­making in any meaningful way. The government has had several failed attempts to engage in dialogue, the first in September, 2011. The group identified two key people, former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Babakura Fugu, the brother-in-law of the late Boko Haram leader,

 Mohammed Yusuf, in Maiduguri, Borno State. While in the process, Babakura Fugu was mysteriously assassinated. The core Boko Haram sect denied responsibility for the mur­der. Prior to this, Boko Haram had always claimed responsibility for any atrocities it committed against the Nigerian people.

The second attempt at dialogue happened in March, 2012. The group identified the president of the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria, Sheik Ahmed Datti, to mediate between it and the Nigerian government. Sheik Ahmed Datti accepted the responsibility at first, but later changed his mind, because he felt the government was not able to keep the discussion secret and would instead prematurely release information to the media.²⁴ Akomola Ejodame Olojo believes that these were significant signs that the group was willing and ready for dialogue. But Andrew Walker believes that there are two groups in the sect—moderate and radical or hard-core.²⁵ This makes engaging the group a complex and difficult task. But as Walker suggest­ed, other factors contributed to the difficulty. For example, the Nigerian police are often led by corrupt or incompetent officers who fight for their own fiefdom rather than for the best interests of the nation.²⁶ Andrew observed that negotiation would be difficult to foster, because some of Boko Haram’s stated demands are practically impossible to realize and are often contradictory. For example, it says it wants to break Nigeria into two, north and south, but also that the whole of Nigeria should come under Shari’a law and con­vert to Islam. It has also demanded that Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan convert to Islam.

However, there are other demands that might serve as a window for dialogue and just peacemaking. The group has demanded that senior members who have been arrested by the government should be released, that all property taken from its members be restored, and that the people responsible for the execution of Mohammed Yusuf and other mem­bers of the group be punished. “These are political demands and could be part of a negotiation,” says John Campbell, former U.S. ambassador to Nigeria, .27

It is difficult to see how any mean­ingful negotiation could be carried out with the group itself. The group has on several occasions murdered its own members who have attempted negotiation, and the group’s cell-like structure is open for division and splits. There would be no guarantee that someone speaking for the group is speaking for all of the members.²⁸ Given that as reality, can we really talk of a way forward at a time when things appear to be falling apart and getting worse? The courage to talk about a way forward must come from an understanding of the mission of the church as the mission of Jesus Christ in peacemaking.

Glen Stassen and Just Peacemaking

This paper is written in honor of the late Glen Harold Stassen, who was an ardent advocate of just peacemaking as a critical supplementary theory to the two traditional Christian theories in response to war — pacifism and just war theory.²⁹ This is my attempt to test the applicability of Stassen’s prac­tices of just peacemaking in a terrorist context like Nigeria. Thereby, we can see the extent to which the practices of just peacekeeping provide a moral vision that can shape the fight against the Boko Haram insurgency.

Based on his Anabaptist roots, Stassen and his colleagues worried about the world’s lack of attention to practices that have worked in prevent­ing war, stating, “A new paradigm needs to be justified by its bringing to attention important dimensions of concern that previous paradigms over­looked, or did not articulate as clearly as needed.”³⁰

Stassen and his colleagues argued that just peacemaking practices “can enable us to see conflict situations from a new and fruitful angle.”³¹ In my estimation, just peacemak­ing as proposed by Stassen and his

 colleagues³² can provide additional concrete steps to resolving the Boko Haram impasse in Nigeria. For example, Nigerian ethicists and theo­logians can use the 10 practices pro­posed by just peacemaking scholars to interpret the specific social, cultural and religious contexts of Nigerian society and its grassroots communi­ties. I see the efficacy and utility of “just peacemaking” rooted in its focus on practices that prevent war or ter­rorism from happening in the first place. But even after it has happened, the practices can give confidence to the parties involved because of their focus on justice as Jesus’ ethic. For as Adrian Guelke observes, “Common reasons why people resort to violence are the perception that they will con­tinue to be denied justice under the existing political system…”³³ The cry for justice is a key cause for the emer­gence of Boko Haram. Since Nigeria’s returned to democracy in 1999, northern Muslim politicians have generally felt alienated and marginal-ized.³⁴

Stassen saw just peacemaking as one of three theories – pacifism, just war, and just peacemaking – which hold hope for dislodging violence and war. He preferred just peacemaking because it is the practice advocated by the Prince of Peace, who wept over Jerusalem because it did not know the ways that make for peace. He argued that in these radical practices, “Jesus gives us a powerful way of deliver­ance from the vicious cycles that lead to violent death and destruction.”³⁵ He was among those who firmly believe that Christians should direct their energies toward finding a set of criteria and a model for “just peace” instead of continuing to argue only for pacifism and “just war.”³⁶ He contended that just peacemaking practices have worked, because they are Christ-like transforming initia­tives. They are practices that are first and foremost aimed at preventing the occurrence of war or violence by concentrating on justice and seek­ing to win both parties to the side of justice. Furthermore, his belief in

 the workability of just peacemaking principles is based on how peacemak­ers like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela of South Africa successfully deployed the efficacy of just peacemaking prac­tices in the extreme conditions of colonial India, the racist United States of America, and apartheid South Africa.³⁷

One may wonder, however, whether just peacemaking can work in situa­tions of Islamic extremism and terror­ism. Stassen would say, yes, because its ideas are practices that are faithful to Christ’s nonviolent direct action in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). In fact, he would argue that just peacemaking practices are “effec­tive war-preventive practices…in the wake of the threat of terrorism ….”³⁹ Inasmuch as I resonate with his argu­ment, the practices must be applied in each context by careful analysis of the situation and clear understanding of the mindset of those involved in the conflict. Of course, Stassen, along with 22 other just peacemaking ethi­cists and theologians, has helped us by proposing the following 10 practices:

(1)  Support nonviolent direct action;

(2)  Take independent initiatives to reduce threat;

(3)  Use cooperative conflict reso­lution;

(4)  Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness;

(5)  Advance democracy, human rights, and religious liberty;

(6)  Foster just and sustainable economic development;

(7)  Work with emerging coopera­tive forces in the international system;

(8)  Strengthen the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation and human rights;

(9)  Reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade; and

(10)   Encourage grassroots peace­making groups and voluntary association.⁴⁰

Space will not allow us to delineate each of the proposed 10 practices. However, the next two points are some contextual ways Nigerians can engage Boko Haram in just peace­making.

A Reflection on How We Live: Aggression Our Common Humanity

Engaging Boko Haram in just peacemaking must start with a humble recognition of our common humanity with terrorists — human aggression. All just peacemakers need to begin by recognizing their participation in this human essential nature of competition, aggression and revenge. Anthony Storr puts it con­cisely when he writes:

“That man is an aggressive creature will hardly be disputed. With the exception of certain rodents, no other vertebrate habitually destroys members of his own species…. The somber fact is that we are the cruelest and most ruthless species that has ever walked the earth; and that, although we may recoil in horror when we read in a newspaper or history book of the atrocities committed by man upon man, we know in our hearts that each of us harbors within himself those same savage impulses which lead to murder, to torture and to war.^41”

These succinct words of Storr about the true nature of humans give us a clearer perspective to help guide our feet toward the path of peace in Nigeria. Human aggression is an inborn impulse which is not the monopoly of insurgents, but a reality with which all fallen humans strug-gle.⁴² The necessity of recognizing and focusing on aggression is because it can be used to bless humanity. This approach will enable us to begin thinking of ways we can retrain both adults and children to use aggression positively for the benefit of human­ity. Like a coin, aggression has two sides. Kathleen J. Greider calls the two sides of aggression the paradox of “violence and vitality.” In her search for a solution to the problem of vio­lence, Greider believes that a way out

 of the impasse that violence presents in our contemporary history is to pay attention not only “to decrying and devising solution to it,” but also “to give equal attention to ways we can help individuals and whole communi­ties cultivate the enormous vitality required to live ethically and empathi­cally and thereby decrease violence.”⁴³ The big question is how do we constructively redirect the energy of violent aggression to vitality (nonvio­lent aggression) for the protection of the human race? Just peacemaking is an option that can help Nigeria to re-channel Boko Haram’s aggressive energies toward national transforma­tion.

Addressing the social and cultural conditions

To indirectly engage Boko Haram is also to address the social and cul­tural conditions that are the breeding ground for recruits. Studies conducted by Freedom C. Onuaha in 2013 showed that Boko Haram is recruiting Nigerian youths who feel distressed, alienated, discontented and generally uncertain about their futures because of the unfavorable sociopolitical, socio-economic, sociocultural and socio-religious conditions of Nigeria. 44 Onuaha argued that these condi­tions make it possible for insurgents to recruit young men in Nigeria.⁴⁵ Therefore, the Nigerian government must embark on robust programs that would block Boko Haram’s chances of getting more recruits. This means the government must strengthen the standard of education, create job pro­grams and provide youth job training, promote peace education and embark on a campaign of zero tolerance for corruption at all levels of society.

Conclusion

As an Islamic terrorist movement, Boko Haram now constitutes one of the biggest threats to Nigeria’s stabil­ity and security.⁴⁶ The group contin­ues to cause widespread emotional and psychological trauma. Even so, researchers need to step aside and take a careful look at what is happening  and what else needs to be done to ward off this threat. Just peacemaking is the moral and ethical vision that should shape today’s worldview of violent conflicts and how to resolve them.

Advocating the need for engaging Boko Haram’s sect in just peacemak­ing is simply a call for trying all the options humanly available. Just peacemaking brings a rich alternate solution to war and violent conflict. In this paradigm, the focus shifts to initiatives that can help prevent the vicious cycles of war/violence and foster peace. It argues that in engaging insurgent groups and ethnic militias, we must not stop at the level of the symptoms, but must dig deep into the real issues that cause the sickness. It is a paradigm that enables its practitio­ners to engage in critical thinking and analysis of the assumptions, threats and fears that make it extremely dif­ficult to forge ahead in efforts to bring about the desired reconciliation and transform the situation that breeds insurgent groups and ethnic mili-tias.⁴⁷

Finally, no matter how challeng­ing the circumstances that we face in today’s world, there is a way forward because God is always willing and able “to guide our feet into the path of peace” (Luke 1:79 NIV). Based on his experience of how God guides our feet into the path of peacemaking, John Paul Lederach explains that the key to significant change will come not when we are capable of producing a hard, factual, objective view of a sit­uation and the predictable outcome. Rather it comes from a kind of naive­ty that suspends the lens of presented reality and, with a commonsensical approach, asks questions and pursues ideas that seem out of line with reality as presented.⁴⁸

“Terrorists aim is to rule, and mur­der is their method.”⁴⁹ We must be willing to resist the temptation to play the terrorists’ game and instead resort to just peacemaking.⁵⁰