The American Society
Since the Four Freedoms
Edited by:
Nkparom C. Ejituwu
Foluke M. Ogunleye
Diri I. Teilanyo
Edward O. Erhagbe
American Studies Association of Nigeria (ASAN)
Published by:
American Studies Association of Nigeria (ASAN)
In association with
Mindex Publishing Co. Ltd.
Copyright © 2005 American Studies Association of Nigeria.
All rights reserved. No part of this Publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means; electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the Publishers.
ISBN 978-8035-78-7
Printed by: MINDEX PRESS, Benin City. Tel: 08023453848, 08037404398
ii
Section C: Freedom of Worship
73
Chapter 6: Religious Liberty in America: The Journey so Far, Its
Dividends and Moral Lessons for Religiously Pluralistic Nigerian
Society
J.K. Aynntayo............................................
74
Chapter 7: Freedom Of Worship: A Comparative Study of the U.S.
and Nigeria
Emmanuel O. Ojo and P.F. Adcbayo.........................
90
Chapter 8: Religion and Politics: A Comparative Analysis of
American and Nigerian Orientations
Ebenezer Ejalonibu Lawal.................................
104
Chapter 9: Freedom of Worship
G. U. Ntamu ...........................................
123
Section D: Freedom from Want and Fear ................
131
Chapter 10: The Quest by the United States to Free Mankind from
Want: A Focus on Their Food Aid Policy since 1954
Christian Chukwuma Opata...............................
132
Chapter 11: Freedom from Want in the American Society:
A Historical Perspective
Bayo Lawal.............................................
143
Chapter 12: A Sleepless Giant: Paradoxical Consequences of USA
Pursuit of Policy of Freedom from Fear through Interventionism in
World Politics since World War II
Edward O. Erhagbe......................................
iii
163
Chapter 7
Freedom of Worship: A Comparative Study of
the United States and Nigeria
Emmanuel O. Ojo and P.F. Adebayo
Introduction
The United States, like Nigeria, is a deeply divided and
heterogeneous society, artificially created through the succeeding
waves of immigration, from different sources and in different
circumstances. This ethnic, racial and religious diversity has been a
significant factor in a history of tension, violence and repression.
The Constitution of the United States of America, including its
first ten amendments (the "Bill of Rights") however, sets up a
variety of guarantees which are considered necessary to support a
liberal and democratic society. One of the clauses in American
constitution that guarantees freedom of worship states thus:
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
Likewise in Nigeria, there are a number of constitutional
provisions to safeguard the freedom of worship. But despite these
constitutional provisions in both the U.S. and Nigeria, the snag is
that they are not self-enforcing and protection of freedom of
worship in particular has not always been extended throughout the
society. And that is the thrust of this paper.
The paper is organized into a number of sections. With the
above introductory remark the second part dwells on
conceptualization of freedom of worship to avoid any
90
misunderstanding. This is done without being necessarily
definitional, being that the concept falls into the category of words
that Gallie calls "essentially contested concepts."1 The third part
traces the struggle for the freedom in the U.S., bringing out the
reason why the right is better entrenched in American society than
Nigeria and equally alluding to conflict in Nigeria, showing the
wide gap between Nigerian and American society in terms of
temperament and pluralism. The paper however infers that the
hallmark of a democratic system is the strict observance of the
right of man to worship in his own way without any imposition or
infringement. We now proceed to the conceptualization of the key
term.
Conceptual Framework
As rightly observed by Chafe, "the primary requirement for
debating anything is to understand first and foremost the actual
thing being talked about."2 Though the concept is quite well
known, widely used, and to a large extent, self-explanatory, it may
nevertheless be useful to provide the working definition of this
principal concept in order to minimize the possibility of
misunderstanding. The reason for this is that concepts may have
both cultural and ideological conceptualizations and similarly in
view of the fact that like power, justice, peace and equality, human
rights and its elements fall into the category of concepts that Gallie
calls "essentially contested concepts."3 Weldon4 also subscribes to
it, saying that such concepts necessarily generate unsolvable
debates about their meaning and application because as Richard
Little point out, they "contain ideological elements which renders
empirical evidence irrelevant as a means of resolving the dispute".5
Even an apparently concrete concept like the state virtually defies
any precise, generally accepted definition because of its essentially
contested nature too.'' It is in view of the foregoing that Taiwo
postulates that a precise definition of human rights - freedom of
worship inclusive - may prove a Herculean or highly elusive task
despite the repeated claim and assertions made for their existence
as
91
part of man's inalienable right, from creation.7
Therefore, it may be helpful if we start by defining the term
'right' or 'freedom' as it is legally understood. Justice Oputa alluded
to this definitional problem when he noted that "if therefore we
attempt to probe human rights in the political and legal culture of
Nigeria without a clear idea of rights, in particular, we shall not be
right about Human Rights."8 Taken in an abstract sense, "right"
means justice, ethical correctness, or consonance with the rule of
law or the principles of morals. Meanwhile, it is no longer possible
for us, as it has been until recently for legalists and institutionally
oriented political scientists to conceive of human rights as little
more than the documentary results of enlightened legal processes.9
Human Rights generally is an ambiguous and nebulous concept
rendering little room for a definitional consensus. The reason is
that while the western industrial system tend to define it in terms of
political and civil liberties, third world nations seem to focus on
the basic needs of food and shelter as a prerequisite for human
dignity and eventually civil rights.10 Whenever the Anglo-Saxon
and Judeo-Christian civilization adhered to the centrality of
individual rights as opposed to group rights. The Islamic world,
however, tends to regard individuals as subordinate parts of the
state or community." While polyarchical systems place emphasis
on political freedom, socialist systems choose to accentuate social
and economic equality.12 Thus, defining the concept of human
rights in the narrow terms of civil liberties would not be acceptable
to societies striving for social equality or the satisfaction of basic
needs. By the same token, any definition of human rights devoid of
concern with political freedom will not be viewed as legitimate in
the context of industrial western societies.13 To extend the
definition of human rights further would not serve us any useful
purpose. We now rum to the conceptualization of freedom of
worship which is our major pre-occupation.
In the extant literature on Human Rights, freedom of
worship means the liberty to worship in one's own way and one's
own God or deity without any hindrance. In a free society with
strict observance of human rights, religion is absolutely a personal
92
affair. One may choose to worship or not. The State is supposed to
be an umpire and seen to be secular in all ramifications. The
Nigerian government's attitude to religion can be gleaned from her
constitution. A section states that "a government of the federation
or of a State shall not adopt any religion as state religion.""
Likewise, the U.S. is religiously a plural State. For instance,
according to a recent data there are between 3 to 4 million
Moslems in the U.S. and an estimated 1,100 plus mosques in the
U.S. too with at least one in every state. Eighty percent are
believed to have been founded within the last 12 years.15
Furthermore, for Stuart Gorin,16 in an in-depth allusion to
American system, in any criminal case where bail is denied,
defendants incarcerated prior to and during a trial are still afforded
their basic human rights and are treated accordingly. Safeguard of
human rights most especially freedom of worship do equally
extend even, to prisoners who are not supposed to be served foods
that are not permissible under their faith and at times, the presiding
judge may order the Prison authorities to allow inmates perform
their religious rites. It is not surprising that at the point of death,
those found guilty of capital offence most especially in Nigeria are
asked to pray to God in whatever mode that is in line with their
faith.17 Moreover, a prisoner can not be served with food that
negates the tenet of his faith too. It is this extent that the freedom
of worship covers.
In contrast, it is important to recall that the former Soviet
Union, which was formed in 1922 and dissolved suddenly in 1991,
was the first state to eradicate belief in God from the minds of its
people.18 Vladimir Lenin, the first head of the Soviet Union, was a
disciple of Karl Marx, who portrayed Christianity as a tool of
oppression. Karl Marx called religion "the opium of the people",
and Lenin later declared: "any religious idea, any idea of any 'god'
at all ... is the most inexpressible foulness".19 When the Russian
Orthodox Patriarch Tikhon died in 1925, the church was not
permitted to elect another patriarch. The attack on religion that
followed resulted in most church buildings being either destroyed
93
or converted to secular uses. Priests were condemned to slave-labor
camps, where many perished. "Under the rule of Joseph Stalin in the
late 1920s and 30s", explains the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "the
church suffered a bloody persecution that claimed thousands of
victims. By 1939 only three or four orthodox bishops and 100
churches could officially function."20 What a perfect example of an
abuse and outright denial of freedom of worship. We now move to the
evolution of the right in the U.S. Whereas, in a polity that observes
freedom of worship, the religious, agnostics and atheists should be
able to enjoy peaceful co-existence.
Freedom of Worship in the U.S.
The attitude of the framers of the U.S. constitution towards
religion was shaped by a variety of factors as recalled by Spalding in
an insightful work on the U.S.21 Many early colonialists had come
fleeing religious persecution, and they brought that intolerance with
them. This can be seen clearly in the trials, punishment and
executions of Quakers in Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th
Century.22 The punishments for being a Quaker (even before any laws
respecting Quaker had been passed) were harsh and often brutal,
including fines, imprisonment, beatings and mutilation. Later laws
were passed mandating banishment or execution. As with other sects
in other times and places, they seemed not to have been deterred, but
rather were drawn to face these sentences. According to Spalding,
these persecutions come out of a heritage of established and intolerant
churches common in Europe at the time. One of the legacies of
Europe was the confluence of religious conviction and intolerance,
which led to the brutal wars of Europe and the persecutions of the
New World. However, it was becoming clear that such intolerance
could not be sustained. The first point at which "human rights" touch
international law as an example, was in 1955, when mutual
guarantees of religious liberties were written into treaty, and they
became common as the only realistic alternative a continuing spiral of
religious, civil and international wars.23
With that historical overview, freedom of worship came to
stay in America. However, it need be emphasized that there is a
94
wide gap between the issue of free exercise of freedom of worship,
which is less problematic than that of establishment. A few
instances will suffice to buttress this point. At a point in time,
among other religious sects that came into conflict with the court
over free exercise were the Jehovah's witnesses, who were blessed
with "religious zeal and astonishing powers of annoyance".24 Their
persistent and irritating proselytizing brought several cases to the
court, where their rights were originally upheld on the basis of
speech and press protections. Canrwell vs. Connecticut25 made the
free exercise clause applicable to the states, and argued that there
was no clear and present danger to justify suppression of annoying
religious views. The issue that arose most often concerned whether
members of religious sects required licenses in order to solicit
contributions or pass out literature. In Cantwell, the law in question
gave a public official the right to decide whether the solicitation
was for a religious cause.
However, this protection of religious practice was not
consistently upheld. In a decision reached two weeks after
Cantwell, the court upheld the expulsion of two Jehovah's
Witnesses children from school when they refused to salute the
flag, saying that it was in violation of their religion to worship it as
a graven image. The court found it reasonable for the school board
to require the flag salute to promote patriotism and national unity.
More significant than the majority decision, however, was the
dissent, where justice Stone, criticized "legislative efforts to secure
conformity of belief and opinion by a compulsory affirmation of
the desired belief".26 This decision was popular for patriotic
reasons, but was clearly flawed, since it fundamentally controlled
belief, rather than conduct. Refusal to salute a flag because of one's
religion is in no way comparable to practicing polygamy. It was
soon overturned in West Virginia State Board of Education vs.
Barneffe in 1943.
Barneffe also involved Jehovah's Witnesses and a
compulsory flag salute, though it was compounded with criminal
prosecution of the parents if the child failed to attend school. Here
95
the decision read very differently. Justice Jackson Jackson
freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship could only be
restricted to prevent grave and immediate dangers, which clearly
did not exist here.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, i
I is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what should bt1
orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of
opinion or force citizen to confess by word or act their faith
therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception,
they do not now occur to us.27
In a more recent instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses had to
go to court to enforce their freedom of worship in the U.S. The
source of the latest conflict was a village ordinance, "Regulating
Uninvited Peddling and Solicitation Upon Private Property" which
required anyone wishing to engage in door-to-door activity to
obtain a permit at no lost, from the Mayor in a small community
located near the Ohio River, which separates Ohio from West
Virginia. This small community of fewer than 300 inhabitants
suddenly became a center of controversy in 1999 when the
authorities there tried to obligate Jehovah's Witnesses, among
others, to obtain a permit before visiting the homes of the local
people with their Bible-based message. Jehovah's Witnesses
viewed this ordinance as an infringement of freedom of speech,
free exercise of religion and freedom of press. Therefore, they
brought a lawsuit in the federal court after the village refused to
modify their enforcement of this ordinance. Eventually, the
opinion of the Supreme Court stated "for over 50 years, the court
has invalidated restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and
pamphleteering. It is more than historical accident that most of
these cases involved First Amendment Challenges brought by
Jehovah's Witnesses, because door-to-door canvassing is mandated
by their religion. As we noted in Murdock vs. Pennsylvania...
(1943) the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to follow the example of
Paul, teaching "publicly, and from house to house" (Acts 20:20).
They take literally the mandate of scriptures, "Go ye into all the
world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). In
doing so they believe that they are obeying a commandment of
God
96
..." The opinion went on to state that the ordinance is offensive -not
only to the values protected by the First Amendment, which states
that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"28 but to the very
notion of a free society.29 For space constraints, we can not go on
citing several other instances of the gap between constitutional
provisions and actual practices. But the fact has been established as
earlier mentioned that constitutional provisions are never selfenforcing anywhere. We now proceed with the Nigerian situation.
Freedom of Worship in Nigeria
It needs be emphasized that the reality of the Nigerian state
is however contrary to what the constitution stipulates. There have
been occasions when the country was at the verge of collapse
owing to the government's apparent leaning and bias towards a
particular religion.30 Whereas, the legal interpretation of secularity
presumes freedom of worship including the State acting as a mere
umpire rather than an active actor.31 This is destabilizing in a
deeply plural and divided society like Nigeria with about 400
ethnic groups and nationalities subscribing to a multiplicity of
religious faiths in a secular context, no doubt, Nigeria is indeed a
complex country par excellence.32 For instance, Nigeria is not only
divided along ethnic lines but also religious ones, which are
cross-cutting and interlocking. The Yoruba alone are said to have
over 300 divinities, each with its own coterie of devotees, in
addition to the denominational compartments of Islam and
Christianity.33 As if to worsen the bastardization of the
constitutional provision of freedom of worship in the country,
Zamfara State holds the (un)enviable position among the Northern
states of elevating the Sharia - Islamic legal order - to the status of
the English common law that has formed the bedrock of Nigerian
judicature. The state took this step on 27th October, 1999.34 In
March 2000, the wave of Sharia spread to Kaduna state. This
sparked off an orgy of violence unprecedented in the history of the
state. It was so bad that the senseless destruction of lives and
properties would not ordinarily abate
97
despite a till-further-notice restriction was placed on Kaduna
metropolis. At the end of the day, well over 200 lives and
properties worth about one billion naira had been destroyed.35
Meanwhile, the state of freedom of worship can best be
encapsulated with the U.S. Department of State human rights
reports in Nigeria. The reported noted that about half the
population is Muslim, about 40 percent Christian, and about 10
percent practice traditional indigenous religion or no religion.
Religious tensions between Muslims and Christians and between
Sunni and the small number of Shi'ite Muslims occasionally
erupted into violence. Both the federal government and state
government continued to discourage and criticize public
proselytizing of minority beliefs in areas of Muslim or Christian
majorities, in the belief that it stimulates religious tensions,
although they do not outlaw it. Although distribution of religious
publications remained generally unrestricted, there is a lightly
enforced ban on published religious advertisements. There were
only minor restrictions on religions, television and radio
programming. Most religious programs appeared to be broadcast
without controls.
In predominantly Muslim communities, local governments
commonly used zoning regulations to stop or slow the creation of
non-Muslims, usually Christian churches. Typically, a small
section of a city was designated for non-Muslim to build their
places of worship. In several cases, citizens in these enclaves
reported that they were discriminated against by not receiving
police protection or waste
removal
service. Missionaries
reported that law enforcement officials harassed them when they
proselytised outside of their designated zones. On December 18,
1999 Muslim youths attacked and looted 14 Christian churches in
Ilorin, Kwara State. At least two more churches were looted on
December 19, seriously injuring a clergyman. The Government's
response was limited to pleas for calm and understanding, and
there was no attempt to prosecute the perpetrators.
Muslim Brotherhood leader Ibrahim El-Zakzaky was released by
General Abubakar in January. The Federal Government continued to
settle property claims by El-Zaksaky for compensation
98
for his home and mosque, which were razed by law enforcement
officers two years ago. In May 1999, the predominantly Shi'a
Muslim Brotherhood published a list of 96 of its followers who
still were in prison or awaiting trial on charges that vary from
preaching to worshipping. They we held and without being
charged with, or convicted of, unlawful assembly.36
Concluding Remarks
This paper has attempted a comparative study of both the
United States and Nigeria vis-a-vis the observance of one of the
inalienable rights of man - freedom of worship. Our finding is that
the U.S. runs a better system in terms of the safeguard of freedom
of worship. But one needs to add quickly that this right was never
achieved on a platter of gold but rather through a legal and
historical battle over the years. Till date, the U.S. still remains a
model of a secular state. Though we have noted a number of
struggles by religious sects and the state for the protection of their
freedom of worship most especially the non-compromising
Jehovah's Witnesses. Americans still run a better system.
On the other hand, Nigeria though equally plural and
heterogeneous like America still has a long way to go as regards
observance of freedom of worship. Because of the pretext to the
contrary by the political elite Nigeria is known to be susceptible to
religious conflict at the slightest provocation. The primary reason
for this, as noted earlier, is not unconnected with the state's biased
role as a media for between and among religious organization. This
is not unconnected with the fact that Nigerians of all strata of the
society are deeply religious, making it difficult for the state to
grow beyond mundane things.
Conclusively, this paper is of the view that Nigeria has a lot
to learn from the American system. This is not necessarily in terms
of institutional frameworks for the protection of human rights but
rather a tolerant disposition towards people of other religious faiths
and sects. In essence, the Nigerian State needs to embark on
profound re-orientation of the citizenry towards religion.37
99
Notes and References
1.
See, W.B. Gallie, "Essentially Contested Concepts", in Max Black (ed),
The Importance of Language, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1962, pp. 121146.
2.
K.S. Chafe, "The Problematic of African Democracy: Experience
from the Political Transition in Nigeria", African Zamani, (Special Issue
on Historical Heritage and Democratization in Africa), New Series, No.
2, July 1994, p.131.
3.
W.B. Gallie, op. cit.
4.
T.O. Weldon, The. Vocabulary of Politics, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1953.
5.
Richard Little, "Ideology and Change", in Berry Buzan and R.J. Barry
Jones (eds), Change and the Study of International Relations, London:
Frances Printer, 1987, p.35.
6.
Dyson, K.H.F., The State Tradition in Western Europe, Oxford: Martin
Robertson, 1980, pp. 205-206.
7.
Olukayode C. Taiwo, Implementation of the United Nation's Declaration
on Human Rights: An Examination of Human Rights Protection in
Nigeria", Nigerian Journal of Democracy, Vol. 1, No.l, October 1994, pp.
21-38.
8.
Justice Oputa C.A., Human Rights in the Political and Legal Culture of
Nigeria, Nigerian Law Publications Limited, Lagos, 1989, p.3.
9.
Quoted in Strouse J.C., and Calude R.P., "Empirical Comparative Rights
Research: some Preliminary Tests of Development Hypothesis" in Richard
P. Calude (ed), Comparative Human Rights, The Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, 1976, p. 51.
10.
Park, H.S., "Correlates of Human Rights Global Tendencies" in Human
Rights Quarterly, M.G. No. 3, August 1987, p.406.
11.
Strouse, J.C. and Calude, R.P. op.cit.
12.
See, Eghosa E. Osaghae, "Ethnicity and Democracy", in Ayo Fasuro et. al.,
(eds), Understanding Democracy, Bookcraft Ltd., Ibid, 1992, pp. 40-43.
13.
Ibid.
100
101
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Bolaji Bateze, "Religion and Politics: The Relevance of
the American Example to Nigeria", in Oyin Ogunba (ed),
Governance and the Electoral Process: Nigeria and the
United States of America, A Publication of the American
Studies Association of Nigeria, 1997, pp. 539-554.
For more recent data on religious pluralism in the U.S.,
see, "Islam in the United States of America", Whitney
Young Information Resource Center (IRC), Public Affairs
Section, US Consulate General, Lagos, November, 2001,
p.5.
Cited in Emmanuel O. Ojo, "The Rights of the Citizens in
the 21st Century Nigeria: A Comment", being the text of a
paper presented to the National Association of Social
Studies Educationists Conference 2000, with the theme
"The Nigerian Citizen in the 21st Century", held at the
University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Kwara State between 10th-13th
May, 2000.
See, Emmanuel O. Ojo and Ademola Azeez, "Mechanisms
for the Safeguard of Human Rights in Nigeria's Nascent
Democracy: Lessons from the Past", being a paper
presented to the International Conference on "Politics,
Society and Rights in Traditional Societies", organized by
Institute for Benin Studies/ Carnegie Council on Ethics and
International Affairs, between 10th and 17th May, 2002 at
Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria, p.16.
See, Awake!, "Religion in Russia: What is its Future?",
Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria, April 22,2001, p.3.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Spalding, Nancy L. "Civil Liberties in a Plural Society:
Religion and Speech in the United States", in Nigerian
Journal of American Studies, Vol. 11, July 1992, pp. 38-65.
See, Frankel, Lidnel H., Law, Power and Personal
Freedom, St. Paul Minnesota: West Publishing Company,
1975, pp. 300-309.
Cited in Spalding, op. tit., p.39.
102
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Chafe, L., Free Speech in the United States, I'M 1. Also
cited in Spalding op. cit.
See, Cantwell Vs. Connecticut, Freedom lo express even
annoying religious views, 1940.
Minersville Schul District v. Gobitis, Children can be
expelled for refusing to salute the flag even though it is
against their religion-1940.
Cited in Spalding, op. cit, p.48.
See, Kenneth Janda et. al., The Challenge of Democracy:
Government in America, Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, 1992, p. 536.
For the details about the latest legal battle between the
Jehovah's Witnesses and U.S. Ohio Mayor, see Awake!
Benin City, Nigeria, January 8, 2003, pp. 3-11.
See, Bolaji Bateye, op. cit., p.541.
For details of Government's apparent leaning and bias
towards a particular religion, see, A.E. Davies, "Secularity
and State Practices in Nigeria", in H.O. Danmole et. al.
(eds), Contemporary Issues in Nigerian Affairs, Sunad
Publishers Limited, Ibadan, 1995, pp. 80-99 and P.R.A.
Adegbesan, "Pragmatic Involvement in Religious Matters:
A Case Study of Nigeria ",in Alternative Political Futures
for Nigeria, Stephen O. Olugbemi (ed), NPSA Publication,
Lagos, 1987, pp. 95-105. Also, for the same strand of
argument, see, Emmanuel O. Ojo, "Public Opinion and the
Conduct of Nigerian Foreign Policy", in Hassan A. Saliu
(ed), Selected Themes in Nigerian Foreign Policy and
International Relations, Haytee Books, Sally and
Associates, Ilorin, 1999, pp. 89-105.
Agbaje, A.A.B., "Electoral Administration in Nigeria's in
J.A.A. Ayoade (ed), Handbook of Election Monitoring in
Nigeria, Vantage Publishers, Ibadan, 1999, p.91.
Simeon O. Ilesanmi, "Constitutional Treatment of Religion
and the Politics of Human Rights in Nigeria", African
Affairs, Vol. 100, 2001, pp. 538-539.
Ibid., p. 529.
103
35.
36.
37.
See, 'Kaduna Massacre: Sharia Will Split Nigeria', The
News, 6th March, 2000. According to the News Magazine,
a BBC reporter was reported to have said "I have never
seen a slaughtering of human beings like this." Prof. Wole
Soyinka, a Noble Laureate too was reported to have told
the magazine that "... this is a serious state of anomie and
the prelude to war...". For more information on the Sharia
crisis see, Tell, March 13, 2000. For an in-depth analysis of
ethno-religious crisis in Nigeria, see, Emmanuel O. Ojo,
"Excursion into Nigeria's Ethno-Religious Crisis", The
Herald On Sunday, Ilorin, July 28th, 2002.
See, Reports on Nigeria in 2000, US Department of State,
Whitney M. Young Jr. Information Center, Public Affairs
Section, Lagos, Nigeria, January 2001, p.30.
See, Razaq D. Abubakre et. al. (eds), Religion and Politics
on Nigeria, A Publication of Nigerian Association for the
Study of Religions, 1993. Also, see, The Sharia Issue, by
Committee of Concerned Citizens, Working Papers for A
Dialogue.
104