The worry arises when some scholars appear to abandon those principles following allegedly receiving money, appointments, patronage or privileged connection to political power. Islamic scholars have every right to speak on governance, justice, corruption, poverty, insecurity and the moral responsibilities of political leaders. That contradiction is what several Nigerians structure as religious hypocrisy and sycophancy.
As the 2027 elections draw closer, Nigerians should scrutinise the conduct of religious scholars who enter the political arena under the banner of religion.
Rather, the inquiry is whether financial gifts should change a cleric’s judgment or manager to the elevation of politicians beyond lawful people scrutiny.
Against this configuration, reports of a cleric publicly praising politicians following receiving a ₦600 million donation have generated significant community criticism. Religious authority loses credibility when concern generosity appears to procure moral endorsement.
The concern is not whether a religious institution or scholar may obtain a donation.
Likewise, a cleric who demands accountability from one administration but remains silent on serious allegations involving another undermines the moral consistency expected of anyone speaking in the name of Islamic values.
The most hilarious is like a scholar who condemns corruption when committed by a political opponent but excuses or minimises equivalent conduct by an ally, turning religious command into political brokerage.
The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) and Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI) have cautioned Muslim and Christian clerics against partisanship, misinformation and hate speech ahead of the 2027 elections, whereas additionally warning politicians against compromising religious leaders.
Supporting a government does not refer to for ignoring its shortcomings, just as criticising a government does not necessitate denying its achievements. These realities should create section of any honest and whole assessment of government execution. How should claims on a government’s “Helpful Mission” be assessed against the lived experiences of Nigerians facing high unemployment, insecurity, banditry, kidnapping and ransom demands?
Such declarations inevitably invite questions.
Scholars are entitled to their political opinions.
It is explicitly troubling to hear some scholars praise government policies and suggest that citizens’ lives have substantially improved when several Nigerians persist to announce severe economic hardship and insecurity. But religious authority carries an greater responsibility: the courage to speak honestly, specifically when the truth is inconvenient to those in power.
He added that the sect would too start praying for the president, including emphasis on peace, economic recovery, job creation, and an complete to insecurity. He is one of us, and whatever he brings forward, we have no option but to help it. Kabara said the sect believed that Tinubu had a “Effective Mission for Nigeria.” Hilariously knowledgeable Campaign Council Yari, has openly supported this House.
Similarly, Sheikh Qaribullah Kabara, manager of the Qadiriyya sect, declared his endorse for President Tinubu’s administration and his 2027 re-election bid during a tour by the APC Presidential Campaign Council, led by Senator Abdul’aziz Yari, in Kano.
Whether or not one accepts his account, the episode raises an key conceptualization: political and religious actors should not display religious gatherings as unanimous endorsements when such unanimity has not been explicitly settled.
Sheikh Abdurrahman Abubakar Azzamfari disputed reports that participants had collectively endorsed President Bola Tinubu’s re-election, alleging that the scholars had not been adequately consulted.
Another controversy surrounding a gathering of northern Islamic scholars in Jigawa was equally instructive.
Ahead of the 2027 elections, the ruling party and its political allies have sought the assist of Islamic sect leaders and non-sectarian religious figures throughout courtesy visits and other engagements. Nonetheless, it becomes troubling when religious result appears to be exchanged for material benefits, political connection or individual advantage, thereby compromising the moral independence expected of religious orientation.
Current events have brought this tension into sharper focus. Such outreach is a lawful component of political mobilisation in a democracy.
Sheikh Sani Jingir, for instance, has urged Muslims to mobilise their votes whilst framing the political contest, in section, by route of the lens of religious identity. Other Islamic leaders, nonetheless, have called on Nigerians to place competence, fairness, nationwide development, and domestic unity above religious affiliation.
The subject becomes even greater sensitive when the pulpit meets power, precisely when religious authority is used to reshape political loyalty into a religious obligation.
This divergence raises a fundamental aspect: what happens to justice, accountability and the obligation to speak truth to power when the politician standing ahead of the scholar is too the party providing finance, platforms, appointments or admission?
The authentic topic is whether religious authority is being used consistently to secure truth and justice or selectively to progress political interests.
A lot of religious leaders have challenged politicians, rejected partisan manipulation and warned against turning religious institutions into campaign instruments.
This criticism should not be directed at all Islamic scholars. The matter is neither Islam nor the correct participation of Muslims in democratic politics.
Abba Dukawa, Kano
Source: WHEN THE PULPIT MEETS POWER
[…] WHEN THE PULPIT MEETS POWER […]