Religion

According to the Nigerian press, the defense headquarters have redeployed the commandant,  Air Vice Marshal I. A. Kure, and corps commander, infantry, Major General M. D. Isa, in the aftermath of the bombing of St. Andrews Protestant Church within the Armed Forces Command and Staff College at Jaji on Sunday, November 25. Estimates of the dead range from eleven to over fifty, in addition to the many wounded. Reports say that surveillance and security at this important training center were negligent. Jaji is only about twenty-five miles from Kaduna where there have been numerous attacks attributed to Boko Haram. The college is located in a semi-rural area outside a small village. A Nigerian reporter for the Vanguard reported that the facility had more than one hundred entry points, many of them unmanned, and the compound lacks a complete perimeter fence. The chief of defense staff has appointed a board of inquiry into the bombing. Accordingly, the principle of official accountability is served by the reassignment of the two most senior officers pending the outcome of the inquiry. The press is also reporting that the military are deeply embarrassed by the success of the attack, which has imposed a “veil of secrecy” around the military headquarters and restricting access to personnel. The widow of a victim says the authorities will not tell her when or where her late husband will be buried, and visitors to survivors in hospitals are severely restricted. I see the reassignment of the top two officers as positive for the principle of official accountability. There remains, however, the possibility that these two officers are being made scapegoats. It is unlikely that the results of the board of inquiry will ever be made public. This is a common fate most such official inquiries. In a throw-away line at the end of the Daily Trust article, there is a note that arrests of policemen and soldiers have been made in connection with the attack on the Special Anti-Robbery Squad’s (SARS) headquarters in Abuja, which occurred at the same time as the attacks in Jaji. The Daily Trust reports that there is “suspicion” that there was “internal collaboration” in the SARS attack. The newspaper provides no concrete evidence.  But, if that’s true, it is a worrying sign of divisions within the police and the military.

This is a guest post by Jim Sanders, a career, now retired, West Africa watcher for various federal agencies. The views expressed below are his personal views and do not reflect those of his former employers. In his later years, American journalist Lincoln Steffens looked back with skepticism on his work. His muckraking essays in McClure’s magazine exposed government corruption, but he doubted that they contributed to enduring change. Revolutions in Mexico and the Soviet Union impressed him and seemed more effective than reform in advancing society. With respect to them he famously commented, “I have seen the future, and it works.” Elements of Nigeria’s elite seem to have caught a glimpse of a revolutionary future, too. In years past, deteriorating conditions in the country gave rise to coup talk. Today, revolution is openly discussed. This is new. Former President Obasanjo recently stated that unless youth unemployment is addressed, “Nigeria will see a revolution soon.” Tunde Bakare, a Latter Rain Assembly pastor and Muhammadu Buhari’s running mate in the 2011 presidential election, picked up the theme, adding that “President Obasanjo and others responsible for the yawning gaps between the haves and have-nots in the country would not be spared in the impending revolution.” Bakare included religious leaders engaging in conspicuous consumption at the expense of their flocks among those who “would not escape the revolt of the masses.” Most interestingly, he suggested that, “if the revolution does not begin in the church, it cannot spread; if it does not begin in the mosque, it will not spread, because they control the population.” Earlier this year, Buhari and former Kaduna State governor Balarabe Musa both warned of a revolution. If a revolution occurs in Nigeria what would it look like? According to Professor John Voll, revolutionary models profoundly changed with the Arab Spring. Now they are: non-ideological and pragmatic, use the blogosphere as an arena of conflict, utilize flash mobs as a weapon, and include women as a dynamic element. Crane Brinton is out, Voll says, “We’re in a new revolutionary mode.” Perhaps a Nigerian revolution is already underway. While Maiduguri is not the Vendee, it is an epicenter of Boko Haram’s violent opposition to vestiges of the government. Expansion to Sokoto, where the sect wishes to transfer religious authority from the Sultan to itself, would represent fundamental change to the northern power structure. Ongoing communal violence in the country featuring flash mobs, as well as growing popular rage against corruption, reflect Steffens’ belief that “long before the bullets dominate the landscape, the seeds of revolution are planted by rapacious, corrupt, and inept governments that refuse to change.”  

Justin Welby, the bishop of Durham in northeast England, will be the new archbishop of Canterbury. This is the most senior archbishop in the Church of England and a symbol of unity for seventy-seven million Anglicans around the world (including Episcopalians in the United States.) An archbishop of Canterbury is not a pope and has no formal authority outside the Church of England. But an archbishop has immense moral authority and prestige among Anglicans worldwide. The Anglican Communion, like other Christian denominations, has been growing rapidly in the global south even as its relative influence has declined in the developed world. African Anglicans in general are much more conservative on issues such as women as bishops or gay marriage than their developed world co-religionists. On an everyday basis, African Anglicans also face ethnic conflict, often difficult relations with Islam, and the ravages of poverty and disease that are much less acute in the developed world. There has been the concern that the Anglican Communion could split along north/south, liberal/conservative lines. Bishop Welby worked closely with the current archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, as his special envoy to Africa, to keep the communion together. The new archbishop knows personally the challenges of Africans. According to Bloomberg, he has made more than forty visits to Nigeria. He has been deeply involved in peace and reconciliation work in the Niger Delta, and in the predominately Islamic north, now ravaged by Boko Haram, and where there is the danger of a more general conflict between the Muslim majority and the Christian minority. A person who places a premium on listening, he has the confidence of an astonishingly wide range of Africans. His understanding and sympathy for Islam has promoted dialogue between the two religions, and some Muslim religious leaders will talk to him when they are usually unwilling to talk to other westerners. Justin Welby appears to be acutely aware of the importance of the grass roots, both in England, where as bishop of Durham he reportedly revived the parish-church structure, and in Africa. In Nigeria, in the Delta and the North, he regularly interacted with local people, rather than restricting his contacts to the more conventional movers and shakers. On a continent where there is too often a yawning gap between those who govern and those who are governed, yet where grassroots movements are increasingly driving the agenda, the new archbishop’s sensitivity, listening skills, and his experience promoting peace and reconciliation, make his appointment good news for Africa.

Karen Kaya specializes in Middle Eastern affairs with a particular focus on Turkey and is a National Security Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Jason Warner is a Ph.D. student in African Studies and Government at Harvard University. Turkey and Somalia are the geopolitical realm’s newest couple, and things are getting serious. Turkey has unleashed a charm offensive in Africa, and Somalia specifically. After the last members of the al-Shebab terrorist group were chased out of Mogadishu in August 2011, Ankara flooded the city with some five hundred development and aid workers. Turkish prime minister Erdoğan was the first non-African leader to enter the city limits of Mogadishu since the country collapsed in 1991; Turkish Airlines was also the first major carrier to fly into Mogadishu in twenty years. Since then Turkey has given some U.S. $51 million to Somalia.  These overtures have stirred up serious emotions in the country. What forms do this love affair take? More than any other country, Turkey has taken on a deeply influential role in bringing Somalia’s situation to international attention. In May 2012 Turkey hosted a United Nations conference on Somalia’s transition process, after which Erdoğan explained: “We have really struggled to make Somalia’s voice heard.” Turkey has been assiduous in its efforts in opening schools, improving public sanitation, repairing roads, and renovating the country’s dilapidated airport. "They are the sponsor we have been looking for the last twenty years. They are the Holy Grail for Somalia.” A Somali national said. Turkey’s innovation is its on-the-ground engagement. Most countries operating in Somalia have headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. Turkey is in the thick of Mogadishu. This smashed the wall that made Mogadishu a no-go zone. It was the best gift for the Somali people. Turkey’s friendship overtures also extend beyond Somalia into the rest of Africa. Their embassies and consulates have increased from twelve in 2009 to an anticipated thirty-four by the end of 2012. Turkey is also trying to leverage its 99 percent Muslim identity to show how it is uniquely positioned to be a regional and global leader. Somalia analyst Abdihakim Aynte notes that Erdoğan’s 2011 Somalia visit reinforced this theory. Not everyone is impressed with Turkey’s leader-via-Islam strategy, however. Some in Turkey believe aid to Mogadishu is intended to woo Muslim voters to the moderately Islamist AKP party. Somalia’s al-Shebab openly ridiculed Turkey as “a stooge of the West.” Paralleling developmental assistance, Turkey agreed to train peacekeeping troops in 2010. In February 2012, Turkey was also poised to contribute capacity-building as well as material resources. This is a paradigm shift from previous, security-centric, approaches. What will the implications of the Turkey and Somalia love affair be? To Africa: while Somalia is reaping the rewards of international visibility and domestic security, other countries will also likely benefit from education and infrastructure development, and most importantly, increased trade relations. To Somalia: Turkey’s entrance appears to be a godsend. There is finally a genuinely devoted partner who is effective in catalyzing both peace and development. Further, Turkey’s Muslim identity undermines anti-imperial, jihadi rhetoric that historically underwrote al-Shebab’s terror logic. To Turkey: Africa provides allies for international forums. It also represents a source of natural resources, and a new market for diversified trade and reduced dependency on Europe. To the U.S.: Turkey’s presence in Africa will likely be more beneficial than undercutting. Though at odds on certain points, Washington and Ankara hold broadly similar goals for antiterrorist initiatives, conflict resolution, and economic development on the continent. Today, Turkey and Somalia are cozying up in the honeymoon period; whether their relationship will stand the test of time is yet to be seen.

Yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI announced the appointment of Abuja Archbishop John Onaiyekan and five others as cardinals. Archbishop Onaiyekan is known for his peace and reconciliation work across the increasingly bitter Christian/Muslim divide. One of his close collaborators is the Sultan of Sokoto, Nigeria’s premier traditional Muslim ruler. The Archbishop and Sultan were short-listed this year for the Nobel Peace Prize. Archbishop Onaiyekan was also Pax Christi International’s Peace Laureate for 2012. He is a strong advocate for justice for the poor and a sharp critic of Nigeria’s political economy. With a lively sense of humor, he is a skilled debater–with Ann Widdencomb, he took on Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry on the BBC. In parts of the North and Middle Belt, Nigeria is tearing itself apart through murderous conflict, which reflects and generates hostility and suspicion in a negative feedback loop, between Christians and Muslims. Boko Haram, a radical Islamist organization, has bombed churches, and Human Rights Watch has documented instances of members forcing Christians to convert to Islam. In response, many Christian leaders have resorted to fierce anti-Muslim rhetoric and Christian mobs often target and kill Muslims, notably in the aftermath of the 2011 presidential elections. In this environment, Pope Benedict’s appointment of Archbishop Onaiyekan is an important gesture of support for those who, in very difficult circumstances, are working for peace. Archbishop Onaiyekan has said that he will remain in Nigeria as Cardinal Archbishop of Abuja. The center of the Roman Catholic Church’s membership has shifted dramatically from Europe and North America to the developing world over the past century. Christianity has grown rapidly in Nigeria. It was perhaps 2 percent of the population in 1900. As recently as 1960 its adherents were no more than 30 percent. Now, it is likely that Christians make up slightly over 50 percent of the population. Nigerian Catholics claim nineteen million adherents, which makes it the largest Christian denomination in the country. Nigeria probably also has more Catholics than any other African country. Archbishop Onaiyekan, sixty-eight, has been a bishop for almost thirty years. As a young student, his religious studies in Rome were funded by the Premier of the old Northern Nigeria Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello; a Muslim. Since independence, Nigeria has had three cardinals. Dominic Ekandem, who died in 1995; Francis Arinze, an expert on Christian/Muslim dialogue who spent most of his professional life in Rome, and is now retired; and Anthony Okogie, also retired, who was the Archbishop of Lagos.

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) reports eight new polio cases in Nigeria, bringing the total in that country to seventy for 2012. As with previously reported cases this year, these are all to be found in predominately Muslim northern Nigeria, in areas affected by Boko Haram. A resurgence of polio in northern Nigeria is no surprise. Previous eradication efforts – even before Boko Haram became active – were compromised by a controversial episode involving pharmaceutical trails by a U.S. company. Later, and apparently unrelated, radical Islamic field preachers claimed that polio vaccination was a plot by the Nigerian government of President Obasanjo (a Christian) and the U.S. to limit Muslim births. The popular uproar was sufficient that several northern governors suspended polio vaccination for many months. Opposition was finally overcome through the offices of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the procuring of the vaccine from an Islamic country, Malaysia. But the popular suspicion in radical Islamic circles remained, and I suspect that it is being exploited by elements of Boko Haram to discredit the government of Goodluck Jonathan, also a Christian. Then, too, the breakdown of security in the North made it difficult to carry out a new vaccination campaign. Despite efforts by the Nigerian government and the international community, polio is far from being eradicated in Nigeria.

Laura Dimon is the Africa Studies intern at the Council on Foreign Relations.  Previously, she worked for the Clinton Health Access Initiative in Pretoria, South Africa.  She has entered the Columbia University School of Journalism. At the 19th International AIDS Conference, Secretary Clinton announced that the U.S. will give forty million dollars to South Africa to support a voluntary medical male circumcision program for almost half a million boys and men in the coming year. Why South Africa, and why circumcision? South Africa has the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the world. There are 34 million people in the world living with HIV/AIDS and 5.38 million of them are in South Africa; 16.6% of people ages 15-49 in South Africa are HIV-positive. Many South Africans are unaware of these staggering statistics. Further, South Africa’s general public is unlikely to be familiar with circumcision’s role in the prevention of transmission of the disease. But in the words of Dr. Anthony Fauci, circumcision is “stunningly successful” in preventing female-to-male transmission. His views are supported by various studies in Africa which have shown that circumcision cuts transmission risk by about 60%. Why is this? According to the CDC, the inner mucosa of the foreskin—compared to the dry external skin surface—has a higher density of target cells for HIV infection and higher likelihood of abrasion during intercourse, providing entry points for the virus. Further, the microenvironment of the space created by the unretracted foreskin may be conducive to virus survival. Finally, the higher rates of STDs observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV. Beyond the science, beliefs about circumcision are deeply rooted in cultural practice and tradition and vary greatly between regions and ethnic groups in Africa—and elsewhere (a German court recently banned circumcision of minors.) In South Africa, the Zulu have historically not favored circumcision, but the Xhosa and Sotho view it as a rite of passage into manhood and perform it traditionally, not medically. As the correlation between circumcision and prevention of the transmission of HIV/AIDS becomes better known, the number of procedures in South Africa is likely to increase, especially where it does not clash with deep-seated religious or ethnic values.  

The United States Institute of Peace has just published a Special Report by Aaron Sayne on conflicts in Nigeria between “indigenes” and “settlers”. It is a must-read for those trying to understand endemic conflict in Nigeria, especially in Plateau state where the violence has been both horrific and more publicized than elsewhere. The Special Report is organized according to two assumptions: “Government must share resources more equally among all Nigerians to reduce violence,” and “Government must hold more perpetrators accountable to reduce indigene-settler violence.” Sayne puts on the table points useful for discussion and analysis of the indigene/settler phenomenon, ranging from definitions of "indigenes" (original inhabitants) and "settlers" (those who arrived later.) He illustrates the crucial point that indigenes have significant advantages over settlers – and it is the state and local governments that pick who is an indigene. The federal government has no role. Hence, one of the bloodiest types of conflict in Nigeria is essentially in the hands of state and local governments. Sayne makes a convincing argument that the clash between indigenes and settlers is getting worse. He cites national figures from 2006 and suggests that fighting displaced over six million in six years. He notes the increasing use of mercenaries and ethnic militias in the fighting. The report puts the indigene/settler conflict in a larger context of divisions and fault lines: a population divided between two world religions, perhaps the second largest number of ethnic groups in the world, economic rivalries between farmers and herdsmen, extreme inequality in the distribution of wealth, etc. Sometimes all of these boundaries coincide, e.g., around Jos the fighting is between Muslim Fulani herdsmen and Christian Baroum farmers. In this context, the distinction between "indigene" and "settler" can be yet another source of division—and conflict.

Under the best of circumstances, life for Malians has been hard for millennia. The country faces recurrent drought and the Sahara encroaches. The social and economic statistics are poor. That in part was why the country’s stable governance for two decades was so remarkable, and its subsequent collapse such a tragedy. In the capital, Bamako, a political settlement between the military junta that overthrew the constitutional government and an interim civilian government supported by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is still elusive. The interim president has just returned after two months of hospitalization and recuperation in France following a beating by a mob in his own palace. Amnesty International has released a report documenting atrocities committed by junta forces in response to a failed counter coup. The Malian government – a state party to the International criminal Court (ICC) – has asked that body to investigate, prosecute and try perpetrators of crimes in the North because it lacks the capacity to do so. In the northern part of the country, the radical Islamist group Ansar Dine and other groups have destroyed West African Islamic monuments that are World Heritage Sites – because they were apparently not Islamic enough. And over the weekend, Ansar Dine stoned to death an unmarried couple in front of 300 witnesses, according to graphic and chilling reportage by the New York Times. Meanwhile, ECOWAS is trying to put together an intervention force of 3,000. Yet, as the president of Chad told the French foreign minister, only France (or NATO or even the U.S.) has the necessary capacity to make such a force effective. According to the press, however, there is little West African enthusiasm for French participation in an ECOWAS force and, presumably, even less for NATO or the U.S. Even with outside assistance, it is difficult to see how even a well supplied international force could impose order on the trackless deserts in the North. It could, however, retake Timbuktu, Gao and a few other population centers. But guerrilla fighting could continue indefinitely. Conventional wisdom among those outsiders who watch Mali is that a political settlement is needed first in Bamako before the Islamist tide can be rolled back in the North. However, while there may be little West African enthusiasm for a French role in an international military force, Ansar Dine atrocities may generate popular support in France for some form of intervention. Other than providing limited logistical support for an international force, I doubt there would be much political support in the U.S. for involvement in Mali, especially during election season. So, while ECOWAS may be able to broker a political settlement in Bamako, and the ICC acquires yet another African case, for the time being, it looks like there are no limits to the barbarism and atrocities in the North.

This is a guest post by Jim Sanders, a career, now retired, West Africa watcher for various federal agencies. The views expressed below are his personal views and do not reflect those of his former employers. Why am I  running a guest post on a Nigerian church in Alexandria, Virginia?  We sometimes overlook West Africa’s growing and vibrant social and cultural influence in the United States.  Jim Sanders recently visited a Redeemed Christian Church of God parish and interviewed the Nigerian pastor. The conversation provides fascinating insights into a Nigerian community in suburban Washington, D.C. and  also into aspects of Nigerian religious sensibility at home. His post  provides an opportunity for we Americans to “see ourselves as others see us.” Lagosian Shina Enitan, pastor of Victory Temple, Alexandria, one of 12 Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) parishes in Virginia, spoke with “Africa in Transition” on Sunday afternoon, following services. Roughly 80 percent of the congregation is Nigerian, with Sierra Leoneans and Ghanaians comprising the majority of the remainder. Young couples comprise more than 50 percent of the parish. The majority of people here face problems associated with immigration, Pastor Shina explained. Having grown up in Nigeria, but now living in the U.S., many experience culture clash. A key role of this church is to help them handle their transition to a “new reality,” particularly in the areas of marriage, parenting, and careers. However, he stressed Victory Temple’s growing outreach to local charities such as Carpenter’s Shelter. Pastor Shina noted that he had not attended a seminary (although he will eventually) and therefore has no theological education. Instead, the RCCG offers in-house training in leadership, pastoral care, and discipleship. Preparation is practical, focused on carrying out the Bible’s teachings. “Leadership by example, not by doctorate,” he said, represents the main thrust. "Do the word you preach," is a guiding principle. Strong influence by American missionaries, who provided Bibles and other materials, helped build interest in Christianity. “In Africa, we are ready to read the word, and do the will, then we come to this country only to find Americans very relaxed,” Pastor Shina confided. “Those early missionaries sowed the fire and we are here now in the U.S. doing what they did for us then in Nigeria. In the U.S., the RCCG envisions having a church within a ten minute drive of every American, so that when people turn back to God, they will have a place to go immediately.” When asked whether a common thread links church bombings in Nigeria with events such as the Colorado theater shooting, Pastor Shina drew attention to Biblical descriptions of the End Times, of which such incomprehensible tragedies are characteristic. But he added that “people just don’t fear God anymore,” and that fear is what restrains us from evil. Moreover, removing prayer from schools also removes a young person’s moral compass. On Nigeria’s future, he said: “It is a great country, but going through a birthing process."   Update: I received an interesting email from a retired army chaplain, Roger Dill. He writes: "Jim, I  wish everyone had your spirit to be open to going where few go.  I was  blessed to grow a refugee congregation in the midst of an old and dying church  in Louisville several years ago.  They were from both Liberia and the  Congo, and they were the heart of the worship in that church and my joy in ministry.  We as the Church in America are not where we need to be, but  thank God , we are not where we used to be. Grace for the  journey."

This is a guest post by Mohamed Jallow, a former interdepartmental associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, and now a program development specialist at IntraHealth International. Mohamed came to the United States as a refugee from Sierra Leone in 2003. As a history buff, I have always been fascinated with the mystics of the ancient African city of Timbuktu. The city is renowned for its historical significance as the crossroads of civilizations. It is among the few places on the continent that still conjures up nostalgic images of Africa’s intellectual history and achievements. The great African empires of Songhai, Macina, and Mali all had roots in the city. In fact, most of modern West Africa can draw on Timbuktu’s long history of education, religion, and diversity. So one would think Timbuktu is a city that all of Africa should be proud of. But not the al-Qaeda linked militants of Ansar Dine. Since taking control of the city following the military coup, and subsequent breakaway of northern Mali (Azawad), the militants have gone on the rampage, destroying musoleums, monuments, and shrines that date back hundreds of years. They claim that the sites are not only un-Islamic, but that they encourage idolatory. They have vowed to continue their campaign to rid the city of all its “ungodly treasures.” Though the focus of the militants for now had been on shrines and musoleums, fears are growing that they might expand their crackdown to libraries that contain rare manuscripts that chronicle the region’s rich history and religious tolerance. With Mali in disaray, the rest of the world watches in disgust and helplessness. UNESCO has called on the militants to stop the destruction of world heritage sites in what it called “repugnant acts,” and placed most of the city’s revered monuments and shrines on its most endangered list. The United Nations and the regional grouping ECOWAS continue to balk at military intervention after repeated attempts to resolve the political crisis. All the while, the senseless sacking continues. Since the coup d’état that ousted the democratically elected government of President Amadou Toumani Toure, Mali has been plunged into turmoil, and the country split in two. Tuareg militiamen have declared independence in the north, while Ansar Dine has capitalized on the turmoil to not only desecrate northern Mali’s historical sites, but also to declare a strict interpretation of Sharia law in the territories it controls. Until the coup d’état, Mali was considered a bastion of African democracy, and was hailed as one of the few countries that “got it right.” That adage is now history. Nevertheless, what continues to amaze me is the lack of outcry at Timbuktu’s desecration. I am not sure why the whole continent is not in uproar; after all, the city and its treasures are part of our collective African history and heritage, not just Mali’s. We in Africa are quick to dismiss western imperialism and the post-colonial plots to dilute Africa’s intellectual greatness, but muted in the desecration of a city that perhaps carries as much important historical significance than any other on the continent. What a shame.

Over last weekend and continuing into Monday, there was horrific bloodshed around Jos in Plateau state in central Nigeria.  The dead, who may number in the hundreds, include two state-level political figures; a third survived apparently by chance.  Most of the victims were Christians according to press reports.  Even though there is a state of emergency, the authorities appear unable to establish order. Boko Haram is claiming responsibility for the massacres.  The police, however, are questioning its involvement. The area around Jos has become a miasma of uncontrolled violence largely ignored by the Western media.  The struggle is between Muslim Hausa-Fulani herdsmen and Christian Berom farmers.  Climate change and desertification is probably playing a role, forcing the Fulani to move south in search of pastures as the Sahara advances, forcing collisions with agriculturalists. The conflict is also bedeviled by the distinction between "indigenes" and "settlers."  The former are the Christian farmers, the latter the Fulani herdsmen.  The thumb on the political scale favors indigenes, and the governor of Plateau is a Christian. Both sides conduct “ethnic cleansing” and retaliatory murder. What may be new is Boko Haram’s claim of responsibility for the most recent round of massacres.  The alleged Boko Haram spokesman,  Abu Qaqa, used triumphalist rhetoric about the murder of Christians and government officials: “(Boko Haram) wants to inform the world of its delight over the success of the attacks we launched…in Plateau State on Christians and security operatives, including members of the National Assembly.  We will continue to hunt government officials wherever they are; they will have no peace again.” Whether Boko Haram was actually involved or not, Abu Qaqa’s rhetoric looks, indeed, like he is trying to incite all-out religious war.  Perhaps aware of that danger, the police are downplaying Boko Haram involvement and are placing the massacres in the more traditional context of ethnic violence and land use.  One anonymous police spokesman is reported by the press as saying that Boko Haram would only have been present if it had been invited in by the Fulani. If the Fulani did invite in Boko Haram, that would be a very bad omen for peace and security in the Middle Belt, where Nigeria’s predominately Christian and Muslim populations meet. Over the past months, there has been a shift of emphasis in Boko Haram’s rhetoric toward murderous hostility toward Christians.  Earlier, Boko Haram had focused more on government personnel and those Muslims that it regarded as renegade.