On April 15th, 2021, David Hundeyin, writing on the Nigeria online news platform , Sahara reporters, sparked a massive online storm which has since culminated into a trending hashtag across social media platforms requesting for the resignation of the Nigerian minister of communication , Dr. Isa Ali Pantami , apparently for “links” with the Taliban and Al-Qaedah.
David went on to accuse Dr. Pantami of being a gradualist jihadi whose veil has just been lifted for all to see by the “hard evidence” he presented.
It is surprising how such a shoddily argued article of this nature will generate the type of furore it has since generated.
Until you understand the politics.
The surprise withers away when you realize that the most active purveyors of this piece of trash journalism are separatists from the Southeast ; disgruntled politicians who are still smarting from their defeat in the last presidential elections; rabble rousing activists like Omoyele Sowore , who’s online platform has been and is still being used as a platform of hate in the Nigerian cyber space and of course our usual adversaries: the religious Islamophobic Zealots of the Christian association of Nigeria (CAN) who think Nigeria is ripe for another crusade.
I will not preclude, of course, the usual fifth column of retarded Muslim hypocrites.
If not for the vested interests of the aforementioned groups, how does a sane person conclude that Isa Pantami remains a terrorist sympathizer, gradualist jihadi and al Qaedah affiliate because:
1. “He was an extremist preacher kicked out of university and a mosque in his native Gombe” as reported by wiki leaks
2. He went to the Islamic university Madinah in Saudi Arabia
3. He studied the works of Ibn Uthaymeen who stated that there should be no permanent treaty with the kuffar
4. He made inflammatory statements in the past praising the Taliban and Osama b. Laden
It is an affront to reason, no, a descent into the abyss of insanity to even imagine that these points follow, not to talk of being logically consistent in granting any shred of legitimacy to the claim.
Please don’t take my word for it; let’s take the four points one after the other.
1. The author himself , to treat him the same way he treats others, categorically said about point (1): “…Apart from what is essentially GOSSIP from a wikileaks cable …”
These are his exact words.
Straight from the devil’s mouth.
So essentially point one is gossip.
Let us play a bit of the devil’s advocate, what if he was kicked out of a mosque? What were the extremist views he held then? How does this constitute the ‘hard’ evidence that David of Sahara advocate in his islamophobic diatribe against Pantami? Was the antagonism of the Jews to Jesus even in the Temple evidence that Christ was guilty of EXTREMISM and/or terrorism?
2. This is even more disastrous than the first. Just read the very Guardian article he cites to see how mischievous this individual is and how those who follow him are bereft of any iota of fairness or sincerity. The article itself says:
“formal teaching is of the ultra-conservative kind approved by the Saudi royals but the problem is what happens outside the classrooms, according to former students”
So the university doesn’t itself preach terror according to a former student. How then does one become indicted for attending?
As far as David is concerned one student is credible while the other must be a terrorist. Sounds logical?
Yes, of course when your name is David Hudenyin, craze is logical.
It gets worse, he himself even states: “while it does not itself teach or openly condone terror…”
So if the university doesn’t itself preach or condone terror how does someone become indicted for attending it?
If the radicalization takes place outside classes, where is the evidence that Pantami attended such extracurricular terror indoctrination?
3. His point three was that since Ibn Uthaymeen held that permanent peace treaties cannot be acceptable and Pantami studied with him, therefore Pantami is a gradualist jihadi.
This absurd logic means studying with anyone with a particular ideology means you have to automatically share the ideology.
How people make these types of stupid assertions and garner deranged followers is simply beyond me.
The majority of teachers I have studied with are Christians, ergo, I am a Christian.
Do you see the absurdity of this?
Any student of political science will study the works of Niccolo Machiavelli, especially The Prince, does it make them Machiavellian?
I am almost sure that Sowore will at least be familiar with Marxist/Leninist literature which advocates bloody revolutions as he himself has allegedly advocated. Yet he has the moral authority to provide a platform for an article of this level of stupidity.
By the way : international politics runs on the principle of military might. This is the context in which Ibn Uthaymeen spoke. If you want to turn the other cheek as a personal principle , fine! This will be stupidly suicidal on the international scene where the strong literally eat up the weak.
Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya and others are still living examples of the devastation that the “permanent peace treaty” imposed on us by world powers have wrecked.
Ibn Uthaymeen spoke in the context of nation-states not bandits of the al-Qaedah and Boko Haram persuasion.
In fact this man was instrumental in clipping the wings of radical jihadi movements amongst Muslim youths.
4. His fourth point about Pantami’s utterances is perhaps the only point he has in the ill conceived and ill delivered article of evil.
And even this falls apart when you realize these were views that the minister uttered years ago and has not only verbally dissociated himself from but has had a death threat issued against him by David’s ideological twin on the other divide, Shekau.
I mean Dr Isa Pantami literally called out Muhammad Yusuf, the late leader of Boko Haram, He debated him and yet he is being pressured resign on bogus accusations of terror.
People like Sowore whose brand of activism lacks not only vision but basic wisdom preach revolutions. They romanticize people like Che Guevera, Fidel Castro , Vladiimir Lenin , Chairman Mao etc who are responsible for the death of thousands , if not millions, in proletarian revolutions the world over.
When Yele called for violent revolutions that he is still on trial on, wasn’t this the type of bloodletting he was calling to?
Does he denounce these figures and mentors now?
Would he, if he had become president, a seat he will never smell not to talk of acquire , resign because he had once seen these individuals as role models?
It will be ill-advised for Dr. Isa Pantami to even think of resignation and I even think It is high time one stood up to this community of losers.
We definitely need to create our own print and social media platforms which will put our own narrative out there. I should expect a counter trending hashtag that the minister should refuse to resign, and secondly, should not dignify idiots of this nature with a response. People behind the Pantami resignation drive do not care if the nation burns, inasmuch as they achieve their diabolical goals.
It will be wrong to capitulate to such traitors who are ready to sell their souls cheaper than the traditional 30 pieces of silver.