0
0
From sex for grade to sex for food. Sex out of wedlock for anything is condemnable in the major religions practised in Nigeria. The fact that excuses are being made for this immoral act—even by clerics—shows that we are in a big trouble. Professor Ibrahim Ahmad Maqari recently stirred the hornets’ nest with his fatwa (religious legal opinion) that a woman can commit adultery to feed herself in a situation of severe hunger to avoid hunger-induced death. Maqari is one of the Imams of the National Mosque in Abuja. In his fatwa, he invokes the Islamic doctrine of necessity “Ad-Daruraat tubihul mahdhuraat”—a common legal principle which means necessity permits prohibitions or necessity knows no laws.
Considering how heinous and terrible the sin of adultery is, many Muslim clerics lashed Maqari for saying what they consider an abomination of the highest proportion. They argue that not all prohibitions are permitted due to necessity. To be specific, they claim no necessity permits adultery or fornication. In fairness to Maqari, it wasn’t that he exercised juristic reasoning to come up with the controversial claim. Rather, he claimed some scholars in the past actually said so without mentioning their names. Is Maqari being disingenuous? Why didn’t he mention those scholars? Could it be that he gave the explanation in passing which is why he did not name any of the scholars? I will turn to this soon.
I wrote an article titled “Housewives, Hardship, and the Immoral Trade by Barter” five months ago. Lamenting the general hardship in Nigeria, I wrote: “Married women now practise trade by barter. I do not mean Garri for Àgbàdo, Tuwo for Dan Wake, or Okpa for Nkwobi. I mean trading and bartering with what exclusively belongs to their husbands for cups of rice or of beans or of grains. For a tuber of yam, for a loaf of bread, or for a few naira notes. In some cases, with the knowledge of their husbands. But what could the helpless husbands do?” A Nigerian resident of the United Kingdom could not believe this. In reaction to the article, he asked if the hardship in Nigeria had reached this level. I responded; “It isn’t an exaggeration. It is real. Not only real but common.” This general hardship is, perhaps, what informs Maqari’s controversial opinion that when in a situation of extremely suffocating hunger, a woman can resort to sex for food to save her soul.
The question is: how many times would such woman open her laps and lay her back for food? Maqari did not go into this detail. While I find Maqari’s position problematic due to some reasons to be mentioned below, he is not disingenuous. Clerics who claim no scholar in the past had ever said what Maqari said are either being disingenuous or bigoted. Or could it be as a result of shallow scholarship? Honestly, addressing topical jurisprudential issues and arriving at a balanced position requires mining some of these torturous (though interesting) corpus of literature on Islamic jurisprudence which are always in volumes. However, I have observed over the years that many Nigerian clerics (or should I say “clerics”?) rashly jump to make “scholarly” critique of positions of other scholars without any serious research. That is senseless and empty-headed criticism.
These self acclaimed clerics make it a hobby to pick holes unnecessarily in the activities and homilies of other scholars as if to pull them down. This is often the case when there exist some ideological differences between the critics and the one being critiqued. It takes dedication to scholarship, a lot of patience—paying attention to details—and a lot of readings to be an Islamic scholar.Unfortunately, these so-called clerics who could neither make little sacrifice to conduct simple research nor are they thoroughbred scholars always like to be seen making scholarly assertion on every religious matter. I find this very sickening.
The recent attacks on Maqari for his “sex for food” fatwa as if no reputable scholar in the past ever said so is uncalled for. I only listened to the viral part of his lecture which leniently shows approval for “sex for food” under stringent economic hardship. I sensed it was a digression from his lecture. I don’t think it was a topic he prepared for. Given that likelihood, Maqari might be excused for not quoting or mentioning the scholars he attributed that position to. I urge him to do so for the record if he had not done so as I write.
To be frank, the opinion expressed by Maqari was held by some reputable Sunni scholars some six hundred years ago. For instance, the author of “At-Taaju wal Ikleel li Mukhtasari Khaleel”, quoting Imam Sahnun—a Maliki jurist—wrote: “As for the woman who fears she will perish from hunger and does not find anyone to satisfy her needs except one who asks her to commit adultery, she is justified in doing so out of fear for herself. Thus, her situation becomes that of one who is forced through the fear of being killed.” So, what Maqari said isn’t unprecedented even though majority of the learned scholars disapproved of it.
Why then do I say Maqari’s opinion is problematic? It is problematic because Nigerian society is permissively promiscuous. In an environment where ladies willingly give out their bodies shamelessly for grades to earn a certificate (ordinary paper) which is not a necessity, such religious opinion by a prominent imam will be recklessly and mischievously abused. Only God knows the number of people that look up to Professor Maqari for spiritual guidance and scholarly mentorship. Many will hide under the doctrine of necessity to make fornication a fun. While begging is a shameless act, resorting to it is way tolerable than adultery in the case of dire need for food.
I dare say that despite the economic hardship in Nigeria, Nigerians are not so ruthless that a woman would go round begging for food through out the day without getting someone to give her what to eat except with the demand for sex. Are all Nigerian men playboys? And must a woman beg food from men? It is better for her to beg and be disgraced—the whole of her life—than to capitulate to sex hungry men. May we not lose our dignity because of food. No woman should lose her dignity to the extent of exchanging sex for food. No gree for anybody!
NOTE: The author of At-Taaju wal Ikleel li Mukhtasari Khaleel is Imam Muhammad ibn Yusuf Al-Mawaaq, a Maliki jurist. Imam Sahnun whom he quoted is from Qayrawan, the present day Tunisia. His actual name is ‘Abdus-Salaam ibn Sa’id. The quote above is from Volume 4 page 46.
Abdulkadir Salaudeen
salahuddeenabdulkadir@gmail.com
