Nigeria’s religious diversity has always been both a defining feature of the country and one of its most delicate social realities. Muslims, Christians and adherents of traditional religions have lived alongside one another for generations, sharing markets, schools, workplaces, neighbourhoods and, in many cases, family relationships.
Yet beneath this familiar picture of coexistence lies a question that Nigerians cannot afford to ignore: what happens when religious identity ceases to be a source of moral guidance and becomes a wall separating citizens from one another?
That question formed the intellectual and moral centre of Prof. Abdulazeez Balogun Shittu’s 54th Inaugural Lecture at the University of Abuja (now Yakubu Gowon University), on 24 September 2026.
The lecture, titled “Religious Insularity: A Threat to Peaceful Coexistence in Nigeria”, was more than an academic exploration of religious behaviour. It was a searching examination of how Nigerians understand themselves, their faiths and those who worship differently.
A Professor of Islamic Thought and Comparative Religion, Shittu approached the subject from an Islamic intellectual perspective, but his argument reaches far beyond Islam. At its heart is a warning that religious conviction, when stripped of humility, knowledge and justice, can become an instrument of division.
His message is particularly relevant to contemporary Nigeria, where religious identity frequently intersects with politics, media narratives, community relations and questions of social trust.
When Conviction Becomes Exclusion
Religious insularity, as presented in the lecture, is essentially a form of religious narrow-mindedness. It involves an exaggerated estimation of one’s own religious identity accompanied by suspicion, disregard or condemnation of people who belong to other religious traditions or even different schools of thought within the same tradition.
Its opposite is religious broad-mindedness: openness to knowledge, sociability, tolerance and willingness to engage constructively with people of different convictions.
The distinction is crucial.
There is nothing inherently contradictory between deep religious commitment and peaceful coexistence. A Muslim can remain fully committed to Islam while respecting Christians. A Christian can remain deeply committed to Christianity while treating Muslims with dignity. Religious identity does not have to disappear for social harmony to emerge.
The danger begins when faith becomes a justification for superiority.
When that happens, the adherent begins to see difference not as a normal feature of human society but as evidence of moral inferiority. Dialogue becomes unnecessary. Questions become threats. Correction becomes persecution. And eventually, coexistence itself becomes difficult.
Insularity is not Only a Muslim-Christian Problem
One of the strengths of Shittu’s argument is his refusal to reduce religious insularity to relations between Muslims and Christians.
He identifies two broad dimensions: intra-religious insularity and inter-religious insularity.
Intra-religious insularity occurs within religious communities. Differences in interpretation, denomination, sect, school or religious practice can become sources of suspicion and hostility.
Inter-religious insularity, on the other hand, develops between followers of different religions.
This distinction deserves serious attention because public discussions of religious conflict in Nigeria often concentrate exclusively on Muslim-Christian tensions. Shittu’s framework suggests that intolerance can exist within a religious tradition just as it can exist between religious traditions.
The real issue, therefore, is not simply whether Nigerians are Muslims, Christians or adherents of another faith.
It is whether religious identity is being used to build moral communities—or social walls.
Islam and the Challenge of Religious Narrow-Mindedness
As a scholar of Islamic Thought and Comparative Religion, Shittu naturally grounds much of his discussion in Islamic sources and history.
He draws attention to Qur’an 5:48, which recognises religious difference while encouraging humanity to “race to all that is good.” He also invokes Qur’an 60:8, which establishes the principle of righteousness and justice toward those who do not wage war against Muslims or expel them from their homes.
These references are important because they challenge an assumption sometimes encountered in religious discourse: that acknowledging religious difference necessarily means compromising one’s own faith.
The lecture’s historical examples reinforce this point.
Shittu discusses the Prophet Muhammad’s engagement with the Jewish community of Madinah and the arrangements associated with the plural political community established there. He also references the Prophet’s interaction with Christians from Najran.
The significance of these examples is not that historical circumstances can simply be transplanted into the 21st century Nigeria. Rather, they illustrate an enduring principle: religious difference does not automatically eliminate the possibility of shared civic responsibilities.
The lecture similarly draws attention to Umar ibn al-Khattab’s treatment of Christians in Jerusalem and the protection of their persons, property and places of worship.
The reported incident concerning Umar’s refusal to pray inside a church is particularly instructive. The concern attributed to him was that later Muslims might misunderstand the act and use it as a justification for taking possession of the church.
Whether viewed as a historical lesson in governance or religious ethics, the example captures a profound principle: sometimes responsible leadership requires considering not only what an action means today, but how it might be interpreted tomorrow.
The Humility of Saying “I do not know”
Another striking element of the lecture is its emphasis on intellectual humility.
Shittu refers to Imam Malik’s willingness to say “I do not know” when he was uncertain about an answer. He also recalls the famous intellectual posture associated with Imam al-Shafi‘i: that one’s own opinion may be wrong while another person’s apparently wrong opinion may ultimately prove correct.
These examples are remarkably relevant to an age in which certainty is often rewarded more than knowledge.
Social media has created an environment where individuals can acquire large audiences without necessarily possessing the training required to speak authoritatively on complex religious questions.
A short video, provocative sermon or sensational post can travel farther than a carefully researched scholarly explanation.
The result can be what Shittu identifies as the emergence of poorly informed or “half-baked” religious personnel—people who pronounce on religious matters without adequate recourse to reliable primary sources or qualified scholarship.
In such an environment, confidence can easily be mistaken for knowledge.
The Roots of Religious Insularity
Shittu identifies several factors that encourage religious insularity.
They include inadequate knowledge of one’s own religion, inadequate information about other religions, stereotypes, deliberate distortion of facts, religious intolerance, politicisation of religion and the religionisation of politics.
The connection between these factors is important.
Ignorance creates space for stereotypes. Stereotypes create suspicion. Suspicion makes distortion easier to believe. Political manipulation can then transform those prejudices into instruments of mobilisation.
A population that does not understand its own faith deeply may also struggle to distinguish authentic religious teachings from the personal opinions of individuals speaking in religion’s name.
Similarly, people who know little about another faith can become dependent on caricatures supplied by others.
The result is a dangerous cycle in which citizens increasingly encounter one another through stereotypes rather than through direct human relationships.
When Politics Enters the Sanctuary
The lecture’s treatment of the relationship between religion and politics is particularly significant in Nigeria.
Religion is an important part of the social identity of millions of Nigerians. Political actors inevitably operate within a society where religious affiliation matters.
But Shittu warns against the politicisation of religion and the religionisation of politics.
The distinction is important.
Religion can contribute values to public life—justice, compassion, honesty, responsibility and concern for the vulnerable—without becoming a weapon for political exclusion.
The danger arises when political competition begins to portray political opponents as representatives of an opposing faith, or when religious institutions are mobilised primarily for political purposes.
Once politics becomes framed as a religious struggle, compromise becomes much harder.
An opponent is no longer merely someone with a different political position. He or she may be portrayed as a threat to an entire religious community.
That is precisely the kind of psychological environment in which religious insularity can flourish.
The Media: Bridge or Battleground?
Perhaps no institution outside religious communities themselves has greater potential to influence public perceptions of religion than the mass media.
Shittu therefore places considerable responsibility on journalists and media organisations.
News reports, analyses and features can contribute positively to Muslim-Christian relations, but they can also deepen suspicion when religion is presented carelessly, sensationally or primarily for commercial attention.
This challenge has become more complicated in the digital era.
Traditional journalism operates through professional routines of verification, attribution and editorial scrutiny. Social media operates at a much faster pace, where emotional material can spread before facts are established.
Religious misinformation is especially combustible because it often touches deeply held identities.
A misleading claim about a religious community can therefore produce consequences far beyond the original post.
This places a special responsibility on journalists and editors.
The question should not merely be, “Is this story interesting?”
It should also be, “What will this story do to an already fragile relationship between communities?”
That does not mean journalists should suppress legitimate reporting or shield religious institutions from scrutiny. Rather, it means reporting should distinguish accountability from provocation and public interest from sensationalism.
When Religiosity Loses Spirituality
One of Shittu’s most penetrating observations concerns the difference between religiosity and spirituality.
A society may become increasingly visible in its religious expressions while simultaneously losing the ethical substance those expressions are supposed to represent.
Mosques may be full. Churches may be crowded. Religious programmes may dominate television and social media. Religious language may appear everywhere.
Yet none of these automatically guarantees justice, honesty, compassion or respect for human dignity.
Religious insularity can produce precisely this contradiction: high religious visibility without corresponding spiritual depth.
The result is religion becoming more about identity than character. And if that happens, public religious behaviour can coexist with discrimination, intolerance, corruption, hatred or violence.
A National Test of Tolerance
Shittu’s lecture ultimately turns the question of religious insularity into a question about the kind of Nigeria its citizens want to build.
The choice is neither between religion and secularism, nor between faith and national identity. The real choice is between a society where religious differences are exploited to create suspicion and one where those differences are managed through knowledge, justice, dialogue and mutual respect.
Nigeria’s religious diversity is a permanent reality. Its future stability will depend, to a considerable extent, on how that diversity is understood and managed.
If religious leaders teach humility, if scholars promote accurate knowledge, if journalists verify before publishing, if political actors resist the manipulation of religious sentiment, and if citizens refuse to judge entire communities through stereotypes, religious diversity can become an asset rather than a source of division.
But if ignorance, prejudice, political manipulation and irresponsible religious rhetoric continue to define public discourse, the consequences will extend beyond places of worship. They will affect families, communities, institutions, democratic governance and national security.
That is why the warning contained in Shittu’s inaugural lecture deserves to travel beyond the university auditorium.
It belongs in newsrooms and classrooms. It belongs in mosques and churches. It belongs in political meetings, government offices and community gatherings. Above all, it belongs in the everyday consciousness of Nigerians.
The challenge is not to make Nigerians believe alike. It is to make Nigerians live justly together despite believing differently.
That may be the most important lesson of Shittu’s intervention and perhaps, one of the most urgent lessons for Nigeria at this moment.
Faith should guide conscience, not become a wall against humanity.
- Abdulmalik is the Chairman of the Governing Board of the Guild of Interfaith Media Practitioners Nigeria (GIMP-Nigeria)
- Email: info@interfaithmediaguild.org; interfaithmediaguild@gmail.com: nowmalik@gmail.com; Website: https://info@interfaithmediaguild.org
