Radical Islam and Insurgency in Northern Nigeria: Tensions and Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I commend the authors for their hard work and am pleased to see how this paper has progressed. I have made detailed comments in the attached word.doc but overall the only thing left to do is for the authors to provide a list of  their data sources (the newspaper articles) as an appendix with the relevant information about each article (author, date, newsmedia outlet, title).

There are some small grammar and spelling errors that will need to be fixed at the editing stage.

Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Below are the underlisted changes for editors' and referees' approval. 

1. An appendix is now included. It catalogues selected newspapers articles consulted during data gathering and analysis.
2. The section titled: Interrogating the roots of intolerance and violence in Nigeria is now included as part of the analysis section. 
3. A thorough editorial revision was carried out to eliminate, as much as possible, all typographical and grammatical errors.
4. All changes are marked using "Track Changes" feature on MS Word. This will aid the editors greatly.
5. All suggestions from Reviewer 1 have now been incorporated. These include fixing typos, deleting redundant sentences, rewording paragraphs, and revising textual composition of words.
6. Concerns raised by Reviewer 2 about the methods part is now also address.  
7. Stronger links between data and conclusion have been reworked reasonably across the analysis section.
8. Other minor edits are now included.

We thank the reviewers for the comments. We have also corrected all the typos in the revised version.

Reviewer 2 Report

The methods remain unclear. What sources and how many articles/papers/books were used exactly? The method section must be revised thoroughly before publication.

In parts of the analysis, it remains unclear how the author came to their conclusions. A stronger connection to the material should be made more transparently.

The paper would benefit from close proofreading.

There are a number of spelling mistakes and errors. Please find some examples below.

• spelling of Muslim/Moslem should be consistent (more common is Muslim)
• the author writes "It is rare for some who promotes authoritarian politics" this should read "It is rare for someONE who promotes authoritarian politics."

 

Logical errors

• The author writes "It is however important to note that Abraham’s faith and Islam do not approach politics and social norms in similar fashion. While the former embraces separation of church and state; the latter subsumes politics and society under religion." A) Islam is one of the Abrahamic Religions. B) The separation of church and state is a relatively recent development in the Christian Church.
• The author writes "A main advantage of quantitative content analysis is its ability to simplify and reduce data into categories." Does the author mean QUALITATIVE content analysis?

The author writes "The South on the other hand is demographically cosmopolitan..." What is meant by demographically cosmopolitan? Is that the right word?

 

Author Response

Below are the underlisted changes for editors' and referees' approval. 

1. An appendix is now included. It catalogues selected newspapers articles consulted during data gathering and analysis.
2. The section titled: Interrogating the roots of intolerance and violence in Nigeria is now included as part of the analysis section. 
3. A thorough editorial revision was carried out to eliminate, as much as possible, all typographical and grammatical errors.
4. All changes are marked using "Track Changes" feature on MS Word. This will aid the editors greatly.
5. All suggestions from Reviewer 1 have now been incorporated. These include fixing typos, deleting redundant sentences, rewording paragraphs, and revising textual composition of words.
6. Concerns raised by Reviewer 2 about the methods part is now also address.  
7. Stronger links between data and conclusion have been reworked reasonably across the analysis section.
8. Other minor edits are now included.

We thank the reviewers for the comments. We have also corrected all the typos in the revised version.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The contribution of the essay to understanding in any detail what is happening in northern Nigeria is minimal: no new data, and the ignoring of the recent studies and analyses of violence in the north. The omission of crucial data, like the enormous and recent growth in population, is striking, as is the omission of any reference to Muslims in either Yorubaland or indeed recently in Igboland.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Reviewer comment: The contribution of the essay to understanding in any detail what is happening in northern Nigeria is minimal: no new data, and the ignoring of the recent studies and analyses of violence in the north. The omission of crucial data, like the enormous and recent growth in population, is striking, as is the omission of any reference to Muslims in either Yorubaland or indeed recently in Igboland.

 

Authors response: We update our work with "enormous and recent growth in population" and inclusion of "references to Muslims in either Yorubaland or indeed Igboland."

However, the paper focus on Radical Islam and Insurgency in Northern Nigeria: Tension and Challenges in the Northern Nigeria. The suggested inclusion of Muslims in either Yorubaland or indeed recently in Igboland are brilliant but they are outside the scope of our work.

In terms of the essay contribution to understanding in any detail what is happening in Northern Nigeria, we have incorporated the relevant dynamics to coincide with what reviewer 2 and 3 have also recommended.

Christian-backed violence and Muslim violence are now explored. The area of focus is Northern Nigeria. We found no evidence of Christian violence in Yorubaland and Igboland.

The first thing is to focus the essay on “Radical Islam and Insurgency in Northern Nigeria: Tension and Challenges” instead of the generalisation. We simply expunged the word “volatility” and replaced it with “Radical”. The removal helps us to narrow down the events and specific challenges, the mismatch and influence of political views and the insurgency outcomes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Presented text tacles with interesting and important subject. Author is well aware of historical, social and political cotext of described problems. My reservations are as follows:

1. Author claims in the whole text about "religious violence", claiming that "religion has remained a catalytic factor that fuel violence" [p.6]. In the same time in the text it is hardly to find one example of Christian involvement in "fueling violence", while there is an evidence several time at every page of Muslim engagement in serious act of violence (esp. Boko Haram). Question appears: are the Christian faults omitted or (as it is hardly to imagine analogous to Boko Haram Christian organisaton) is author identifying religious violence with Muslim violence? In the latter case, Muslim violence should be named properly. If it is not, "neutral" language of the text distorts analysis and outputs of the research. For example: after reading text it is far from obvious for me does Nigeria suffer on "religious chauvinism" or "chauvinism of radical islam".  Even more problematic is notion, that "religious organisations in Nigeria must seen as veritable obstacles to the emer-gence of a truly democratic culture". In light of Freedom House date it is clear that exactly Christian or post-Chritsian culture is the best soil for democratic system (cf. also Huntington's Third wave of democratisation) - if in Nigeria Christian engagement is anti-democratic it should be prooved (in the text it is not). Another one: autor claims "while some northern states continue to mix religion and politics and refuse to sepa-rate the two, religious violence has become a viral disease without a cure". But - as author wrote in previous part - these are exactly Muslim states, so it is not "religious violence" but Muslim violence what is at stake. 
2. The above problem reveals deeper theoretical problem. Author seems not to take enough into account that there is no "religion", but there are "religions". For example he claims that "Nigeria was founded on the principle of separation of church and state" but "do or die means of leadership, violence and conflict replaced the natural political knowledge". Separation of church and state is not a "natural political knowledge" but exactly a Christian one (by the way, churches only in Christianity describe religious community). Such a notion is not known/accepted in Muslim world and more less in radical islam. Even more problematic is another claim: "This suggests that the problem for religions goes much deeper than a contradiction between theory (proclamations of peace) and practice (violent behaviour), but instead a conflict between two important and fundamental aspects of re-ligious theory: one part that treats peace as holy and another that treats violence as holy". That sentence is true in case of islam, where - depending on interpretation - for some it can be pereived, legitimely, as a religion of peace, while for others - also legitimely - as a religion of violence. But it doesn't refer to Christianity in a similar way.
3. Some interesting claims are left without deeper anlaysis and clear evidence (case studies), like thesis on instrumentalisation of islam by political leaders or relation between ethnicity and religiosity. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Authors response: We have refocused the study on “Radical Islam and Insurgency in Northern Nigeria: Tension and Challenges” instead of the generalisation.

The essay focusses specifically on the activities of radical Islam in Northern Nigeria and the resulting insurgency that poses maximum challenges to the region. So, focusing the essay on radical Islam has changed the discussion by using neutral language that does noes distort the focus of the essay which is Muslim violence bot religious violence.

While the second comments by reviewer 2 focus on the use and choice of word, we have carefully realigned the narratives by sharpening the fundamental aspect of Islam being a two-sword – on that trat peace as holy on the one hand and the other that treat violence through radicalisation as holy.

On the third comment, we have also provided further evidence on the relationship between political leaders, ethnicity and religiosity.

The concerns raised about the religion/politics relationship in the north are noted and incorporated in literature.

Reviewer 3 Report

religions-1102058 – review

Key points:

A range of theoretical frameworks are alluded to but not applied.

The abstract mentions an ‘archival’ methodology but the paper does not have a methods section and there is no discussion of what body of archival data has been used to evidence the claims made.

In general, there are too few references – so many points remain unsubstantiated

It is unclear how the research questions alluded to in the abstract relate to the content of the paper at all – simply put, there is no argument.

While the topic is interesting and important unfortunately the paper is poorly argued and largely unevidenced and therefore I cannot recommend publication without major revisions. In this reviewer’s opinion the topic of “why is Nigeria facing the threat of Boko Haram” is a topic that could barely be covered in a PhD thesis, and thus a much narrower focus is needed for a journal article.

Detailed paper review;

Abstract: 

• Poor grammar
• “two-prong (not ‘thong’) paper but four research questions – inconsistent
• Immediate concern that the research questions are too large and too many for one research paper, and that the methodology (archival research) is insufficient to provide evidence to support such a grand recommendation (the creation of a T&R Commission in the manner of post-apartheid South Africa)

Introduction:

• Remove first paragraph, can the summarise the point (that Northern Nigeria is resource rich but politically volatile and economically depressed) and provide one reference, add to next paragraph
• Generally, the second paragraph is a better intro paragraph
• Never start a sentence with ‘but’
• Begin each paragraph with a sentence summary of the point you want to make, e.g. “Despite vast mineral resources, democratic consolidation and targeted state investment, norther Nigeria still faces its worst civil and economic situation since independence (Moghalu 2019).” [and then combine and reduce the 3^rd and 4^th paragraphs of the introduction]
• Be careful not to valorise ‘modernization’ as an inherently a positive thing – see ‘myth of progress’ for critical perspectives

Religion and political violence – a theoretical framework:

• Need to signpost your theoretical framework in the Abstract and in the first paragraph of the introduction – which one of the three you mention here are you using? Or if the aim is to decide which framework is better for the northern Nigerian context, make it clear that this is a goal of the paper
• Excellent first paragraph
• ‘ingrained’ not engrained
• Take care; not all religions encompass a view of a singular transcendental divine source/supernatural entity/deity at their core. Given the context of this paper, it’s fine to specify Islam or the Abrahamic faiths which all do have a concept of a divine being
• Good 2nd paragraph, some minor grammatical errors
• Good 3^rd paragraph
• 4^th Paragraph is fine, might want to look up ‘millennialism’ (mainly US-based fundamentalist Christians who believe in the imminence of Christs Thousand-Year Reign)

Religion and violence in Northern Nigeria – a review of literature;

• While interesting, the 1^st, 2nd and 3^rd paragraphs do not count as ‘literature review’ as there are no references to literature. This is the section where you need to say “this is what people have already written about my topic” and then say “and my paper seeks to add to” or “my paper addresses ‘X’ knowledge gap”
• The last two paragraphs of this section are better but need to be more concise and include more references.

Interrogating the roots of intolerance and violence in Nigeria:

• 1^st paragraph fine, minor grammatical errors
• Many grand statements in 2^nd paragraph that need referencing and nuance. Could easily cut this paragraph entirely.
• 3^rd paragraph: what are these ‘different schools of thought?’ Reference them!
• Losing academic tone in second half of the 3^rd It is clear that this is a topic the author(s) are deeply invested (that’s good), but the writing style must be less emotional as it will undermine the paper.
• 4^th paragraph; rhetoric = persuasive speaking, introduction of sharia law and the ban of other religious curricula are political actions. Need to reference all these points!
• 5^th paragraph: your point is unclear. The literature references need to be at that start, then evidenced or refuted with data.
• “The Nigeria Guardian posits in its editorial that religious mayhem in Norther Nigeria is caused by poverty and unemployment” – need proper references for this! Date, author, page no. Do other sources agree? Does this point mesh with your chosen theoretical framework?

Political complicity and religious violence in Nigeria

• The point about the geographical spread of specific religions (Muslim north, Christian south) is a key background/context point that should be made earlier, and more succinctly.
• Last section of 1^st paragraph need references.
• 2^nd paragraph needs references. Who are these ‘analysts’, and which schools of thought are you referring to?
• Can you give examples of “political manipulation of religion and ethnicity”?
• 3^rd paragraph: minor grammatical errors
• 4^th Paragraph: unevidenced polemical statements. Cut or reference!
• “One primary theoretical model” – name it, and the scholar behind it.
• 6^th Paragraph: ‘Some Schools of thought’ – this phrase is used too often and in the wrong way. Do you instead mean “it could be argued that…”
• 7^th Paragraph; when referring to events that occurred you must provide some kind of source material, such as a newspaper article or even a link to a news broadcast. Without references these statements are merely your opinion or version of events. You can, of course, move from a statement of an event to your own interpretation of what that even has meant for the wider issue.
• 8^th paragraph – same again
• Final paragraph: Again, the reference to other scholarship should have come earlier and then been discussed/corroborated or refuted. You mention that “studies found a resurgence of religion…” Which studies? By whom?

Conflict and recurrent Violence in Northern Nigeria

• Very similar problems to the previous sections. Too much exposition with little referencing.

Conclusions and Recommendations

• Opening statement is inherently problematic. Given how impossible it is to define ‘religion’ you cannot use the term as an essentialised descriptor. Your article appears to be largely about the continued presence of Boko Haram and the problems of incorporating Sharia Law into a supposedly democratic, secular state. If it is indeed specific to Islam or even mainly to the variant of Islam prominent in Northern Nigeria then say so. Do not essentialise ‘religion’ as being the root of all evil
• “The question therefore is how Nigerians can better insulate the instruments of governance from political irrationality.” This question seems unrelated to the content of the paper so far and indeed to the rest of this paragraph.
• “The study found that … fear of religious conflict was tied to fears of ethnic conflict…”
  • None of your research questions addressed fear of religious conflict
  • There has been no clear discussion of ethnic conflict or the fear of it
• Given the lack of evidence shown in this paper, the author(s) is/are in no position to make any recommendations at all – it is notable that the Abstract’s claim to recommend a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not recalled here, and indeed if the author(s) did wish to make such a claim then they would also need to discuss what a T&R Commission is, where the idea came from, what examples there have been in the world, and the efficacy of it.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Key points

 

Authors response:

As recommended by the reviewer 3, the re-worked paper has undergone significant changes and corrections. 

New paragraphs, citations and quotations are now included. Existing sentences and paragraphs are now reworked. 

All changes are tracked. Below are a several examples:

1, Title modification - Radical Islam and Insurgency in Northern Nigeria: Tension and Challenges

2. Narrower research focus- What exactly is the root cause of religious violence in Northern Nigeria? And if any, what implications for the Nigerian state?
3. All suggestions and concerns indicated by Reviewer 3 are now addressed.
4. More references are included to indicate where certain information was obtained
5. The entire manuscript has been extensive proofread to correct all the grammatical errors.

 

The abstract has been reworked to include the corrections relating to poor grammar, shorten the research question and align the recommendation with the result of the essay. The conclusion has been revised and it captures the key findings from the study.

Statement that do not conform or further expatiates the direction of the essay have been has deleted in the revision version.

The entire introduction has been revised taking a recognisant of the reviewer’s comments.

The methodology section now includes secondary sources of information – Newspapers, articles and books.

Appropriate references have been provided and revision has been made.

The conclusion has been revised based on the reviewer’s comments to reflect what the study entails.

 

We have corrected all the mistakes in the revised version and all the changes are tracked.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The text didn't match my previous reservations and wasn't seriously revised (as it was recommened: major revision).

1. The change of the title is of course a move in good direction, but don't end the issue I raised in my first reservation. Still in the text we read about "religious groups" that "cause destruction" or that "religion is a significant catalyst in violence". Moreover author tries to convince readers that Islam and "Abrahamic faiths" similarily approach to politics, as they legitimise norms "by transcendental source and are hardly subject to negotiation and compromise"... 
2. To say that "Abraham faiths" and Islam represent similar appraoch to political norms is to reveal, I'm sorry to write it, ignorance in the crutial point of theoretical argument of the text. There is a fundamental difference in Christian and Muslim approach to political and social norms - specifity of Christian approach is shortely and well explained in speech of Benedict XVI in Bundestag. Only a lack of theoretical knowledge in that respect explain why author identifies situation of Christian in conflict in North Irland and Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq (p.3) or perceive "religious organisations" as "veritable obstacle to the ... democratic culture" (p.10); or that text proposes a thesis according to which for the intolerance are responsible only politicians, who mix religious teaching and practice (p.11). I don't want to challenge their resposibility, but the scope of that responibility (as well as even a possibility of success in that mixing) depends on the concrete religion: if it  mix those two aspects (religious an political claims) or not.  Problems raised in my previous review are not solved then: there are (different) religions not (one) religion. Theoretical framework of the text is weak.
3. My third reservation was the lack of sufficient and methodologically convincing proofs of presented claims. That problem also is not solved. Author claims in one section that "religion plays a crutial role in determining trajectory of politics and societal relations in Nigeria"; then that "conflict and violence in the country has its roots in the social and economic disposition" and then that "politicians are "the main cause of conflict"... All of that could be in some way true, but there is no convincing way of connecting those claims who - in too large extend - stay without any clear evidence. Maybe that 's why author(s) in the conclusion proposes, instead of deduction form presented evidence, some advices for government. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I congratulate the authors for their hard work. It is clear that they have taken great pains to revise this paper and the manuscript has greatly improved. However, there is a vast different between the first and second halves of the paper. The first half (up until the section “Political complicity and religious violence in Nigeria”) is now in need of just a few minor revisions. The second half still needs a lot of work and there is still no methodology section – which is why I have again made the choice of Major Revisions and Resubmission. I know that this will be disheartening to the authors, but I strongly encourage them to continue to work on this paper. It seems clear that the authors have first-hand knowledge of how politico-religious violence in Nigeria is stalling the country’s progress and as such their perspectives are valuable. I hope therefore that the authors will take my recommendations with the understanding that I sincerely want this paper to succeed.

There are three general areas that need work;

1. Paper structure needs to be clearer.
   Currently, it is unclear where the authors’ own analysis begins. After a few readings, I think the two penultimate sections (‘Political Complicity and religious violence in Northern Nigeria’ and ‘Conflict and Recurrent Violence in Northern Nigeria’) are the results of your own analysis. I recommend combining these two sections into one and amending the section title to make it clear if this is, indeed, your analysis section.
   As a general rule, the first paragraph of any main section should have one general introductory sentence and should also briefly summarise what the section will say, so the reader can know what to expect. Each section should then end by a) summarising again what it is that the section has said/argued and indicating what the next section will include. This is called ‘signposting’ and it makes things more accessible for the reader and helps the authors to stay on track.
2. There is still no methodology section.
   There needs to be a separate section, possibly titled ‘Materials and methods’ or just ‘methodology’ (have a look at what other papers do) which will show the following;
   1. What the data for this study was. If you have used newsmedia, we need to know how you chose the articles that you included. What were your incusion/exclusion criteria? How many articles? In which newspapers? Why these newspapers? We may also need a discussion on freedom of the press in Nigeria or censorship, if that is relevant. If you also included an aggregate analysis of scholarly articles from academic journals then this section also needs to say what sort of search terms you used to find these articles, why you chose those search terms, and so on.
   2. How you approached the data. What method of analysis did you use? Why do you suppose that method to be appropriate for the type of data you used? Is this a similar method to that used by other scholars in similar field or similar studies?
   3. I recommend reading the following for excellent and discussions of methods:
      1. Mason, J (1996) Qualitative Researching. Sage: London.
      2. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
   4. The analysis section needs considerable restructuring. At present the points you are making are very unclear.
      Start by re-stating the goal or aim of your paper, which I think is to discuss or clarify the causes of recurring religious violence in Northern Nigeria. Then state briefly and clearly the arguments or points you wish to make and evidence through your analysis. From my reading, I think these are;
      1. That religious divisions have mirrored social and geographical divisions embedded during the colonial era and which were not sufficiently expunged at independence.
      2. That politicians seek to harness or use religious conflict to promote their own ends.
      3. That in particular the imposition of Sharia Law is various provinces has been met by much violence and conflict.

So you identify 3 specific broad causes; historically-embedded social divisions that mirror religious and geographical divisions; political corruption; the imposition of religious law in supposedly secular democratic institutions.

In your analysis section, address these three causes one after the other.
There are some interesting points which you make briefly which are worth greater discussion; e.g., whether clerics should be licensed by the state, and whether the mode of modernization is incongruent with Nigerian traditional values. These are both issues where there is room for you to explain whether or not you agree with such arguments or recommendations and explain why.