Deportation of Nigerian female Pilgrims: A case of ‘rat’ and ‘locust bean’

In its usual earsplitting way, Nigerian government took measures to arrest the situation. President Jonathan set up a Presidential Committee under the chairmanship of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, to dialogue with Saudi authorities to resolve the issue “within 24 hours”. On her part, the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria […]

In its usual earsplitting way, Nigerian government took measures to arrest the situation. President Jonathan set up a Presidential Committee under the chairmanship of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, to dialogue with Saudi authorities to resolve the issue “within 24 hours”. On her part, the National Hajj Commission of Nigeria (NAHCON) announced the suspension of airlift of Nigerian pilgrims for a period of 48 hours. These two “ultimatums” came to pass without the Nigerian government being able to honourably redeem her ridiculed image. There still seems, perhaps, to be more to it than what Nigerian authorities are telling Nigerians.

When NAHCON, as a matter of contractual obligation, resumed normal flight operations in the airlift of pilgrims on Sunday September 30 2012, Saudi authorities also, as a matter of responsibility, resumed the deportation of female pilgrims who arrived in the holy land (from Kebbi, Kaduna, Niger and Kogi states) without their male guardians. The reaction of Saudi authorities to Nigeria’s pattern of doing things could be implied to portend that “if you insist in refusing to comply with our laid down regulations, we shall also insist in refusing to allow our rules to be flouted”. The manner in which Saudi authorities have handled this issue says a lot of how Nigeria has lost respect in the eyes of many foreign countries in Asia, Europe and the US. The reputation which foremost leaders of Nigeria’s First Republic and indeed many credible Nigerians worked hard to build has unfortunately been destroyed by the brazen irresponsibility of many of us as corrupt leaders or fraudulent citizens.

The Saudi regulation which requires every female pilgrim travelling to Saudi Arabia on Hajj or Umrah to be in the company of her husband or a Dhu Mahram is, presumably, not new to officials of NAHCON. The Arabic word “Dhu Mahram” refers to a man who is precluded in Islam from marrying a woman. This include a woman’s father, brother, uncle and other male relations who have foster or blood ties that prohibit them from marrying her. The Dhu Mahram is to take the place of the husband when it is not financially practicable for him to accompany his wife on the journey. Imam Bukhari relates on the authority of Ibn Abbas (RA) that the Prophet (SAW) said, “A (Muslim) woman is not to travel except with a Dhu Mahram; and a man is not to enter upon her except she is with a Dhu Mahram”. There are several other prophetic traditions that emphasizes on the need for a Muslim woman not to travel except in company of her husband or a Dhu Mahram. Therefore, Saudi authorities should not be faulted if they insist in enforcing the laws they have provided to guide female pilgrims in their trip to the holy land.

But why should the enforcement of this law bother any law abiding Muslim? After all, the law is not only applicable to Nigerian female pilgrims but all female pilgrims from every part of the world. In any case, women who travel in company of male pilgrims that bear their surnames have never been refused entry in to the holy land. Moreover, Saudi authorities do not also insist that female pilgrims must bear names of their respective husbands. All that is required therefore from Nigerian pilgrims’ officials is to ensure that every female pilgrim travels in company of a male guardian who, as the husband or a Dhu Mahram, has at least a name that is identical with the woman’s surname.

We would be right to charge Saudi authorities for denying the deported Nigerian female pilgrims the hospitality which Islam exhorts Muslims to give to a stranger even if he were an unbeliever (i.e. pagan). Some of the deported female pilgrims told grim stories of how they were left unfed by Saudi authorities during their detention; and that about 200 pilgrims were made to use a toilet at the detention site. This out of character treatment does not speak well of those who are regarded as natural “custodians” of Islam. Nonetheless, like Hausa speakers would say, “In bera na da sata, daddawa ma na da wari”; which rough translation in English could be “If rat is accused of being too “kleptomaniac”, locust bean is also too pungent (in odour)”. The same adage can be found in several other Nigerian languages including Nupe.

There are insinuations about the reason that actually led to the deportation hullabaloo, which suggests that Nigerian authorities have been economical with the truth about the whole matter. It is reportedly alleged that about five thousand Nigerian pilgrims who performed Umrah in the last Ramadan refused to return to Nigeria after the exercise and are currently staying back illegally in Saudi Arabia. Over three thousand from the figure are women. This, in addition to the nefarious activities including adultery (zinah) of Nigerian pilgrims, men as well as women, may have compelled Saudi authorities to strictly enforce the Dhu Mahram law. In the past, Nigerians have been caught committing evils in very unusual places during pilgrimage or Umrah. To stop Nigerian women from staying back, Saudi authorities are likely to detain every Dhu Mahram who fails to return with the female pilgrim in his care.

The Nupe would say, “if you don want to be dragged (on the floor), you must never allow yourself to fall (on the floor)”. Since there’s only one Ka’bah in the world and it is in Saudi Arabia; it is in our own interest, thus, to comply with the Saudi law on female pilgrims. It serves no purpose fuming over what is not under one’s control. May Allah (SWT) guide NAHCON and state pilgrims’ boards to abide by the Saudi law on Dhu Mahram for female pilgrims, amin.