By Abdulkarim Abdulmalik
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 Professor Abdulazeez Balogun Shittu’s 54th Inaugural Lecture at the University of Abuja, now Yakubu Gowon University, Abuja, on September 24, 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.
Professor Shittu, Professor of Islamic Thought and Comparative Religion, 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.
Related News
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 Professor 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.
