At the beginning of this year's Ramadan a debate sprouted at the Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies - popularly called Markaz Agege - centering on the position of Niqab in Islam. Niqab is the face veil used by some Muslim women, and over which the Muslim community has been at loggerheads with some European countries. France has banned its use. So has Switzerland. Other European countries are also mooting the idea. I will not dwell on the merit or demerit of the action of the western societies, for that could take the shine off the reason for this piece.

The debate over niqab - at least this year - started during the 12-2p.m. tefseer (Qur'an exposition) session conducted by Sheikh Habeebullah Adam Al-ilory, Rector of the quintessential Markaz. Interestingly, the debate over niqab merely crept into the tefseer session. By my understanding, this year's tefseer initially started on what could have been the Islamic alternative to the contemporary, error-laden socio-economic and political thoughts of our time, particularly liberal democracy/capitalism and socialism/communism. I know because I attend the session.

As the sheikh dwelt on the issues and tried to establish the political and economic alternatives that Islam offers humanity, he criticised the extremism of both sides - the capitalists and the communists - and made clear that the Prophet Muhammad laid down a middle course for the Muslims as torchbearers to the world. That made him to reference certain tendencies of some Muslims today, including the dangerous mixing up of the fundamentals with the peripherals and the consequences for the endangered, vulnerable Muslim ummah worldwide. Those tendencies, he warned, easily subject Muslims to needless public opprobrium. He listed the use of niqab as one of those trivia which some Muslims are "erroneously" calling a fundamental for the Muslim woman. He made clear that niqab is not an Islamic fundamental for the Muslim woman and does not fall under acts of worship, calling it a cultural thing that has nothing to do with Islamic prescription. But again, the sheikh did not call it a forbidden act, as is being mischievously bandied about.

However outrageous this position may seem to some people, the fact remains that the scholar was making a vital point and raising a valid debate which I think is most precious for the survival of the current generation of Muslims, most of us unacceptably ignorant of our religion and therefore amenable to all manners of dogmas. For the avoidance of doubt, the sheikh scholarly went through all the (eight) verses of the Qur'an that speak on the issue. And shockingly, nowhere indeed was hijab used to explicitly include covering of the face!

He cited genuine hadiths (sayings of the Prophet) to substantiate his position, and went as far as stating the positions of all the Islamic Schools of Thought and renowned contemporary Muslim scholars, including the late Sheikh Tantawi, the Grand Imam of world's oldest university, the Azhar in Egypt. He equally read out the stand of respected Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, arguably the most respected Islamic scholar across the socio-political and religious spectrums today. He also came up with the position of Sheikh like Nasir Ad-Din Al-Albani. All of these scholars agreed that niqab is not obligatory! In fact, Albanna rejected it outright, and talked of it being a slide towards extremism.

And the sheikh took pains to explain what he called hijab kulli (total fortification/protection of Muslim women from public gaze as practiced in Saudi Arabia) and hijab juz'i (partial fortification/protection of women as practised elsewhere in the Muslim world). That exonerates him from claims that he was speaking against the elehas, women in purdah, although he boldly explained the rules guiding this practice to avoid subjecting the women to unnecessary hardship. I think one needs to listen to the full recordings of the sessions to appreciate this debate.

It is worth noting that the sheikh did all these without necessarily throwing salvos at anybody or groups, at least at the initial stage of the debate. All he encouraged is good behaviour and sincere commitment to the ideals of Islam, not pretence. The unfortunate resort to mentioning of groups and individuals started when some people, according to him, started sending in text messages and calling his telephone lines to tongue-lash him over the matter. These people probably forget that what sustains the institution is the strict adherence to the spread of first class knowledge about Islam. Not sentiments.

The ongoing mudslinging is unnecessary for us as Muslims. Rather than resort to name-calling, there are avenues to air counter opinions, as Qaradawi stated recently, if there are tenable ones. I think one of the arguments of the sheikh is that Muslims should stop fighting one another over trivial matters, especially those matters that do not stand in the way of the fundamentals. And if anything is clear about the whole debate, it is that face veil is not obligatory or required.

It is also worth noting that Islam forbids hard-line positions that we see today, and this, I think, is one reason the scholar has chosen to address these issues. There is indeed an urgent need for comprehensive understanding of these issues to stop and or ward off the crisis among our youths on campuses. I have witnessed this undesirable bickering, and, sometimes, violent clashes, over trivial matters among Muslim students toeing different lines of understanding. In the early 2000s at the Polytechnic Ibadan, Eruwa Campus, the MSSN engaged members of the Tijaniyyah brothers in supremacy fight over the celebration of maulid nabiyy, the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. I recalled that the Tijaniyyah brothers had already secured a hall within the Adedoyin Ogundoyin (Eruwa) Campus for the event, but the MSSN caused the school management to withdraw the permit for use of the place! It was that bad and terrible. It took the intervention of prominent Eruwa Muslims to prevent a clash between the two groups. Before then there were clashes between the two groups at the main campus of the institution in Ibadan. You then ask yourself, do the Tijaniyyahs not believe in or practice the five pillars of Islam? What qualification has the MSSN to call them kaafirun (unbelievers)? On another note, what right has any Muslim group to hold a nikkah session for a man and a woman without the express permission of their parents or guardians? I'm aware no such right exists in Islam. But these are some of the ugly trends in our universities today under the guise of growing understanding! I'm aware of similar imbroglios across the country. To be sure, there are (rising) extremist tendencies on our campuses and the earlier the fundamentals are separated from the peripherals the better for us as a community. For me, I tell anybody who cares to listen that the one reason we are having these problems is the menace of having scholars who pontificate on Shariah matters without adequate knowledge of the Qur'an and the Sunnah they claim to be defending. I insist that mere reading of the English translation of the Qur'an and some Hadith books does not qualify you to be an Islamic scholar. It is like somebody who obtained a degree in English reading texts of medicine and calling himself a doctor!

It is agreed among all Islamic scholars of all time that whatever act not expressly forbidden in the Qur'an is not worth fighting over. And any action that does not fall under what the Qur'an categorises as haram (forbidden) cannot land a Muslim in the hell. This does not mean we should not practice sunnah, or scoff at those doing it, but it is dangerous to want to elevate the sunnah to the position of fard - Islamic fundamentals.

For me, the verbal attack on the sheikh is not desirable. Equally distasteful is the call by a group for the Nigeria Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to ban the broadcast of the tefseer session by Sheikh Habeebullah, arguably a leading Islamic scholar in Africa. Managers of the NBC know better and, if anything, Nigeria at this moment needs prominent scholars to explain issues to the vulnerable youths. There is need for us, our youths, to understand that Islam is a beautiful, peaceful and tolerant religion. Sincere people of other religions were comfortable with the first generation of Muslims because they got justice and friendly accommodation within the Muslim community. And I challenge anyone to come up with hard facts about any instance of the Prophet or any member of the first generation of Muslims forcefully converting others to Islam. I'm sure the Prophet would not be happy with any Muslim whose Christian or even pagan neighbour or colleague is afraid he might kill or harm him some day at the outbreak of any socio-religious crisis. But, sadly, that is the situation today with some Muslims.

All said we should appreciate the fact that while covering of the head and enticing parts of a Muslim female are obligatory and not debatable, niqab is not. Its use falls within the debatable aspects of Shariah. That is, it is open to ijtihad and societal circumstance. Let whoever wishes to use it go on. It is not haram, but it not compulsory either. This is the position of the learned sheikh, and most others, and it would amount to extremism for anybody to want to gag him.