BORGU KIDNAPPING AND KILLINGS: Why silence unfitting for America, Israel, Mike Arnold and Christians of Nigeria

MAIN POINTS :

*When the victims are Muslims, does the microphone disappear?
*Remember Oriire
*If criminals can claim Islam, criminals can also attack Muslims
*The Mike Arnold questions
*And what of the Nigerian Muslim elite?
*The silence of Muslims is also troubling
*But Muslims must not demand revenge
*What should America say?
*Tinubu must protect Borgu 
*Let Borgu become a turning point

By SHERIFDEEN ABBAS

But Muslims must also look inward. This may be the most painful question of all. Muslims have repeatedly complained about media misrepresentation of Islam. Fair enough. But Nigeria has Muslim-owned newspapers, online publications, television platforms, radio stations and other media organisations. The question is: Where is the strategic investment in them? Where are the Muslim billionaires funding serious journalism?

There are moments when silence speaks louder than words.

The reported abduction of Muslim worshippers during Friday Jumu’at prayers in Borgu Local Government Area of Niger State is one of those moments.

And the silence—or what appears to be a conspicuous absence of the kind of international and religious outrage witnessed in other Nigerian security incidents—raises uncomfortable questions.

Why have US President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, American Christian commentator Mike Arnold and sections of Nigeria’s Christian community not responded with comparable urgency to the reported abduction of Muslim worshippers in Borgu?

The question is not whether Christians should care about Muslims.

The question is whether human suffering should be judged according to the religion of its victims.

If the reported figure of about 100 Muslim victims is confirmed, then this was not merely another security incident. It was an attack that reportedly reached people while they were gathered for one of the most important acts of worship in Islam.

On Friday, August 21, 2026, suspected terrorists invaded communities in Borgu, including areas around Dekara, Kpenya and Gidan-Zana, with worshippers reportedly abducted during Friday prayers.

The exact number of victims has been disputed in early accounts, but the central fact remains: Muslim worshippers were attacked and abducted while observing Jumu’at.

And that alone should trouble every genuine defender of religious freedom.

So, where is the noise? Where are the international campaigners?

Where are the powerful voices that previously told the world that killings and attacks in Northern Nigeria constituted an organised campaign of Islamisation aimed at Christians?

Where is America? Where is Israel? Where are the international Christian advocacy groups? Where are the prominent Christian voices in Nigeria? Where is the outrage?

WHEN THE VICTIMS ARE MUSLIMS, DOES THE MICROPHONE DISAPPEAR?

This is not an argument against speaking for Christians. Far from it.

Every Christian murdered by terrorists is a human being whose death deserves condemnation. Every Christian child abducted from school deserves rescue. Every Christian community attacked by criminals deserves protection.

But that principle becomes morally difficult to defend when empathy appears selective.

If the killing of Christians by armed criminals is automatically presented as evidence of an Islamic campaign, what does the kidnapping of Muslims from a mosque during Jumu’at say?

Does the religion of the victim suddenly become irrelevant?

Or does the interpretation of the crime change because the victims are Muslims?

These are questions America, Israel, international Christian organisations and Nigerian Christian leaders should be prepared to answer.

Not because Muslims are demanding preferential treatment. But because equal human dignity requires equal concern.

The Borgu attack deserves condemnation from anyone who claims to care about religious freedom, regardless of whether the victims are Muslims or Christians.

It is worth acknowledging that the Christian Association of Nigeria’s Niger State chapter did call for increased security at places of worship following the Borgu incident, including greater protection for Friday Jumu’at prayers and Sunday services. That intervention is welcome.

But the broader question remains: why does Nigeria so often appear to need a religiously identifiable victim before international attention becomes sufficiently loud?

REMEMBER ORIIRE

The contrast becomes even more striking when one recalls the controversy surrounding the abduction of pupils and teachers in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State.

Reports initially circulated that the kidnappers had made demands connected with Sharia.

Muslim organisations rejected any attempt to associate the criminals with Islam, stressing that kidnapping, terrorism and extortion cannot be justified by Islamic teachings.

Then came an important development.

The abducted school principal, Rachael Alamu, reportedly said in a video that the kidnappers were not demanding the implementation of Sharia and had not forced the captives to practise Islam. According to her account, the criminals were demanding the release of members of their gang who were in custody.

That development should teach Nigeria a fundamental lesson:

Do not rush to turn criminality into a religious indictment.

Yet protests and public rhetoric surrounding the Oyo incident were reported to have included slogans such as “Say No To Islam” and “Say No To Killer Religion.”

If those slogans were deployed as reported, they represented a disturbing leap from condemning kidnapping to condemning an entire religion.

Millions of peaceful Muslims cannot reasonably be held responsible for crimes committed by kidnappers.

And now comes Borgu. Muslims were gathered in a mosque. They were observing Jumu’at. Armed men reportedly arrived. People were abducted.

According to a survivor quoted in media reports, the attackers claimed that the victims were not practising the “true teachings of Islam.”

Where, then, is the logic of blaming Islam for the crime?

IF CRIMINALS CAN CLAIM ISLAM, CRIMINALS CAN ALSO ATTACK MUSLIMS

This is the contradiction that Nigeria must confront. Terrorists can use Islamic language. That does not make their victims non-Muslims. Terrorists can attack Muslims. That does not make their Muslim victims collaborators with terrorism.

Indeed, Borgu demonstrates why the simplistic portrayal of every violent actor in Northern Nigeria as an instrument of an Islamic agenda is deeply problematic.

The people sitting in the mosque were Muslims. The worshippers reportedly abducted were Muslims. The families waiting anxiously for their loved ones are Muslim families.

And if reports that the attackers invoked their own interpretation of Islam are accurate, then the alleged perpetrators were using religion to justify violence against fellow Muslims.

So, who precisely is being Islamised? This is the question that those who routinely interpret Nigeria’s insecurity through a religious lens must answer.

THE MIKE ARNOLD QUESTION

There is also a question for foreign Christian commentators who have previously used Nigeria’s security crisis to advance narratives about the systematic persecution of Christians.

Mike Arnold’s name has featured in Nigerian debates concerning the interpretation of violence, including events in Plateau State.

Where public commentators attribute particular acts of violence to Islam, the burden of proof should always be evidence.

A criminal who kills a Christian does not automatically become an authorised representative of Islam.

Neither does a criminal who kills a Muslim become a representative of Christianity.

Religion should not be placed in the dock because criminals invoke it.

The Qur’an should not be treated as the accused because an armed criminal claims Islamic justification.

The Bible should not be treated as the accused because an armed criminal claims Christian identity.

The criminal should stand alone as the criminal.

AND WHAT OF THE NIGERIAN MUSLIM ELITE?

But Muslims must also look inward. This may be the most painful question of all. Muslims have repeatedly complained about media misrepresentation of Islam. Fair enough.

But Nigeria has Muslim-owned newspapers, online publications, television platforms, radio stations and other media organisations.

The question is: Where is the strategic investment in them? Where are the Muslim billionaires funding serious journalism?

Where are the Muslim corporations placing substantial advertising in credible Muslim-owned media?

Where are the endowments supporting investigative journalism into insecurity affecting Muslim communities?

Where are the lawyers, researchers, documentary producers, editors and journalists being supported to investigate attacks on ordinary Muslims?

A media organisation cannot survive on prayers. It cannot pay journalists with slogans. It cannot maintain studios with WhatsApp messages. It cannot conduct sustained investigations without financial resources. This is where wealthy Muslims must ask themselves difficult questions.

If Muslim-owned media organisations are expected to defend Muslim interests, document Muslim suffering and challenge misinformation about Islam, then the Muslim business community must also treat those institutions as serious components of national development.

This does not mean turning journalism into propaganda.

It means ensuring that the Muslim experience is adequately represented in Nigeria’s national conversation.

THE SILENCE OF MUSLIMS IS ALSO TROUBLING

There is another uncomfortable question. Why has there not been a sustained national Muslim campaign over Borgu? Why has much of the reaction remained within WhatsApp groups and social-media conversations? Where are the coordinated press conferences? Where are the prominent Muslim businessmen demanding answers? Where are Muslim professional associations?

Where are the Muslim-owned media organisations maintaining daily pressure for the rescue of the victims? Why?

If Muslims want Christians, Americans and the international community to speak when Muslims are attacked, Muslims must also learn to speak collectively and responsibly for themselves.

Silence is not always strength. Sometimes, silence becomes invisibility.

BUT MUSLIMS MUST NOT DEMAND REVENGE

There is, however, a line that must never be crossed.vMuslims must not respond to the suffering of Muslims by demanding violence against Christians. That would reproduce the very injustice being condemned.

If a Muslim is kidnapped, demand his rescue. If a Christian is killed, demand justice. If a traditional worshipper is attacked, demand protection. If a mosque is invaded, condemn it. If a church is attacked, condemn it. That is what equal citizenship means.

The answer to religious stereotyping is not counter-stereotyping. The answer is justice.

WHAT SHOULD AMERICA SAY?

America has enormous influence over the international understanding of Nigeria’s security crisis.

If American political leaders, religious organisations and advocacy groups genuinely care about religious freedom in Nigeria, then their concern cannot depend on whether the victims fit a preferred narrative.

The fundamental question should be simple: Were innocent people attacked? If the answer is yes, condemn the attack. If people were kidnapped, demand their rescue. If people were killed, demand justice. That standard must apply to Christians. It must apply to Muslims. It must apply to everybody.

The same principle applies to Israel and every other country whose officials and advocacy organisations take positions on religious persecution.

Nigeria should not become a theatre where selectively chosen tragedies are used to prove predetermined religious narratives.

Nigeria is more complicated than that. Its victims are more human than that.

TINUBU MUST PROTECT BORGU

And then there is President Bola Tinubu. The ultimate responsibility for protecting Nigerian citizens rests with the Nigerian state.

The Niger State Government has directed security agencies to intensify efforts to rescue abducted worshippers. That is welcome.

But Nigerians need results. Families need their loved ones back. Victims need to be rescued. Perpetrators need to be identified and prosecuted. Rural communities need protection.

Muslims must be able to attend Jumu’at without wondering whether they will return home. Christians must be able to attend Sunday worship with the same confidence.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, must ensure that security operations are not measured by statements alone, but by citizens protected, communities secured and captives brought home.

LET BORGU BECOME A TURNING POINT

Perhaps the greatest lesson of Borgu is that selective outrage is dangerous.

A country cannot survive when citizens consume only the news that confirms their religious assumptions.

Christians cannot build a secure Nigeria by caring only about Christian victims.

Muslims cannot build a secure Nigeria by caring only about Muslim victims.

America cannot understand Nigeria by viewing every northern conflict exclusively through the prism of Christian persecution.

And Muslims cannot demand fair representation while failing to adequately support the institutions capable of providing it.

The time has come to reject the politics of selective suffering. Let the Muslim worshippers of Borgu matter. Let the Christian victims of Plateau matter. Let the kidnapped children of Oyo matter. Let every Nigerian victim matter.

And let the criminals—regardless of the religious language they use—be called what they are: criminals.

Because the greatest threat to Nigeria is not that one religion will defeat another.

It is that Nigerians will continue to allow criminals to kill their fellow citizens while religious and political entrepreneurs fight over whose dead deserve greater attention.

Borgu must not become another forgotten tragedy. And the question remains: If the victims had been Christians kneeling in prayer, would the world have been this quiet? Nigeria deserves an honest answer.