RETHINKING THE NAFISA CONTROVERSY_ BY SUMAILA ISAH UMAISHA

Artists, especially writers, actors, and actresses, often interpret society through the lens of their own ideals and experiences. Some express their worldview through creative works, while others choose to voice their opinions directly in public. Recently, the popular Kannywood actress, Nafisa Abdullahi, took the latter approach and, in doing so, drew widespread criticism, particularly from Islamic clerics.

In a social media post, Nafisa expressed her views on marriage, saying she would rather remain unmarried than submit to what she perceives as the subordination of wives and the suffering that many women endure in marriage. Her remarks sparked intense reactions, with many accusing her of attacking the institution of marriage itself.

The episode illustrates why opinions on sensitive social issues are often better conveyed through artistic media. Literature, film, and drama allow complex ideas to unfold gradually. They present multiple perspectives, demonstrate consequences, and encourage reflection rather than immediate confrontation. Direct statements, especially on social media, are easily stripped of context and can provoke emotional responses from people who may misunderstand the speaker’s intention.

It is possible that Nafisa was not condemning marriage as evil or rejecting it altogether. In fact, as an artist, she is probably not even speaking for herself. Rather, she may have been condemning the way some husbands reduce their wives to little more than domestic servants and neglect their responsibilities as husbands and fathers. She may also have been criticising the practice whereby some fathers abandon their children to the streets under the guise of the almajiri system. That is how I understand her remarks. 

Viewed from that perspective, one may ask: Why isn't the same level of energy devoted to condemning Nafisa also directed at condemning the abuse of the almajiri system, where underage children are left to beg on the streets?

These children are, after all, products of marriage. And, certainly, no mother would be happy seeing her child out there in the cold.

If those who have attacked Nafisa, especially the Malams, value the institution of marriage as passionately as their reactions suggest, why is there comparatively less public outrage over the neglect of the very children that marriage is meant to nurture?

Is it not better for someone to remain unmarried, particularly since marriage is not compulsory in Islam, than to marry, bring children into the world, and then neglect them until they become vulnerable and, in some cases, a burden or even a danger to society? 

I would like to see the same voices speak just as passionately against the widespread neglect of children carried out in the name of the almajiri system, which was intended for the acquisition of religious knowledge and descipline. Many of us passed through that system in the past, but it was not what we witness today. Our parents remained responsible for our welfare, while our Malams concentrated on teaching us. Begging was never the defining feature of our education.

If society expects people to respect and uphold the institution of marriage, then the products of that institution must reflect its values. Defending marriage should go hand in hand with defending the rights, dignity, education, and welfare of the children it brings into the world.

Having said that, artists have a duty to challenge social injustice and expose societal ills. They should never be discouraged from doing so. However, artistic expression often provides a safer and more effective medium for addressing controversial issues. There is little Nafisa wishes to say about the abuses and distortions of marriage that could not be communicated more powerfully through her acting or other creative works. Art has the unique ability to persuade without provoking needless hostility.

This is especially important in an era when misinformation spreads rapidly, emotions often override reason, and mob justice, both online and offline, can be fuelled by people who neither understand the issue nor care to examine it carefully.

As artists, we must continue to speak out against societal ills. But we must also be wise and artistic about how we do it. Marriage is a vital institution; after all, we are all products of it. It should not be dismissed with a wave of the hand, but examined critically and constructively in our works so that its shortcomings can be addressed and the reforms needed to strengthen it can be pursued.

© Sumaila Isah Umaisha

- Nigeria.