Review of the International Conference on Comparative Perspective on Shari’ah in Nigeria

Ibrahim Ado-Kurawa,

 www.kanoonline.com/ibrahimado, majekarofi@yahoo.com

 

The Volkswagen Foundation of Germany and the United States Government sponsored this conference in Jos, central Nigeria. But the organizers only stated that the former sponsored them. It was organized jointly by the Universtat Bayreuth Germany and the University of Jos Nigeria. According to Professor Phil Ostien of the University of Jos they jointly sent in their proposal for the research and conference to the foundation, which accepted. They promised to publish the conference proceedings and perhaps their research f! indings on the implementation of the Shari’ah in the twelve northern states. One cannot pre-empt the outcome of their research. But what is clear is that the research assistants they selected from the faculties were not balanced. They chose academically competent Christian senior lecturers and on the Muslim side they chose undergraduates and rejected faculty members who were willing. They were also no call for papers in such a sensitive issue that involves people in the field who are implementing the Shari’ah. There would not have been any problem had it been the conference was closed to the public as it was done in Germany where some of the Muslims who are not part of the mainstream academics paid for their tickets to attend and make presentation. But with regards to the second part of the project in Nigeria the public was invited. Therefore those impleme! nting the Shari’ah raised their concerns on why they were not invited to make presentation since it is a public gathering where one of the speakers who though a Muslim believes that the public law of the Shari’ah should be abolished.

 

This conference was held between 15 and 17 January 2004 with prominent scholars as presenters and commentators. There were Muslims and Christians. The two key note speakers were Mrs Saudatu Shehu Mahdi the Secretary General of Women Rights Advancement Protection Alternative (WRAPA) and Dr. Danny McCain an Associate Professor of Biblical Theology in the Department of Religious Studies, University of Jos. Mrs Mahdi’s three-page presentation raised the concern of women under Islamic Law where she quoted a Muslim Secularist, who believes in subjecting Shari’ah to Western notions of human rights and equality. In the speech she emphasized the need for knowledge and social justice on the part of Muslims and tolerance on the part of non-Muslims.! The categorization of Muslim countries may also not be correct largely because of the problem of the definition of the Shari’ah. The fourth category of Muslim states according to her are those “that apply strict Islamic law with no exceptions. Examples include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Somalia”. But there are exceptions even in these countries the commercial laws draw more of their inspirations from Western laws than from Islamic Law. One could also conclude that her speech was more of raising a concern than a Muslim perspective compared to the speech of Dr. McCain. But to be fair to Mrs Mahdi with all humility she made it clear that she was not making a paper presentation. Dr. McCain on the other hand presented a twelve-p! age paper in which he enumerated the ideal Christian perspective and the deviation of the Christians from the ideal while also noting Muslim shortcomings. Unlike Mrs Mahdi’s who did not present the ideal Muslim perspective. Dr. McCain argued that contrary to what some Christians may agitate for, secularism is not ideal. He identified five roads for Nigeria on the Shari’ah issue. They are conversion of Muslims to Christianity or vice versa which cannot be achievable, confrontation also not feasible, segregation another unviable option so also secularism and he finally argued for consensus.

 

The first paper was presented by Professor Abdulkadir Tayob of the Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM), University Nijmegen Netherlands titled ‘The Demand for Shari’ah in African Democratization Processes: Pitfall or Opportunities’. The paper analyzed the experiences of Muslims in South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria. The Nigerian case was different because it involved the expansion of the Shari’ah to include criminal law. The main shortcoming of the paper is its insufficient historical analyses. The author claimed that history is always interpreted differently while responding to this criticism. But there must be correct interpretation. Even a Christian commentator corrected the author that the September 2001 riots in Jos were not related to the Shari’ah. The commentators of the paper were equally eloquent. Professor Warisu Alli of the Department of Political Science University of Jos noted that the current demand and implementation of Shari’ah in Nigeria did not arise in a vacuum where the state has been dominated by Judeo-Christian symbols. Also according to him the revival of the Shari’ah threatens the elites. Other observers not at the conference have also noted that the demand for the Shari’ah in Nigeria was a bottom to up phenomenon. Hence the talakawa (commoners) have high expectations as emphasized by Professor Alli. Professor Isawa Elaigu the Christian commentator of the paper as a political scientist situated the Shari’ah in Nigeria within the struggles of the elites for relevance and contestations for power and resources. In the South West it was the call for restructuring and ethnic assertion with Oudu’a Peoples Congress (OPC), the militant terrorist ethnic organization holding sway. In the South East they opted for confederation and even passed bills in some of their state assemblies calling for confederation. In the South South or most of the Niger Delta the demand for resource control because of the oil revenue derived from the area remained consistent. In the North Central there have been calls for greater assertion of ethnic and indigene identity. And in the Muslim areas of the North West and North East Shari’ah has been the major issue with most of the states reforming their criminal laws to include aspects of Islamic Criminal Law as interpreted by Maliki School of Islamic Law. Professor Elaigwu re-echoed the oft-repeated criticism that the victims ! of the Shari’ah are the weak and the poor including women, noting that they are the ones who suffer pregnancy and later they are punished for it. This drew the attention of a woman commentator who observed that he was insensitive to the feelings of Muslims, which is important in the efforts of building consensus as noted by Dr. McCain.

 

The second presenter was Professor Roselind Hackett currently a Fellow at Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies University of Notre Dame, international scholar of high repute who is now regarded as an expert on religious conflict in Nigeria. The title of her paper is ‘Rethinking the Role of Religion in Public Sphere: Global and Local Perspectives’. The paper was well received by both the audience and the commentators. And she was commended for unintentional bias in her choice of relevant literature. Dr. Theresa Adamu noted that there was no emphasis on the Shari’ah in the paper even though it was well written. Professor Yahaya the second commentator also appreciated the impressive presentation especially the richness of the references. He observed that there is religious resurgence because modernization did not satisfy spiritual needs of the people and that religion should be given national recognition not as a state religion.

 

Professor Ruud Peters of the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies of the University of Amsterdam presented the third paper titled: ‘A Survey of Shari’a Implementation in the Muslim World’. His paper was highly technical this is partly because he has been in this field of study for over forty years. He emphasized that Shari’ah is jurist law. He also distinguished the Shari’ah from Fiqh. And gave reasons for the emphasis on criminal aspects of the Shari’ah, the elites support such a move because they want a strong state while the masses want swift and cheap means of dispensing justice. The commentators of the paper were also equally competent. Reverend Father Professor Joseph Kenny of the Department of Religion University of Ibadan gave the Christian perspectiv! e. He expressed his skepticism of government implementation of Shari’ah because of historical mistrust. He also justified the separation of state from religion because of similarity of Islamic and Christian histories. According to Father Kenny good works such as social welfare and provision of amenities are part of the Shari’ah[1]. Professor Awwal Yadudu, a former Adviser to Heads of States was the second commentator of the paper. His mo! st important observation was that the common law tradition is different from the civil law tradition from where Professor Peters drew most of his inspiration. The common law tradition recognizes the ethos of the law thus providing latitude for the practitioners of the Shari’ah to use Fiqh books which was what most of the states implementing the Shari’ah did. During the question and answer session Professor Bakri of University of Illorin observed the flaw in the organization of the conference and asked what caliber of Nigerian scholars were invited to Bayreuth conference? This is because the organizers claimed that many Nigerian scholars delivered papers hence in the Jos conference non-Nigerians were offered more opportunity.

 

Professor Cole Durham of Brigham Young University delivered the paper titled: ‘Nigeria’s ‘State Religion’ Question in Comparative Perspective’ which went to great length in explaining the similarities of the constitutions of various modern states and the variations in practices. Dr. Musa Gaiye an Associate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies of University of Jos commented on the paper. The other commentator was Professor Ibrahim N. Sada, Director of the Center for Islamic Legal Studies of Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. He raised many questions one of which was that the paper did not properly distinguish between the state and the religion. He also noted that there ! is difference in worldview hence the definitions may not be acceptable to all parties. Definition of Islamic State has always been fluid through out history. His other significant observation was that Muslims have also provided concessions of opting out of jurisdiction for non-Muslims because Shari’ah is applied as a law for those who believe in it.

\

Professor John Ritz (Edward Carmody Professor) of the College of Law, University of Iowa delivered the paper titled: ‘Judicial Standards for Deciding Particular Cases’. It was a very detailed and well-researched presentation that showed that constitution and law are products of history. And the courts play significant roles especially in the United States where the Supreme Court made an important distinction between religious belief and religiously motivated action. Dr (Mrs). Jamila M. Nasir Dean of Law University of Jos a distinguished scholar made a very scholarly commentary of paper with several observations. She noted that most of the cas! es in the paper where from places where the people where either Christian or secular in other words they might not be relevant in Nigeria. Since for example Christians in Nigeria will not protest against animal sacrifices and are more interested in protesting against the Shari’ah generally. Also no cases of religious discrimination have so far been reported in Nigerian law reports. Shari’ah cases are also not reported because they have not yet reached the superior courts where they could be reported. The Penal Code was also religiously inspired because it made provisions for punishments for those who defile places of worship. She also emphasized that many issues of religious freedom have not been tested in courts in Nigeria hence it is very difficult to make any scholarly critique.

 

Barrister Titus Mann, President of the Civil Liberties Organization one of the commentators of the paper was absent hence his friend Professor Mohammed Tabi’u asked for the chance to speak and he was given. He made observation that there was gap in the organization of the conference hence the Nigerian experience of the Shari’ah has not been properly addressed. The organizers were quite unhappy with this criticism hence they noted that there was no need to keep on emphasizing such a shortcoming. Professor Tabi’u noted that the Nigerian Shari’ah issue has been taken into the international arena as an issue of religious freedom, which it is not. He gave example of Jigawa and Kano States where the maguzawa (indigenous non-Muslims) have lived for centuries which shows that there was eno! ugh space for other religions through out history. Such a thing never existed in Europe where indigenous cultures where wiped out. Shari’ah in Nigeria is the case of a colonized people trying to reclaim their values in the post-colonial period. The internalized cultural trait makes Muslims to demand for Shari’ah. When Sanusi Lamido made his presentation he noted that it is not Professor Tabi’u who can say the maguzawa are not discriminated but it is left for them to make such a claim. Later a Christian leader who had lived in Kano confirmed that he was never discriminated but even promoted just like his daughters who were given leadership positions at the school they attended.

 

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi of United Bank for Africa presented a paper titled: ‘The West and the Rest: Reflections on the Intercultural Dialogue About Shari’a’. A significant observation of the paper is on the need for Muslim critics of Shari’ah implementation to be more constructive. Dr. Umar Danfulani of the Department of Religious Studies, University of Jos was the Christian commentator of the paper he noted that had it been the Muslims of the north did not subject the minorities to slavery they would all have been Muslims before the European colonization. Professor Ishaq Oloyede Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Ilorin was the Muslim commentator of the paper. He first of all criti! cized the organizers of the conference by drawing a similarity that it was like organizing a conference on Trinity and then calling on Jehovah Witnesses to speak. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi made brilliant responses to some of the criticisms of his paper by the audiences. Most of those criticisms were out of the context of the paper.

 

Professor Gerrie ter Haar of the Institute for Social Studies, The Hague presented the paper titled: ‘Religion: Source of Conflict or Resource for Peace’. The title of the paper makes it clear that religion could either be used in achieving peace or for conflict. The paper discussed briefly the September 11 attack and the clash of civilization thesis of Huntington. There is need for more thorough survey of how the US led by “fundamentalist” Christians was attacked by “fundamentalist” Muslims[2]. The paper was discussed by Mr. J. D. Gwamna of the Department of Religious Studies University of Jos and Samaila Mohammed of Maria Farms Jos.

 

It is worthwhile at this juncture to comment on the role of religion in the United States where the elites have differentiated between preference for religious beliefs and religiously motivated actions. This is because these themes re-echoed in most of the papers up to this point. The laws and practices in the United States do not openly support any particular religious belief but have provided latitude for accommodating religiously motivated actions. Also secularism is not regarded as the ideology of the state because it is defined as “a way of seeing the world based on rejection of religion or hostility to religion”[3]. While a secular state is a state that does not drive its legitimacy from any religious authority and it allows everyone to pursue his religious obligations privately. It also tolerates secularism and in some cases even promotes it as in communist countries and Kemalist Turkey. Since the fall of communism it seems Kemalist Turkey is the only state that is founded on “rejection of religion or hostility to religion”. Like most modern states the US has many contradictions while the current President is closely surrounded by Christian fundamentalists who allied themselves for convenience sake to neo-conservative ideologues who are irreligious[4]. There are other politicians who believe that the national religion of the US is a secular religion. The US is not ideal for mankind despite several attempts by some scholars in their papers at the conference it is very far from such, more so because of its attempts to silence those committed to free flow of information[5].

The U.S. is now becoming militantly a religion with a Divine mission and this is indeed a dangerous trend and not in the interest of global peace. This Divine mission has a root in the history of the U.S. Constitution, which has been elevated to a position “even more than a Divine text…written by men in a state of Divine inspiration”. Yet it is so difficult to determine what constitutes high crime and misdemeanors that led to the impeachment of President Clinton after “a hilarious media pantomine”[6]. President Bush may never be impeached despite the impeachable evidences with regards to the Muslim country of Iraq as explained by Cohn[7] and other commentators. Even with the President Clinton impeachment it has been noted that:

Not only did the constitution fail to bring its leader to account but far more seriously than that, it had miserably tragically failed, firstly, to protect the indigenous American population, save them from genocide and protect their lands, and secondly, having permitted slavery in the early days of the States, it was then unable to reinstate them as citizens with the constitutionally vaunted Human Rights of which it declared itself the champion[8].

 

Despite these flaws and tradition of oppressing other people from the founding fathers to this day American statesmen consider their country chosen to lead mankind. U.S. President Bush recently quoted Woodrow Wilson who was reported to have said that: “America has a spiritual energy in her, which no other nation can contribute to mankind”. President Reagan was reported to have referred to America as shining city on the hill, a reference to the Sermon on the Mount! . In justification of a God’s Kingdom the U.S. according to its presidents and priests, which was in a state of cold war with “the evil kingdom” the Soviet Union, was God’s chosen nation. After the tragic events of September 11 New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani made a sermon at his last mayoral speech in the Chapel, which was consecrated by George Washington he declared: “all that matters is that you embrace America and understand its ideals and what’s all about. Abraham Lincoln used to say that the test of your Americanism was…how much you believed in America. Because we’re like a religion really. A secular religion”. This American religion is now becoming missionary because its high priests are willing to exploit its followers in order to get the oil booty in the Muslim world. The defeated people must be liberated from their leaders and failed “ideologies”. “Like all those who send missionaries abroad, high priests of America cannot” be convinced “that the infidels might resist through their own free will; if they refuse to convert, it is the work of the devil, in his current guise as the former dictator of Iraq”. America’s founding fathers though they sometimes professed otherwise sensed that they were guided by a divine purpose just like the Roman Catholics who supplanted the Jews as chosen and the English Protestants who supplanted the Roman Catholics. “The American Revolutionaries believed that the English, in turn, had broken their covenant: The American had now become the chosen, with a divine duty to deliver the world to God’s dominion! ”. To seal this mission U.S. President Bush was reported to have told his troops on the day he announced victory: “Wherever you go, you carry a message of hope – a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of Prophet Isaiah, To the captives, come out and to those in darkness, be free”[9]. His father former US President Bush (snr) saluted US Air Force strikes on Iraq as “Lord’s work” he stated: “I am delighted that I’ve been invited out here today to you, who in my view ! are doing the Lord’s work”[10].

 

The conference organizers took the audience to the final journey and their ‘jewel’ Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, a Professor of Law at the Emory University, came on board and the title of his paper was ‘The Future of Shari’ah’. The commentators of his paper were Dr. Ali Ahmed and Professor Wells. As expected he made sweeping statements, which he could not substantiate when he was subjected to scrutiny during the question and answer session. He began his presentation with an impolite tune when he stated that the audience had turned the place to a political rally with shouts of ‘Allahu Akbar’ and that he was not going to be engaged in rhetoric. His most bizarre statement was that there was never an Islamic ‘state’ in history, whatever the state means to him, because he made no clear definitions of any terms in his presentation. He also asserted that the Shari’ah was only implemented during the time of the Prophet (SAW) therefore Muslims cannot implement it now and any attempt would lead to civil war as was the case in his native Sudan. These statements were insensitive and invitation to anarchy hence given credence to the allegation that his sponsors are more interested in destabilization rather than the promotion of academic discourse.

 

Abdullahi An-Naim’s statements were not surprising his re-writing of history was also expected because his aim is to deconstruct Islam and re-construct it to what he thinks is ideal for his reformation project. To him since fallible humans formulated Usul al-Fiqh and interpreted the Shari’ah, he too is therefore free to reformulate this science. But the issue is far more complicated. Imam Shafi’I who developed Usul al-Fiqh did so independently of any non-Muslim power and above all he was part of the Muslim community living with the Muslims. The Muslims regarded his endeavor as legitimate. On the other hand, how could somebody who is sponsored, by those who control global political power and economy, reform Islam for the Muslims? But elementary understanding of power relations demand Muslims to question his motive. This is because he and his teach! er Mahmud Taha believe in the abolishing of the public law of Shari’ah, through the new methodology they formulated that allows them to reject all Madinan Revelations. His teacher:

Argued that the public law of Sharia is the transitional message, which by now has served its purpose; it must be superseded by the eternal and universal message, the practical implementation of which has, thus far, been precluded by realities of human existence. Whereas the public law of Sharia was appropriate for the previous stages of human society, it is no longer appropriate and must make way for another version of the public law of Islam[11].

 

An-Naim’s effort is to continue his teacher’s work of secularizing the Muslims, by historicizing Qur’anic injunctions so that Islam could be abolished from the public sphere as Christianity was abolished as result of Protestant Reformation, which “as the seedbed of capitalism, laid the foundation for its own demise”[12]. But during the struggle the Protestant fathers never indicated that it was their intention to abolish Christianity similarly Taha’s followers always stated that it is never their intention to abolish Islam. In other words Abdullahi An-Naim and others are trying to find ways of “how to be secular without losing one’s faith in Islam”. And despite acknowledging this motive Abdullahi An-Na’im is aware that secularism is a discredited ideology in the Muslim world so he proposes that he wants to reform Islam while affirming that “We didn’t want secularism, but transforming religion’s relation to public life”[13].

 

Taking him on his polemics a professor from the University of Jos asked Abdullahi An-Naim what he meant by the Shari’ah and he replied that the Shari’ah is the one the Muslims have chosen for themselves. This closes the argument and it shows what the Muslims in Nigeria have interpreted as the Shari’ah is valid and his own contradictory but intellectually convenient definition of the Shari’ah as the one that breed civil war in plural societies is invalid as far as the Muslims of Nigeria are concerned. In the end his intellectual intimidation was resisted and he was unable to convince this writer and others that he too was! not engaged in rhetoric as he had earlier accused others.

 

 

 

 References

 

An-Naim, A. A. 1992 ‘Islam and National Integration in the Sudan’ in Hunwick, J. O. Religion and National Integration in Africa Evanston Illinois

As-Sufi, S. A. 2000 Technique of Coup De Banque Cape Town

Atlas, J. 2002 ‘Can We Co-exist? A Response from Americans to Colleagues in Saudi Arabia’ October 23, 2002 New York available at http://groups.yahoo.com/abubnan

Cohn, M. 2003 ‘Bush, Lies, and Impeachment: The Boy Who Cried Wolf’ July 17, 2003, Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego is also executive president of National Lawyers Guild. She can be reached at: cohn@counterpounch.org 

Kenny, J. nd ‘Shari’a and Islamic Revival in Nigeria’ www.op.org/nigeriaop/kenny/Yale.htm

Malmgren, J. 2002 ‘The Right to be the same and different’ St. Petersburg Times available at www.sptimes.com/2002/02/26/news

Masud, E. 2000-2002 The War on Islam The Wisdom Fund Arlington, VA 22202 USA

Monbiot, G. 2003 ‘Comment; America is a religion: US leaders now see themselves as priests of a divine mission to rid the world of its demons’ The Guardian London July 29

Norman, G. 2003 ‘Dominion and Deception: The New Pax Americana’ News Insider November 7

Odone, C. 2001 ‘Leave God out of it: Bin Laden invokes Allah, Bush talks of a Christian crusade. Bad religion hides dirty politics’ September 23 The Observer London

Pfaff, W. 2003 ‘The Long Reach of Leo Strauss’ International Herald Tribune May 15

Raghuram, P. 1999 ‘Religion and Development’ in Skelton, T. and Allen, T. (eds) Culture and Global Change London and New York

Tahboub, D. T. 2003 ‘The US is determined to suppress the independent Arab media’ The Guardian London October 4