The Shariah Debate : A Muslim Intervention
By
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi
The
announcement by Zamfara state governor of his intention to broaden the scope of
application of shariah law in his state has provided once more all those who
thrive on controversy with the opportunity to bare their fangs.
Arguments have been put up, for or against the decision, ranging from the
sublime to the ridiculous. Commentators,
pretending to be knowledgeable, have continued to unleash invectives and slander
on fellow citizens with little effort at understanding not only the content of
the shariah but also the explicit statements and clarifications given by the
governor himself.
The
Guardian Newspaper, in particular, seems committed to waging a “holy war”
against Zamfara state. A column,
called “Shariah Debate” and sometimes even “Shariah Debacle” is designed
to sensitize Nigerians on the threat posed by shariah to our corporate existence
as a unity. Having strongly
questioned the constitutionality of the Governor’s moves and endorsed
Obasanjo’s dismissal of the state’s action as “unconstitutional,” a
recent Guardian Editorial then urged the nation to ignore the “attempt to
elevate the Zamfara state government action to the status of a great
constitutional issue requiring adjudication by the courts ….. as the relevant
constitutional provisions appear sufficiently clear.”
In other words the constitution should be interpreted by the executive,
by the press, by CAN and by Shiites and the Zamfara government should be
obligated to adhere to this interpretation rather than insist in the legality of
its action unless overruled by a court of competent jurisdiction.
In
a similar vein, Christian leaders have continuously asserted that the Shariah
will lead to oppression of non – Muslims.
Islamic society has never been known to oppress members of other faiths
in the manner that the Christian church, for instance, oppressed Jews and those
considered as belonging to heterodox sects.
The destruction of Jewish
synagogues by Christians with the full support of St. Ambrose of Milan during
the reign of the emperor Theodosius, the exploitative claims of Catholic
popes like Boniface VIII, the repressive content of papal encyclicals like Quanta
Cura and Syllabus of Errors
promulgated by Pius IX, the persecution of Aryans and Protestants, the
oppression of scientists like Galileo and Copernicus, the crusades launched by
the church against Islam which
ended in scandalous defeat, all of these have left Christian leaders with a
sense of fear and paranoia when it comes to other faiths, and a feeling that
others will treat them using their own methods.
It
is the paradox of our times that the greatest defenders of the rights of
religious minorities and secularism today in Nigeria are the fathers of the
Catholic church. Secularism as an
ideology is antithetical to Christian teachings and papal encyclicals.
It grew as a reaction to the ignorance and tyranny of the Catholic church
and is a direct product of the revolution called “enlightenment”.
That a Catholic archbishop should now be the ideologue for secularism is
indeed remarkable.
The
fear of Christians is
understandable. They have not read
the Quran and Hadith, the sources of Islamic law and seen where Allah and His
prophet explicitly enjoined Muslims to ensure that they respect the religious
rights of others and to treat adherents of other faiths with kindness and
justice unless they commit an aggression against Muslims on account of their
faith. Christians have not been allowed to read the history of
Islamic states, to know the position of Jews and Christians in the Abbasid and
Ottoman Empires, for instance, and to compare this with the position of even
“non – orthodox” Christians under the system run by the Fathers.
In his classic historical text Bosnia
: A Short History, for example, the Christian writer Noel Malcolm had this
to say:
“Although
Bosnia was ruled by Muslims … It was not state policy to convert people to
Islam or make them behave like Muslims; … The Christian and Jewish religions
were still allowed to function … and they were also permitted to apply their
own religious law to their people in their own courts at least in
civil matters” (P.49).
No
historian has ever recorded such a level of tolerance in church history.
It is significant that this treatment was given by Islam
to a conquered
people. How can anyone
expect Zamfara State which is only implementing shariah in a democratic setting
to be seeking the oppression of Christians.
This
policy of letting non – Muslims go to their own courts in civil matters did
not start with the Ottoman State. It
is also not being complied with because of the Nigerian Constitution.
It is an explicit injunction in the Qur’an, that only when non –
Muslims voluntarily seek Muslim law in civil and personal matters should they
be subjected to that law. And even
then justice and fairness must be the guiding principle. We read in the Quran:
“They
listen to falsehood, and devour anything forbidden. If they come to you ( O Muhammad) either judge between them
or turn away from them. If you turn
away from them, they can not hurt you in the least.
But if you judge, judge with justice between them.
Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.
But how do they come to you for decision while they have the Torah, in
which is the plain decision of Allah? Yet
even then, they turn away for they are not true believers” (ch. 5 : 42 &
43).
How
can government that seeks shariah, oppress Christians on account of their faith
with the following clear verses in the Qur’an:
“Let
there be no compulsion in religion. Verily
the right path has become distinct from the wrong path..”
(ch. 2 : 256)
“And
say: the truth is from your lord: Then
whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him
disbelieve…”(ch. 18 : 29)
“Say
O mankind! Now truth has come to you from your lord. So whosoever receives guidance, he does so for the good of
his own self; and whosoever goes astray does so to his own loss.
I am not set over you as a disposer of affairs to obligate you” (ch. 10
: 108)
“And
had your lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together.
So will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become
believers?” (ch. 10 : 99).
“Allah
does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not
against you on account of your religion nor drove you out of your homes.
Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity.“Allah only forbids you
as regards those who fought against you on account of your religion, and have
driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out to befriend them and
give them assistance. It is those
who befriend and assist such who are the wrong-doers” (ch. 60 : 8 & 9)
There
are many verses in a similar vein such as ch. 11 : 121-2;
ch. 88 : 21-24; ch. 29 : 46;
ch. 5 : 6; and ch. 3 : 64.
The
fact is that prejudice is always built on a foundation of ignorance.
Those who seek to criticize shariah should at least understand what it is
they are criticizing. Unfortunately,
too many “experts” know nothing about the topics they approach.
A classic example is one M. C. Thompson, president of the
“International Federation of Conscience” who wrote an article
in the Guardian of 5th November, 1999 entitled “Sharia: matters arising”. In
the article, Thompson who cloaks his ignorance with half-understood concepts,
declares that “most Muslims of northern Nigeria are Shiites of the aggressive
type who even consider Sunni Muslims as nominal for not being fundamentalist
enough”. the display of total
ignorance by the writer (and the editors) is indeed baffling.
Nigeria is a bastion of Sunni Islam. Nigerian Muslims in their history have
never been Shiites. A small group
of young Muslims, inspired by Khomeini’s
revolution in Iran, (some of whom spent some years studying Islam in
Iran) adopted Shiite ideology but these are generally considered a noisy and
half – educated fringe group.
Mr. Thomas also asserts that because the Saudi government ban on women
from driving is an example of
Islamic law. The clear position of
jurists is that the sharia makes no such provision and indeed women rode horses
and camels in the time of the prophet so the law has no Islamic basis.
This much is common knowledge. The suggestion that women are “bottled
up” is also reflective of ignorance not only of shariah but of Muslim history
in Nigeria. It is common knowledge
that Shehu Dan Fodio’s islamic movement liberated women from the so – called
purdah and this was one of the areas of misunderstanding between him and
scholars of his generation. Also,
the guidelines issued by the Qur’an on how Muslim women should dress when
coming out is a clear enough indicator that they are not supposed to be
“bottled-up”. M. C. Thomas also claims without any reference to sources that
Saudi women were executed for demanding the right to drive cars.
It
is this attribute of injustice, this tendency to give a dog a bad name in order
to hang it that will destabilize Nigeria, and not introduction of sharia. When archbishops hold press conferences and spread
unsubstantiated rumours of amputations it is they, not the Zamfara state
government, who threaten the peace. Christians
should judge shariah by what the shariah is.
The historical church is no yardstick for measuring Islam.
Muslims
understand why Christians associate religion with tyranny.
That has been the experience with the church. It is also what they read in their own Holy Book, the Bible.
How
can they not fear, when they read the following, for example, as divine
revelation:
“I
will drive out the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the perizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusites as you advance.
Do not make any treaties with the people of the country into which you
are going… instead, tear down their altars, I, the lord tolerate no rivals”
(Exodus 34 : 10-14)
When
you capture cities in the land that the lord has given you, kill
everyone” (Deut. 20:16)
Before
going into battle with Canaanites, the Israelites vowed to their God “if you
will let us conquer these people, we will unconditionally dedicate them and
their cities to you and will destroy them”.
And the lord heard them “so the Israelites completely destroyed them
and their cities and named the place Hormah”
(Numbers 21 : 2-3) {Hormah
means destruction in Hebrew}.
When
the Israelites killed Midianite men, they plundered their lands but allowed the
women and children to live. Moses
thundered “why have you kept all the women alive? Kill
every boy and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse, but keep alive
for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins” (Numbers
31 : 15-18)
“Now
listen to what the Almighty says … Go and attack the Amalekites and completely
destroy every thing they have. Don’t
leave a thing: kill all the men, women, children and babies, the cattle, sheep, camels,
and donkeys” ( I Samuel 15 : 1-3)
These
words provided the inspiration for the catholic state in its dealings with non
– catholics. When Christians fear
intolerance from shariah, or accuse Islamic law of being barbaric, therefore, it
is because their knowledge of shariah is limited to the bible and their
experience under catholic popes which led to rebellion and secularism.
It
is time for the Guardian to listen to the Zamfara state government.
It is time to know that the Quar’an and sunnah enjoin the creation of a
just and honest society, and protect freedom of religion and conscience.
It is time to ask those who feel there are legal problems to go to a
court of competent jurisdiction. Alhaji
Ahmed Sani has repeatedly said his priority is good government, education,
poverty alleviation and moral rebirth. He
has assured non –Muslims of the full protection of their rights.
He has never declared Zamfara
an Islamic state.
Many people, including Muslims, have apprehensions about the shariah project. With the best of intentions, practice is always flawed and imperfect. There is a need for caution, for enlightenment and for sensitivity. Those charged with the responsibility for interpretation and implementation of the shariah themselves need time to be fully trained. They need to be sensitive and to recognize economic and other conditions which should serve as extenuating circumstances when applying the penal code. The government must resist the temptation to exploit the potential propaganda value of religion for political gains. But by far the greatest problem facing the country is prejudice and ignorance, and the inordinate desire to cry wolf where there is none. Of this, the Guardian is guilty.
You can read more about my article from my web page at http://www.gamji.com/sanusi.htm
RETURN TO GAMJI HOMEPAGE