RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT
THE CASE OF ISLAMFor a Symposium at SS Peter & Paul Seminary, Bodija, Ibadan
1 December 1983Islamic theory of society
The unity of religious and civil government is the most notable feature of Islamic society. It has its roots in the the theology of monotheism that is most prevalent among Muslims. This theology says, in language we may find familiar, that God alone is holy, God alone is good, God alone is powerful, mighty, great and wise.
Cannot a Jew or a Christian say the same? Yes, but the usual Muslim interpretation is that God has all power, creatures have none; God has all knowledge, wisdom and existence; creatures have none-none, that is to say, except a shadow or reflection of God's being and attributes. God alone is real; creatures are real only by analogy of attribution, not by any proper proportionality.
If God holds all power, there is no power in nature, but creatures act when, how and to the extent that God decrees. So there can be no natural law, only the law that God is pleased to reveal. That is Sharī`a law, as contained in the Qur'ān and Ḥadīth. To be ruled by any other law is an affront to God's authority. It is shirk, putting a creature in the company of God, sharing, and thereby competing with him, in power. So Muslims believe it is their sacred duty to promote God's rule, which is Sharī`a, and spread it throughout the world.
The situation in Nigeria
From the 16th century Islamic law has been applied in Kano and Katsina. It was used even earlier in Borno. Pragmatic interests and the strength of African customs prevented it from being fully enforced, and for this reason Uthman dan Fodiye led a jihad at the beginning of the 19th century. Even he could not effect an ideal Islamic state, as no one in the world has ever succeeded. It is an ideal always watered down in concrete life by either the weakness of human nature or an underlying skepticism of the wisdom of all the implications of the Sharī`a.
When the British took over the North of Nigeria they preserved intact the Sharī`a as it was practiced, except for capital punishment and mutilations. Only in 1959 was a code of criminal and civil law promulgated which replaced the Sharī`a in these matters, leaving only personal law, such as marriage and inheritance under Sharī`a. The 1963 Constitution allowed the establishment of a Northern Regional Sharī`a Court of Appeal above Upper Area Courts. Later each northern State obtained its own Sharī`a Court of Appeal which was final in all matters "except that in appeals involving fundamental human rights and interpretation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, there is a further right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria." (D.C., vol. 2, p. 103).
The next development in the status of Sharī`a was in the drafting of the 1979 Constitution. The particular point debated was whether to establish a Federal Sharī`a Court of Appeal This was only the tip of the iceberg. Most Muslims and Christians saw the issue as one of whether Nigeria should become an Islamic state or not. The affirmative, in fact, was a proposal advocated by Malam Ma'aji Shani and Sheikh Ahmed Lemu at a seminar on the status of Sharī`a held in Minna (Cf. New Nigerian, 30 August 1977). Christians, of course, protested, and with reference to the establishment of a Federal Sharī`a Court Yusufu Bala Usman stated: "With one stroke the ethos of justice and equality for all citizens, the only basis for building national cohesion, has been undermined and a basis for religious dissension introduced" (New Nigerian 29 March 1977).
The Federal Sharī`a Court was rejected by the Constitutive Assembly and the issue quieted down for a time. The next step was President Shagari's proposal, after the 1983 election, to establish a Presidential advisory board for Islamic affairs. We know the reaction of Christians to that, and the issue is still not dead. The President seems to have modified his proposal, but no abandoned it.
The status of Sharī`a in Nigeria involves more than just Muslim religious aspiration. To illustrate the other factors in the matter let us look at the Middle East.
The Middle East
For year the land of Abraham, Jacob and Jesus has been convulsed in a struggle between Jews and Arabs. On the one hand it is a struggle between immigrants and people they are dispossessing of their land. The Jews in this case say it is the land of their ancestors and their own heritage. The Arabs see the Jews as intruders, maybe Judaized people of heterogeneous racial stock, while they themselves could claim to be the real sons of the soil, the descendants of the early Canaanites who were Judaized after the Exodus (according to William Foxwell Albright), Christianized in the Apostolic age, and largely Islamized after the Muslim conquests. Apart from the questionable rights that ancient lineage may give, the Arabs think they have a right to the land from centuries of settlement and development. The Jews argue the same from their 35 years' occupancy.
On a religious level, the struggle is between Jews and Muslims. The Jewish Zionists are impelled by a Messianic dream fulfilled in the occupation of the earthly Jerusalem and the eventual destruction of the Muslim shrines in order to rebuild the Temple. A sizeable proportion of the Palestinians are Christian and they have taken an active part in resisting Israeli occupation, but the Arab movement is dominated by Muslims and an Islamic ideology. Palestine was part of Dar-al-Islam, and has been wrested from the Muslims as was Spain. It is intolerable for Muslims to see the dethronization of Sharī`a and a kāfir government put in its place. It is all the more intolerable because it represents a defeat, whereas Islam is a religion of success. God could never let any of his prophets be killed, or his religion go unvindicated.
On an altogether other dimension, the Middle East struggle is one of the sports-grounds of the Soviet-American global struggle. American Jews control U.S. foreign policy, and they willingly cast Israel into the role of an outpost of the "free world's" struggle against Soviet Communist hegemony. Russia gladly supported Syria and Egypt against Israel as a means of opposing the U.S., but the U.S. has weaned Egypt away from Russia by; more lavish generosity, and American TV displayed Sadat and Begin embracing one another . Syria remained adamant for a long time, but it is now coming over to the U.S. side. What price is the U.S. paying? The price is really very cheap for the U.S. They are giving Syria half of Lebanon, while the other half goes to Israel, which always wanted to control the Litani river sources and a larger northern buffer zone. In this battle the Soviet Union is turning out to be the loser to the superior strategy of Reagan and Kissinger.
What happens to the Christians in this struggle? They are subject to the increased harassment of Muslim governments which are renouncing secularity and turning to a triumphalistic Islamic fundamentalism. The hope is that the Arab Christians will either become Muslim or emigrate. Under the Israelis the situation is not much better. Israel is a Jewish state for the Jews, and anyone else is not a full citizen.
The direction of Middle East affairs might be predictable if ideological interests alone were at work. Yet one fact is that for most people money and personal power speak louder than religion. That is why Christians can be made to fight Christians, Palestinians against Palestinians, Muslims against Muslims, and to a certain extent Jews can be traitors to their own collective interests.
Another unpredictable factor is God's grace. Robbers, murderers and intolerant fanatics can be converted into love and die for another. Swords can be converted into plows, and ballot papers into school books.
Conclusion
How are the factors driving the Middle East struggle applicable to Nigeria? I have presented both information and principles. I have not drawn any conclusions. That depends on the completeness and accuracy of the information and the correct understanding and application of the principles. I leave that to the discussion.