Sako 2. Murnar Cin Zaben Kwankwaso

Aliyu U. Tilde 9:11am Apr 29
Labaru sun zo mana kan irin murnar da wasu mutane ke yi a Kano ta cin zaben Kwankwaso ta hanyoyin da ya ke nuna suna maraba da shi don zai kau da Shari'a. Wannan zai sa in kura ta lafa mu yi dogon tattaunawa kan tarbiyyar al'umma a tsarin demokradiya na wannan zamanin.

Su wadanan da ke murna ta hanyar yin wadannan abubuwa, kar mu dauka da addini su ke ja. Hasali ma, sau da yawa in aka wa addininsu kalubale, ko da a gidan giya ne, to wallahi kaca-kaca ake da su. Sai su tashi su pasa kwalba, su yi ashar, su ce za su kara da duk wanda ya baci addininsu.

Wancan satin a kauyenmu, Tilde, akwai 'yan wiwi da ke busa sigarinsu a bayan gidana, da unguwata da nake shugabanta, da kuma makarantar firamare da ke kusa da ni. Mutane sun aza sun addabemu. Nakan ce mu rika hakuri da su. Suma akwai ranarsu. Don ina da sanin amfaninsu a fadan zangon kataf da sharia a Kaduna. Ile kuwa. Wancan satin, da aka ce ga kabilu can sun kawowa Tilde hari daga duwatsu, su wadannan yan wiwin su ne kan gaba wajen kare garin. Kowa sai sa musu albarka ya ke. Akwai yara da suka rika yawo suna barna suna kona gidajen kirista bayan an ce Buhari ya fadi zabe. Ko mutanen gari sun musu magana, ba sa saurarensu. Amma da zarar sun hango 'yan wiwin nan, sai su ruga, su bar wurin. To, shege ma da ranarsa!

Watau, dan Adam yana da wuyar sha'ani. In ya yi wani abu yakamata mu nazarce shi, mu gano dalilansa. Akasari sai ka ga ba abun da muke tsammani ba ne. Zai yiyu, mun tsananta wajen gudanar da sharia ta yadda ta saba da asalinta ko da zamaninmu. Zan ba da misalin shan giya.

In ka duba batun shan giya, ni a raayina an zafafa. Ko a Madinar Manzon Allah ana sai da barasa a wasu unguwanni har zamanin khalifofinsa. Haka kuma a manyan biranen musulunci irin su Damascus, da Bagadaza, da Kufa, da Seville, da Cordoba, da Alkahira. Ban taba jin inda aka yi dokar hana sai da ita ba tamaman tunda a ko yaushe, saboda sassaucin muslumci, akwai wadanda ba musulmi ba tattare da musulmi. Kai! Har a kasar Hausa, su Shehu Usumanu basu damu da su yi doka da zata hana samar da giya ba kwata-kwata. Shi ya sa kusan ake da bauda a daukacin kasar Hausa, birni da kauye. Amma tanadin sharia shi ne duk musulmin da aka kama ya sha, to a masa bulala 80. Shike nan. Akwai wanda Umar ya sa aka wa bulala don an same shi a bauda, duk da cewa an tabbatar ba giyar ya ke sha Ba. Umar ya ce to me ya kaishi zama a inda ake shanta? Wannan, a maimakon Umar ya yii dokar hana sai da giya ba.

Kuma burin sharia ba wai ta maida mutane mala'iku ba ne da za su zam ba sa laifi kwata-kwata. Sam. Allah ya fi son ya gansu a 'yan Adam dinsu, masu laifi lokaci-lokaci, amma kuma masu reman gafararsa a kullum. Ina jin akwai ingantaccen hadisi qudusi a kan wannan. Malamai suna iya binciko mana. In burinsa marasa laifi ne, ai yana da mala'iku da ba sa sabama umarninsa, suna masa tasbihi ba dare ba rana.

Don haka, yana da wuya a kauda dan Adam daga wannan dabi'ar da aka halicceshi a kanta, dabi'ar laifi da zunubi. Dama shi mai sabone asalan. Aikin addini shi ne ya kira shi ga alheri, in ya amsa sai ya ribanta da kyautata sabon nan da aikin alheri da hali nagari, kamar yadda za a hana shi mummunan aiki ta hanyar da ta dace da lokacinsa da abunda nassi ya kawo na wa'azi da ladabtarwa yadda ya fi dacewa.

Hakanan kan abubuwa da yawa wanda harkar film na cikinsu. Fasaha bata wanzuwa sai cikin 'yanci da walwala. Ai ido ba mudu ba ne amma ya san kima. Da yakamata a duba yanayin kasarmu, da matsayin tarbiyyarmu, a fara da sassauci hatta kan abubuwan da musulunci ya tsananta, kuma a yi sassauci har abada kan abunda bai tsananta ba...a bimu sannu sannu har mu fahimta, mu daidaita sahu.

Don haka, a takaice, wadannan 'yan'uwa namu ban yi tsammani wai yaki da addini suke yi ba. Hanyar da muka bi wajen d'abbaka shariar ce kila bai dace da zamaninsu ba ko d'abi'arsu. Kila mun gaggauta wasu abubuwan, mun tsananta a wasu. Don haka suka nuna bijirewarsu ga tsarin amma ba ga addinin ba.

In an tuna ai a zamanin Kwankwaso aka fara shariar, irinta wannan zamanin. Ina tuna lokacin da mataimakinsa, Ganduje, da Malamina, Aminuddeen Abubakar, suke yawo otel otel suna farautar kilakai a cikinsu. Don haka ba bakinta ba ne. Kwankwaso na da nasa malaman. Ba ni da haufin za su bari ya goyawa abunda zai maida musulunci baya.

Kamar yadda na fada jiya, sabon gwamnan sai ya gina kan abunda Malam Shekarau ya yi;ya yi gyara inda ake bukatar gyara; ya cigaba da duk abu mai kyau; ya kuma jingine, bisa shawara, abunda yake ganin kuskure ne. Amma kashedi kashedinsa, kar ya bibiye ma ashararai da za su kai shi su baro. Shekara hudu kamar gobe ne.

Haza wasalam.

Aliyu

Dr. Tilde was Wrong

Friday Discourse (104)

Tilde was wrong on Hausa music
___________________________
Ahmad Bello Dogarawa
___________________________
I read Dr. Tilde's article on the ongoing debate
between the Ulama and the artistes in Katsina (Weekly
Trust September 7 - 13, 2000). I quite disagree with him on the Islamic ruling on music
and singing. According to Tilde, the debate on music has never been
conclusive. But a meticulous, critical analysis of the
relevant texts from the hadeeth and other authentic sources which clearly show that music, musical instruments,
singing to their accompaniment, etc., are objects
prohibited by Islamic Sharee'ah. The exceptions to
this general rule are specific, limited types of
innocent singing or chanting without any instrumental
accompaniment or to the accompaniment of the simple
hand drum [daff] on certain occasions designated by
the Sunnah.

Prohibition
In order to substantiate the above claim and to dispel
such false notion that the issue of music has never
been conclusive or the fault in music lies in what it
says, it is necessary to quote a number of authentic
traditions and sayings of the Salaf.
1. The Prophet [S.A.W] said: "There will be [at some
future time] people from my ummah [community of
Muslims] who will seek to make lawful: fornication,
the wearing of silk, wine drinking and the use of
musical instruments [ma'aazif].." [al-Bukhaaree]
2. The Messenger of Allah [S.A.W] said: "A people of
my ummah will drink wine, calling it by other than its
real name. Merriment will be made for them through the
playing of musical instruments and singing of lady
singers. Allah will cleave the earth under them and
turn into apes and swine." [at-Tirmidhee and Ibn
Majah, and declared Saheeh by Ibn al-Qayyim and
al-Albaanee.].
3. The Prophet [S.A.W] said: "Verily, Allah prohibited
wine, gambling and al-koobah; and every intoxicant is
prohibited." Sufyan said, "I asked the narrator, Ali
bin Badheemah, 'What is al-koobah?' He answered, 'It
is the drum.'" In another narration, Allah's Messenger
said, "Verily, Allah has prohibited for my ummah:
wine, gambling, a drink distilled from corn, the drum
and the lute [the Arabian guitar, termed qinneen in
the text of the hadeeth]; while He supplemented me
with another prayer, the witr." [Imam Ahmad in his
musnad and authenticated Saheeh by al-Albaanee in
Saheeh al-Jaami as-Sagheer and Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh.
These narrations have also been related by other
compilers, such as al-Bayhaqi in his Shu'ub al-Eemaan
with authentic isnaad and At-Tabaraani in al-Mu'jam
al-Kabeer with jayyid [good] isnaad].
4. Al-Haakim reported in a long hadeeth that the
Prophet [S.A.W] when asked why he wept after taking
his ailing son Ibraheem, who was in the throes of
death, replied: "Verily, I did not prohibit weeping
[per se], but rather, I forbade two voices [sowtayn]
which are imbecilic [ahqam] and sinfully shameless
[faajir]: one, a voice [singing] to the accompaniment
of musical amusement [lahw] and Satan's [wind]
instruments [a type of flute]; the other, a voice
[wailing] due to some calamity, accompanied by
striking of the face and tearing of the garments. But
this [weeping of mine] stems from compassion, and
whosoever does not show compassion will not receive
it." [The hadeeeth's degree is hasan, as proved by
al-Baghawi in Sharh as-Sunnah and al-Albaani in
Silsilah al-Ahaadeeth as-Saheehah. It has been
strengthened by another narration related by Abu Bakr
as-Shaafi'ee in his work, Rubaa`eeyat]
5. Anas bn Maalik related from the Prophet [S.A.W],
"two cursed sounds are that of the [wind] instrument
[mizmaar] played on the occasion of joy and grace, and
woeful wailing upon the occurrence of adversity."
[Abu Bakr as-Shaafi'ee in his work, Rubaa`eeyat with
authentic isnaad and quoted by al-Kanadee in his
Hukmuh as-Sharee'ah]
In reality, the companions unanimously agreed upon the
prohibition of music and song but allowed particular
exceptions specified by the authentic Sunnah. Many
authentic narrations [aathar] traced to the various
Sahaabah bear witness to this. For example, it is
authentically related by al-Bayhaqi that the
companion, Abdullah bn Mas'ood said, "Singing sprouts
hypocrisy in the heart as rain sprouts herbs and
greens."
He was also questioned regarding the meaning
of the words 'lahwal hadeeth' as appeared in Q 31:6,
and he replied, "I swear by Him besides Whom there is
no other god that it refers to singing." He repeated
it three times over to emphasise his belief that the
words from the Qur'aan were a rebuke and censure of
singing. [al-Bayhaqi and Ibn al-Mundhir. See also
Qurtubi's tafseer].
The four rightly guided caliphs
held the same view, the fuqahaa among the Sahaabah
such as Ibn Abbaas, Ibn Umar, Jaabir bn Abdullah and
Amr bn Shu`ayb, as well as the general body of
Sahaabah [R.A].
The taabi'een and their followers, the four imams and
the great majority of dependable Islamic scholars up
to the present time generally adhered to the view held
by the companions. From among the taabi'een and their
followers, there are such authorities as Sa'eed bn
Jubayr, Mujaahid, Qataadah, Ikramah, al-Hasan
al-Basri, an-Nakha'i, Qaasim bn Muhammad, Makhool,
Aliyyu bn Badheemah and Maimoon bn Mihraan. [See
al-Qurtubi's tafseer, al-Aloosi's tafseer and Kaffur
Ra'aa of Ibn Hajar al-Haythamee].
Imam Abu Haneefah has perhaps the harshest view of the
four famous imams of jurisprudence. His school of
thought is the strictest, for he detested singing and
considered it sinful. As for his disciples, they have
explicitly confirmed the prohibition of listening to
all musical amusements and pastimes, including wind
instruments [mazaameer], all types of tambourine, hand
drums [dufoof] and even the striking of sticks
[al-qadeeb]. They have asserted that such actions
constitute disobedience to Allah and that the
performer of such action is sinful, therefore
necessitating rejection of his testimony. [al-Qurtubi's al-Jaami' li ahkaamil
Qur'aan]
It is related by Ibnul Jowzi that Ishaaq bin Eesaa
at-Taba'a asked Imam Maalik bin Anas, the leading
jurisprudent of Madeenah, about the view of the people
of Madeenah regarding singing [ghinaa]. He replied,
"In fact, that is done by the sinful ones." Abut-Teeb
at-Tabari said, "As for Maalik bin Anas, he truly did
prohibit singing and listening to it." He further
related that Maalik said, "If one purchased a
slave-girl and found her to be a professional singer,
he could return her to the original owner for
reimbursement on the claim of found fault in the
merchandise." [Talbees Iblees of Ibn al-Jauzi]
Imam as-Shaafi'ee is reported as saying, "Verily, song
is loathsome [makrooh]; it resembles the false and
vain thing [al-baatil]. The one who partakes of it
frequently is an incompetent fool whose testimony is
to be rejected." [Talbees Iblees and al-Qurtubi's
tafseer]. Imam as-Shaafi'ees closest and most
knowledgeable disciples clearly stipulate that his
position on this issue is that of prohibition
[tahreem] and rebuke those who attribute its legality
to him.
Imam Ahmad's position regarding this issue has been
narrated in detail by the Hanbalite jurisprudent and
Qur'aanic commentator, Abul-Faraj Ibn al-Jauzi [d. 597
H.] in his Talbees Iblees. Ibn al-Jauzi said, Ahmad's
son and student, Abdullah relates that his father
said, "Singing sprouts hypocrisy in the heart; it does
not please me."
From the foregoing, it is evident that the general
consensus of the companions, taabi'een and the
following generations of Islamic scholars up to the
present day, including the four famous imams, points
to the ruling of prohibition of music and song [other
than the exceptions mentioned above]

Permissibility
There is agreement among the four Imams that all
musical instruments [ma'aazif] are forbidden. Shaykhul
Islam Ibn Taymiyyah affirms this in his Fataawa.
However, a few scholars see no harm in singing and/or in the playing of music. In order to remove any doubt from the reader's mind regarding this vital
issue, it is necessary not only to mention these
scholars and their claims but also to establish the
proof against them.
Ibn Hazam and Ibn al-`Arabi al-Maaliki claimed that
there is no authentic hadeeth, which prohibit music,
song and musical instruments. They asserted that
al-Bukhaari's hadeeth earlier is not authentic on the
ground that there is a missing link between
al-Bukhaari and the next narrator, implying that the
hadeeth's isnaad is disconnected [munqati'] and
therefore not a valid proof in the prohibition of
music, song, musical instruments and singing. In
addition, Ibn Hazam, as quoted by al-Qardaawi in
al-Halal wa al-Haraam fil Islaam, said, 'Every hadeeth
related [prohibiting music and singing] is false and
forged.'" However, al-Bukhaari's hadeeth is authentic,
because there exist fully connected chains for it,
which fulfill the conditions of authenticity. This was
stated by great scholars of hadeeth such as Ibn
as-Salah [in his Uloomul Hadeeth], al-Haafidh
al-Iraaqi and Ibn Hajar in his Fathul Baari and
Taghleequt Ta'leeq. They all have conveniently refuted
Ibn Hazam's claim and rendered it unfounded. In short,
al-Bukhari's narration is authentic and consequently
constitutes a valid and binding text to be referred to
in determining the ruling regarding music.
Imam al-Ghazaali, is often quoted by some as having
maintained a view of permissibility. It must be made
clear that he argued in favour of only innocent
singing, physical sport and entertainment. Nowhere did
he mention or argue in favour of the permissibility of
musical instruments or musical accompaniment to
singing. Thus, those who quote him [like al-Qardaawi]
as a proof for the legality of music commit a gross
error and do him a great injustice, for they impute to
him that which he himself did not claim.
As for the assertion made by Abu Taalib al-Makki [as
even quoted by Tilde], that some prominent companions
of the Prophet and those who followed them have
listened to songs, and that even now, the people of
Hijaz in Makkah listen to songs in the most sacred
days of the year, that is the appointed days in which
God enjoined His worship and remembrance, the reply
would be: al-Adhra'i has quoted Abul-Qaasim ad-Dowlaqi as
saying: "It has not been related regarding any one of
the companions [R.A] that he listened to the sort of
singing which is of the disputed type, nor is it
related that gatherings for song were organised for
him, nor that people were invited to them - either
publicly or privately, nor that he praised such song;
rather, it was the companions' habit to censure and
blame such gatherings for the purpose of listening to
it." [See Kaffur Ra'aa and al-Qurtubi]
What justification can one find from the foregoing to
accept the permissibility of ghinaa? It is based on
some of these reasons, al-Qardaawi rescind his
position of permissibility on the issue at stake by
accepting all the corrections made to his al-Halaal
wal Haraam by Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaani in
Ghaayatul Maraam [as indicated by al-Qardaawi himself
in his Kaif Nata'aamal ma' Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah]. And
for the sake of, if al-Makki or any other scholar had
argued for the permissibility of music/or singing to
its accompaniment, the reply would be: When it is in
contradiction to the authentic Sunnah, one cannot
accept the view of any other person after Allah's
Messenger [S.A.W].

Ruling
§ The use of all musical instruments is forbidden,
except the daff, whose permissible use [in the
restricted form explained above] is a specification of
or an exception to the general ruling. The categories
of musical instruments are as follows: (a) wind
instruments such as flutes, horns, trumpets,
accordions, saxophones and trombones; (b) string
instruments which include guitars, violins, banjos,
harps, sitars, lutes, basses and cellos; (c)
percussion instruments such as gongs, cymbals, bass
drums, bongos, congas and tambourines; and (d) a
combination of two or more of the above such as the
piano, which combines percussion and string
instrumentation. This ruling has been arrived at
through the texts of authentic hadeeths narrated by
Ahmad, al-Bukhaari, Ibn Maajah, al-Haakim and
al-Bayhaqi quoted earlier on.
§ Preceding texts of the Sunnah designated the general
ruling of prohibition regarding singing under certain
circumstances. The narration of al-Haakim described
the singing voice coupled with music as imbecilic and
sinful. Naturally, singing to musical accompaniment is
forbidden since it is coupled with music. As for
innocent singing to the accompaniment of just the
daff, this has been allowed on only specific
occasions.
§ Singing without musical accompaniment is permitted
under certain circumstances and with particular
conditions. The lyrics of the songs must be pure and
innocent, and must keep within the moral bounds set by
Islamic teachings
§ Dancing to musical instrument is prohibited since
that which is coupled with a prohibited thing becomes
forbidden. As for dancing without music, or to the
accompaniment of the daff only, such is restricted
solely to women and children and is not befitting the
role of males.
§ Dancing by women has its conditions. No music other
than that provided by the daff and the human voice is
allowed. Women must be properly clothed and are
restricted to the company of women and children only.
It should also be a simple, natural rhythmic swaying
free from every form of obvious or covert vice.
§ The profession of music, singing, dancing and
instrument making and selling are all forbidden. In an
Islamic state such instruments may be seized from
their owner and destroyed without recourse to
indemnity.
§ It is the duty of a Muslim that he avoid listening
to music and singing in so far as it is within his
power and jurisdiction. As for what he hears from his
neighbour's yard, or when he passes through the
streets or markets, that is not a sin upon him, nor is
it his responsibility to try to stop it unless he has
the power and authority to do so. Similarly, where he
is forced to hear music without the will or desire to
do so, he is not to blame, provided it
is with the sole intention of deriving benefit from
the information contained therein and not for the
purpose of seeking pleasure in hearing the music.
§ The supposed contribution of Hausa singers and
musicians in entertainment, social mobilization and
cultural continuity is not enough reason for the
championing of this issue, or disagreeing with a
Fatawa issued by the Ulama. I do not know of any
scholar who opines the permissibility or canvass the
continuity of any issue prohibited by the Prophet on
the basis of its so-called contribution.
§ The claim by Dr. Tilde that the issue is not
conclusive or we have no basis in religion to abrogate
music and singing is therefore unfounded and untenable.

Alternatives
According to al-Munajjid in his Muharramaat, music and
singing form one of the greatest temptations of our
times. What is difficult is the fact that nowadays
music is part of so many things, such as clocks,
doorbells, children's toy, computers, telephones,
etc., and avoiding it takes a great deal of
determination.
Notwithstanding, it is the duty of every Muslim to
strive his utmost to find acceptable [lawful]
alternatives to the prohibited forms of music and song
as delineated in this write up. Some suggestions are:
§ Sweet and melodious recitation of and listening to
the reading of Allah's book.
§ Singing and listening to Islamic songs
§ Remembrance of Allah [Dhikr]
§ Healthy physical sports

Shariah and Our Welfare

Shariah and our Welfare


Since the introduction of shariah, we have written a number of articles in this column regarding a number of issues as they arise. Generally, the articles were hailed whenever they appear to be in defence of a practice under shariah. However, whenever they appeared critical, they were avoided, disregarded and at times dismissed as mere journalistic comments that weigh only as much as any other article in a newspaper. It is sad to mention that this is not only the attitude of government officials but also that of the commoners whose rights we are attempting to protect by making such criticisms publicly.
More saddening is the fact that even scholars are not exempted. Though no one to date could find fault in our claims on issues regarding shariah, most of them were against airing such critical views publicly. They would prefer that they be given as an advice to the governments concerned quietly and privately. I often remain silent when such issues are raised in conferences or meetings, knowing well that time will vindicate me.
And time has met my expectation. I was not therefore surprised when, while browsing the Internet recently, I came across an article written by one of such brothers who were critical of my public exposition of matters regarding shariah. He criticised the actions of Zamfara State government regarding rulings given in cases that he saw had to do with gender and class. A week later, I saw the same article published as a lead comment on this magazine. He condemned the caning of a single teenage mother and the amputation of Jangebe’s hand, supporting, as expected, his arguments with views of other Islamic scholars. I wonder why he did not send it privately as an advice to the Zamfara State government. After reading the article, I could not help saying, “You are welcome.” He was fuming over what I precisely said one and a half years ago and on which he preferred should have been an advice given privately and quietly.
A week later or so, a conference was held in London on shariah implementation in Nigeria. I did not attend it, but I have learnt about some of its deliberations, courtesy of BBC Hausa Service. In the conference, an issue came up, I think from the presentation of our learned brother, teacher and guide, Mal. Ibrahim Suleiman. It had to do with the issue of shariah and quality of governance. The point he made was that shariah is supposed to improve the quality of governance. This is an indisputable fact.
However, the fact was disputed. In an answer to the question by a reporter of the BBC Hausa Service, asking why there is so far no signs of tangible improvement on the quality of life of people in states that have proclaimed shariah, another learned brother came to the defence of the governors, arguing that it is not proper for people to set utilitarian goals for shariah, for the simple reason that it is God that determines the condition of living of people. This fatwa is dangerous. I was glad that objections were raised on how such governments failed to show any departure from the past practice of waste. Another learned brother gave an example citing how they sponsored people for pilgrimage. In his response to the charge, the Zamfara State Governor, while conceding the authenticity of the charge, blamed the people who approach government seeking such favours.
These issues are not at all surprising to me. I expected them. Based on the strength of my conviction I gave advices before hand, one and a half years ago, on how the need for caution and due care in dealing with them, at the risk of being misunderstood. And indeed many were happy to misunderstand me. It now appears that the intelligentsia are unhappy with how shariah is tamed in the courts and restricted from reaching offices and government houses. The question is often asked, why should Jangebe lose his hand and criminals in offices do so only at the mild expense of losing their jobs? If that question could be dismissed hitherto as hypothetical, a nastier case has arisen that challenges government to become more self-critical. The District Head, Aliyu Danjibga, was convicted of doing away with five cows left in his custody by a vigilante group. Instead of being carried to a shariah court where he will be forced to return them and lose his job, he was taken to a magistrate court where he was charged a token N5,000.00. The government has so far claimed that the prosecution in the magistrate court was done to discredit it. It needs to revert the decision of the court through appeal or whatever because the court in the first place lacks jurisdiction to decide over the matter, according to the provisions of the shariah penal code. Only doing so will convince us that shariah application is egalitarian.
The shariah issue has come up when administration in Nigeria has been rendered captive of selfish tendencies and practices. Entrusted officials intercepted resources that were meant to be shared among citizens through the conception and implementation of well-articulated public policies. So corrupt ridden are such officials that nothing was conceived or done except if it will result in the material benefit to officials. People seek appointments not to serve the society but to exploit it; they think of none but themselves.
As such, resources have unjustifiably been concentrated in the hands of few unproductive elite. The worse part of the scenario is that the wealth gathered by this group is not used contribute in anyway to harness the productive capacity of the society as the classical economics of Adam Smith would have suggested. It is not invested meaningfully but hidden in foreign accounts beyond the orbit of local market circulation. When they are forced by crave for luxury to spend part of it locally, it is nothing beyond the purchases of foreign products.

Poverty and crime
With no viable industries to employ them, and with pressing social responsibilities surrounding them from all angles, people have no option left but to see government through the same spectacle as does its officials. There is little wonder then if masses, with no jobs to earn a decent living, kept knocking at the doors of government and its officials, begging for one favour or another that will mitigate their suffering. Those that could not make the crawl to the government offices naturally fell prey to the temptation of crime.
If Jangebe had the benefit of quality education and employment in a factory, he would have stood a lesser chance of graduating into renowned cattle thief. I think that is why he made public his desire to henceforth focus on education. Corruption and lack of vision of officials that we mentioned above has engendered large scale poverty which in turn has transformed society into a factory that has in the past produced thousands of Jangebes; it is producing them today; and it will continue produce them in the future, unless its engine is somehow stopped.
I am not unaware that crime has many factors, depending on the society and the class of criminals in question. Someone may even be quick to argue that reported crimes are more rampant in technologically advanced countries where, like in the United States, the statistics are counted in seconds and minutes. This argument could also be supported by the existence of white-collar jobs – the popular term used for on the job illegality – and many other trends.
Though these arguments are valid for crimes born out of rational calculation – where the risk of apprehension or even punishment is low and the gain is high – criminologists are nevertheless unable to find a more powerful crime factor than poverty. Let us not forget that a high national income that is inequitably distributed between citizens will only prompt crime. That is the case with countries like America and Britain. Recent statistics for example have shown that 25% of Americans are living under poverty. Being poor in America means many disadvantages. It means living in neighbourhoods that have poor educational facilities that reduces the opportunity for the citizen to acquire high competitive skills. This in turn results in unemployment. In such an environment, crime abounds and it presents itself as the only choice before the mass of dropouts and the unemployed.
As for the white-collar crime (fashi da biro) that was valued at $200 billion per annum in America alone at the beginning of the last decade, though criminologists have written less on it than on organized crime, we cannot hesitate to ascribe it to the debasement of values inherent to capitalist society that compels citizens to see no good in anything except if it will fetch material wealth. I have in an earlier article narrated how in 1950 Sayyid Qutb met a white American who told him that the only god he knows is the dollar.
Our society on the other hand is still traditional. Non-material values, preached by Islam, are still held in high esteem by citizens and, wherever possible, they guide their actions. Their minds are still simple. We do not need to wander into any long discourse before we accept the hypothesis that if our people were better equipped with the economic skills of survival, our society will definitely record one of the lowest crime rates in the world. That is the only thing missing. The excruciating poverty that SAP and other programs have recently exacerbated. The plight of families gradually pushed their children into delinquency as a necessity for survival. In Islam, there is a well-established dictum that both poverty and ignorance breed blasphemy. I will not be surprised if the teenage single mother canned in Gusau is found to be one of such victims of economic deprivation.
Now the most annoying thing is that our poverty is self-inflicted. I vehemently oppose any attempt to find fatalistic reasons behind it, as proposed by some of our learned brothers. Take the case of Zamfara for example, which is in no way different from that of any other part of the North. In a state with fertile soil, rains and the massive dam at Bakalori; with a federal subvention of not less than four hundred million naira monthly; with a population characterised by industry for which the Hausas – the predominant tribe in the state – are well known; with minerals deposit beneath the ground waiting to be mined; with the esteemed values of Islam that has settled in all the cultural strata of the region over centuries; it is absolutely difficult to explain the prevalence of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment without indicting the leadership.
The primary responsibility of the leadership is to harness the exploitation of resources to achieve a better standard of living for all its citizens through in-depth planning, hard work and prudent management. That is the best way to protect lives and property. If in the past the secular disposition of state governments has hindered the achievement of such goals because everyone disbelieved in the system, now we have in place governments that proclaim the very cultural values of their subjects. Shariah, as could be deduced from the huge dome of literature written on Islamic leadership, puts the responsibility for welfare of citizens under its jurisdiction squarely on the neck of leaders.

Models
History has testified that this was the standard by which our past leaders whom we consider as good examples lived. When someone came to the Holy Prophet complaining about poverty, the Prophet did not preach to him or source charity for him. Instead, he gave him an axe for cutting wood, suggesting the importance of job creation.
We must not forget the reign of Omar bin al-Khattab the second Caliph, and that of his grandson, Omar bin Abdulaziz. The latter is often remembered by the manner in which his administration focussed on equitable distribution of wealth and attainment of social justice, which he exemplified in many ways and for which he worked round the cloak to ensure that it was achieved. In an often-narrated ruling that we mentioned earlier in this column, when the Arabia was hit by drought in a particular year, he advised people to ensure greater security over their possessions. Then he went ahead to suspend the punishment on theft, clearly relating crime to the inadequacy of society to provide for all. He would walk the night to see if anyone has slept hungry. Through that he left a regard legacy of administrative diligence.
Omar is almost the best specimen of Islamic leadership after the Prophet. He saw leadership as a social responsibility that he had to account for on the day of judgement. For this he used to shed tears enough to soak his pillow when he goes to bed. So fossilized is his belief in accountability that he feared that God will query him on the Day of Judgement about a sheep that would stray in far away Iraq, saying, “why did not you repaired the road for it O Omar?” He also used to say, “the poor are more eligible to charity than the Haram in Mecca.” In fact, during the last days of his life, he was reported to have inclined to the “communist” interpretation of a verse of the Quran on keeping surplus wealth earlier given by Abu Zarr. He said that if God were to grant him long life he would seize the surplus wealth of the rich and redistribute it among the poor.
In one of his night vigils, Omar met a mother attending to a pot on fire and surrounding her were her children. He approached them to find out what she was doing, without disclosing his identity. She replied, “God is the judge between us and Omar.” He inquired, “What is the fault of Omar.” She replied, “He is our leader but does not care about us.” She then told him that she placed stones on fire to give her hungry children the false impression that she is cooking something for them until they would be overtaken by sleep. Omar immediately rushed to the treasury and fetched food for her. His company in the night vigil advised them to leave, after having brought the food items. Omar refused, saying, “I will not leave until I witness the children rejoicing out of satisfaction, just as I found them crying when hungry.”
It was not surprising that during the tenure of his grandson, the caliphate prospered to the extent that it failed to produce the poor that were eligible to receive Zakat. And whatever would be said about the affluence of the Abbasid caliphs like Rashid or Mamun, one thing clearly stands out: despite their moral shortcomings, they maintained the prosperity of the caliphate to the extent that the goal of other nations was to destroy Baghdad, which the Mongols eventually succeeded in doing. So prosperous were their tenures that their intellectuals had the tranquillity that enabled them to leave behind a legacy of literature and science. They surpassed other nations not only in conquests but also in agriculture and industry.

Forward
This is what we expect of our shariah-compliant leadership today, if not in whole, at least in semblance. We strongly believe that our leaders today should depart sharply in their conception of social responsibility from the selfish indulgence of the recent past. They are supposed to show the highest degree of vision, hard work and frugality that will result in making their states stand out in sharp contrast from others that are not advocates of shariah. In the world of today, that will not be achieved by preaching alone, or increasing the risk of crime through severer punishments, but by diligent planning using all modern techniques that would harness productivity in every sector of their economies.
We do not encourage them to distribute rations to people that are strong enough to fend for their selves. That is the right of the weak that could be funded from Zakat. Generation of wealth and its distribution has undergone changes over the last 1400 years. Hausaland, which before colonization knew nothing called unemployment, has its traditional industries weeded out by modern means of production, thus rendering a lot of its population jobless. Acquisition of modern skills and infrastructure of production has therefore become necessary.
Such governments must intervene at this crucial moment, in a typical Keynesian way, if you like, to re-energise the economy though taking measures that will increase demand. We expect them to focus on securing the future and harnessing skill acquisition through reforming education; they must seek the assistance of experts in various fields to bring out the numerous areas that could be exploited to create jobs and invent industry; they must be the best examples in fighting corruption; they must re-institutionalise the principles of accountability and prioritisation; they must avoid lavish and unnecessary appeasement of pressure groups that are interested only in procuring contracts and sponsorship to pilgrimage and the like; above all, there is an urgent need to institutionalise social justice where people will be treated equally before the law and where resources are equitably shared between citizens. People must be given, as the Holy Prophet once did, the axe to cut and sell wood if necessary. Shariah means hard work, both on the part of the governors and the governed.
Conclusion
Shariah must translate into tangibly positive indices of economics and justice that will be enjoyed by all citizens in states where it reigns regardless of class, religion or gender. There is no need running away from the utilitarian function of Islam. That is what the Holy Prophet once promised his companions in Mecca. He said, in a hadith reported by Bukhari, “God will establish this affair to the extent that a camel rider will have nothing to fear between San’aa and Hadhramaut except God and the wolf that might eat his stock.” That promise was fulfilled yesterday. We await its fulfilment today.
It is our sincere hope that this advice will not fall on deaf ears, as did those before it. We do not mean to hurt anyone. And our last prayer is that all Praise is due to God, the Lord of the Worlds.

24 April 2001

Regulating Hausa Film and Novels

Regulating Hausa films and novels


Kano has not stopped attracting our attention. The state government there has suspended the production of Hausa films pending legislation that will regulate the activities of the industry in addition to existing laws. I assume it will also include Hausa novels. The producers and writers of such films and books seem to be entertaining the legitimate fear that the legislation will ban their profession or strangulate it through strict interference.
In our discourse today, we have pointed out that neither art nor its regulation is new in our custom. Though we support government regulation of such influential tool of cultural transformation, we are against the government siding with people that would like to push it to the extreme. Instead, it should see how it could utilize the film industry and the Kano Market Literature to achieve mass mobilization towards desired social goals. The reader should please note that whatever we said below about films in this discourse also applies to the popular novels.

Custom
Changes in our entertainment culture started in the seventies. It was brought about by different factors including urbanization, infrastructure growth, education and so on. Education for example prevented the child of dankama from inheriting his father. Providing villages with electricity diminished the power that the moonshine had in attracting children to night plays. It also removed the darkness required to play hide and seek (o jibo jibo).
But the greatest of all factors in diminishing these aspects of culture is the ascendancy of religion in our social sector. There is no doubt that today a greater percentage of the Muslim population is educated than in the 1960s, thanks to the efforts of many groups that have shifted Islamic education from its “aristocratic” position to a “democratic” one, borrowing from the expression of the father of modern Arabic literature, Dr. Taha Husein.
We may be wrong in correlating the decline of entertainment to religion, infrastructure or education alone. Another equally important factor is the introduction of modern avenues for entertainment that have replaced previous ones. First were the cinema houses, then came the television, followed by the home video, and lastly the over 100 satellite stations available to families today, depending on their income and lifestyle. This implies that the waveband of our cultural interaction has expanded from the simple and narrow limits that the village could offer to the widest horizons presented by the cinema industry and globalisation.

Regulation
Now before going further, let me quickly add that not all the traditional means of entertainment was Islamic. If modern satellite channels can boast of parental control keys on their remote control, our parents were equally interested in limiting the contact of their children with indigenous bad culture. They were strict on their children in matters that were inconsistent with the teachings of Islam or with the dignity of their families.
For example, some parents detests anything drum. Gantsare, the Hausa version of Raqs, was seen as immoral by religiously inclined families. I remember my elder sister Zainab who we use to call Jebu. I cannot remember seeing her dance or participating in evening songs which other girls used to sing in the open. But I remember that she was generous to Pankashali, the kalangu master in the village to whose tune the girls used to dance. Both Jebu and Pankashali knew that she will be severely beaten once she is reported to have danced or sang anything in the market. So, Pankashali himself did all he could to exonerate her in take (anthem). He would use his kalangu to say: “Jebu yar filani\ ba rawa take ba\ sai dai ta bada kyauta\ ta taimaki mai kidan kalangu.”
The point I tried to make so far is that censorship is not new in our society. And the effort of the past has indeed yielded results. With the ascendance of religious consciousness, girls here neither dance nor sing in the open. Alhamdu lillah. Jebu is married with children and grandchildren. She is now a scholar, teaching in a women night Islamic institute and therefore might not want to recall her days as a girl. She does not need to worry about the likelihood of her children dancing or singing in the open. Pankashali has himself noticed the shift of public attention away from his profession. He has ‘repented’ and changed his profession from kida to roko!

Films
But modern films are so popular that they demand a different form of control. The issue is no longer restricted to a song or a single artist. Entertainment today is a big industry that serves thousands of families with productions that could have great impact on culture. The films today have inherited the power of the cinema industry when it first appeared in Europe and America. On this, the celebrated Egyptian scholar, Professor Muhammad Qutb once wrote in Ma’rakatul’ Taqalid, saying:
“The cinema was since its inception an art of the masses, people who could neither read literature nor had money to enter the theatre or the opportunity to patronize dance and concert. They could not also contemplate possessing artworks and frames. But these masses understood the cinema and they attended it in mad crowds…
“The cinema, with its distinct possibilities, was a fascination for them. In reality, it is a collection of various similar arts: the arts of story, theatre, photography, music and song. Aided by technology, the motion picture looked similar to what obtains in real life. This gave the cinema greater impact on morals and customs more than any other form of art…”
With this potential to affect our customs and morality, I strongly believe that government in any shariah state must insist on putting in place not only legislation but also a mechanism that will effectively censor the cinema and Hausa film industry in particular. The concern is not really on foreign films as much as it is on local films. Whatever foreign films show is regarded alien since the roles are performed by turawa and the production is foreign. To some extent, the same thing could be true of films from other regions in Nigeria.
But our link with Hausa films is different. It is real. It talks about our society, about its beliefs and practices. If a person belonging to the same cultural bracket as the viewer plays any obscene role, it immediately captures the mind of the latter and his subconscious will register it as a possibility, just as Muhammad Qutb said above. Some are even true-life stories. Now, why should we publicize the evil that was done in private?
Happily, the producers of Hausa films are not entirely against government regulation. To be fair to them, they have, as once reported in this magazine, set up, on their own, a committee in Kano that screens such films before they are released. This is in addition to the regulatory measures set by the Nigerian Film Cooperation. To that effect, they have refused to release certain films that they felt are inconsistent with our culture and religion. And even in the ongoing debate, they have pledged their readiness to work with whatever steps the government would take to make their films shariah-compliant. What remains is to determine the extent to which government should go in its intervention.

Extent of control
Let’s begin with the extreme. I do not support banning the films, just as poetry was not banned in the past. That will only leave us with the option of patronizing other films. The fact is that the average man today has come to look at leisure as part of life, be it music or cinema, traditional or modern. We need to regard our local Hausa films as alternatives to the foreign ones.
For example, I will strongly support legislation that will prohibit the featuring of crime, sex and whatever will lead to that in Hausa films. The use of guns, as I saw in one of the films will promote violence. Robbery and other crimes should also be banned. Where both sexes are to feature, whatever Islam prohibits in real life, from transparent and tight dresses to bodily contacts between the actors and sex or its imitation must be desisted. The same thing applies to novels.
This is in the interest of both writers and film stars. As Thomas Chenery once wrote, “whatever the age or country of a writer, he cannot but lose in reputation by indecency.” The first thing that led to the decline of the American actress and singer Madonna was her appearance in blue film. By exposing her body, she demystified it, showing nothing more than what other women possess. By that act, she left nothing to attract anyone anymore.
Using religion to generate laughter like what we see in Jahilci ya fi Hauka should not be tolerated. No matter the how good an artist is, blasphemous vanity would lead to his reprimand by Islamic authorities. I support the fatwa of Imam Khomeini on Salman Rushdie. It is nothing new. Those conversant with the history of Arabic literature will recall the murder of the Persian Abdullah ibn al-Mokaffa’, despite his unsurpassed mastery of Arabic prosody, on the orders of Mansoor, the Abbasid Caliph. The reason why the indecent poetry on women by Bashar and that of beer by Abu Nuwas were tolerated during the reign of Mamoon was because they fell short of blasphemy. In the same vein, Shata would have only been reprimaned by Yeriman Bakura, not murdered, for singing A Sharuwa, Garba Jiikan Garba, Gagara Badau or A’i Captain. The same thing would have applied to Hassan Wayam and Barmani Choge. I am not at all surprised that I bought my diwan of Abu Nuwas just some meters away from the Haram in Mecca in 1993. Had I asked for that of Bashar, I would have likely got it.
What we really want our Hausa films and novelists to desist from is anything that will promote moral degradation and societal tranquillity. They also have a great role to play in pushing our society forward, toward progress in various areas of endeavour: economy, politics, religion, education, security, etc.

Moderation
At the same time, I would appeal to governments in shariah states to be moderate in their legislations. For example, I believe that there is no need to shut down cinema houses or video clubs, once the type of films they should not trade in are made clear. They could be heavily punished for violating of the law. The cinema and video clubs are important avenues for “the masses” that do not have the video machines to watch Wasila or Mukhtar in their houses. If government will utilize the film industry effectively, it could serve as an effective channel of reaching out to the masses. It can even sponsor productions that will carry a definite message that it wants to reach the population and have the desired impact.
What government must desist from, as I always mention, is succumbing to the pressures of people who would like to push it to the extreme and make it adopt a puritanical stand. Art has not been in the good books of puritans who assume that everybody should be a saint. In the 12th century when al-Hariri wrote his Assemblies, he came under criticism from some scholars. They saw it as too playful and glorifying indecency in some places. This is what might have compelled al-Hariri to put up a defence in his introduction. He contended that his narratives were like tales that were widely accepted and that since deeds are judged according to intention, he should be regarded as “one who accents to doctrine and guides to the right path.”
We would however like our scholars to see art from the same angle as the author of Fi Zilal. When Sayyid Qutb published his Tasweerul’ Fanni fil’ Quran (Artistic Imagery in the Quran), he expected some opposition for viewing the sacred document using the lens of an artist. The only predecessor that attempted it centuries earlier was Yusuf al-Jarjaniy. So, Sayyid was surprised when he saw the wide acceptance that the book got even among religious circles. Seven years after its debut, he made the following remarks in its Third Edition:
“All thanks are due to Allah, it has been successful. It has been widely accepted in circles of art, science and religion. This shows that religion does not stand in the path of researches in science and art … and that researches in art and science are neither offensive nor lacerating to religion, once they carried out with good intention and devoid of pretence and false claims… and that freedom of thought does not necessarily imply the obliteration of religion as understood by some blind followers of liberation …”
There might be few people who have overcome their shortcomings as mortals and therefore look at the society from atop tudun mun tsira. However, every government must be aware that legislation is not made for such saints. It is made for us, the majority, people who are still struggling to fulfil the basic requirements of Islam and who could easily cave in, due to our numerous weaknesses and shortcomings, to the tempting offers of the World. So we will very much appreciate the kind gesture of government when it comes to write laws to consider our interest and of course our legitimate right to indulge in what is not unlawful.

Conclusion
In the absence of the moonshine that invites us to Ta-karido Ta-Karido and tatsuniya as kids, or the darkness that presents us the opportunity to play oh-jibo-jibo due to the spread of electricity and with the absence of dankama and gardi from our markets; with the decline of other traditional forms of entertainment, like dambe, sharo and kokawa; with Pankashali abandoning his kalangu and becoming a maroki; and with our natural desire for leisure and relaxation, governments in shariah states should please consider leaving the gate open for modern forms of entertainment. We welcome any legislation that will prevent the growth of indecency in the film industry, but we would like the industry to remain lively for the opportunities it presents in empowerment and mass mobilization. Ditto for Hausa novels, cinema, video clubs, etc.

Shariah in Zamfara

Shariah in Zamfara


Zamfara is by no coincidence at the center of the Shariah controversy today. There is nothing new about it, after all. For hundreds of years, the kingdom has been a famous center of Islamic scholarship. Legacies of that scholarship have remained an invaluable treasure for succeeding generations. A good example is a small book called Fundamentals of Monotheism popularly known in our traditional school a Kawa’idi. Unlike our present day writers who are quick launch their shallow books amidst the pomp and pageantry of rulers and the rich, the author of Kawa’idi put his in a pot, sealed it and buried it in the soil over two hundred years ago. He prayed that if God accepts his intention as good, might it be unearthed some day and become beneficial to later generations. After about a century, the book was accidentally discovered by a farmer and became, to date, the first title on the syllabus of Islamic jurisprudence in Northern Nigeria. Scholars in Saudi Arabia have tried to write a similar book known as al-Mukarrar, but theirs is no where close to Kawa’idi in being both concise and simple.
In the eighteenth century, Zamfara also saw the birth, growth and struggle of the famous revolutionary, Usman Danfodio. In concert with his brother Abdullahi and his son Bello, they have left behind a literary legacy that has been widely acknowledged both in the East and West. They also left behind at the time of their death, a society that has reached unbelievable heights in ideals of governance, social justice and security.
Since this is not a piece on the historical contribution of the kingdom of Zamfara, let me just sum up this introduction by saying that in the ongoing imbroglio over the application of the shariah, the state is only occupying its natural position in the history of Western Sudan. I have no doubt that were the Shehu to arise from the grave today, he would express delight with the leadership role of his original home, Zamfara, more than his latter day settlements, Sokoto and Kebbi, who are dragging foot on the issue. He would definitely chide his grandchildren, who have named themselves elders, for wanting to be consulted before the shariah is implemented by the state government.

Support
It will be overstating the obvious to say that I support the application of shariah in states that are predominantly Muslim. This is something that I have cherished for about twenty years now, with good reason. It is just unfortunate that most people know very little about the tangible social benefits derivable from the correct application of the shariah. Given our adoption of European style of governance and the training that most of us had in western scholarship, layers of ignorance have impeded us from appreciating the necessity of applying the provisions of Islam to our social lives. Also, since Europeans were the founders of present-day Nigeria, its secular nature, majority of our elite believes, must be preserved as a religious duty we owe our colonial masters. Any attempt to search for values in our indigenous past is seen as retrogression, fanatical and suicidal. It is surprising that even in a democratic setup and the provision of the shariah in the constitution, the elite would wish that the issue would never gain public recognition.
Unfortunately, such people are daily losing ground. Shariah is now on the curriculum of our faculties of law nationwide. It is now a provision in the constitution. The masses in predominantly Muslim areas have massively supported the recent bid to apply it in their communities. Even some Christian clergy have supported it.

Consideration
In the remaining part of the discourse, I would like to discuss certain areas that should be given consideration. This is necessary because I have heard disturbing news about some steps taken by the state government that makes me question both its intention and qualification to implement the shariah. At a time, I even wondered whether it knows what the shariah is all about. I started to imagine if the whole issue is not a CIA plot to discredit Islam as was done in the Sudan during Numeiri. However, Islam demands that I still give the government the benefit of the doubt and accept its intention for now as genuine. It is in light of this that the following observations were made.
Areas that I would like to be given serious consideration are those that are fundamental to the purpose of the shariah and are bound to create more problems than it could possibly solve.

Scope
First is the scope of government involvement in the shariah itself. Would its adoption be restricted to the court of law or is it intended to serve the wider purpose of establishing social justice, the main goal of Islam? Is the government for example ready to give the word ‘shariah’ a more inclusive and liberal definition that would affect all legislation on government policy and conduct? Is the government ready to address, as the shariah demands, the equitable distribution of wealth, privileges and opportunities irrespective of social status and differences in sex, religion, state of origin and so on? Is it ready to fight against the antithesis of shariah like nepotism, bribery, and class or gender segregation? Are its officials and the elite, including the governor and members of his family and political party, ready to be equal with the common man before the law, accepting the paramount supremacy of the judiciary?
If the shariah would be practiced, then no official property (cars, photocopiers and so on) should be used, even for a minute, outside an official engagement, by any government official for his personal reason. All government officials must also patronize government schools, clinics and other social services as everybody does in the society, except at their own cost. The governor will forfeit his constitutional privilege of immunity. If he were Tinubu, Gani would have headed to the courts confidently because every citizen has a locus standi under the shariah. If this is the shariah that Zamfara intends to implement, we welcome it, 100%.

Environment
I raised these issues because it is common knowledge that, unlike western laws, the shariah does not operate in a vacuum. It is not just a catalogue of provisions that could be picked any day and applied anywhere without cultivating the requisite environment to match it. If I was a Qadi, and an unemployed graduate is brought before me charged with theft for example, I will not chop off his hand. With over seventy percent of the population living below the poverty level in this country, the responsibility of the shariah first is to create jobs, tax the rich heavily in addition to zakat. It is also necessary to suspend the shariah injunction for chopping off the hand of the thief under such circumstance as Caliph Omar did once when they experienced a poor harvest in Medina.
This point is pertinent especially if we realize that punishments for crimes were revealed only in Medina, after the first Islamic community has been formed and consolidated under the egalitarian leadership of the Prophet. Even where prohibitions were legislated, as we saw in the case of intoxicants, the legislation was gradual to allow the society prepare for the cultural accommodation of the prohibition. There was also a gap between prohibitions and the attendant punishments on their violations. Adultery for example was prohibited in Mecca but its punishment was revealed only later in Medina. All this was to allow some time for adjustment.
I therefore urge governments that are bent on applying the shariah to exercise some patience and build the necessary foundation necessary its the application before applying its punitive measures. Let them tackle the social roots of crime first. So instead of chopping off the hand of the graduate, I would recommend that he be immediately found a job. In addition, I will summon the governor to explain why he left a graduate unemployed, or why he left the poor hungry during hard economic periods. If the graduate is employed but not paid by government for the past three months or he is paid a paltry sum, I will hold the governor responsible for his failure to honor the shariah provisions regarding labor rights and relations.

Liberty
There is also the problem of encroachment on personal liberty of citizens. For example, what has the government got to do with beards and turbans? Jurists have never considered these matters and many similar ones as falling within the jurisdiction of government. That is why the entire Muslim world condemned such measures by the Taliban when it introduced them in 1996.
Let us consider two extremes. One is prayer which is obligatory on Muslims, five times a day. Attending its congregation, except for the Friday early afternoon prayer, is not compulsory as held by the majority of jurists. Also, no one should be spied upon to see whether he prays or not. Where government will come in is when someone renounces prayer publicly, then the law would treat him accordingly. I find it unnecessary the injunction on closure of shops at prayer times practiced in Saudi Arabia for example. It makes the whole concept of Ikhtiyar (choice) on timing of prayer rubbish. Only the Friday congregation could be accorded such status. We have not seen this in the ideal Medinite society of the Prophet or in the days of his guided Caliphs or even in the Sokoto caliphate. That is why we do not see such government interference in the Sudan or Iran.
The other extreme is the abolition of alcohol. There is no ‘Abolition Act’ in Islam as we had in America in 1930s. I see no reason why beer parlors should be scrapped entirely in the state, so long as non-Muslims exist therein. Again, when we go back to ideal Medinite community of the Prophet or when Islamic civilization reached its peak in Damascus, Baghdad, Cordoba or Fatimid Egypt, we find no such over-zealousness. Beer was sold in Medina during and after the lifetime of the Prophet. In fact, alcohol and Islam have always coexisted because Muslims have throughout their history lived with Jews, Christians and polytheists. It must be noted that alcohol is only prohibited to Muslims. Non-Muslims in an Islamic state are free to consume it. Let them be intoxicated with it one thousand times a day, if they choose. It is no business of any Muslim individual or government. If it requires a license to brew and sell, the non-Muslims have the right in an Islamic state to demand for one from the governor who must issue it, unfailingly. Of course, the Muslims have the right to protest its unrestricted consumption in their midst. A compromise over the centuries was always reached by restricting its sale to areas away from town centers where the majority of the population reside.
This has been the nature of the Muslim states of Hausaland after the Jihad. No one ever stopped the likes of Alu Na-Bagara, Shehu Na-Soba and their ancestors from brewing and consuming alcohol in their communities or in the outskirts of our cities. In my 400-year-old village, Tilde, which is located just outside the city of Jos but in Bauchi State and under the Bauchi emirate, we live here together with non-Muslims. The consumption of alcohol however has always been in the outskirts of the city either in the houses of some non-Muslims that served as mini-markets in the past or in the open theatre of bauda on the market day. Now bauda is dead. The trade is modernized. Beer is now sold in parlors at a neighborhood called zango where non-Muslims form the majority today. My house is directly neighboring zango and we live cordially in mutual respect. On Tuesday nights, the atmosphere may smell bad for members of my family, but we tolerate it since my father who was by far more stringent on issues of Islam also tolerated it. In fact, the entire zango and beyond was his land. He gave it mostly free to his Christian and polytheist friends early this century when they came down from the surrounding Shere hills to settle in the valley. The following morning, we are together, with the drinkers of last night, building my house, planting and weeding my lawn, chatting in the garden or pursuing one productive venture or another.
After reading the history of Islam, I now find it repugnant whenever our youth in Kano or Katsina for example attack beer parlors or hotels in the name of Islam. If we want to implement the shariah in our states, we have to respect the recognition that Islam gives to the diversity of human culture and creed. We have to know who has what right and who has not. We have to also delineate areas of government jurisdiction and define its extent under the shariah. Areas that are exclusive preserves of the individual must never be tampered with.
That is why I am alarmed at the patronage the Zamfara State government gives to some foreign scholars. This is totally needless. We have the caliber we need in this country. Our able teachers, like Malam Isa Talatan Mafara, are there, well read and accommodating. Also, our society differs substantially from others, a fact that will engender differences in views on jurisprudence. Codes that infringe on the freedom of the individual, that entrench class discordance or gender emasculation will never gain our support. I, in particular, will be most vociferous in attacking them. Islamic jurisprudence of monolithic Muslim societies differs from that of mixed societies or where Muslims are a minority as in Europe and America today.
A lot of caution therefore has to be exercised on issues of individual liberty particularly for the fact that many religious governments have been prone to abuse of liberty of its citizens. It is however my belief that such encroachments are avoidable if the principles of Islam are followed. Social psychologists believe that religion, that ‘hypothetical stranger’, is more of an enemy than a friend. Finally, we must not forget that the yardstick of social justice with which any society is measured is by how fairly it treats its weak and minorities.

Dynamism
Let’s touch on the important issue of dynamism of Islamic jurisprudence. The shariah as described in the Quran and the authenticated Traditions lays the foundation of jurisprudence. Details to be built on this foundation would vary from one society to another and from one time to another. Scholars have over the centuries shouldered the responsibility of meeting the jurisprudential demands of their societies based on their understanding of those fundamentals in the shariah and against a background of their experience, knowledge and wisdom. When following generations like ours come across those texts, they must read them with the understanding of the social peculiarities in which their authors lived. No opinion of a jurist should be regarded as divine, but only an option among a variety opened to us today. We are free to choose for purposes of adaptation, whenever the need arises, that which is in the best interest of our community without being dogmatic about one school of thought or another.
There is difference between the social set up of our society and others, between our past and the present. Virtually all leading Islamic scholars in the world have touched on this aspect of fiqh. Our scholars however have largely remained out of touch with, sometimes even contemptuous of, such views. This is surprising because Usman Danfodio also shared the view that fiqh is dynamic and that scholars of a given generation are the best qualified to comment of matters relating to its jurisprudence.
Let me illustrate my point. An Islamic scholar interviewed by Weekly Trust flatly declared Chief M. K. O. Abiola’s will as un-Islamic because according to his understanding, Islam does not recognize anything like DNA test. To me the scholar is impervious to scientific development. If I were a Qadi, given my acquaintance with science, I will recommend DNA test in all paternal disputes. I believe if such a technique was available at the time of the Prophet, he would have used it. Areas of scientific discoveries that cannot be adopted outright in Islamic jurisprudence are those that are liable to error. Genetic tests are incredibly perfect just like fingerprints.
Both government and citizens today are faced with challenges posed by the ever-increasing complexity of societies and advances of scientific knowledge and technique. The ulema, in particular, have to standup and re-formulate jurisprudence in light of such developments. To close their eyes against them would lead to social stagnation and repugnance.

Conflict
One obvious area of conflict would be how the shariah would be subjected to the superceding powers of federal laws and constitution. Who will enforce the shariah? The present police force? Which prisons? The present dehumanizing ones? For example, the shariah does not accept government spying and burgling into offices, homes and telephones. How does Mr. President apply his anti-corruption bill in Zamfara State using these anti-shariah means?
Again, what happens to the whole shariah project in Zamfara if the National Assembly that is under the armpit of the President reviewed the constitution throwing out its provision? What happens if the Federal government takes Zamfara State to court arguing that its understanding of the shariah is totally different? What happens if an anti-shariah governor or legislature takes over Zamfara in the next election?

The Future
The following few months will definitely be a test for both the Federal government and the Zamfara state government. Those who are against Muslims practicing their religion, or those who feel that Muslims, as a majority in their home states, have to abandon their rights for the sake of their minority guests, will press the Federal government to scuttle the noble efforts of Zamfara State. The state government, and indeed many other states in the North will on their part count on the massive support they enjoy from millions of their citizens and a constitutional provision that could be abrogated.
It seems the field is gradually getting ready for the mother of all battles. The southern press that could not have the moral courage to expose Tinubu has quickly mustered the guts to attack the application of the shariah in Zamfara State using all sorts of lies. But when the dust settles finally, the result would either be Zamfara regaining the glorious position of its ancestors or the present Federal government would succeed in making us believe that the country belongs to only a section of the elite.

Shariah and Israel

Shariah and Israel

This article would have come eight months ago. I still believe it is not out of place. My attention was drawn the increasing romance between some governments in the North and the state of Israel.
For two reasons, I am not seriously concerned about what relationship exists between the Federal government and the Zionist state, especially under the present leadership. One, anybody that voted for Obasanjo must have known that consolidation of our relationship with Israel, once he is in power, will be a foregone conclusion. It is what the Hausa refers to as barewa ba ta gudu danta ya yi rarrafe. He belongs to the same class in international relations as Former President Ibrahim Babangida, who normalized our diplomatic relationship with Israel. Since the duo are likely to continue determining which direction the affairs of our nation take, given the resources at their disposal, we have to learn how to live with them and their ideas. America is their goal.
Two, beyond the personal level, the Federal government is also free to choose partners in matters within its jurisdiction. If a section of Nigerians are interested in maintaining a relationship with Israel, no matter its policy regarding its Arab population, fine; the government is free to serve their wish if it is so interested. Tomorrow, if another government comes with a different ideology that sees much evil in the state terrorism perpetrated by Israel, it has every right to severe relations with it, given the fact that there is another section of Nigerians that share that feeling. International relations have never been fixed. Whenever there is a change of government, they are adjusted, or sometimes changed completely, to conform to the ideological colorations of the new government.
Having said this, I have five reasons why states with predominant Muslim populations should not seek to establish relationship with Israel. Let’s ride on …

The golden rule
One, we must realize that in a federation and especially during democracy, the federal government has no right to impose trade policies on state and local governments. What they do with the funds they generate or those allocated to them from the federation account is purely their business. Sokoto State, for example, has every right to determine from which country it buys a fabric or any industrial product. Likewise, the state is free to enter into bilateral agreements with any country with which we have a trade relationship. The converse is also true. It has the right to refuse relating with any country unwillingly. What determines the choice of partners, even in trade, is the interest of the population of Sokoto State.
Two, at the state level, the governor has to take into cognizance the values of his community. Nigeria correctly regards itself as a nation. However, that does not dissolve the differences in the value systems of its composite units. Such values vary from one region to another, from one state to another and, in some considerations, from one community to another. The essence of a federation that comprises states and local governments is essentially to allow for the manifestation of such differences at the local level, of course to a degree that will not be detrimental to national security.
Now if we extend this argument to the arena of international relations, we will find that certain states have a greater affinity to some countries than others. Reasons for that, as we mentioned before, especially in developing countries, has to do with common geography, history or culture. For example, Kano and Borno States are more likely to relate with the Republics of Niger and Chad respectively, because of their common border, culture and history, than any state in southern Nigeria. Similarly, we do not expect states with predominantly Christian populations, like Plateau or Edo, to relate with Islamic Republic of Iran, Sudan or even secular Turkey. We understand and respect their difficulty in doing so.
In the same vein, no one should frown at a blossoming relationship between Zamfara and Saudi Arabia. They have a common Islamic identity; they share the same worldview. Their sensitivities will be the same and in international relations they are likely to fall within the same divide. This is a golden rule.

Values
Now, democracy has returned and along with it is the freedom in the management of resources by state governments, unlike what obtained under military rule. We have seen governors and local government chairmen shuttling around the globe, trying hard to source trade and cultural partners, following the good footsteps of their President who has the highest frequency of foreign trips in the history of nations.
Largely, these shuttles are guided by the golden rule that we mentioned above. For example, though Abia State has had difficulty in securing meat, it has not made any effort to import cattle or beef from Niger Republic, or joining the international livestock market at Maigatari, as did Jigawa State. The tradition also is for Benue to look westward in everything and eastward only in Hajj. Therefore, for Muslim states to seek establishing trade relations with Israel, this golden rule has been violated.
Three, trade does not hang somewhere in the air. It is tied to values. No one taught us this better than the Americans that many of us would like to consider as masters. Why should Liberia, for example, be sanctioned other than its support for the rebel groups that have unleashed terror on the civilian population in Sierra Leone? Why Iraq, Libya, UNITA, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, etc? It is because these countries and groups have in one way or another something that the ‘Security’ Council claims to be violations of UN charters and natural justice as defined by the West.
Trade sanction is a suitable, or say convenient, way of punishing and incapacitating them. For over a decade now, Iraq is not allowed to sell it oil, and, in spite of the suffering of its civilian population – children dying of hunger and lack of essential drugs – the Insecurity Council, as it has truly turned out to be, remains firm on its resolutions on Iraq. We should not forget that not long ago some Nigerian prophets of human rights went begging America to unleash the same type of sanctions on this country. Unknown to them, the Americans knew where their eggs lie.
The fact is that trading with a partner is an approval of his conduct and a support to his economy. To trade with Israel is to accommodate its atrocities and increasing its prowess. This will be the last wish of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria who take the security of their Arab brothers in Palestine seriously.

Agriculture
Four, taking agriculture as an example, where some people see Israel as a model, consideration should be given to our golden rule and nothing makes Israel exceptional there. In fact, except for irrigation, I cannot see any reason why we will be keen to learn from a country that has a different ecology than ours. It is a desert country with scarcity of water and land. My local government for example is a savannah with eight months of rainfall, all year streams and a large arable landmass that can feed the country. Their constraints are not mine.
There is an ecological danger in doing so especially when it comes to crop protection. The risk of introducing species of pests and pathogens, which can upset the centuries old ecological balance of the savannah, is very high, just as it happened to the poultry industry in the mid-eighties. So even on technical grounds, seeking technical assistance from Israel does not make sense. Brazil or Mexico on the other hand is a better choice. In irrigation, we have a lot to learn from our African neighbors, especially those living along the Nile valley. We have traded in plant and animal species with them for centuries without the risk of endangering our ecological equilibrium. To crown it all, we have not exhausted the research done locally in the past forty years and there are many experts here at home ever ready to make their services available.

Transgression
Five, let’s call a spade a spade. Israel, right from the terrorism and conspiracy that gave birth to its creation in 1948 to the atrocities it perpetrates today, is a negation of our concept of social justice. We hereby categorically state that we are not, unlike others, at all comfortable with the injustices carried out against Palestinians: decades of murders of innocent civilian Muslims and Christians, driving them out of their homes, sending them away into neighboring countries, occupying their houses thereafter, and refusing them to return to the land of their grandfathers. In Islam, one of the greatest injustices is to kill an innocent life or drive him out of his home on no just cause. Muslims are instructed to relate generously with anyone, regardless of his religion, once he can fulfill its condition for social justice. This is explicitly stated in Mumtahanah, the chapter in the Quran that deals with what we today call international relations. It says:

“God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just.
“God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.” (60: 8-9).

We do not have any problem selling this idea in the past. That is why Egypt and other Arab countries were able to convince other African countries to severe diplomatic relations with the Zionist state, until when they agreed to restore it. But our argument here goes beyond the premise of African nationalism on which that argument was built. It is based on the universal ideal of social justice. We consider the state of Israel as a violator of the rights of Palestinians.
If America were not the patron of Israel, there would have been little difficulty in punishing Israel until it conforms to UN resolutions protecting and affirming the right of Palestinians to return to their land. UN resolutions are enforced only if it pertains Iraq or Sudan. They are discarded if they call Israel to live up to standard of civilization.
Where are the Marxist academicians that supported sanctions against Israel? What happened to the lectures of Dr. Patrick Wilmot and many others who were always keen in equating apartheid with Zionism? Where are his students? America has taken over the world, and everybody is made to bow before the majesty of its ideology and economy. Actually, our memories were short. We have forgotten that when the state of Israel was declared in 1948, President Truman of the United States was the first to recognize it. He was immediately followed by the Soviet Union. For the twelve years that followed, the socialist state of Czechoslovakia was the biggest supplier of arms to Israel. Also, the largest immigration of Jews into Palestine was from communist Russia.
However, Muslims have an additional responsibility, beyond the rhetoric of the UN and socialism. There is an escalation of violence against the Palestinian population, especially with the recent election of Sharon. In addition, we must boycott its trade and turn down its offers. We should not waste our time, because states that have established relationship with Israel have little benefit to show apart from the sentiments. They have forgotten that the Jews never respected Christians in history. Christians are more humiliated today in Israel than Muslims.
Jewish history has shown that they never had any regard for Jesus, which is why they attempted to crucify him. They exiled his disciples. They were responsible for economic ills of Europe, a fact that resulted in their persecution. When they were exiled in the middle ages, they had no safe haven except the Muslim territories under the Ottoman Empire, which had the commitment to social justice that they needed for survival. Allowing them to migrate to Israel is a conspiracy of the British that was designed to achieve two goals: one, sending them out Europe, and two, at the same time using them as a pebble in the shoe of the Arabs and Muslims. Both purposes have been achieved.
Here in Nigeria, democracy is promising us freedom of activity, within the limits of law. If others, for reasons best known to them, are delighted to take Zionists as partners, we should also be allowed to swim in the delight of taking them as transgressors that murder our brothers in Palestine, regardless of whether they are Muslims or Christians.

Conclusion
This message is specifically important to Governors proclaiming Shariah. They should understand that Shariah demands that they stand firm in the face of injustice. There is no injustice worse than what the Palestinians are undergoing. Since the wave of their expulsions took off under the supervision of the British in the 1930s, a third generation of their population is growing in tents. We cannot tolerate this. If we cannot fight against it physically, we should not take any step that will strengthen the aggressor.
Citizens in Shariah states have the responsibility to call their governors to order. Nothing in existence as a federation demands that we should be insensitive to the conditions of humanity in other parts of the world, especially if they are our brothers in faith, culture and history. To proclaim shariah and support an aggressor is a contradiction. We should listen to the call of Islamic jurists like Dr. Yusuf Qardawi, who in the past six months has said it time without number that Muslims the world over should adjust the terms of their relationship with Israel. They must, as a sign of support to Palestinians, boycott Israeli and American products and force them to accept that killing a Palestinians is not as simple as killing a fly.
Here at home, let Israel admire our land and water resources and attempt to lure us with its empty promises. The resources will remain ours. We are willing to go into partnership only with those that have regard to human values, not those that preach and practice racial bigotry and survive on robbing and murdering innocent Muslims and Christians in our beloved and blessed land of Palestine.

20.2.01

Shariah and Restructuring Nigeria

Shariah and Restructuring Nigeria

If any politician in the country is challenged to gather a voluntary crowd of a million people in support of any secular issue, not to share loot, but say democracy in Nigeria, the obvious answer is that he will decline to take it up. It is just impossible. The so-called two million-man march held during Abacha did cost the nation a big fortune. Yet, the attendance, by any honest estimate, was only some few hundreds of thousand. The pro-democracy rally that followed in Lagos was a more dramatic failure.
On October 27, 1999 however, the Zamfara state government did gather a crowd of well over a million people. No one could claim that the people who trooped the city of Gusau from near and far that day were sponsored. Their transport, feeding and accommodation arrangements were all personal. The governor himself could not hold back his tears at the unimaginable and unexpected assembly. Those who would like to know what the Muslims masses in the country care for most should give this event the relevance it deserves. There is no doubt that the incident alone shows that Muslim masses are interested in their religion more than any other thing, including the ongoing political hype called democracy.
Our scholars who thought that religion has ceased to be relevant to our civic affairs should better come into grip with this mountain of reality before it is late. Events like this has proved that efforts to inculcate secular values on the population after a century of effort, characterized by a brutal combination of terror, waste of resources and subtle persuasion, have not been better than chasing a shadow. Nigeria has gone full cycle in the centennial clock of history.
I believe that it is time for reevaluation of the structure on which our polity is built. Muslims have every right to demand for an Islamic government, not only its legal system – the shariah. They also have every fact to prove that their experience in belonging to the modern Nigerian ‘federation’ by giving up their cultural values and adopting a secular system of governance has proved to be a disaster. After a hundred years, this exotic system has, one, failed to move Nigerians from the position of excruciating subservience to their colonial conquerors in terms of economy, technology and military prowess. The gap is ever widening, making sham of our independence. Two, simple social guarantees that should have been given to all citizens in the past thirty years have proved illusive. Most governments performed miserably in this respect through administrative incompetence and selfish material accumulation. Successive governments have failed to secure the lives and properties of citizens. Thousands of Nigerians lose their lives daily in avoidable eventualities that include disease, poverty, road accidents, robbery, etc. An aggregation of incompetence, ignorance and craze for control over material resources has reduced to a mirage the actualization of a social equilibrium that is necessary for peaceful coexistence, progress and happiness.
The whole nation has remained a captive of some elite, who with access to western education have monopolized resources and hoarded them away from the majority. Their intra-class conflicts and contradictions have many times caused untold hardship to common man, sometimes costing him his life and property.
I also believe that all this misadventure is caused by nothing but the fanatical adherence to the dogma of a single, ‘united’ Nigeria that must remain at all cost secular in substance and unitary in configuration. It turns a blind eye on the peculiarities of our nationalities that have existed for centuries. Overnight, the sponsors of this doctrine among the military and the intelligentsia meditate that we will acquiesce to live in the vacuum of secularity and forsake centuries of our heritage, all in the name of nationalism.
Well, if it is possible for other nationalities to capitulate and regard the present orchestration as progress in the right direction, many parts of the North, and I believe a good segment of the Southwest also, have discernible rationale to object and thus remonstrate genuinely. If others were living in perpetual anarchy, without a common leader ever in their history, this part of the country has lived for centuries under organized governments with all the political structures and complexities that characterizes a modern state. No doubt the system has been subject to abuse at some times, as any other in the past or present, depending on the personalities running it. However, an indisputable fact is that it had provided the necessary social protection and economic security for its citizens. Under such protection they led a productive living to the extent of exporting their industrial products to other parts of the world. At its best periods, even British explorers like Clapperton have confessed that it was so successful that even a woman could safely walk in the land carrying a basket of gold without any fear of molestation. Today, even the brave cannot sleep in his house with both eyes closed.
To think that people will continue to accept the imposition of the present impotent system is simply either a manifestation of an elitist tyranny and their insensitivity. Independence means choice and so does democracy. The only way to peace is to acknowledge our differences and respect them. Trivializing them will only breed frustration and discontent, the precursors to violence.
It is important that our elite realize that no nation can be sustained by obligation. There has to be a shared identity that is strong enough to bind its contradicting parts. It could be language, religion, history and so on, varying from one society to another. In its absence, no ideology or force could avert disintegration in the face of the slightest challenge.
In Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union, we have seen the rise and fall of communism, the utopian creed of egalitarianism based on dialectical materialism. Today, these one time great nations have disintegrated along their ethnic and or religious lines despite the futile effort of maintaining them at the immense expense of lives and property. The strength of creed, despite the brutal application of state terror and propaganda, has failed to sustain them. China on the other hand is still kicking with continuously revised forms of the ideology. It is largely saved from similar ruptures due the relative cultural harmony of its ethnic groups. America, which may appear as an exception to the rule and a model for our dreaming intellectuals and power brokers, is held together by the common history of its dominant white population and the sophistication of its technology. Should anything throw a spanner into the works of its security system, it will definitely witness the most destructive and the most rapid disintegration of a civilization to be recorded in history. Most European nations however, unlike America, have for centuries remained demarcated on ethnic affinities rather than trade or ideology. Where different ethnic groups have to live together by imperatives of geography they appreciated their difference and went for a confederation in order to remain together.
These are the hard facts that cannot be denied by the parroting ideologues of our present secular and unitary ‘federation’. We neither have the common identity for such a structure nor the resources to maintain it. Our ancestors in the past knew very well that when empires are made of different ethnic groups, maintaining them under a single line of command from the center becomes onerous, eventually leading to their collapse. Hence, the founders of the Sokoto Caliphate opted for a federation of states, recognizing the long-standing history of their peoples and cultures. The flags were symbols of their large degree of autonomy from the center. This strategy worked for a complete century without challenging the position of Sokoto as the center. It was a true federation despite the common identity of Islam as a religion.
Colonialists also kept the Northern Protectorate distant from the other regions for quite some time. The decision to amalgamate them was not received without opposition in Britain. After it was done, it has been sustained only with a staggering amount of fatigue. Thus all the major ethnic groups have at one time or another showed their interest to de-amalgamate.
The Southwest and ‘Biafra’ are making noise on restructuring for reasons best known to them. The Muslim North, with the Shariah development, will soon find that this is its best time to cave in. No sensible leader can afford to abuse the aspiration of the unbelievable crowd that voluntarily gathered in Gusau last month. Shariah is our life. If restructuring is the only thing that will warrant its full implementation, so be it.
My only hope is that the doyen of American democracy, the secular ideologue and those who benefit most from the present unitary structure including the so-called minorities, will allow the water of our yearnings to flow along the steepest gradient of the political landscape. To do otherwise is to fight against the indomitable force of gravity. It will require enormous energy, something they are losing fast. In the long run however, they must accept the bitter fact that a stone thrown at the sky will only end up back on earth. We wish it a safe landing.