Dear Members,
Al-salaamu alaykum wa rahmat-Allaahi wa barakaatuhu (Peace be upon you,
and the mercy of Allaah and His blessings).
I am continuing with the writings of Brother Sanusi Lamido of Nigerai.I hope
you find this part interesting and thought-provoking.

ISLAM, PROBITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY:

A Critical Essay in

History, Philosophy and Law

by

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

The topic I was given by the organisers of this lecture was "Islam, Probity
and Accountability". It is a topic whose choice was influenced, no doubt, by
the sad state of our country and many Muslim States, where corruption and
lack of accountability have become something of a cancer eating into the
fabric of society and uprooting every social value, structure and
institution from its very foundations.

As I see it, there are two possible approaches to this lecture. The first is
to stand here and assert, with all sense of self-righteousness, the truism
that Islam preaches probity and accountability. This would involve a
narration, parrot-like, of the various Qur'anic verses preaching Probity and
Accountability as well as Traditions of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.), anecdotes
from the lives of the rightly guarded Khulafa', the Sahaba, the Tabi'in and
great pious rulers like ‘Umar ibn Abdul 'Azeez. At the end of the day
everyone here would clap, cheer, feel good and generally have the
satisfaction of having heard a good lecture. But to do this is to merely
engage in an exercise best described as the masturbation (if you forgive the
term) of our collective egos. It states the obvious, avoids the difficult
and in no way contributes to the purpose of such a gathering. To say that
Islam preaches probity and accountability, and to try to prove it to a
Muslim audience, is a most ridiculous intellectual exercise. It will only
serve the purpose of Tahseel al-haseel (attaining that which is already
attained); for every Muslim surely knows that not just Islam, but every
world-view or civilization worth its name, preaches accountability and
probity. Even Godless systems do so as evidenced by the recent execution in
Communist China of fourteen persons for acts of financial corruption.

There is, however, a second approach: more complex, less palatable and
certainly more offensive to certain sensibilities. It is an approach which
asks a historically valid question which begs eternally to be answered: why
is it that inspite of the fact that we all know, academically or
intuitively, that corruption in all its forms is unIslamic, it remains a
pervasive feature permeating Muslim communities? Why have Muslim leaders,
including those who have ruled Nigeria in the recent past, not been a
paragon of probity and accountability? Why has the crime of corruption not
engaged the Muslim mind with the same intensity as, say, the absence of the
hijab among women or the exclusion of hudud (fixed punishments) from the
Penal Code? In simple terms, why is it that over a long period and spreading
over a large part of the Muslim world, the teachings of Islam on probity and
accountability have been one thing, the practice of Muslim people and their
leaders a completely different thing?

It is my view that the answer to this question is to be found necessarily in
a reasoned analysis of the anatomy of corruption, specifically (1) how it
came to be embedded in the body politic of the ummah, (2) how the ummah's
mindset was conditioned to tolerate it and (3) how an elaborate legal
framework was set-up which,however ,effectively by-passes the menace,
allowing it to thrive even where an Islamic legal system is, in theory,
operational.

The first point is an excursion into history, specifically the fitnah, the
early conflicts and the end of the rightly-guided khilafa.

The second is an excursion into philosophy and particularly ethics, with
specific focus on the misapprehension of the necessary connection between
metaphysical theism and our morality which, I will argue, represents some
degree of impairment to our conception of Tawhid, and our full belief in the
absolute unity of Allah the One as the source of our existence and values;

The third is an excursion into Shariah law as we know it, and an examination
of the limitations imposed on its scope by politics as well as the failure
of scholars to rise to the responsibilities implied by the flexibility of
its injunctions.

I have therefore taken the liberty to slightly amend the topic I was given
by introducing the sub-title you read above, (A critical essay in History,
Philosophy and Law) as an outline of the intellectual course I hope we will
chart together, a trip that may be discomfiting to some, tumultuous to
others, sickening to a few, but hopefully in the end worthwhile and
enriching, opening before us new vistas in thinking, breaking old barriers
and challenging the structures which served as mitigants to the progress of
the Ummah in this regard.

Historical Nemesis: the Umayyad Legacy

The coming of Islam and the establishment of the prophetic state marked a
watershed in exemplary leadership in the area of accountability and probity.
The true Islamic spirit in this regard, consistent with the Sunnah of the
prophet (S.A.W.) was maintained throughout the reign of three out of the
four caliphs of the early period and over a substantial part of the
Caliphate of Uthman. The example set by Abubakar, Umar and Ali in this area
is difficult to relate in it's entirety. Where does one begin?

Abubakar's first Khutbah set the tone for his leadership: "Now O People! I
have been made your ruler though I am not the best among you. If I do what
is right support me. If I do what is wrong set me right. Follow what is true
for it contains faithfulness, avoid what is false for it contains treachery.
The weaker among you shall in my eyes be the stronger, until, if Allah will,
I have redressed his wrong; the stronger shall in my eyes be the weaker
until, if Allah will, I have enforced justice upon him. Let the people not
cease fighting in Allah's way lest He abase them; let not evil practices
arise among the people, lest Allah bring punishment upon all of them. Obey
me as I obey Allah and His messenger; if I disobey them, then do you disobey
me". These are the words of a man changed neither his residence nor his mode
of living when he became a ruler. He refused to take a salary until his
companions forced him and even then, on his deathbed he commanded that all
he had received from the treasury during his tenure should be counted up and
repaid out of his property and his lands.

Or do I begin with the second Caliph, Umar b. al-Khattab who said in his
second sermon to his people: "O people! It is your duty, if I show certain
evil qualities, to reprove me for them. You must see that I do not exact
from you any tax or anything of what Allah has given you, except that which
He allows. You must see that when I have control of the money nothing should
be spent improperly…etc". This is 'Umar, who used to say: "The property of
Allah has the same standing with me as that of an orphan; If I have no need
of it, I will leave it untouched, and if I need it, I will take only what is
right". Asked what his entitlement from the treasury should be, Umar
replied: "Two sets of clothing, one for the summer, one for the winter.
Enough to perform the Hajj and sufficient to provide me with food for myself
and my household on the level of a man of Quraish who is neither overrich
nor overpoor`. Beyond that I am an ordinary Muslim, and I share the lot of
all Muslims".

Or do I begin with Ali, commander of the Faithful, who took over the
caliphate at a time of great tumult, and who was grievously wronged by the
dissent of some Companions? Ali who used to eat barley meal, hand ground by
his wife, and who used to seal the meal-bag with the words "I like to know
what is entering my stomach". Ali who as Amir used often to sell his sword
to get money to buy food and clothing, who disliked the "White Castle" in
Kufa and preferred living among the poor. 'Utba ibn 'Alqama once visited Ali
and found him sitting with sour curds in front of him. Their sourness and
dryness vexed 'Utba who said: " O Commander of the Faithful do you eat this
stuff?" He answered " Abu Janub, Allah's Messenger used to eat it drier than
this and used to wear clothes coarser than these" - and he pointed to his
own clothes - "and if I do not accept what he did, then I fear I will not
join him in the hereafter". The piety and asceticism of Ali are legendary.

It is obvious that so far I have skipped the third Caliph, Uthman,
Zun-nurain, twice the son-in-law of the Prophet. Uthman, compiler of the
Qur'an provider for the companions in times of need, of whom the prophet
once said "nothing Uthman does after today will hurt him". The greatness of
Uthman in Islam is unquestioned; he was one of the six left at 'Umar's death
with whom the prophet was fully pleased when he left this world. But the
truth, and the truth be said, is that no discussion of accountability and
probity in Islam and how the Muslim Ummah lost these values is complete
without a discussion of the reign of Uthman and, more profoundly, the rule
of his clan, the Umayyads over the Muslim world.

'Uthman became Caliph in old age and lasted for 12 years. The first six
years were in keeping with the Sunnah of the Messenger and of Abubakr and
'Umar. Then old age

set in, and some of 'Uthman's greatest strengths became weaknesses - he
loved his family, and in old age became hostage to them. He was generous in
spirit and in old age allowed profligacy with public funds. He held that as
Imam he had the right to give public funds as gifts and allowances. When
Harith ibn al-Hakam married Uthman's daughter, the latter gave hin 200,000
dirhams from the public Treasury leading to a showdown with and removal of
Zaid ibn Arqam from his position as treasurer. 'Uthman gave al-Zubair
600,000 dirhams one day, and Talha 200,000 and presented his cousin Marwan
b. Hakam with one-fifth of the land tax of the entire province of Ifriqiyya.
The Companions expostulated with him but he insisted that he had a duty to
take care of his relatives and kinsmen. Most of the latter day actions of
Uthman were carried out under the influence of his family, the Bamu Umayya.
Abu Sufyan, the prophet's arch-enemy who refused to join Islam until the
defeat of his forces in Makkah, and who even after joining Islam had nothing
but contempt for Islamic values, especially the high esteem in which early
Companions who he considered "slaves" like Bilal, Salman and Suhaib were
held, was still alive. Like a mother-hen, he gathered his flock around him.
He guided his son, Muawiya, his nephews Uthman and Marwan b. Hakam, and
other Umayyads like al-Hakam b. al-As [who had been expelled by the prophet
but rehabilitated by 'Uthman], Abdullah ibn. Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh, and so on.
Marwan had unlimited control of the Treasury, he dispensed gifts as he
wished, supported oppressive Umayyad governors and ruthlessly destroyed
dissenting voices. Abu Zarr, the prophet's companion was exiled for his
strident criticism of the prodigality of the Umayyads. At the end of the
day, the excesses of Uthman's appointees led to the fitnah in which he was
sadly killed. But the seeds of corruption had been sown.

'Ali took over the Khilafa at a point when the Umayyads had been
strengthened. They had control of armies and had amassed substantial wealth.
Under the pretext of fighting for the blood of Uthman the Umayyads waged a
war against the seat of Islamic power, the caliphate, but no sooner had Ali
died than did it become apparent that all they wanted was power. Muawiya
appointed himself the "first of the Muslim Arab Kings", forced everyone to
accept him and his conversion of the Khilafa into a hereditary monarchy with
his son, Yazid as his successor. Muawiya fought Ali with the aid of the
Kalbi Arab tribes and the old Syrian aristocracy and set up a new political
economy which Nazih Ayubi describes as a "lineage/Iqta'i symbiosis". The
Umayyads became feudal lords; their Jahili pride in Arab supremacy became
once more ascendant and non-Arabs were gradually marginalized. All
restrictions on the public treasury were removed and it became a legitimate
source of public plunder for the kings, their courtiers and their
sycophants.

This was the system that lasted over one hundred years with the one
exception of the Umayyad Caliph 'umar ibn Abdul-Aziz. So we see how in the
formative period of Islam a corrupt aristocracy without regard for
accountability and probity ruled the Ummah. It is inevitable that the long
reign of the Umayyads set the tone for how subsequent Muslim leaders would
see themselves. The attitude continued throughout Islam's long history. Even
today, in the oil-rich sheikhdoms of the Muslim world, the Royal families
are not accountable to the people in their management of the Treasury. Saudi
Arabia is the world's foremost defender of Islam, of the pristine purity of
the Sunnah and of the early Muslims; yet it is common knowledge that the
Saudi Royalty is , to mince words, not exactly a paragon of accountability
and probity.

All of this has been made possible by an intellectual superstructure, a
moral philosophy that encourages acquiescence to the rule of corrupt and
despotic rulers. Although the Umayyads themselves were beneficiaries of a
rebellion against Ali, it soon became standard Sunni doctrine that rebellion
against unjust and corrupt rulers was unIslamic. In what follows I examine
the nature of this philosophy, and then proceed to the legal superstructure
to which it gave rise [in the name of the Shariah] before concluding.

PHILOSOPHY: The Evolution of a Moral Ethic

A system can not survive for a long time without conditioning the mind-set
of the populace. The early Muslim monarchies, despite everything said above,
played major roles in prosecuting Jihads and expanding the frontiers of the
empire, providing the young faith with the political and military protection
required for its survival. Gradually, people came to accept bribery and
corruption as an acceptable feature of political leadership. This
acquiescence was attained partly by the genuine conviction that the benefits
of political stability outweighed the costs of corruption; partly through
the ruthless suppression of political dissent and denial of fundamental
Human rights and freedoms; but also largely through an elaborate
philosophical framework, principally within Sunni Islam, which makes it an
Islamic duty to "listen and obey" corrupt despots so long as they pray.

The question of ethics in public policy is a fundamental philosophical
question, which is relevant to all states and societies. Islamic philosophy
in all its dimensions ultimately goes back to the principle of Tawhid
[Monotheism]. Allah is the source of all knowledge, all guidance, all
existence and all morality. A truly Islamic epistemology, ethic, ideology or
science must therefore find its locus within the Divine Reality, and fit
into the essential unity of Allah, the One.

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, Islamic ethics in the area of
public policy lost its essential contact with Divine Reality. The ulama,
deliberately or by accident, gave prominence to certain hadiths which were
interpreted in a manner that made it incumbent on people to accept lack of
probity and accountability. This was particularly true of Sunni Islam.

Among the Shiites, it was a different story. The principle of 'Adl,
[justice] like the Imamah, [leadership] is one of the Pillars of Islam
according to Shii thought. Most of the philosophical discourse around Adl
roots it squarely in the principle of Tawhid. Allah is a Just Lord, Who
loves Truth and Honesty. It is therefore inconceivable that anyone who
believes in Allah can perpetrate or tolerate injustice. It is in a similar
vein that other sects like the Kharijites resisted the attempt by early
Muslims to exclude certain groups from leadership on account of clan, tribe,
race or even gender. It was considered inconsistent with Divine Justice as
expressed clearly in the Qur'an.

Back to ethics, let me say that this debate is a recurring one in
philosophy. The British moral philosopher, Iris Murdoch, was an emphatic
moral realist who believed in the metaphysical foundation of morality. She
argues convincingly for the existence of a metaphysical reality, the Good,
which we perceive by our very perception of the imperfection of our world.
Yet having laid the foundation for a metaphysical ethics, Murdoch says the
Good is not God - she accepts the existence of this transcendental Reality
but denies the Reality a will and an effect. To the best of my
understanding, this is the point of departure between Iris Murdoch and moral
philosophers among Christian Theologians.

The debate in our own moral philosophy is similar. Our scholars [by which I
mean Sunni Scholars] have never gone to the extent of denying Allah a role
in our lives. What they have done, in the context of the ethics of public
officers is to build a shield between our morality and its source, the
Divine presence. Our metaphysics is not in substance Murdochian, yet it
effectively lands us in the same muddles as Iris Murdoch. A Muslim who
believes in Allah the All-seeing [Al-Basir] does not lock himself in a room
and turnout the light believing he can sin and escape. The same with one who
believes in Al-Sami' [the All-Hearing]. He does not speak things in private,
which are prohibited by Allah. In exactly the same way, a Muslim who
believes in Allah the Just can not stand injustice. Corruption, nepotism and
abuse of office are manifestations of injustice.

It is my view that the survival of corruption in the Muslim psyche has been
facilitated by the severance of the organic link between our moral
philosophy and its Metaphysical roots in the Divine Reality. A proper
apprehension of Allah, His Beautiful Names(al-asma' al-husna) and His
Exalted Attributes(as-sifat al-'ula) must necessarily transform our ethic
such that we not only seek to imbibe or emulate the moral good, we actually
are moved, compelled, to seek its enthronement. The greatest tragedy in
Sunni thought is its hatred of philosophy and philosophers and its
enthronement of the legalistic rulings of jurists over all facets of our
life. The priorities and constraints of the environment in which the jurists
lived often conditioned these rulings. It is a point I have repeatedly made.
The refusal of this Ummah to break away from the constriction of "blind
copying" will only lead to a perpetuation of the social structures,
priorities and value-systems of the environments in which the rulings were
made. Even the authenticity of hadiths and the validity of their
interpretation must be established after accounting for the impact of the
environment on the narrators and interpreters. Most fundamentally, the
principles of Tawhid, an apprehension the Allah's Asma' [Names] and Sifat
[Attributes], must continue to be the inspiration for our moral, political
and other philosophies. We will now briefly touch on the Shariah and how the
ascendant philosophical outlook has restricted its scope.

The Shariah and Public Sector Corruption.

In the time of the prophet [S. A. W.] the government was not a major
economic force. The role of the prophet was largely that of a guide, a judge
and a military commander. The government treasury received zakat and fai'
for distribution but the major revenue flows and expenditures on social
welfare, defence and the bureaucracy that later came to typify the state
were virtually non-existent - It is natural that the crime of public sector
corruption should not be a major feature of such a society not just because
of the limited finance of the state but also, and more fundamentally,
because of the quality of persons managing these funds and the presence of
the Prophet of Allah among them. Thus although the Qur'an did come up with
verses which showed the prohibition of corruption, its occurrence was rare
and its punishment /deterrence was therefore not the pre-occupation of the
Shariah at that stage . We find a greater focus on offences like theft,
adultery, intoxication and slander - crimes of a largely personal nature,
which was a reflection of the limited nature of public sector crimes.

With the passage of time and the conquest of the early empire, the coffers
of the state were filled with treasures managed by human beings whose fear
of Allah was decreasing by the day. Corruption became a cancer in public
life, as we have shown. The Umayyads established a hereditary kingship,
nepotism and the appropriation of booty and property and profits. Muawiya
himself made it clear in his sermon in Kufa and Madinah that he had fought
for power and would reap the benefits from it. The early Muslims did fight
against this Umayyad mind-set. There was the great rebellion against
'Uthman. Then there was the rebellion of the Hijaz against Yazid ibn
Muawiya. There was the Qarmatian revolt. All of these and many more were
directed against exploitation, arbitrary power, class distinction and other
features of a system without accountability and probity. The striking thing
about all of this is that the fight against corruption was always waged by
those outside the establishment. Throughout the reign of the Umayyads,
Abbasids, Fatimids etc, the Muslim world was governed by the Shariah, and by
the system of civil and criminal Law recognised as distinctive of Muslim
societies. Zakat was collected, the hands of thieves were cut off, and the
courts continued to administer capital punishment for murder, apostasy and
rebellion. Yet those who supervised the implementation of Shariah were
themselves corrupt - and, seemingly, above the law. This is the question
that I hope to address. A government can claim to be implementing Shariah,
cut off the hands of a thief who steals a cow or money, force women to dress
in a particular way, collect zakat for distribution etc, without coming out
with strong sanction for corruption in public office. This has led some
people to the false impression that the Shariah is a law designed to punish
the poor while allowing leaders to go scot-free. Nothing can be further from
the truth. I will show that what is described above is not Shariah, but its
interpretation by society at different points in time in a manner consistent
with the dominant world-view of the leaders and ulama in that society. It is
not the eternal law revealed by Allah but its interpretation and
crystalisation in time and space.

It is perhaps fair to say that the rudimentary nature of political
structures in the muslim world, the absence of effective checks and balances
and the low political consciousness of civil society have contributed to
this state of affairs. It is however, equally important to recognise
fundamental flaws in our understanding of Islamic Law.

Criminal/Civil Law in Islam divides offences, from the perspective of
sanction, into three categories. Hadd offences [jara'im al-hudud] are those
which attract a fixed and non-negotiable punishment once established. These
include adultery & fornication, apostasy, drinking, rebellion, slander and
highway robbery. Qisas and Diyah offences [jara'im al - qisas wad-diyah] are
those which are retributive in nature, but which can be substituted by some
payment in kind as restitution, or forgiven by the injured party or his
heirs. These include murder, manslaughter and bodily harm. A third category,
Ta'zeer offences [jara'im at-ta'azeer] refers to everything that is
prohibited in the Qur'an or Sunnah but for which a punishment is not
prescribed under Hadd or Qisas and Diyah. Understanding this point is
critical to understanding Islamic Civil and Criminal Law. There has been a
lot of polemic over the limits of punishment for ta'azeer offences. Abdul
Rahman 'Audah has a detailed discussion of these including justification for
including offences not specified in the Qur'an and Sunnah but which affect
"general interest" of society, in his classic work on Islamic Criminal Law
[at-tashri' al-jina'I al-Islami]

What interests us here is that for all offences defined as Ta'azear offences
the Shariah provides a range of sanctions.

These are:

a] threat of punishment

b] whipping or caning

c] humiliation

d] detention or jailing

e] crucifixion or execution

f] exile.

These offences have been extracted by scholars from the Qur'an, Sunnah and
Ijma'.

Now we know that the Qur'an prohibits many things without specifying the
punishment for the offenders. For example, we know that bribery is an
offence, that nepotism, in the sense of appointing an incompetent person to
office, is an offence, that consuming wealth of orphans is an offence, that
spreading fasad [evil] and fahisha [obscenity] among the Ummah are offences
etc. If the Hakim at a point in time chooses not to punish an offence
severely [and we have said his options are as severe as the death sentence]
it is not because the Shariah does not provide for it but because either the
judge or the government does not consider it a problem. As we live in an
environment in which these offences bother all of us, [corruption, religious
intolerance, destruction of places of worship, mediocrity in the name of
quota system, tribalism and ethnic genocide etc.] we must remember that
Sharia explicitly prohibits each of them and also allows the state to punish
with a range of punishments including jailing and death. The choice however
reflects our own values, not of the Shariah. That corruption has for so long
remained unpunished is a reflection of the underlying moral philosophy,
which has come to permeate our collective consciousness, deadening the sense
of outrage and revulsion against this heinous and cancerous crime.

CONCLUSION

I have been given only 40 minutes to speak on this wide topic. I have
attempted to cover in this paper the origin of corruption in the public
affairs of the Muslim Ummah, the philosophy which has nourished it and the
legal superstructure which, elaborate as it is, has been seemingly designed
by lawmakers to side-step it. I do not believe I have exhausted all the
issues relevant to this topic. I hope that I have given us all food for
thought and contributed to our outstanding of Islamic history, philosophy
and law. If I have sounded critical of some aspects of Muslim thought,
please accept this clarification: I have implicit respect and love for
generations gone by. However, no one is perfect and it is only by learning
from mistakes of the past and questioning "received wisdom" that change is
possible. "Allah does not change what is with a people unless they change
themselves".

Finally, dear readers, please remember that I am not a jurist, but a banker.
What I have written that is right, is from Allah. What I have written that
is wrong is from me and Shaitan, Allah and His prophet are free from my
errors.

Ramadhan Kareem.

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatu.






VALUES AND IDENTITY IN THE MUSLIM NORTH

BY

SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI



Dr. Mahmud M. Tukur's book, Leadership and Governance in Nigeria: The
Relevance of values, (Hodder & Stroughton, 1999), is arguably the first
attempt at an articulation of the philosophical underpinnings of the Sokoto
caliphate, with specific emphasis on the ethics of public policy. At the
risk of sounding flippant, it may actually be said to be the first academic
work in contemporary Nigeria to systematically contribute an ethical theory
of public policy, an area we are sorely in need of.

A discussion of Tukur's ethical theory is essential for a number of reasons.
First, it tells us, in effect, what constituted the "manifesto" of the
Sokoto caliphate in the sense that he gathers, from disparate sources, the
philosophical elements in the writings of Uthman b. Fodio, Abdullah b. Fodio
and Muhammad Bello b. Uthman and presents a coherent framework for grasping
their ethical theory. Tukur classifies these values, which he calls
"Caliphal" values, into three. Leadership values are: Justice; Honesty and
Integrity; Ease and Kindness; Abstinence, Moderation and Asceticism; and
Service to the Community.

Process values are: Consultation, Advice and Consent; Obedience; and
Privacy. Finally, Community values are: Unity and Consensus; The Primacy of
Public Interest; and Welafare and social Justice. These were identified and
properly annotated by Tukur from writings of the triumvirate dated almost a
full century before the arrival of the colonialist. In so presenting them,
Tukur makes two fundamental points. He establishes the historical truth that
the Sokoto Caliphate did not come into contact with these values through
colonialism. They were part of its Islamic Heritage. He also offers as a
panacea to our national problems a return to those values as a Code of
Conduct for Public Officers, especially those in positions of leadership.

Second, by placing these core "caliphate" values as the focal point for
communal identity, Dr. Tukur addresses a fundamental problem facing many
Muslim Northerners today: the question of a triple identity. Are they
northerners, Muslims or Hausa/Fulani (whatever that means?). In effect, Dr.
Tukur gives us a yardstick for definition of "self" in a state of political
flux. The definitive basis for communal belonging is "cooperation with
fellow members to achieve the higher values of society or service in the
interest of the community's raison d'etre" (p. 40 - 41). The significance of
this is that we consider an interest as worthy of defending, a cause as
worthy of pursuing and a person as worthy of associating with purely based
on conformity or otherwise to these higher values. Although Tukur does not
explicitly say this, it also logically follows that since these caliphal
values are "Islamic", the definitive basis for identity of the northern
Muslim is Islam, as a corpus of teachings rather than of actions of persons.
Thus the fact that a "northerner" or a "Muslim" or a "Fulani" is the subject
of a political issue is not sufficient to make that issue a "northern",
"Islamic" or "Fulani" one. The bottom line is how consistent is the issue at
stake with the teachings of Islam as incorporated in the value-systems
underlying the caliphate. In effect, every other identity is subsumed under
our Islamic identity and the Islamic values are the ones worthy of
defending. These are not to be sacrificed in the name of "nationalism" or
"northern politics" or even "Muslims". Indeed even those Muslim States that
seek to implement sharia are to be judged against the yardstick of these
values. For those of us who write articles and comment on politics, this
hypothesis is a refreshing balm, which we are able to appropriate as
legitimation and validation of our sometimes controversial position. It is
very common for a writer to be labelled a "traitor" to "the North" or
"Muslims" for taking a position at variance with the fantasies of a
sentiment- driven eclectic consciousness. Language is a moral medium;
writing an instrument of ethical illumination, political consciencisation
and social mobilisation. The task of the intellectual is not one of blending
into the opaque consciousness of the tumultous mob around him, his voice
drowned in a cacophony of misdirected protests. His task is to remind them
of who they are and what they ought to be. Our values are not to be taken
from conduct of our adversaries but from the great heritage of our people.

For all these reasons Dr. Tukur's thesis and hypothesis need thorough
ventilation in the realm of public discourse. The ideas in the book need
distillation, analysis, simplification and dissemination as part of the
process of developing a renewed consciousness in our great heritage, a sense
of our true identity and a definitive direction for future political
strategy. There is also a need to subject elements of theory to microscopic
study with a view to extension, amendment or rejection of premises,
approaches and conclusions as the need may arise.

There is however an aspect of the learned doctor’s thought about which I
have reservations. Dr. Tukur understands, correctly, that the value system
underlying the early founders' manifesto was essentially drawn from Islamic
sources, specifically the Quran, Sunnah and biographies of the
rightly-guided Caliphs. However, he goes beyond this and seems to believe
that these values are exclusive to Islam, as a religion. I do not know if
Dr. Tukur makes this claim explicitly anywhere. However, the book is laced
with a tendency to attribute the failing of our value system to the
influence of "Western Liberal thought", a certain mistrust of
"westernisation" and Judaeo-Christian civilization. Even chief Awolowo is
blamed for thinking of freedom, knowledge and justice as values only in "the
tradition of Lockean and American Liberal Democracy…" without relating these
"to the tradition of the Yoruba people to achieve a symbiosis that might
result in a value system harmonious with the actual conditions of the living
Yoruba society". (P. 234).

This argument is open to valid criticism at two separate intellectual
levels, the theoretical and the philosophical. On the first count, which is
simpler, one might say that the criticism levelled against the Action Group
can be levelled against the founders of the Caliphate. There is no evidence
that Shehu Dan Fodio and his son and brother made any effort to achieve a
symbiosis between the "Caliphal values" they imposed and the "traditions" of
the Hausa people. Indeed the overwhelming evidence is that they fought for a
divorce between religion and traditions (which were considered innovations )
and the restoration of Islam's pristine purity. That Dr. Tukur does not find
this fact a detraction nullifies the principle underlying the criticism he
levels against the Action Group and other nationalist Forces.

On a much deeper level, Dr. Tukur's point here raises a fundamental
philosophical question which has engaged the minds of philosophers and which
holds for me a special fascination: Do we create values or do we discover
them? Phrased in the context of Tukur's Islamic discourse, did Islam create
these values or did it unveil them? This question was in a slightly modified
form a notorious one in Islamic Philosophy. Usually stated as the question
of tahsin and taqbih aqliyyain the theological question was whether the
intellect, unguided by revelation is capable of apprehending Good and Evil
and indeed whether Good and Evil exist independent of Divine Revelation. The
Mu’tazilites, Shiites, some Kharijites and, among Sunnis Maturidites tend to
believe in the existence of Good and Evil independent of Revelation. The
contrary view is held by Ash’arites, the vast majority in Sunni Islam. A
thorough philosophical understanding of this point is central to our
critique of Tukur's thought and of his perception of the world of political
values as an Islamic/non-Islamic (read Christian) dichotomy.

Let me try to put down my own philosophical thoughts on this matter of
values in the Islamic schema. The Qur'an in various verses describes the
Believers as a special people who "command good (ma'ruf)" and "prohibit evil
(munkar)" and of course believe in Allah. The prophet himself is said to be
described in earlier books as one who commands this "ma'ruf" and forbids
this "munkar". The word "ma'ruf", translated as "good", is actually from the
root a.r.f. which means to know. (Thus ma'rifa is knowledge; ma'ruf is the
known). The word "munkar," translated as evil is from the root n.k.r meaning
not to know so munkar is actually the unknown. A number of scholars from
Mu’tazilite times have argued that the use of these terms proves that what
religion preaches is already "known" to the intellect as "good" and what it
prohibits is "unknown" to the intellect. In his classic work, Madarijus
salikin, the Hanbalite scholar Ibn Qayyim reports the story of the desert
Arab who was asked why he accepted Islam. He replied:"Not once did Muhammad
command something and the Intellect said "would that he had not commanded
it!" Not once did he forbid something and the intellect said " Would that he
had allowed it!" To me, this reply of the desert Arab is filled with deep
implications from a philosophical perspective. To this Arab, the Revelation
of Islam was, indeed a revelation in the sense that it revealed to his
intellect truths he knew. The message had the impact of good art which,
according to Plato is an anamnesis, a "reminder" of things we knew without
knowing that we knew them. So when the prophet (S.A.W.) says, "do this" the
intellect immediately recognizes that it is good. And when he says "stop
this" the intellect, on reflection "sees" the evil in it.

If this is so, then "good" and "evil" exist independent of a particular
revelation. They exist, to use a concept from Plato's theory of Forms, as
Universals or, in Kantian terms as Categorical Imperatives independent of
time, space and culture. There is, as affirmed by Iris Murdoch a
metaphysical phenomenon, The Good, which we may apprehend and against which
we can see the imperfection of our world. Through this, we see that Leibniz
was wrong in defining our world as the "best of possible worlds", a concept
rightly parodied and caricatured by Dr. Pangloss in Voltaire's Candide.

If all this is correct, then the political values identified by Dr. Tukur
are Islamic in the sense that Islam revealed them in the literal sense of
the word, unveiled them and incorporated them into its teachings. Islam did
not "create" them or appropriate them to the exclusion of other schema.
These values could have been present in other schema prior to,
contemporaneous with or even subsequent to the Islamic revelation, since
this unveiling does not in anyway obviate the philosophical possibility of
other routes to apprehension of these metaphysical, universal phenomena -
say through empirical experience, rational contemplation, illumination or
other revelation (like the Biblical).

Accepting the principle means that a system being "Christian", or "Western",
or "Chinese" or whatever does not, in itself, make it incompatible with the
political values (be they "leadership" or "process" values) identified by
Dr. Tukur. Indeed, Tukur himself quotes Shehu Uthman's famous dictum: "A
kingdom can endure with unbelief but not with injustice". This dictum
suggests that an "unbelieving people" can be just, and a "believing people"
unjust. The possibility of coexistence between unbelief and justice obviates
the principle of co-extensiveness between these values and Islam. Indeed the
evidence of the world we live in today is that the "core caliphal values"
Dr. Tukur wishes us to have, are more present in the "Christian
Civilisations " of the "Western Liberal Democracies" than in Muslim
countries. The reality is that no justification exists, on the basis of
Liberal Thought or the objective political cultures of Western Countries for
attributing to them the brazen corruption, callous abuse of personal
liberties and pig-headed idiocy of some of Nigeria’s past rulers. What is
correct is to say that our problems started with the emergence of a crop of
rulers who never had the benefit of an ethical education, whether Western or
Islamic, having been incubated, as it were, in the dissolute environment of
Military barracks.

"Western thought", of which Dr. Tukur is so mistrustful, actually has a
profound discussion of several of these "Caliphal values" from Socrates and
Plato, to Epicurus and Seneca, to Kant and Murdoch. So does Confucian and
Taoist thought. Indeed, inspite of major doctrinal differences between Islam
and Christianity, both religions show a remarkable confluence in the realm
of Political Values. We therefore conclude that this bifurcated
conceptualization of value-space; this dichotomization into Islamic Vs.
Christian, is an intellectual construct of questionable philosophical
validity. It weakens Tukur’s own model not least because it strips his
"Caliphal" values of their universal character and applicability.

The practical implication of this conclusion is that the solution to
Nigeria’s problem is not really as far as it seems. The realization that the
Caliphal values of Tukur are to be found in both Islam and Christianity
means that good Muslims and good Christians can come together and run a
system that is based on these values. For the Northern Muslims as a whole,
Tukur’s Ethics becomes a clarion call for holding on to their heritage, but
reaching out to others in the constant march towards a just and free society
where values reign supreme.






DIALOGUE WITH A CRITIC

BY

SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI



" Mallam Sanusi, why are you so controversial?"

"Not knowing what you mean, I am unable to answer."

"Of course you know what I mean. Sometime ago, you wrote a Fulani article in
which you said Igbos had no culture."

"I said no such thing. I said the political structures in Igboland at the
time of arrival of the colonialist were rudimentary in comparison with the
Sokoto Caliphate and Yoruba Kingdoms."

"You see what I mean! How could you say such a thing? For six weeks Igbos
were up in arms in the Newspapers. You almost started a second Biafran war.
But that is not even the issue now."

"Really! What is the matter on hand?"

"Look, it is one thing to attack Igbos, another to attack your own people."

"Who did I attack now?"

"Stop pretending. Your article on Faseun was an insult to the north. Uncle W
has already said you support genocide."

"Uncle W did not mention my name. He was referring to somebody else."

"Tell that to the birds. Everyone knows he was talking back to you and you
deserved it. He was even soft on you. How could you say the killing of
northerners in Lagos was identical to the retaliatory killings of Yorubas in
Kano."

"I did not say they were identical. I said they were similar?"

"You talk too much English. Identical, similar, same difference."

"The presence of certain common features is one thing. The absence of all
difference is another."

"Oyingbo! So tell me, in what sense are they similar?"

"In the sense that many innocent Nigerian lives were taken, that the State
could not protect those lives and that no one was brought to Justice at the
end of the day."

"I see. Do you believe that the killing of northerners by OPC vandals is an
attempt at ethnic cleansing?"

"I do."

"Do you agree that the murder of the Hausa woman in Shagamu for seeing Oro
was barbaric?"

"I do."

"Do you believe the killing of Yorubas in Kano was retaliatory?"

"I do."

"Stop being sarcastic."

"I am not. I sincerely believe these things and have written that in my
articles. Read my Afonja article, or my Restructuring paper and you will
see. However…."

"Now what?"

"I am honest enough to admit that my views are subjective, and reflect my
identity as a Muslim, Fulani Northerner."

"How is that?"

"Take the woman in Shagamu. A Yoruba man is likely to believe she deserved
to be killed for seeing Oro. The cult would have killed her even if she was
Yoruba."

"But is that not barbaric?"

"Let me ask you a question. If a Christian in Maiduguri defecated on the
Qur'an what would the indigenes do?"

"Probably sever his head, deservingly so!"

"Christians would think that barbaric. While you see the murder of Yorubas
in Kano as an excusable retaliation for the murder of Hausas in Shagamu, the
Yorubas see it as a callous and unjustifiable attack on innocent citizens
because the people of Shagamu defended the integrity of their culture. It is
a matter of opinion."

"I see your point. But does that mean motives do not matter?"

"They do but in these cases they can not be established because we can not
be objective. Even if we could, the nobility of the motive does not confer
legitimacy on mass murder."

"Okay. Let us move on. Uncle W. made a very sound point. While Yoruba
leaders defended OPC, the JNI and CAN in Kaduna were calling for trial of
culprits. What do you say to that?"

"Did you read the reports of religious groups to the Board of inquiry?
Muslim groups claimed Christians were responsible for the carnage.
Christians blamed Muslims"

"Where are you heading?"

"JNI was calling for conviction of Christians. CAN was calling for
conviction of Muslims. Each party had already pronounced the other guilty.
That is not what uncle W claimed they were doing."

"Let us go to the substance of your article, the continued detention of our
brothers…."

"Which uncle W deliberately side-stepped…"

"Shut up and listen. All Yorubas supported Faseun and called for his
release. When Bola Tinubu lied to a court they refused to prosecute him and
the police refused to investigate. Are you not naïve, asking us alone to
give up our own for trial?"

"I am happy you mentioned Bola Tinubu. Tell me, what role did Gani Fawehinmi
play in Tinubu's case?"

"He went to court as a private citizen asking the court to compel the police
to investigate the charges."

"Exactly. How many lawyers do we have in the north?"

"Don't be stupid how can I know? Very many."

"Did they study the same law as Gani?"

"Of course they did, get to your point!"

"How many of them have gone to court in the name of the north they love, and
the northerners who were murdered, asking the court to compel police to
investigate or the A.G of Lagos to prosecute Faseun?"

"I never thought of that…."

"Of course you did not. How many lawyers has the Arewa Forum retained as
Advisers on this issue, or mandated to play the role of Gani?"

"None."

"Does that speak of seriousness to get a conviction? The Lagos State CP
recently alleged tampering with Faseun's case file. Still no lawyers in
court!"

"Are you questioning the sincerity of our leaders?"

"They are demagogues."

"Now you have abused them."

"I have not. What is a demagogue, do you know?"

"All I know is that it sounds abusive."

"A demagogue is one who argues based on sentiment and emotion, rather than
rationality."

"You see! I knew you abused them. Our Emirs, past Presidents, Leaders. You
have no respect for your elders."

"If you insist. Can you listen to me for a change?"

"I will try."

"Do you know that not too long ago, Obasanjo really wanted Na'abba removed
from his Speakership post?"

"Who doesn't know that?

"Then suddenly some Ghana-must-go bags appeared in the House…."

"Yes! Members said they were bribes from the presidency."

"Good. What happened after that?"

"Apparently nothing."

"Nothing! No more talk about corruption in the House and self-probe. No talk
about presidential bribery."

"Okay, I get your drift. So a deal was struck. What does that have to do
with this matter."

"It is the same pattern. Our politicians are not really after Faseun. They
are after a deal."

"What deal?"

"They want to release Bamaiyi, Abacha, Al-Mustapha and co."

"That is not fair"

"Why do they link the two cases? They can go after Faseun and those who
perpetrate genocide but why say: Release my sons since you released yours?
They want a deal"

"Now look here…."

"This time you shut up and listen! So many of our politicians were on the
Abacha gravy train. They were Ministers and Advisers, friends of the First
Lady and First Sons and First Daughters, in the forefront of the
self-succession program-the notorious ta zarce. So many of them turned up in
one party it was called Abacha Peoples' Party by opponents. Is that true?"

"Yes."

"They all backed Obasanjo. At that time no one said he was Yoruba. Now
Obasanjo picked his Running-Mate, his Ministers, his Ambassadors and
Advisers, and contracts have been flying left right and centre but their
number has not come up. They remember the man who buttered their bread and
try to get our uneducated masses to join their battle . When some of us
screamed against power-shift where were you?"

"You make sense. But let me ask you a question. In your heart do you
consider it right to break ranks with your people?"

"I believe the detainees have a case to answer and they should answer it. If
they are acquitted or convicted based on evidence so be it."

"But do you know you hold a minority view in the north today? Should you
speak against the current, as it were?"

"Do you read philosophy?"

"Philosophers are pagans, I have no time for them."

"Good for you. Let me tell you a story from one of Plato's Socratic
Dialogues. Do you mind?"

"Go ahead if you must. Do you really care if I mind?"

"Calm down. This story is from one of the early Platonic dialogues. Socrates
quizzes a man called Euthryphro on the nature of holiness. The occasion was
Euthryphro's prosecution of his own father for unintentionally killing a
slave who had himself murdered another slave."

"The man prosecuted his own father?"

"Yes. His family thought it impious but Euthryphro said his family were
ignorant of what is holy. He saw holiness as doing what the gods love, and
was willing to do it even if it offended his own family."

"Interesting. Go on."

"Does this not remind you of a verse in the Qur'an, asking believers to bear
true witness even against themselves or their parents and close relations?"

"Are you suggesting that the Qur'an was copied from Greeks?"

"Stop being silly. This is why in the north we will never progress. When we
fail to confute an argument we libel the advocate."

"Like accusing you of supporting genocide?"

"You really are smart. You read between the lines. My point is this. You ask
me to bear false witness, or defend fellow-Northerners on trial for killing
Southerners based on one of two reasons: Our adversaries are doing the same
or our compatriots have joined them and abandoned their values. Not because
you believe they have no case to answer. Is that so?"

"In a manner of speaking, yes."

"If I did that I would be taking my values from the Yoruba or from Northern
politicians rather than Islam and would then be worse than Euthryphro, who
in your books is a pagan, wouldn't I?"

"You know you are not as horrible as I thought you were. But before you go,
do you know what people say about you?"

"Does any one ever know such things?"

"Sorry to say this. Some people think you are mad. Why are you laughing?"

"Because they may well be correct."

"I can not believe this! You are horrible!"

THE WRITER IS AN ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CREDIT RISK MANAGEMENT UNITED
BANK FOR AFRICA PLC. LAGOS.
With the very best of good wishes,
Musa Amadu Pembo
Glasgow,
Scotland
UK.
[log in to unmask]
Da’wah is to convey the message with wisdom and with good words. We should
give the noble and positive message of Islam. We should try to emphasize
more commonalities and explain the difference without getting into
theological arguments and without claiming the superiority of one position
over the other. There is a great interest among the people to know about
Islam and we should do our best to give the right message.
May Allah,Subhana Wa Ta'Ala,guide us all to His Sirat Al-Mustaqim (Righteous
Path).May He protect us from the evils of this life and the hereafter.May
Allah,Subhana Wa Ta'Ala,grant us entrance to paradise .
We ask Allaah the Most High, the All-Powerful, to teach us that which will
benefit us, and to benefit us by that which we learn. May Allaah Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala grant blessings and peace to our Prophet Muhammad and his family
and
companions..Amen.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>

To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>