A Forward - 
Saudi Lifestyle Contradicts Islam - Prof. An-Na'im 

Daily Trust (Abuja) 
INTERVIEW
September 13, 2006 

By Uthman Abubakar

Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, who hails from Sudan, is currently a Professor
of Law at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. He was, at various
times, Associate Professor of Law (Head of Department of Public Law),
University of Khartoum, Sudan; visiting Professor of Law, Harvard Law
School, Cambridge, U.S.A; Scholar-In-Residence e, the Ford Foundation,
Office for the Middle East and North Africa, Cairo, Egypt; and Executive
Director, Human Rights Watch/Africa, Washington DC, U.S.A, among others.
He was in Nigeria recently to deliver a lecture on African
Constitutionalism and the Role of Islam in Politics and the Society at a
seminar organized by Centre for Democracy and Development. He answered
some questions from Uthman Abubakar after the seminar. 
A prevailing belief among most observers of Nigerian affairs is that the
problem of the implementation of some of the vital aspects of the
country's constitution borders on corruption, especially the
monetization of the voting process during elections. What do you think
is the way out of this? 
If I have malaria, at the beginning, I know the symptoms. I have fever,
I have this, and I have that and so on and so forth. So, I will go and
have a diagnosis from a doctor. I will then have a prescription, which I
will apply. Then, overtime, I get treated. The point is this. The
Nigerian experience with regard to corruption is not unique. There are
many societies with corruption against which they have their own
separate strategies. The problem with corruption is that it infects the
people with whom you have to work. It is very insidious, very secretive
and very difficult to detect. 
The United States, which is now seen as the topmost superpower, had a
very serious problem with corruption in the 1920s and the 1930s. For
example, mafia organized crimes bribed judges, juries and mayors. The
former mayor of Atlanta was convicted recently on corruption charges,
accepting bribes and evading taxes. The tax charge was proved by the
prosecution, and he is going to prison. So, anywhere - Japan, China,
Russia or anywhere, as we speak there are corrupt officials; as we
speak, there are people who are trying to subvert the democratic
process; but also as we speak, there are people who are struggling to
create institutions to fight corruption, and they succeed. It is
relative. Italy has the problem; Latin America has it, and every other
country. 
Most of these countries have been able to implement their constitutions
with varying degrees of success, in spite of the prevailing corruption,
but Nigeria does not seem to have been successful in that regard... 
Those countries were successful overtime, although no country sits back
and waits for anything to happen. It took the United States three to
four decades to tackle organized crimes, bribing officials and other
forms of corruption, but they did not sit back and wait for it to
happen. What I am saying is that with regard to fighting corruption, we
should not be impatient, but we should not be complacent. I say it to
every single Nigerian, and to me as an African, that we know what is
wrong, we know how to correct it, but we lack the will to act. Nigeria
is one of the most prominent African societies, a highly educated and
sophisticated society. Nigerians know and Nigerians have the capacity to
do it, but they lack the will to do it. This is where my point is
focusing. Let us acknowledge that it is our failure of will, not our
lack of ability to implement our constitution to eradicate corruption,
to eradicate poverty. 
Zamfara state adopted the Islamic legal system, Sharia. It was attacked
for, among many others, implementing a religious constitution within a
broader Nigerian society which operates a secular constitution. How do
you see a nation operating two conflicting constitutional systems and
prospering? 
I will recall what Sayyidina Aliy Ibn Abi Talib said. As a Muslim, I am
bound by Sharia, and I can never escape my responsibility for my
obligation under Sharia. But Sharia can not be enforced by the state,
because the state's institution of bureaucracy, in fact, leads to
corruption of Sharia itself. I believe that the realm of Sharia is in
the community and in the individual Muslim's conscience and practice. We
know that there is no religious action which is valid without Niyyah
(intention), the intention to comply. State institutions cannot have
Niyyah because it is a person, it is not an entity. It is an
institution. 
The second point is that, whether we like it or not, the reality is that
there are many differences among Muslims as well as between Muslims and
non-Muslims. If we talk of Nigeria as a country where 50 percent are
Muslims and 50 percent are Christians, even if there is a country with
only two or three percent who are Christians or who are pagans, still
you will have the problem of uniformity in the applicability of
different laws. The country belongs to all of them, whereas my belief as
a Muslim, my obligation to implement and to observe Sharia is my
religious obligation. 
So, my point is that we should not use state institutions to claim that
we are imposing religious obligations. This is false. And I think the
point is that as a Muslim, and someone who is a Christian in any state
in Northern Nigeria or in the east or south can promote our religious
values. The fact that we can observe our religious obligations as a
matter of Sharia is beyond questioning. That is already accepted and
granted. For example, if the state permits Ribah (usury) does not mean
that I as a Muslim can engage in Ribah. I observe my religious
obligation by not engaging in Ribah. I establish an authentic banking
system, that is a private institution in which I can use resources to
create wealth and so on. So, we can do this without the state enforcing
it. If the state tries to enforce it, it is bound to create a very
strong backlash. 
In Nigeria, and I say this very bluntly, if Muslims insist, and it is
not all Muslims, it is some Muslims who are trying to impose their own
understanding of Sharia on everyone else at the expense of the unity and
stability of the country. We have had six years of Sharia in the 12
Northern states now. Let us honestly look and see what difference that
initiative made. The problem with initiatives like Zamfara state which
is trying to impose the Sharia code is clear. It is a lie by the way. I
don't believe that you can impose the Sharia code. Once you enact a
statute like the penal code, it is no longer a Sharia principle. It
becomes a political will of the state, not the religious law of Muslims.

As a Muslim I have a choice among competing opinions of scholars. We
know that the Fuqaha' have tremendous disagreements and respective
difference of opinions. Throughout Muslim history, people have had a
choice. I can go to a Maliki judge or a Hanafi judge according to my
view of what is a valid view. But when the state imposes a particular
view of a Maliki doctrine as a matter of state will, it is denying
Muslims freedom of choice. So, my point is that Muslims can promote
religious values in the communities; they can even have them adopted as
a state policy, but through a process of consensus building with the
idea of what I call public reason. 
That means we have to give room for certain compromises. Even among the
various sects of Muslims themselves and between the Muslims and the
non-Muslims, when it comes to consensus building on how to run the
affairs of the state according to individual inclinations, there will be
compromises. Some Muslims, even among themselves, may not accept that.
Muslims and non-Muslims may also not agree on that. Each will insist on
having his way, no room for compromises ... 
Then you will have civil war. The point is that, do you realize the full
consequences? Any Muslim, who says 'I will not compromise,' should go
and live somewhere else on his own. But if you want to live in the same
place with other people, you have to compromise. The point is that the
person who says I will not compromise, I will say to him, imagine how
you will feel if the other person says the same thing. That is if a
Christian wants to impose Christian values on the state, would you
accept? If not, why would you expect a Christian to accept you imposing
your own values on him? So, compromise is a vital social need. We cannot
live in the society without compromise. We cannot live even in a single
family without it. Husband and wife have to compromise to live together.
A child and its parents have to compromise to live together. If Muslims
say we will not compromise, they should know that what they are saying
is that we will go to civil war, because the other side will not accept
your imposing it on them. 
A major topic of debate and misunderstanding in the implementation of
Sharia is Hudud (corporal punishments) . How do you see the chopping off
of the hand of the Muslim convict for stealing? 
The Hudud (corporal punishments) are not a vital principle. It is in
fact a very human interpretation. There are 55 members of the
International Conference of Islamic countries. Muslims constitute about
1.3 billion people of the world population. That is, one fifth of the
total population of the world is Muslims. Where among all these Muslims
is the Hudud being implemented? How are they being implemented even when
they are claimed to be implemented? My point is that the Hudud issue is
really a lie and a way of distracting people from the real issues. In
Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in Nigeria, in Sudan the Hudud are not
implemented. They are not implemented against the powerful; they are not
implemented against corruption. 
People should look around them and see, how did the Hudud apply in the
Northern states which claim to have imposed Hudud since 2000? How many
people with influence or power have been brought to account? How can you
cut the hand of a thief who steals N20 or N100 and allow someone who
steals billions of naira to get away with it? If you look at Islamic
history, it is not true that Hudud have been a vital part of Sharia
throughout the history. The definition of every Hadd is a human
interpretation. The idea that you can impose the Hadd punishment by some
sort of state power is also a very corrupting influence. I believe that
from the Sharia point of view, if we are to implement Hudud at all, it
should be the last thing we do. 
We should, first, build social justice, education, enable people to know
what their obligations are, and then come to Hudud at a very later
stage. What we see, and I say it very bluntly, in all the 12 states of
Northern Nigeria, the Hudud was the first thing to do, and remains in
the books to intimidate and also to create this aura that we are an
Islamic state. But the corruption continues unabated. There is
underdevelopment, poverty and lack of services. What is Sharia's view on
corruption? What is Sharia's view on lack of education or lack of health
facilities? I charge that the people who claim that they are
implementing Sharia are saying what they are not doing. Sharia is total.
Why is Sharia only on Hudud, and even the Hudud, only against the weak
and the marginal? 
How then can you assess the success or failure of Sharia in these
states? 
Sharia does not succeed or fail, because it is not an entity. It is
people who succeed or fail. I say that Muslims who claim to implement
Sharia in Northern Nigeria have failed. It is not that Sharia has
failed. It is those people who claim to implement Sharia that have
failed in its implementation. My point is that it is always human
beings; it is never Sharia that is the problem. 
Do you subscribe to the idea that the failure of the implementation of
Sharia is substantially attributable to some mischief by advanced
countries to ensure that no Islamic endeavour succeeds because it is
"terrorism"? 
If you want to have a Nigeria united, you cannot have a law that
discriminates against non Muslims. We know that the current
understanding of Sharia does, in fact, discriminate against non Muslims.
Sharia, as in the Qur'an and Sunnah, is the ultimate obligation of
Muslims, but every other interpretation of it is only human. I say to
the governor of Zamfara, how does he justify choosing among the Sharia
principles those which are within the jurisdiction of the state to apply
Sharia in, and those which are outside the jurisdiction? If he has an
obligation to apply Sharia, then it is total. He cannot say that this is
state jurisdiction and this is federal jurisdiction. When he says this
is state and this is federal, he is accepting the federal constitution
principle. If you want to apply Sharia it should be total. 
Why is Sharia in Hudud and not in Ribah? How does any state of the North
accept income from the federal budget which is not consistent with
Sharia? These are the contradictions. So, my point is that this claim is
false, and Nigeria will not stand united if Muslims refuse to compromise
and, instead, say that we will insist on our way. On the question of
foreign powers wanting anything Islamic to fail, let us make a
distinction between what they wish and what we do. The fact is this is a
wish, why should it be our action? Malik Bin Nabil, the North African
Islamic Scholar, said colonialism is a consequence, not a cause. That
is, it is colonialism that created our decline; it is our decline that
invited colonialism. 
Our failure to be strong, to be honest, to be united, to be productive
and to be competent was the problem. It is the decline of Islamic
civilizations that allowed the European powers to come into our regions.
So, my point is that let us stop making excuses. What do Britain, France
or the United States have to do with the way Muslims behave as rulers in
Zamfara state, or Kano or any state. So, if you insist on no compromise,
you can go your own way, declare independence and establish a perfect
Islamic state. If you want to be part of Nigeria, you have to accept
what it means to be part of Nigeria. 
You also posited in your recent lecture that there is nothing like the
Islamic Ummah (community). You described the Ummah as a fallacy. Are you
saying that nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran and others which claim to be
Islamic states are not Islamic Ummahs? 
No! They are not. In fact Saudi Arabia is one of the least Islamic
countries in the world. The behaviour of the Saudis, their life styles,
their attitudes, their arrogance, completely undermines the claim that
they are an Islamic state. It is a hereditary monarchy. The king of
Saudi Arabia is there by virtue of being of the Al Saud family, not by
virtue of being a pious Muslim or a learned Muslim or an honest
administrator. It is a corrupt monarchy. You see, when we say that the
West wants to undermine us, it is because we do the things that enable
them undermine us. Our economies, our education, our defense, our
foreign policy, all of these things have totally collapsed. The idea of
Ummah is a rhetorical idea. We use it in rhetoric. We will say, let us
have solidarity, but when it comes to the real test, we do not stand by
solidarity. 
The current colonization of Iraq by the United States and Britain could
not have happened or continued for a single day without the complete
cooperation, connivance and support of Islamic and Arab countries
surrounding Iraq. Without the cooperation of Kuwait, without the
cooperation of Saudi Arabia, without the cooperation of Qatar, it could
not have happened. Qatar is the largest American base in the Middle
East, much more than Israel. So, how do we behave like this and still
claim that there is what we call the Islamic Ummah which brings us all
united in solidarity? It is a lie. I am not saying it is not possible. I
am saying that it is not true now.


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤