Lukgaf:
Sharia in Yoruba land: a call for constructive engagement

By Barrister Muideen Olagunju

In most nations of the world, cultural and religious homogeneity is rare. Even in countries where there is a single or predominant religion, there are tribes or races. Where people differ in cultural, tribal and religious beliefs or practices, there comes obligatory rights.

One of such rights is the right or freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In Nigeria, that right or freedom is guaranteed under Section 38 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public and private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.

Upon return to democratic rule in Nigeria in 1999, 12 Northern states agitated for and got the nod for the adoption of legislations in Islamic criminal law to regulate the conducts of Muslims alongside the long established non-criminal Muslim personal law which covers issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance and maintenance. The North has always had Sharia Court and Sharia Court of Appeal just as the South has always had Customary Court and Customary Court of Appeal. Even in the appointment of Justices to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, there are requirements to the effect that certain number of the appointments must go to Justices who are learned in Islamic personal law for the purpose of being expertly poised to take appeals bordering on Islamic law from a Sharia Court of Appeal. There is a similar provision for appointment of Justices who are learned in customary law to take appeals from a Customary Court of Appeal.

For emphasis, ONLY MUSLIMS can have their conducts regulated under Sharia Law, whether personal (civil) or criminal. It is should be mentioned though that the constitutionality of Islamic criminal law is still up in the air with many questioning the jurisdictional contradiction with the entrenched principle of law that for anyone to charged with a criminal offence, such offence and its punishment must be contained in a written (legislated) law. Since the Glorious Quran and the criminal principles expressed in the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafiyyah, Malikiyah, Shafiyyah and Hanbaliyah) are NOT considered written law in Nigeria, it is believed that the 12 Northern states that adopted Islamic criminal law only scaled through because the then president, Olusegun Obasanjo, deliberately withheld the political will to block the adoption, particularly since the adoption was deemed to be well-received in the states and since non-Muslims retained their rights not be subjected to the law.

Muslims in the South of Nigeria, especially in the South West, are many. There has always been agitations, though subdued until recently, for the adoption of MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW which will cover only issues like marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance and maintenance.

It appears that the agitation is getting louder but taking the WRONG approach of trying to ram it down the throat of government leaves a lot to be desired.

COMMUNICATION is a word we hear every day but it has very wide and important ramifications. In every agitation, “communication” is key.

The approach of suddenly fixing a date for the launch of Sharia Court in Oyo State with Oyo Town being the test case is inherently wrong. On what basis are the founders acting? On account of whose approval? Who builds the courts? Who appoints the judges? By what modes will proceedings, record keeping and enforcement take place?

The news of the launch caused concerns. Some Muslims were asking for more information and the extent of the law. I am sure the dominant concern is about the criminal aspect of Sharia. For non-Muslims, for the lack of adequate information, justification for concern is founded on whether or not it will affect their own rights.

To quell all concerns and objections, Muslim personal law is HARMLESS. Even in some countries, notably India, where Muslims are in the minority, Muslim Personal Law has taken roots and is covered by legislation. In the UK, while Sharia has no force of law, the Muslim Law (Shariah) Council UK is recognized by the government as an organization that offers mediation services to Muslims in UK.

In Nigeria, Muslims in the South are actually at a jurisprudential disadvantage as a result of the absence of Sharia courts. I’ll explain why.

Most Muslims conduct marriage under Islamic Law officiated by Islamic clerics, which for jurisprudential purposes, is at par with Customary Law that is widely in operation among locals in all parts of the South. However, when Muslims embark on divorce proceedings or jostle over inheritance, they have no Islamic court to turn to. They instead often resort to customary courts where there is no guarantee that Muslims will form the panel of judges. Even if the judges are Muslims, they are constrained to apply only customary law. The pertinent question is: why are Muslims able to start their marriages under Islamic law but forced to officially end the marriages under customary law when Islamic codes of conduct are significantly different from Yoruba law and custom?

On the strength of the irrefutable position that Muslim personal law is a right of Muslims that does not in any way clash with the rights of non-Muslims, a strategy of constructive engagement with community stakeholders and the government is the only way to see it through. It will continue to hit the brick wall with the kind of gung-ho approach recently undertaken by the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria.

Muslims in Nigeria have to move away of ignorance-sounding rhetorics and actions. What happens to the principle of “in’iqad”? When matters will concern the general public, it is always best to convene meetings to listen to opinions, particularly from experts. I doubt if the Sharia proponents in Oyo State and, by extension, the South West consulted Muslim lawyers and even judges to find a road map to constructive engagement with government and the general public.

Despite the set-back of getting the issue blown out of proportion to the extent that the federal government becomes concerned about security threats in the South West, a proper convention should be held and the right proposals be made to the government.

The ethos of a Muslim community is decidedly higher and MUST ALWAYS take the interest of everyone as important in every conversation. When words and actions cause panic, it’s a big sign that the ethos have fallen short.

Let us learn the art of COMMUNICATION! Depending on how you use it, be sure it opens doors faster and be sure it can get doors slammed in your face.

Allahu A’lam.

essentialone1:
Very good development. Soon, it shall extend to all parts of Igboland.

AbuTwins:
Gradually it's coming! And soon we'll get there! In shaa Allah!

damick4:
We don’t want sharia in Yorubaland.

Lukgaf:
Sharia in Yoruba land: a call for constructive engagement

By Barrister Muideen Olagunju

In most nations of the world, cultural and religious homogeneity is rare. Even in countries where there is a single or predominant religion, there are tribes or races. Where people differ in cultural, tribal and religious beliefs or practices, there comes obligatory rights.

One of such rights is the right or freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In Nigeria, that right or freedom is guaranteed under Section 38 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public and private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”.




God for you.

Upon return to democratic rule in Nigeria in 1999, 12 Northern states agitated for and got the nod for the adoption of legislations in Islamic criminal law to regulate the conducts of Muslims alongside the long established non-criminal Muslim personal law which covers issues like marriage, divorce, inheritance and maintenance. The North has always had Sharia Court and Sharia Court of Appeal just as the South has always had Customary Court and Customary Court of Appeal. Even in the appointment of Justices to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, there are requirements to the effect that certain number of the appointments must go to Justices who are learned in Islamic personal law for the purpose of being expertly poised to take appeals bordering on Islamic law from a Sharia Court of Appeal. There is a similar provision for appointment of Justices who are learned in customary law to take appeals from a Customary Court of Appeal.

For emphasis, ONLY MUSLIMS can have their conducts regulated under Sharia Law, whether personal (civil) or criminal. It is should be mentioned though that the constitutionality of Islamic criminal law is still up in the air with many questioning the jurisdictional contradiction with the entrenched principle of law that for anyone to charged with a criminal offence, such offence and its punishment must be contained in a written (legislated) law. Since the Glorious Quran and the criminal principles expressed in the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafiyyah, Malikiyah, Shafiyyah and Hanbaliyah) are NOT considered written law in Nigeria, it is believed that the 12 Northern states that adopted Islamic criminal law only scaled through because the then president, Olusegun Obasanjo, deliberately withheld the political will to block the adoption, particularly since the adoption was deemed to be well-received in the states and since non-Muslims retained their rights not be subjected to the law.

Muslims in the South of Nigeria, especially in the South West, are many. There has always been agitations, though subdued until recently, for the adoption of MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW which will cover only issues like marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance and maintenance.

It appears that the agitation is getting louder but taking the WRONG approach of trying to ram it down the throat of government leaves a lot to be desired.

COMMUNICATION is a word we hear every day but it has very wide and important ramifications. In every agitation, “communication” is key.

The approach of suddenly fixing a date for the launch of Sharia Court in Oyo State with Oyo Town being the test case is inherently wrong. On what basis are the founders acting? On account of whose approval? Who builds the courts? Who appoints the judges? By what modes will proceedings, record keeping and enforcement take place?

The news of the launch caused concerns. Some Muslims were asking for more information and the extent of the law. I am sure the dominant concern is about the criminal aspect of Sharia. For non-Muslims, for the lack of adequate information, justification for concern is founded on whether or not it will affect their own rights.

To quell all concerns and objections, Muslim personal law is HARMLESS. Even in some countries, notably India, where Muslims are in the minority, Muslim Personal Law has taken roots and is covered by legislation. In the UK, while Sharia has no force of law, the Muslim Law (Shariah) Council UK is recognized by the government as an organization that offers mediation services to Muslims in UK.

In Nigeria, Muslims in the South are actually at a jurisprudential disadvantage as a result of the absence of Sharia courts. I’ll explain why.

Most Muslims conduct marriage under Islamic Law officiated by Islamic clerics, which for jurisprudential purposes, is at par with Customary Law that is widely in operation among locals in all parts of the South. However, when Muslims embark on divorce proceedings or jostle over inheritance, they have no Islamic court to turn to. They instead often resort to customary courts where there is no guarantee that Muslims will form the panel of judges. Even if the judges are Muslims, they are constrained to apply only customary law. The pertinent question is: why are Muslims able to start their marriages under Islamic law but forced to officially end the marriages under customary law when Islamic codes of conduct are significantly different from Yoruba law and custom?

On the strength of the irrefutable position that Muslim personal law is a right of Muslims that does not in any way clash with the rights of non-Muslims, a strategy of constructive engagement with community stakeholders and the government is the only way to see it through. It will continue to hit the brick wall with the kind of gung-ho approach recently undertaken by the Supreme Council for Shari’ah in Nigeria.

Muslims in Nigeria have to move away of ignorance-sounding rhetorics and actions. What happens to the principle of “in’iqad”? When matters will concern the general public, it is always best to convene meetings to listen to opinions, particularly from experts. I doubt if the Sharia proponents in Oyo State and, by extension, the South West consulted Muslim lawyers and even judges to find a road map to constructive engagement with government and the general public.

Despite the set-back of getting the issue blown out of proportion to the extent that the federal government becomes concerned about security threats in the South West, a proper convention should be held and the right proposals be made to the government.

The ethos of a Muslim community is decidedly higher and MUST ALWAYS take the interest of everyone as important in every conversation. When words and actions cause panic, it’s a big sign that the ethos have fallen short.

Let us learn the art of COMMUNICATION! Depending on how you use it, be sure it opens doors faster and be sure it can get doors slammed in your face.

Allahu A’lam.

AbuTwins:
Gradually it's coming! And soon we'll get there! In shaa Allah!

Antlislaam:
You want sharia in Yoruba land but you're avoiding seeking for permanent residence or traveling to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc where Sharia is fully implemented, it will never work in Yoruba land

Apcshyte:


It must work in SW

lukgaf:
For emphasis, ONLY MUSLIMS can have their conducts regulated under Sharia Law, whether personal (civil) or criminal. It is should be mentioned though that the constitutionality of Islamic criminal law is still up in the air with many questioning the jurisdictional contradiction with the entrenched principle of law that for anyone to charged with a criminal offence, such offence and its punishment must be contained in a written (legislated) law

Apcshyte:


It must work in SW