Buch, Englisch, 283 Seiten, Großformatiges Paperback. Klappenbroschur, Format (B × H): 143 mm x 215 mm, Gewicht: 402 g
The Sharia Conflict in Nigeria
Buch, Englisch, 283 Seiten, Großformatiges Paperback. Klappenbroschur, Format (B × H): 143 mm x 215 mm, Gewicht: 402 g
ISBN: 978-3-593-38256-2
Verlag: Campus Verlag GmbH
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
- Rechtswissenschaften Ausländisches Recht Islamisches Recht
- Sozialwissenschaften Politikwissenschaft Politische Systeme Demokratie
- Geisteswissenschaften Islam & Islamische Studien Islamisches Recht
- Geisteswissenschaften Islam & Islamische Studien Geschichte des Islam Geschichte des Islam: 20./21. Jahrhundert
- Geisteswissenschaften Geschichtswissenschaft Weltgeschichte & Geschichte einzelner Länder und Gebietsräume Geschichte einzelner Länder Afrikanische Geschichte
- Sozialwissenschaften Politikwissenschaft Politische Systeme Staats- und Regierungsformen, Staatslehre
Weitere Infos & Material
1. Introduction
The Return of Religion into Politics
Religion and Democracy
Religious and Political Motives
2. Religious and Ethnic Supremacy
The Caliphate of Sokoto
Islam as Support of the Colonial System
Transition to Independence
Hegemony of the North
3. The End of the Secular State
Withdrawal of the Military
Muslim Self-Determination
Islamization of all Spheres of Life
Western Constitutional Principles Rejected
4. Sharia as a Means of Political Blackmail
The Rise of Militias
Elite Pacts instead of Democracy
Migrants as Hostages
Restructuring the Federation
5. Sharia as a Counter-Model to Democracy
Divine versus Human Law
The Failure of Democracy
A New Era of Justice
The Utopia of Just Rule
6. Sharia Controversies among Muslims
The Political Players
Religious Authorities
A Liberal or Progressive Sharia
The Letter of the Law
7. Debates between Muslims and Christians
Secularism
Dialogue on Human Rights
Identification with Global Communities
A Changing Christianity
8. Prospects
Bibliography
Index
1. IntroductionThe Return of Religion into PoliticsReligion and DemocracyReligious and Political Motives2. Religious and Ethnic SupremacyThe Caliphate of SokotoIslam as Support of the Colonial SystemTransition to IndependenceHegemony of the North3. The End of the Secular StateWithdrawal of the MilitaryMuslim Self-DeterminationIslamization of all Spheres of LifeWestern Constitutional Principles Rejected4. Sharia as a Means of Political BlackmailThe Rise of MilitiasElite Pacts instead of DemocracyMigrants as HostagesRestructuring the Federation5. Sharia as a Counter-Model to DemocracyDivine versus Human LawThe Failure of DemocracyA New Era of JusticeThe Utopia of Just Rule6. Sharia Controversies among MuslimsThe Political PlayersReligious AuthoritiesA Liberal or Progressive ShariaThe Letter of the Law7. Debates between Muslims and ChristiansSecularismDialogue on Human RightsIdentification with Global CommunitiesA Changing Christianity8. ProspectsBibliographyIndex
The transition to democracy, in early 1999, had unexpected consequences. In some states of Northern Nigeria, dominated by Islamic ethnic groups, especially the Hausa-Fulani, the newly-elected parliaments introduced an Islamic penal code and other Sharia laws. Supporters of Sharia, apparently a large majority among Muslims, argued that they were only asserting their right to self-determination. They simply wanted to organize their lives according to the tenets of their faith, without forcing their beliefs on others. This is why Christians and so-called Traditionalists were expressly exempted from the harsh penalties for theft and adultery. When non-Muslims are involved in a legal dispute, whether civil or criminal, they have the right to be heard before a secular court.
Nonetheless, the Muslims' call for autonomy flies in the face of Nigeria's moderately secular tradition. The constitution makes provision for Sharia courts where Muslims can settle family affairs, but only if all parties to a dispute agree to have their case decided by Islamic law. Such courts have operated in most states of the Muslim North for decades. However, no state government has introduced 'full Sharia', which includes Islamic criminal law and a strict gender separation. The constitution does not allow elevating any religion to a state religion. Yet this principle is violated when governors in the North use state authority to Islamize public life. In Zamfara, the first state to introduce a strict form of Sharia, the government claimed that its religious reform was bringing about major changes: "all spheres of public life are being transformed into Islamic oriented institutions." This state-sponsored Islamization affected non-Muslims as well, as they were subjected to some Sharia proscriptions like the ban on alcohol and gender separation in hotels and restaurants, in buses and taxis. In Zamfara's state schools, boys and girls were separated without regard to their faith. In addition, all girls and young women were forced to conform to the Islamic dress code.
Critics of Sharia accused the new legislation of violating basic human rights: Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women are not treated equally, even though Nigeria's Western-oriented constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of religion or gender. Moreover, punishments such as flogging, stoning and amputation are to be regarded as torture or at least as "inhuman or degrading treatment", which is prohibited by the constitution. Representatives of Christian churches and human rights organizations have thus called for Sharia to be banned. Yet in the South of Nigeria, where Christians are in the majority, human dignity is not always respected, either. In most states, the authorities have supported ethnic militias or vigilantes that hunt down criminals. Anyone suspected of having committed a violent crime must reckon with a quick trial. The militiamen drag the condemned to some street corner and execute them with machetes, gasoline and car tires. Given this widespread use of summary justice, one cannot accuse the Sharia courts of being particularly cruel. In any event, the harsh hudud punishments have only been applied very hesitantly. In the first three years of Sharia, the courts sentenced more than 60 thieves to amputation, but only three cases became known in which the sentence was actually carried out. A more dangerous aspect of Sharia, in my opinion, is that it contributes to the decline of the state:
- By declaring the will of God the highest authority, Sharia politicians have given believers permission to disregard all man-made laws and agreements that are at variance with Islam. This undermined the legitimacy of the Christian president, and it also threatens the authority of the emirs and other representatives of the Islamic establishment.
- The call to shape state and society through the rules of Islam has increased antagonism between Muslims and members of other faiths. Christ
The transition to democracy, in early 1999, had unexpected consequences. In some states of Northern Nigeria, dominated by Islamic ethnic groups, especially the Hausa-Fulani, the newly-elected parliaments introduced an Islamic penal code and other Sharia laws. Supporters of Sharia, apparently a large majority among Muslims, argued that they were only asserting their right to self-determination. They simply wanted to organize their lives according to the tenets of their faith, without forcing their beliefs on others. This is why Christians and so-called Traditionalists were expressly exempted from the harsh penalties for theft and adultery. When non-Muslims are involved in a legal dispute, whether civil or criminal, they have the right to be heard before a secular court. Nonetheless, the Muslims' call for autonomy flies in the face of Nigeria's moderately secular tradition. The constitution makes provision for Sharia courts where Muslims can settle family affairs, but only if all parties to a dispute agree to have their case decided by Islamic law. Such courts have operated in most states of the Muslim North for decades. However, no state government has introduced 'full Sharia', which includes Islamic criminal law and a strict gender separation. The constitution does not allow elevating any religion to a state religion. Yet this principle is violated when governors in the North use state authority to Islamize public life. In Zamfara, the first state to introduce a strict form of Sharia, the government claimed that its religious reform was bringing about major changes: "all spheres of public life are being transformed into Islamic oriented institutions." This state-sponsored Islamization affected non-Muslims as well, as they were subjected to some Sharia proscriptions like the ban on alcohol and gender separation in hotels and restaurants, in buses and taxis. In Zamfara's state schools, boys and girls were separated without regard to their faith. In addition, all girls and young women were forced to conform to the Islamic dress code. Critics of Sharia accused the new legislation of violating basic human rights: Muslims and non-Muslims, men and women are not treated equally, even though Nigeria's Western-oriented constitution forbids discrimination on the basis of religion or gender. Moreover, punishments such as flogging, stoning and amputation are to be regarded as torture or at least as "inhuman or degrading treatment", which is prohibited by the constitution. Representatives of Christian churches and human rights organizations have thus called for Sharia to be banned. Yet in the South of Nigeria, where Christians are in the majority, human dignity is not always respected, either. In most states, the authorities have supported ethnic militias or vigilantes that hunt down criminals. Anyone suspected of having committed a violent crime must reckon with a quick trial. The militiamen drag the condemned to some street corner and execute them with machetes, gasoline and car tires. Given this widespread use of summary justice, one cannot accuse the Sharia courts of being particularly cruel. In any event, the harsh hudud punishments have only been applied very hesitantly. In the first three years of Sharia, the courts sentenced more than 60 thieves to amputation, but only three cases became known in which the sentence was actually carried out. A more dangerous aspect of Sharia, in my opinion, is that it contributes to the decline of the state: - By declaring the will of God the highest authority, Sharia politicians have given believers permission to disregard all man-made laws and agreements that are at variance with Islam. This undermined the legitimacy of the Christian president, and it also threatens the authority of the emirs and other representatives of the Islamic establishment. - The call to shape state and society through the rules of Islam has increased antagonism between Muslims and members of other faiths. Christians and