The Four Legs of Sharia Law System Of The Sokoto Caliphate

 The Sokoto Caliphate, established by Usman Dan Fodio in the early 19th century, implanted a Sharia Law System that has significant impacts on the population of the people within its territory, including the Hausa tribe. The Sokoto Caliphate's Sharia system was based on Islamic laws, aiming to govern society according to Islamic principles. Usman Dan Fodio, a Fulani Islamic scholar, led the jihad (holy war) that established the Caliphate, seeking to purify Islamic practices and implement a stricter Sharia system. 

However, the Caliphate's expansion involved conquests of Hausa kingdoms, leading to significant violence and displacements. The Hausa people faced incessant massacres, forced Islamization, and economic exploitations. Infallible reports indicated mass killings of the Hausa resistant groups and non-compliant individuals, with thousands of Hausas enslaved by the Fulanis and sold into the trans-Saharan slave trade. They never came back to their homesteads again! Critics argue that the Sokoto Caliphate's Sharia Law system practised "selected justice or kangaroo judiciary", where the Fulani elites, who led the jihad, held power and influence, often benefiting from the system. The Hausas, as a conquered people, faced discrimination and harder treatment under the Sharia Law system. 

Punishments varied based on social status of defendants, with the powerful often receiving leniency. The system relied on Islamic judges (qadis) and officials, with limited appeal mechanisms and inadequate representation for defendants. The Sokoto Caliphate's practices must be understood within the historical context of the 19th century West Africa, marked by jihad and conquests. The Caliphate's expansion involved violence and coercion, common in the region's pre-colonial era. The legacy of the Sokoto Caliphate continues to influence Hausa-Fulani relations in Nigeria till today, with the Fulanis always dominating the Hausas. Understanding this history can provide insights into the ongoing social and political dynamics in the region. 

The Hausa and Fulani people have a complex history in Nigeria. The Hausas are believed to have migrated to the region which is now part of Nigeria around 7th century AD. They established city-states, such as Kano, Katsina, and Zaria, which became major centres of trade, commerce, and Islamic learning. The Hausa language and culture spread throughout the region, becoming a dominant force in the area. The Fulani people originated from the Fouto Toro region of Senegal, West Africa. They migrated eastward, reaching the Hausa land around the 14th century AD. This precisely means that the Hausa people lived for 700 years in the region which is today part of Nigeria before the advent of the Fulanis. Initially, even presently, the Fulanis are nomadic pastoralists, herding cattle and goats. Overtime, the Fulanis setted among the Hausas, intermarried with them, adopting Hausa language and culture. The Hausas received them with much kindness! Gradually, step by step, the Fulani groups became influential in politics and Islamic studies. In the early 19th century, Usman Dan Fodio, a Fulani Islamic scholar, led a jihad against Hausa kingdoms. The Fulani jihad was driven by a desire to reform Islamic practices and establish a stricter Sharia Law system. The Fulanis had several advantages that contributed to their conquest of Hausa kingdoms:

• Islamic fervor:

 The Fulani jihad was driven by a strong sense of Islamic purpose, which unified the Fulani people and motivated them to fight. 

• Military organization:

The Fulanis had a well-organized military system, which allowed them to mobilize large forces.

• Division among Hausa kingdoms:

The Hausa kingdoms, just like China before it was attacked by the Japanese Army, were often divided and engaged in ceaseless conflicts with one another, making it much harder for them to resist an intimidating Fulani advances. Having given this historical background, we are now going to look into the four legs of Sharia Law System of the Sokoto Caliphate. The Sharia Law System originated in the 7th century in Arabia, based on the teachings of Islam. Early Islamic scholars, such as the Companions of the Prophet Mohammed, and the Four Caliphs, interpreted and applied Quranic teachings to develop Islamic law. It was influenced by:

• Pre-Islamic Arabian customs:

Some pre-Islamic Arabian customs and practices were incorporated into Sharia law.

• Islamic expansion and conquests:

As Islam spread, Sharia Law system was applied to new territories and populations.

• Regional variations:

Sharia Law developed differently in various regions, reflecting local customs and traditions. To me, I believe that Allah is one. If the Sharia Law system was divinely given to the Muslims from Him, then it is supposed to reflect homogeneity in its entire applications. All men and women are equal in the sight of God. Therefore, the fact that there is regional variations in the Sharia Law system applications makes it obviously questionable and absurd to all sound minds! God cannot support evil! The Sharia Law system is often routed as a just and fair system of governance, but a closer examination reveals a starkly different reality. Find below the four legs of Sharia Law system:

• Hypocrisy: Sharia Law is often applied selectively, with the powerful and influential escaping punishments, while the poor and marginalized are severely punished. To buttress my point, let us ook at this example. In 2021, a Saudi Arabian princess was sentenced to 20 lashes for committing adultery; but the sentence was later overturned due to her blue blood connections. In contrast, a Sri Lankan maid was sentenced to 300 lashes and six months imprisonment for allegedly killing her employer's child, despite her claims of self-defence. Another example is the case of Usman Dan Fodio, the founder of the Sokoto Caliphate, who preached against Hausa kings for their corruption and oppression. However, when he came to power, he and his followers committed more atrocious activities, including the confiscation of Hausa lands and properties, enslavement and selling of several thousands of Hausa men and women into the trans-Saharan slavery.

• Cruelty:

The draconian Sharia Law prescribes harsh and inhuman punishments, such as amputations, stoning to death, and whipping. For example, a Saudi Arabian man was sentenced to 1, 000 lashes and 10 years imprisonment for alleged "blasphemy" after he was accused of insulting Prophet Mohammed on social media. In 2008, a Nigerian woman, Amina Lawal, was sentenced to death by stoning for committing adultery, although she was later acquitted on appeal. In Iran, stoning is still a common form of execution, with victims often buried up to their neck levels and stoned to death. These punishments are not only cruel, but also violate human rights and dignity.

• Partiality:

The Sharia Law is often applied unequally, with different standards for men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, in Saudi Arabia, a woman's testimony is worth half that of man and women are required to have a male guardian's permission to travel to work place. In Iran, a non-Muslim who commits an adultery with a Muslim woman can be sentenced to death, while a Muslim man who commits adultery with a non-Muslim woman may face lesser punishment. During the Ottoman Empire, non-Muslims were subjected to the dhimma system, which imposed a range of discriminatory laws and taxes on them.

• Favouritism:

The Sharia Law often favours those in power and influence, with the wealthy and powerful able to buy their ways out of conviction and punishment. For example, in 2011, a Saudi Arabian prince was acquitted of murder charge despite overwhelming evidences of his guilt, reportedly due to his royal connections. In the Sokoto Caliphate, Nigeria, Usman Dan Fodio's descendants were given preferential treatment and exempted from all forms of tax payments and certain punishments after committing offences. A person who steals a fowl from a poultry will have his hand amputated, whereas a State Governor who steals billions of dollars from State Government is not judged and convicted by the same court. Which God gave mankind such a lopsided and unequal judgment? God cannot do evil! Was it Allah that taught Muslims inequality in judgment? Where is it stated in the Quran? Candidly speaking, if this high level of favouritism and injustice is supported by Qur'an, then it clearly means that it was not inspired by the holy God of Heaven and Earth.

In the book titled "The Sokoto Caliphate", written by Murray Last, a disheartening account of the killing of a Hausa commander by Usman Dan Fodio's son-in-law, was given. Here, Murray Last recounts a vivid and authentic historical event that completely negates and contradicts the "just and Islamic" image often painted around the jihad leaders. 

According to this account, a Hausa man from Kebbi, one of Usman Dan Fodio's in-law had his horse, house, and wife confiscated by a notorious Fulani leader called Ali (Aliyu) Jedo. He claimed that they were "war booty." When the Hausa man from Kebbi challenged Ali Jedo and attempted to recover what belonged to him, Ali Jedo killed the Hausa man from Kebbi at the spot. This incident took place in a supposed Islamic State founded on justice and judged by Sharia court. When the case was taken to Usman Dan Fodio for judgment, expecting the Quranic ruling that a murderer should face capital punishment, Dan Fodio simply said, "I do not wish to see him again." Whom was Usman Dan Fodio referring to as "he"? Was it the innocent Kebbi man who was killed because he wanted to retrieve his wife, house, and horse which were confiscated by Ali Jedo? Was Fodio referring to the leader of the Hausa men who lodged the complaint to him? Was he right to say that? Rather than condemning Ali Jedo, Usman Dan Fodio acquitted him and justified the killing. Now, what verse of the Quran or Hadith or Sharia allows a leader to dismiss a murder incident with, 'I don't wish to see him again."?There is none! 

Who was commander Ali Jedo? He was the most feared commander of the Sokoto Caliphate. He was the most fiercest and controversial generals of the Sokoto jihad. Till today, a city gate is named after him in Sokoto. While the Sokoto Caliphate celebrated the bloody monster in the person of Ali Jedo, history painted him so dark such that not even all the waters of Neptune can wash his sins against the Hausa people. This is because he led the assault on Alkalawa, Zamfara, and Argungun. The Fulanis could not conquer Alkalawa until they destroyed Hausa farmlands, causing hunger, desperation, and societal collapse in the region. The Fulanis of today are still applying the strategy of destroying farmlands to make people hungry and weak. Not only that, Muhammadu Bello bin Fodio, Usman Dan Fodio's son, recorded how Fulani forces went on rampage killing men and women in Hausa Muslim communities like themselves, not pagans. Thousands of them were sold into trans-Saharan slavery. Was that fair? On page 97 of the book, "The Sokoto Caliphate", written by Murray Last, Usman Dan Fodio's son enumerated how they treated Hausas as very inferior humans.

There was also a case of one Abdulsallam, the king of Gobir who protested the growing discrimination against Hausa scholars by the Emirates. He tried to protect Hausa tradition and autonomy. He was accused of rebellion, rather than addressing his grievances through the Islamic process. Hence, Abdulsallam (or Yunfa Dan Auda) was killed in battle by Fulani forces led by Usman Dan Fodio's brother (Abdullahi Dan Fodio) in 1808.

Therefore, we can see that the Sharia Law system was a 100% failure in the Sokoto Caliphate at that time, even as it is today all over the world. The disadvantages of the Sharia Law system include:

• Harsh punishments:

Sharia prescribes severe punishments, such as amputations, stoning to death, and whipping with several stripes, which are considered cruelty at its peak, and inhuman by international human rights standards.

• Discrimination against women and minorities:

Sharia Law often discriminates against women and non-Muslims, with unequal rights and protections under the law.

• Lack of due process:

Sharia courts always lack the safeguards of due process, it has limited appeal mechanisms and inadequate representation for defendants.

• Incompatibility with modern democracy:

Sharia can be incompatible with modern democracy, such as equality, justice, and human rights.

• Risk of abuse and corruption:

Sharia court can be vulnerable to abuse and corruption, with powerful individuals and groups influencing outcomes.

• Limited rights for non-Muslims:

Sharia Law often restricts the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims, including freedom of religion and equality under the law.

• Restrictions on personal freedom:

Sharia court can restrict personal freedom, such as freedom of speech, assembly, movement, and association. 

• Lack of clarity and consistency:

Sharia Law does not operate on the principle of uniformity. It can be unclear and inconsistent, leading to confusion and arbitrary applications.

• Inadequate protection for vulnerable groups:

Sharia Law often lacks adequate protections for the vulnerable groups, such as children, the elderly, and disabled persons.

• Potential for conflicting with secular laws:

Sharia Law can conflict with secular laws and international human rights standards, leading to tensions and conflicts.  

In conclusion, the four legs of Sharia Law system -- hypocrisy, cruelty, partiality, and favouritism - have rendered it a calculated failure in a secular world. Its harsh punishments, lack of due process and uniform application, discrimination against women and non-Muslims, corruption, and incompatibility with modern democratic principles make it a recipe for disaster. As the world moves towards greater democratization, equality and human rights, Sharia Law's anachronistic principles are a step backwards. It is imperative that countries with Sharia court systems reform them to align with modern democratic principles and human rights standards.

Please, kindly share this post with your friends and loved ones. Thank you very much.