3
Boko Haram and its Muslim critics: Observations from Yobe State
p. 33-62
Résumé
The campaign to transform state and society on the basis of Shariah was begun by Muslim politicians in 1999, when military rule ended and power shifted to the Christian South. Although the pious campaign was mainly a matter of political intrigues, it established a paradigm that still frames political debates. Few Muslims in the far north of Nigeria would openly question what the imams are preaching: that the will of God takes precedence over man-made laws and constitutions. Like most other Islamic organisations, Boko Haram refers to this principle. With its call for a consequent Islamisation, it seeks to achieve what Muslim politicians in the North have promised, but failed to deliver. This makes it difficult to denounce the aims of the rebels, and the Islamic establishment appears unable to formulate a coherent counter-paradigm. – My article will take a closer look at the disputes which Boko Haram has provoked among Muslims. In doing so, I will draw on recent observations in some rural communities in Yobe State. Mohammed Yusuf, the founder of Boko Haram, and Abubakar Shekau, its present leader, hail from Yobe; here and in neighbouring Borno, the insurgents enjoy some popular support. Yet my impression is that Boko Haram’s vision of a caliphate has very limited appeal. Most people do not want to live under a strict Shariah regime. However, Muslim critics of Boko Haram are themselves deeply divided. The two dominant religious organisations in north-east Nigeria, the Tijaniyya brotherhood and the Salafist Izala, cannot agree on an alternative model of an Islamic society which they might set against the orthodoxy of the militants. Concepts of divine justice are vague and contradictory, and there are no clear boundaries between moderate and radical Muslims. In order to appease Boko Haram, villagers suggested a more consequent application of Shariah by eradicating drinking and gambling and by placing females under stricter supervision. However, they have shown little interest in using the divine laws to reform the dysfunctional public administration. Most citizens, including Izala and Tijaniyya functionaries, are entangled in the web of corruption that links villagers with the local government administration. They complain about the hypocrisy of politicians, who do not obey the laws they profess, but resemble them as they break their religious obligations at will.
Texte intégral
Religious populism
1What Boko Haram is fighting for – the Islamisation of state and society through a strict application of Shariah – was propagated by Hausa and Fulani politicians more than ten years ago. They suddenly declared that the moderate form of Shariah which had been in force in most northern states since Independence in 1960 was no longer acceptable: state governments should enact proper Shariah. Attempts to extend the competence of Islamic Law courts had long been central to the disputes between Muslims and Christians, and the political elites in the North knew that the introduction of harsher Islamic laws would spark violent conflicts. When ‘Shariah clashes’ in February and May 2000 killed an estimated 2,000 people, President Obasanjo appealed to the authorities in Zamfara, Kaduna, and other northern states to suspend the new legislation in order to prevent more bloodshed. Yet the political establishment in the Far North stood firm. After intensive consultations, the pro-Shariah line prevailed, and most political and religious leaders declared that a moderate form of Shariah was not compatible with their religious convictions: God’s law must not be restricted to cases of inheritance, matrimonial affairs, and other civil matters but had to be practised in full. In order to achieve this religious mission, some politicians went as far as demanding total commitment and self-sacrifice. Muhammadu Buhari, the most prominent politician in the Far North, assured his followers: “I can die for the cause of Islam”,1 and the Governor of Yobe State, Bukar Abba Ibrahim, added: “If necessary, we are prepared to fight another civil war. We cannot be blackmailed into killing Sharia”.2
2Buhari, Shagari, Balaraba Musa, and all the other big men who enlisted their support for the Shariah project knew that Governor Ahmed Sani of Zamfara, who had begun the process of passing strict Islamic laws, had done so for self-serving reasons. As one of Babangida’s henchmen, with a lucrative position in Nigeria’s central bank, Sani had become accustomed to living a life of luxury and lust. After the end of military rule, when he refashioned himself as an “apostle of Sharia”,3 he openly renounced his former life of sin and apologised for having stolen public money. But when asked whether he would repay the money that he had embezzled, he said No.4 Campaigning on a Shariah ticket in 1999 had enabled him to oust a formidable contender: former National Security Adviser Lt.-General Aliyu Gusau. Following Governor Sani’s success, other politicians also depicted themselves as uncompromising fighters for the cause of Islam. Jumping on the Shariah bandwagon was, above all, a means to advance their political careers. Shariah, however, was also used to strengthen the position of the northern political establishment as a whole. After power had shifted to the South, northerners used Shariah as a “bargaining chip” to put pressure on the Christian president.5
3The government of Zamfara promised that “all spheres of public life are being transformed into Islamic oriented institutions”.6 However, these transformations did not make the authorities any more responsive to the plight of the people. In some respects, the situation in Zamfara had even deteriorated: “Reports of forceful acquisition of land and other properties of the less-privileged by those in authority, particularly village and districts heads, have reached … alarming proportion(s)”.7 As in other parts of Nigeria, poverty has increased while the ruling elites, behind a façade of Muslim piety, have continued to enjoy the way of life to which they are accustomed: “[W]e have formed a habit of sending our girlfriends to London and Paris to make their hair and do shopping in London and America. We steal the money from the oil”.8
Turning Shariah against the elites
4Young militants in Maiduguri or Kano have good reasons to hate the representatives of the state. Their rebellion is born out of poverty, illiteracy, and unemployment; it is a response to corruption and social neglect. Given the shocking disparities in wealth, analysts in the West have argued that government, in order to stop the violence, has to address the root causes of the crisis. It has to reach out to those it has alienated and offer them employment, better education, and other services to raise the standard of living. A top official in the US State Department, who was calling for political reforms, claimed that “[r]eligion is not driving extremist violence in Nigeria”; instead, he blamed “the underlying political and social economic problems in the north”.9 However, interpreting the rebellion as a protest against deteriorating living conditions is at odds with the statements of Boko Haram leaders, who insist on the religious motives of their insurrection: “[T]his is a war between Muslims and non-[M]uslims. … this is not a tribal war, nor is it … a war for financial gains, it is solely a religious war”.10 Commentators in Europe and North America, writing for a secular readership, have sought to make this war comprehensible by identifying poverty and social injustice as the real causes of the rebellion. However, it does not lead to a deeper understanding of Boko Haram (and Muslim resistance to it) when analysts leave aside that the rebels, when responding to the Nigerian crisis, seek a religious solution to it:
The group’s preaching – available on cassettes across the region – concerned almost exclusively detailed points of religious doctrine and what actions can and cannot be permitted within Islam. While this did include debates on the relations between democracy and Islam, it would be incorrect to think that Yusuf (the founder of Boko Haram) was a social reformer or was overly concerned with corruption. His concern was a pure interpretation of Islamic texts. (Crisis Group, Northern Nigeria, 38)11
5For most Muslims in the North it makes sense to turn to religion in order to liberate themselves from decades of moral and economic decay. Secular institutions, which were brought to Africa by white colonisers, have failed, particularly in northern Nigeria, where citizens are disillusioned with Western ways of development. A vast majority no longer believes that democracy, human rights, and a market economy offer a way out. Nigeria’s Fourth Republic was modelled along the lines of the US Constitution, but its citizens have not been able to make use of its democratic institutions to submit their rulers to public control: “Not a single one of those Northern governors has deemed it his duty to worry about [the] plight of the people”.12 The number of people living on less than 2 USD a day has increased, although the governors in the North (like their counterparts in the South) have received far more revenues from the federation account than in the late 1990s, under General Abacha, when a barrel of oil sold for 10 USD.
6Since citizens have never found ways to control their rulers, they can only hope that politicians will submit at least to the authority of God. Theocratic rule is regarded as an alternative to democracy; it derives its attraction from the sense that Western concepts of modernisation have led to a dead end. While party democracy seems to encourage strife and ruthless competition, Shariah is conceived as a force that may check the excesses of the ruling class. The immutable law of God, which is the same all over the world, will be the yardstick by which all segments of the society, rich and poor, must be judged. Thus, the arrogant elite would be integrated into a moral community, in which rulers and ruled are united by a shared culture, as they had been in the mythical beginnings of Islam.
7It was rumoured that the Sultan of Sokoto, like many other Muslim dignitaries, was unhappy with Shariah, but he could not openly declare that God’s law should no longer be binding. At the height of the Shariah campaign, most political and religious leaders in the Far North supported the introduction of harsher Islamic laws, yet made sure that these laws were implemented only in a selective and half-hearted way.13 Boko Haram’s militancy is, in part, a reaction to the cynical game of politicians who mobilised religious sentiments in the interests of their political ambitions. By posing as campaigners of an Islamic renewal, they have discredited themselves. To make matters worse, by declaring that their states must be run according to divine laws, they have empowered religious experts who can speak more competently about the will of God. This counter-elite has turned into a dangerous rival, because imams – especially those who stress their radical distance from the political class – have the capacity to mobilise the masses against the hypocrisy of the big men. One way of putting pressure on politicians is to insist that they abide by the standards of rectitude enshrined in the divine law. All sections of the ummah (the community of the faithful) had committed themselves to these standards when they insisted, against Christian pressure, on the necessity of living according to Shariah. Thus Shariah can be used against the same elites who propagated it. No prominent Muslim politician has dared to confront religious leaders by suggesting that the Shariah laws passed between 2000 and 2002 be scrapped. This makes it difficult for the Islamic establishment to denounce militants like Boko Haram, who are simply demanding what politicians promised but failed to deliver.
Shariah as a dividing force
8Ordinary Muslims are disillusioned with the selective form of Shariah implemented by politicians. However, the idea of Shariah, as depicted by imams, is still popular among them.14 This does not mean that radicals like Boko Haram, who fight for an undiluted form of divine law, can count on widespread support. Most Muslims in the North do not want to live under a Taliban-like regime, although they find it difficult to formulate a counter-model when distancing themselves from the militants. Ideas about Shariah are diverse and often vague. Adherents of the Tijaniyya brotherhood, the dominant Muslim grouping in the North-East, tended to be lax in matters of Islamic Law and came under attack from more zealous Muslims who entered the scene in the 1970s: preachers with a certificate in Islamic studies (acquired in Saudi Arabia or at some university in Nigeria), who toured the countryside in order to impose, with the followers they gained, their purist version of a righteous life, often inspired by Salafist ideas or by Shia publications from Iran. Against these foreign doctrines, adherents of Tijaniyya tried to defend what little personal freedom they still had. However, their rejection of undue religious interference does not mean that they were fighting for tolerance and equal rights. Like other Muslims in the North, they want a society dominated by Islam, where infidels and women know their place.
9The other major organisation, the Salafist Izala (“Society for the Eradication of (un-Islamic) Innovations and the Establishment of the Sunnah”), comes closer to Boko Haram in that it emphasises the necessity of scrupulously following God’s commandments as revealed in the Quran and the Sunnah. Yet a literal interpretation of the holy texts, as suggested by Izala, does not necessarily lead to a strategy of violence: instead of attacking the state apparatus, as Boko Haram suggests, it is better to take it over. By engaging with the state, Muslims have a chance to Islamise it, pushing for reforms that will gradually expand the official, state-enforced Shariah legislation. If they are to enhance their political influence, Muslims have to acquire Western-style education; without school certificates they cannot apply for senior positions in the state bureaucracy. This reformist apology of appropriating secular education and accepting jobs in an un-Islamic government appeals to those who have found employment, especially if they are young and better educated. But it is less attractive to the millions of jobless youths. Most of them just attended Quranic schools, where they learnt little else but to copy and memorise suwar (sing.: surah) written and pronounced in a language they did not understand (Arabic). Products of an almajiri education used to stick to the teachings of the two main Sufi brotherhoods (tariqa), the Qadiriyya and Tijaniyya, yet they are also drawn to the message of Boko Haram: that Western schools, by spreading alien, materialist values, have corrupted society and must be banned.
10When comparing the statements of religious organisations, it becomes clear that there is no major ideological difference between moderates and radicals. I will illustrate this, at the end of this contribution, by looking at three topics which have been at the centre of controversies generated by Boko Haram: the rejection of Western education; the declaration that some fellow Muslims are infidels who may be killed with impunity; and the attacks on Christians. In reconstructing some features of these debates, I will quote from newspaper articles and other materials available on the Internet, and I will draw on my own observations in 2011 and 2012 when I spent a few months in some remote locations in Yobe (and Borno) State.15 In these rural towns and villages, questions of religious doctrine were widely discussed, among both local government employees and illiterate farmers. However, theological disputes are just one aspect of the present crisis. They reflect social divisions between old and young, between illiterate and Western-educated Nigerians. In addition, they are shaped by political interests and intrigues. Thus, I will first discuss the political setting within which groups like Tijaniyya, Izala, and Boko Haram operate. Then I will look at the social composition of their members, their relationship with the political class, and the bitter antagonisms among these groups: not just between Boko Haram and the religious establishment but also between Izala and Tijaniyya.
11Given these deep divisions, it is unlikely that Muslims in northern Nigeria will direct the rigour of God’s law against their oppressors. Clerics may decry a depraved and godless ruling class, but the faithful will not muster the common strength to confront those who are mainly responsible for the social and economic decline. Another reason why the project of a religious renewal of society will fail is the absence of credible leaders, as many imams have an ambivalent relationship towards the political establishment. Even Yusuf, the founder of Boko Haram, was close to the corrupt authorities in Borno State, sometimes working with them and sometimes confronting them. Although he was preaching jihad, his political patrons still bailed him out in January 2009 when he was detained in Abuja. On his return to Maiduguri, where he received a triumphant welcome, the streets at the reception venue were lined with exotic cars.16 There is a further reason why religion will fail to domesticate the political elite: despite popular resentment of the rapacious elites, there is considerable complicity with them. Politicians and citizens work hand in hand to defraud the state, and they both take a very selective interest in Shariah. They observe their ritual obligations and maintain some Islamic decorum but have few qualms violating the holy injunctions against adultery and other vices.
The failure of democracy
12Elections in Nigeria are very competitive, with a high turnover of incumbents. However, citizens have little influence on this process, as crucial decisions are taken by cliques of politicians behind the scenes. During the Shariah campaign, however, it looked as if ordinary people would be able to have some effect on government policies. In Borno, for instance, the incumbent governor lost out in 2003 to his rival within the ruling All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP), Modu Sheriff, who promised to be serious about the implementation of Shariah and who won the backing of Islamists like Mohammed Yusuf, the Boko Haram leader. After being elected, Sheriff created a ministry of religious affairs and put a close confidante of Yusuf in charge of it (in return for the support Boko Haram gangs had rendered him during the election campaign). But aside from that, he did not care much about divine justice. In early 2011, when his two terms drew to a close, the main concern of the ruling party was keeping the governor’s family in power. Political controversies revolved around the question of whether Sheriff’s cousin or his younger brother would succeed him. Pro-Shariah activists felt tricked: Sheriff had turned into a traitor; he had sided with the secular government in Abuja and called in the soldiers and policemen who murdered Yusuf in 2009.
13The elections of 2011 were greeted by many international observers as an important step in consolidating democracy.17 The chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission had clearly been independent, and there was less rigging than during the Obasanjo era. However, in those rural settlements of Yobe State where I witnessed the election campaign, people did not have much choice. Civil servants had been warned not to support the main opposition party, and some who did lost their jobs. On election day, the higher ranks of the administration, including chiefs and village heads, were expected to display their ballots so that everybody at the polling stations could see where they had cast their vote. After the incumbent governor had been confirmed in office, he consolidated his hold on power by cancelling local government elections and appointing ANPP men as caretaker chairmen and councillors. Many citizens were upset about the high-handedness of their governor, but they knew that his main challenger, a businessman who had bought the PDP governorship ticket, was not any better. I learnt that he normally lived abroad and only flew in for the election campaign. Even when inside the country he preferred spending his time in Abuja to visiting the state he wanted to rule.
14People were fed up with party politics. They complained that everything had become politicised: the distribution of jobs, the sale of subsidised fertiliser, and the appointment of village and ward heads. Whatever resources state officials were dishing out were turned into a means to build up political patronage. A man who benefited from an ANPP politician was bound to him and could not support the main opposition party. Even a night watchman or a borehole operator risked losing his job if he did. Or a farmer might find himself without protection when wealthier neighbours tried to push him from his land. Although people grumbled about the rot in the local government and state administration, they did not unite to force politicians to stick to the laws. They preferred to participate in misappropriating public funds, if given a chance. And they were willing to back corrupt politicians, if they received something in return. Especially the poor and vulnerable could not afford to antagonise the big men. They were too much concerned with individual survival to form a common front against those on whose generosity they depended. There is not much solidarity among impoverished farmers and jobless youth. As they compete over the means of survival, they are rivals for the favours of the rich and powerful.
15Ordinary people and those in authority were accomplices in the embezzlement of public property. Their behaviour was guided by similar maxims; thus, it was difficult to take a principled stance against social vices. Both rich and poor presented themselves as pious Muslims but took a very limited, selfish interest in the law of God. Most kept their wives in purdah but had little compunction committing adultery with unmarried girls.
Muddling through
16Boko Haram was perceived, above all, as a nuisance because the insurgency made life more difficult. Economic activities were hindered, travelling became inconvenient owing to the many roadblocks, and the enhanced presence of policemen brought more chicanery and extortion. However, much of the blame for the insecurity was placed on the federal government, as it was widely assumed that President Jonathan could reach a settlement with Boko Haram, if only he wanted to. The rebels – I was told – were ready to make a deal with the government, just like the militants in the Niger Delta, who had attacked oil installations in order to extort money from the federal authorities. Such assertions about the aims of Boko Haram were of course mere speculation, for people had no direct contact with the insurgents. They followed the news on BBC and Voice of America, and some had seen interviews with Yusuf on Nigerian television. A few men were known to harbour sympathy for Boko Haram, but they kept a low profile since they had been interrogated by the state security service and warned not to make a mistake. Many others, in particular the younger ones, may have secretly admired Boko Haram’s courageous attacks on the hated authorities. However, the general attitude towards the insurrection was rather negative. When discussing the attacks in the state capital Damaturu and other towns, it was often pointed out that innocent people had to suffer from the cycle of violence and counter-violence, although some commentators held that Boko Haram’s ruthless attacks might, in the end, have a beneficial effect: the escalation of violence made it clear that the rotten political system in the North was no longer sustainable. The ruling elite had to completely change its ways and assume responsibility for the masses, improving the living conditions and bringing social justice. Otherwise Nigeria would fall apart, and the political class would lose its sources of income.18
17Whatever the outcome of the conflict, it seemed best not to be drawn into it. The majority of the people wanted to be left alone, and this was only possible if they did not offend either side. Local authorities had a similar interest. Thus they convened, at the instigation of the Yobe governor, town and village meetings in order to discuss what could be done to appease the rebels. I learnt that those who contributed to the discussions reiterated their commitment to Islam and their support for Shariah. It was suggested that the community get tough on gambling and drinking, which were still tolerated behind the scenes.19 Moreover, it seemed advisable to tighten control over women and no longer allow them to talk to men when in public. One of the conveners of the meetings declared that any man who impregnated a girlfriend should marry her. Everybody knew of course that this was not the orthodox way of dealing with adultery, but they hoped that Boko Haram would spare them if they maintained some semblance of Islamic piety.
18The rejection of Boko Haram’s narrow Islamist vision was not born out of democratic convictions. People found it legitimate to impose an Islamic order on the state, and Shariah was accepted, in principle, as the appropriate means to strengthen the Islamic identity of their towns and villages. Christians were not seen as members of the community, even if they had been living there as farmers or artisans for two or three decades. They were not allowed to construct churches along the main roads but had to ask for a piece of land on the outskirts of town or in the bush.
The quest for orthodoxy
19All Muslim organisations that operated in Borno and Yobe State rejected the separation of religion and politics and welcomed the strict Shariah laws adopted in 2000.20 Yet, they were polarised over the implementation of these laws and argued over the composition of Hisbah vigilantes that were meant to enforce them. Boko Haram has rekindled these controversies, as it brought the quest for an orthodox Shariah back onto the political agenda. Some twenty or thirty years ago, matters of doctrine had played a minor role, and most people outside the urban centres had not been aware that rival forms of Islam existed. The indigenes of those peripheral settlements where I followed the debates on Boko Haram were members of ethnic minorities, and Islam had spread among them only in colonial times. Until the 1980s, village chiefs had been in the centre of rural Islam, although they were illiterates with only rudimentary knowledge of religious doctrines. Being a Muslim made only modest demands on their way of life. The faithful had to participate in communal prayers, observe Ramadan, and wear some form of Islamic dress. Otherwise, they were not much curtailed by religious prescriptions. A few itinerant mallams, sent by the Shehu of Borno, toured these outlying regions, but they did not challenge the authority of the chiefs. Islamic teachers were expected to support the traditional rulers. Thus, it was acceptable for a newly elected chief to dismiss the imam of his predecessor and bring in a new one. Tijaniyya, as long as it was not challenged by other Muslim organisations, gave traditional rulers much latitude. They could continue to participate in ancient rites, as long as they supported the spread of Islam.
20All this changed in the 1990s, when Izala entered the scene. Inspired by Wahhabi doctrines, it sought to purify a lax and adulterated Islam. Its activists polarised town and village communities because they drew a clear line between themselves and members of other Muslim organisations. Whoever did not follow their literal interpretation of Islam was ritually impure. It was therefore prohibited to eat with such a person or to submit to his authority. This message of a religious self-purification attracted, above all, young and educated men, who used the language of orthodox Islam to distance themselves from their elders, blaming them for not being consistent in their rejection of pagan traditions. While the old village culture, with its exuberant festivals and lavish sacrifices, appeared to be steeped in magic and superstition, Islamic Law, as Izala presented it, was rational, transparent, and straightforward. It taught the faithful to avoid needless expenses and reject pompous ceremonies and ostentatious displays of wealth.21 Bride price payments and other social obligations should be modest, so that every man could afford to create a family. Such rules favoured the young, as did some of the legal reforms advocated by Izala. The Islamic law of inheritance, for instance, appeared preferable to many, because it divided the land of the deceased among the family members and gave each heir full control over his or her share, including the right to sell it. ‘Traditional’ law, by contrast, treated farmland as family property and kept it intact under the supervision of the eldest son or some other relative. Each family member was allotted land for farming, but he or she was allowed only to cultivate, not to sell it. The new system instead allowed for individual initiative and facilitated the sale of land.
21For young people, the Izala programme was attractive because it levelled social differences. Nobody should bow before his parents and other authorities, and nobody should command respect only because of his wealth. What mattered, when measuring the status of a person, was piety and religious knowledge – characteristics which anybody could achieve, irrespective of his social origin. By de-emphasising social differences, the teachings of Izala also sought to obliterate ethnic antagonisms. All faithful, no matter what their tribal background, should live according to the same set of rules. This rejection of cultural diversity was attractive for Muslims from ethnic minorities, especially those who were willing to renounce their tribal heritage and assimilate to the dominant Hausa culture. When becoming Hausa, they entered a stratified society where differences of birth continued to be of importance. In most places, the Hausa, and to a greater extent the Fulani, forget neither their own origins nor those of others. Ethnic outsiders, by contrast, wanted a level playing field, and this fit with the radicalism of Izala and other reformers, who denounced ethnic prerogatives as un-Islamic:
[A]ll Muslims, irrespective of race, language or nationality, must constitute a single brotherhood, one Umma. … the Umma, from one end of the world to the other, is but one single nation, its diverse peoples sharing but one faith, one law, one culture and one destiny”.22
22However, the universal law of Islam is not as clear and unequivocal as Salafist clerics suggest. In 1990 Izala split, and the two hostile factions were shouting at each other with loudspeakers. An old woman, whose house stood close to an Izala mosque, told me that she tried not to listen to the preaching, but the noise was so enervating that she had gone to the Izala leaders a couple of times to curse at them. She wanted them to pack up and go. She explained to me that there was no religion she hated more than Izala because it undermined family ties: “When your father cuts a ram, and you are not allowed to eat it, what religion is this?” A titleholder whose five children had all joined Izala also deplored that the youth turned away from their parents: “We [elders] slaughter our animals according to Islamic Law, yet our children call us infidels and do not touch our food.” Moreover, the children no longer asked them about the history of their family or their village. The transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next had stopped, because “Izala tells them not to listen”. Encouraged to acquire book knowledge and study the Quran, they judged with it the crude and hybrid Islam of their fathers.
23For adherents of Tijaniyya it was difficult to distance themselves from Izala, because its doctrine seemed to follow scrupulously the original message of the Prophet. All those who deviated from such orthodoxy ran the risk of being branded insincere Muslims. A Tijaniyya imam, who was the vice chairmen of a Shariah implementation committee, acknowledged that it was difficult to justify his more lenient form of Islam. In order not to expose himself to Izala criticism, he had adopted many demands formulated by the purists: women should not work on farms, and their whole body should be covered when in public. Yet he defended the ancient naming and burial ceremonies which used to be costly social events. The Quran, he argued, did not talk about these exercises; thus they were not prohibited. Boycotting them, as Izala did, was not – in his eyes – based on religious considerations, but motivated by a wish to save money and to evade social obligations.
24In its official pronouncements, Tijaniyya shared Izala’s position that all aspects of public and private life have to conform to Islamic injunctions. However, Nigeria’s brotherhoods, like other religious movements, assemble people of diverse persuasions, many of whom would disagree with the official self-representation of their leaders. An elderly Tijaniyya imam, for instance, defended some of the traditional agricultural rituals, such as fertility rites, which had been more effective than mere prayers to Allah. He bemoaned that the village authorities, under Izala pressure, had stopped participating in the rain-making processions which had benefited the whole community. The imam’s defence of his ancestral heritage went hand in hand with a meticulous observance of his ritual obligations under Islam. From his perspective, Izala members were bad Muslims because they prayed in a simplified, ‘incorrect’ way. They entered mosques without covering their head, wearing blue jeans and t-shirts: “They are just like pagans.” Since most young people were attracted by this informality, he assumed that his own dignified form of Islam would be pushed aside: “Izala will win.” He also identified another reason for their superiority: “They are stronger, because they have money, and their people are in government. Governors, commissioners are all Izala.”
A religion for the dispossessed
25Others judged the prospect of the Tijaniyya less pessimistically: “As long as there are almajirai, the brotherhoods will have a large following.” Students of Quranic schools spend years copying and memorising God’s revelation in its original Arabic form, but most of them never learn to properly read and understand the meaning of these alien words. To them, an organisation like Izala that stresses the value of literacy and the exegesis of holy scriptures has little appeal. They are more at ease with the old brotherhoods, which are less concerned with rigid dogmas but allow for mystical experiences. Tijaniyya mallams sell charms to their customers and facilitate contact with the spirit world. However, for many illiterates – and especially for the uprooted urban youth who hope for a radical change – Boko Haram may also be an attractive option. By internalising the message that Western education is corrupt and that true knowledge can be acquired without it, young men without literacy (and other vocational skills) may recover some dignity. For those who join Boko Haram, an almajiri background is not a stigma; it does not hinder them making it to the top. The group’s founder Yusuf, like its present leader Shekau, started as an almajiri, but made an impressive career by diligently acquiring Islamic knowledge. Like millions of other young men without school certificates,23 Yusuf suffered from constant humiliations. Fellow Muslims derided him an as “amateur cleric”24 and ridiculed his insufficient knowledge,25 although it was clear from his lectures and interviews and his participation in public debates that he was an erudite man. As a favourite disciple of the famous Sheikh Ja’far Adam,26 he was a member of Izala (until 2000), yet was barred from preaching at certain occasions because he did not possess a certificate from a university in Saudi Arabia or some other prestigious Islamic institution.27 Yusuf refused to accept this discrimination; he insisted that he was guided in his words and deeds by a comprehensive knowledge of the holy scriptures. Unlike Maitatsine, the leader of an Islamist uprising in 1980, he did not make it easy for his critics to dismiss his teachings as heterodox. While Maitatsine styled himself a prophet and abrogated long-standing rituals such as praying five times a day, Yusuf took great pains to convince fellow Muslims that his call for a jihad resulted from a meticulous reading of the sacred texts. In his attempt to present himself as a custodian of Islamic orthodoxy, it was helpful to copy the rhetoric and outward appearance of transnational jihadists (a possibility Maitatsine did not have in 1980). His successor Shekau and other Boko Haram leaders, who lacked Yusuf’s eloquence, knowledge, and charisma, took even greater care to accentuate these global models, claiming that they were “spiritual followers of al-Qaida”.28 Since Osama bin Laden was highly respected in Izala as well as tariqa circles,29 it was difficult for the Muslim establishment to doubt the Islamic credentials of a Nigerian rebel group that acted like an affiliate of Al-Qaeda. Styling themselves in the image of international jihadists had still other advantages for self-made religious leaders like Yusuf and Shekau. It provided them with an organisational model that sanctioned obedience and a culture of self-sacrifice.
Dining with the rich
26Boko Haram, as a “spiritual off shoot” of Izala,30 has maintained a number of features which are characteristic of Izala’s preaching, such as the hostility to Tijaniyya and its Sufi ‘mysticism’. However, the emergence of Boko Haram also marked a break with Izala; it was a protest against clerics who appeared too friendly with corrupt politicians. Izala acted as an anti-establishment movement that articulated popular anger against the political class, yet on a local level politicians and religious leaders often found ways of getting along with and profiting from each other. In Yobe State, the governor and members of his cabinet attended Izala prayers (at least occasionally), and some local government chairmen paid allowances to Izala imams and donated public funds for the building of Izala mosques.31 Certainly, most politicians and rich businessmen had little personal interest in the austere lifestyle propagated by the reformers, yet they had to appease religious critics by making religiously correct statements and by donating a part of their ill-gotten wealth to the construction of mosques and the subsidisation of Islamic clerics:
These mosques are known colloquially as Allah ga naka (“Allah here’s your share”) – and the owner may hire a young imam for the mosque as part of his ‘good works’. Many young students go round preaching, or perform other ritual services for people (such as repeating for them 10,000 prayers). (Last 2008/9: 9)
27Despite (or because) of its tendency to compromise, Izala had much support among intellectuals, university students, and civil servants who loathed Nigeria’s dysfunctional state but were at the same time forced to live off it. This paradoxical attitude – abhorring the political system and being part of it – prevented them from being serious in their fight against corruption. And the same inner disunity haunted Izala. By spreading a message of moral rectitude and obedience to God, it was still the most important force of a spiritual renewal, yet it was tainted by its collaboration with the rich and powerful. I heard many stories about the greed and hypocrisy of individual Izala representatives. It was even said that Izala’s split in 1990 was not motivated only by ideological differences but also by rivalry over the distribution of funds from abroad.32
A saviour
28Religious associations offer citizens a chance to organise themselves outside the networks of political patronage; hence, these organisations could be used by Nigeria’s discontents to submit the ruling class to public control. However, religious activists have not found ways to overcome their differences and cooperate. Even the campaign for a common goal – Shariah – failed to unite them. Ordinary Muslims often watched with disgust the petty strife among preachers competing for followers and/or political patronage. Some individual clerics with a reputation of scholarliness and integrity were held in high esteem, but none rose above religious factionalism. The only person who enjoyed almost universal support among the Muslims I met in Borno and Yobe states was Muhammadu Buhari, a former general who had ruled Nigeria from January 1984 to August 1985 and who had tried to become head of state again as an opposition candidate in the elections of 2003, 2007 and 2011. He combined a tough anti-corruption stance with a strong commitment to Islam. Moreover, he was known for carrying out his announcements without compromising them. Thus, he seemed capable of rising above his fellow politicians, forcing them to bow to the laws. However, the belief that a strong and upright leader like Buhari would be able to achieve what millions of citizens could not – checking the lawlessness of the ruling elites – is naïve. If he were elected president in 2015, militant Muslims might lay down their arms, trusting in his good intentions. But he would not have the means to radically transform the country. As an army general who ruled by decree, he had arrogated to himself the power to arrest and detain any citizen indefinitely. Government critics had been intimidated by extremely harsh laws. Whoever exposed army members and other state agents to public ridicule faced lengthy prison sentences.33 In a democratic setting, Buhari would have to seek approval for all the measures he suggested as a president. As the present federal constitution, with its system of checks and balances, curtails the power of the executive, Buhari would have to accept compromises, accommodate political antagonists, and reconcile hostile factions. However, he is not known as someone who can listen to and win over his opponents. He was not even able to manage his own political parties and win the loyalty of ANPP and CPC politicians who had made him their presidential candidate.
29During the Shariah campaign, Buhari alienated Christians when he demanded the spread of Shariah to all parts of the country,34 and when he called on fellow Muslims not to vote for a Christian as president.35 In the 2011 presidential election, he won a majority in the 12 Shariah states of the Far North but was defeated in all others. Although he had kept the implementation of Shariah and other religious issues out of his election campaign, many adherents perceived his defeat in religious terms: Christians (and their Muslim collaborators) had kept out of power the only candidate capable of bringing sanity to the decadent land.36 In a deeply divided society, democracy does not work. Pious Muslims, as the losers of the election, were denied the right to be ruled by a fellow Muslim whom they could trust. Southerners, mainly Christians, had prevented them from purifying their social and political environment. Through their resistance to a sincere Islamic politician, Christians had aborted a project of self-purification that might have healed Nigeria’s broken society.
How to avoid a religious confrontation
30Passing Shariah laws that discriminate between Muslims and infidels and between men and women and that impose penalties such as amputation and stoning was a blatant breach of Nigeria’s constitution.37 When President Obasanjo had to react to it, he consulted Benjamin Adekunle, a fellow officer during the civil war of 1967-70. Adekunle later disclosed that he suggested immediately sacking Governor Sani and imposing a state of emergency in Zamfara State.38 As Nigeria’s president, Obasanjo had sworn to defend the constitution, but I guess it was a reasonable decision by the head of state to let the Shariah campaign run its course, for it is unlikely that the intervention of a Christian politician would have stopped the agitation for Shariah and the emergence of groups like Boko Haram.
31There is little that politicians in the South can do to end the violence in the North. They have prevented their angry young men from staging counter-attacks and killing members of the Hausa and Fulani communities living in Lagos or Enugu. Now it is up to the Muslim authorities in the North to prevail on their militants: “religious leaders must (…) call to order their followers who preach and promote violence”.39 It has often been alleged that Muslim leaders were afraid of speaking out against Boko Haram. However, many prominent Muslims have clearly condemned terrorist attacks. Some of the highest religious authorities stated that Islam preaches tolerance, and Governor Aliyu of Niger State reminded his co-religionists that “Islam is known to be a religion of peace and does not condone violence and crime in any form”.40 However, such declarations did not have much effect. Therefore, a Presidential Committee on the Security Challenges in the North-East recommended bolder pro-active measures, such as banning provocative, inciting preaching. In addition, it suggested that state governments engage “renowned Islamic scholars and jurists that could rationally challenge the doctrines of (Boko Haram) and convince them to renounce their beliefs”.41
32Western commentators have argued in a similar way: Muslim authorities should speak out more clearly and propagate a tolerant Islam. By engaging Boko Haram members and their sympathisers in an open debate, they should isolate the radical core, so that the moderates regain the initiative. However, such suggestions have ignored that ‘moderates’ and ‘militants’ have led intensive debates since the formation of the group. In a series of disputations with renowned scholars, Yusuf sought to justify his ideas on Western education and the necessity of a jihad. As the arguments and counter-arguments were recorded on video and audio cassettes, they became known to a wide audience of Muslim scholars as well as illiterate youth. Yet the results were not as encouraging as Western observers would have wished:
When the Boko Haram movement began to gather momentum … the Ulama were fully aware of the trend. A number of initiatives from prominent Muslim scholars and Islamic organisations were put forward to intervene and resolve the misunderstanding amicably. Dialogues and debates with the Boko Haram leadership and their followers were staged to either use Islamic rationale to convince them to back down on their fatawah or to dissuade the influx of membership to them. [However] the debates drifted to being counter-productive in many incidences. Instead of achieving the desired response, therefore, the movement became more emboldened and they even won more public sympathy. (Mohammed 2010: 58-59)
33The failure of religious leaders to restrain the militants is mainly due to their lack of moral authority. The Sultan of Sokoto has condemned violence against non-Muslims, yet the former army officer owes his office as the highest Islamic authority in Nigeria only to the fact that he, like all other sultans since 1815, is a direct descendant of Usman dan Fodio, a Fulani preacher, who in 1804 declared a jihad and established through a series of conquests the largest empire in West Africa. Official accounts of Islamic history still portray Usman dan Fodio as role model of a religious reformer, and the caliphate he founded is depicted as the culmination of Islamic civilisation.42 The leaders of Boko Haram have taken up this tradition by calling on all Muslims to “fight for the restoration of the Caliphate of Usman Danfodio which the white man fought and fragmented”.43 By trying to “restore our lost glory”,44 the rebels present themselves as the true heirs of Nigeria’s pre-colonial Islam, while the sultan and his emirs appear as traitors: “the Sultan is just a traditional ruler who revolted against the teachings of his ancestors and put the Nigerian Constitution ahead of the teachings of the Holy Qur’an”.45 Gambling with Shariah has discredited the religious establishment. After declaring that the law of God takes precedence over man-made law, they could not give plausible reasons for failing to push for a strict application of the divine prescriptions.
34From the perspective of pious Muslims, it was just greed and opportunism that had destroyed the project of religious self-transformation. Political and religious leaders, who needed the oil wealth from the South to finance their extravagant lifestyle, continued to make deals with infidels and to collaborate with a godless state. Talking about ‘peace’ and ‘tolerance’ when denouncing Boko Haram did nothing for their credibility. Governors who operated armed gangs to intimidate their opponents were ill-qualified to lecture ‘extremists’ on the merits of non-violence. Given their lack of religious knowledge, it is unlikely that they will succeed in banning ‘provocative, inciting preaching’, as the Presidential Committee on the Security Challenges in the North-East recommended. Muslims will not accept that politicians and their cronies among the clergy supervise preachers by giving out licenses. How can representatives of a secular government decide which type of preaching is in line with Islamic doctrines? Furthermore, what is the true Islamic position on Western education? What do the holy scriptures have to say on the relationship with infidels? Is it a God-given dictum that all citizens have equal rights, as enshrined in Nigeria’s Constitution? Or should Muslims reject Western notions of tolerance? Religious and political authorities, when challenging Boko Haram, have no clear message, as I will show in the remaining part of this chapter.
Western education
35When the rebels began to attack schools and universities, in February 2012,46 many citizens were upset with what they saw as unwarranted interference in their life. Local elites and many others who wanted their children to get ahead sent them to government schools, as this was a prerequisite for a career in the state administration and other modern sectors. Apart from this personal interest in using the secular education system, they also believed that participation in the Western system of education was necessary for the welfare of the Muslim community as a whole: “If you do not want Christian doctors to attend to your wife when she gives birth, you have to make sure that Muslims are enabled to study medicine.” Some Izala leaders blamed Boko Haram for spreading the misconception that Islam and modern sciences are incompatible.47 However, Yusuf and his successor Shekau were not anti-modernists like Maitatsine. They declared that Muslims should use science and technology developed in the West, and reject only the un-Islamic ideas mixed into it:
[T]he Prophet [Muhammad] said in his hadith concerning People of the Book, “if they bring to you anything that [is] agreeable in Qur’an, accept it; but if they bring anything that contradicts Islam, reject it; and if they bring anything that neither contradict nor support the Qur’an, it is your choice to accept or reject it.” … Western education is the body of knowledge that came to us through European colonialists, and included learning medicine, technology, Geography, Physics and so on. … They can all be used if they do not clash with the teachings of the Prophet. (Mohammed Yusuf, in Adamu 2010: 15, 16)48
36In this respect Boko Haram did not differ from other Muslim organisations in the North. Izala clerics also maintained that Western education had been polluted by ungodly ideas and that the mixing of male and female students was immoral. Yet, as long as Muslims lacked the power to purge the school curricula, they grudgingly accepted secular education because it was indispensable to enhance their influence in the state apparatus. As a temporary measure, they could only supplement and partially correct the official syllabus by offering additional afternoon classes in Islamic studies. This pragmatic attitude of Izala appealed to Muslims who resented the immorality of the state but were forced to live on government jobs and contracts. It was less attractive, however, for the losers in modernisation, and these included not just the products of almajiri education but also many of those who had spent some years in Western-type schools without gaining any significant qualification.49 To them, Western education might indeed look harmful as it only benefited those who had decoupled themselves from the fate of the ordinary people: “western-style education … equips you for the modern corrupt life of Nigerian politics and business”.50
37The resentment towards Western education dates to early colonial times and has often been fuelled by Muslims elites, such as Sultan Ibrahim Dasuki, a member of the Qadiriyya brotherhood, who led the ummah until 1996. As a scion of a royal family, he had studied at Oxford, and his son majored in political science at Harvard. Yet he warned his subjects against acquiring alien, non-Islamic knowledge: “Western education undermines our culture.”51 Another Muslim intellectual declared: “Western education is useless, it is polluted, it is immoral! (…) what do you need it for? You need it to work in the government service, and there are no longer government jobs.”52 For university graduates, it is difficult to find government employment, yet there is intense competition for it because positions in the civil service have become more lucrative since the transition to democracy. At the end of the military regime, policemen, teachers, and administrative officers had a basic salary equivalent to ten, twenty, or thirty dollars a month (and even these meagre salaries were often not paid). Two years after the death of General Abacha in 1998, state employees earned ten times more. This rekindled interest in school and university degrees so that dozens of new universities were hastily erected all over Nigeria. The standards of learning, however, have continued to decrease, as students are mainly interested in attaining certificates by whatever means. Some lecturers with a long teaching experience told me that many of those who had passed through primary school in the 1960s and 1970s were better educated than today’s university graduates.53 Aliyu Tilde, a Fulani politician, wrote a provocative essay in which he claimed that the lack of genuine interest in what is taught at school is a major drawback for northern Muslims:
[W]e go to school only [to] obtain a certificate that will earn us a job without imbibing the principles and fundamentals that enabled the West to excel in such knowledge and technology … Our general contempt for knowledge is outstanding, making us to prefer ignorance as a companion. … we are culturally repulsive to any thing modern, from whatever direction it comes. Simply put, we are boko haram. Otherwise, what could explain our backwardness in every national endeavour, economic, social, political? Why do we have, for example, the lowest per capita income in the country, the lowest life expectancy, the lowest academic achievements … highest poverty and highest maternal and infant mortality rates? (Tilde 2009)
Killing fellow Muslims
38Most victims of Boko Haram attacks have been other Muslims. In some cases it was obvious why the rebels had killed them; for instance, when they executed a comptroller of customs in his residence in Potiskum. People in Yobe State knew that the customs officer had issued an order to murder detained Boko Haram suspects, allegedly by poisoning their food or by driving nails into their head. In other cases, however, the victims had just committed minor offences such as playing cards, selling bush meat, or drinking in beer parlours. Boko Haram’s leadership justified these executions, insisting that everyone must follow Shariah: “There are no exceptions. Even if you are a Muslim and you don’t abide by Shariah, we will kill you. Even if you are my own father, we will kill you.”54
39Such extreme enforcement of Islamic Law alienated many Muslims. Critics pointed out that gambling and drinking, although forbidden in Islam, did not carry the death penalty, and it seems some Boko Haram leaders were aware that their arbitrary executions could not be justified in the light of Islamic orthodoxy. After an attack on a beer parlour, Shekau claimed that their aim had not been to punish drinkers but to kill security forces of the secular government:
[W]e do not kill those who drink alcohol. It is mere propaganda that we attacked a beer parlour. We had heard that it was purely soldiers who gathered there to drink, and we confirmed it, that was why we went there and killed them. … we don’t kill a Muslim; if you hear that we have killed a Muslim, we must have found out that he was collaborating with the unbelievers … We are just fighting those who are fighting us, soldiers and police and the rest; and anybody, even if he is a learned Muslim teacher, if we confirm that he exposes us to the government, his children will become orphans and his wife will become a widow, in God’s name. That is our way. But the ordinary people in town, we seek your forgiveness; I swear we will not harm you.55
40Many Boko Haram operations show that great care was taken not to antagonise ordinary Muslims. When attacking police stations and other government institutions, the rebels urged passers-by to flee, lest they be hit by stray bullets. And when burning down schools, they also tried, at least initially, to avoid civilian casualties: “We are attacking the public schools at night because we don’t want to kill innocent pupils.”56
41The Quran (in Surah 49, 10-11) forbids Muslims to kill fellow Muslims. But after the death of the Prophet, who had left no male heir, his disciples fought over the leadership of the caliphate; wars broke out, and the factions accused each other of not being genuine Muslims. In order to stop these intra-religious wars, which were threatening the very existence of the ummah, the great schools of Islamic jurisprudence sought to ban fighting over religious doctrines and the proper implementation of Shariah. They acknowledged that many faithful were lax Muslims who broke divine injunctions, but this did not make them infidels who merited death. Whoever claimed to be a Muslim should be treated as such. There were, however, exceptions, namely those who supported the enemies of Islam. For the early adherents of Islam it was obvious that they had the right to attack those who had betrayed the ummah and abandoned the cause of Islam.57
42The most famous scholar and warrior in pre-colonial Nigeria, Usman dan Fodio, the founder of the Sokoto Caliphate, referred to this ban against traitors (or apostates) when he declared war against the kings of Hausaland, who claimed to be Muslims. He even justified the attack on the Sultanate of Bornu, the oldest Islamic polity in the central Sudan, on the grounds that the Mai of Borno had sided with the enemies of Islam.58 In 1808, the jihadists destroyed the ancient capital of Borno and devastated the whole western half of the empire, taking away many of its inhabitants as slaves.59 Given that Boko Haram has its home base in the Borno region, it is strange that its leaders have idealised the Fulani rulers of Sokoto and their jihad, calling on all Muslims to “fight for the restoration of the Caliphate of Usman Danfodio”.60 I suspect that Boko Haram leaders wanted to overcome the age-old divisions between the various Islamic regions and gain a foothold in north-west Nigeria. In former years, the legacy of Usman dan Fodio was claimed mainly by Fulani (and some Hausa) politicians, such as Ahmadu Bello, who was Premier of the Northern Region until his assassination in 1966. As a direct descendant of Usman dan Fodio, he often used the imagery of the jihad61 and promised to continue the religious project of his famous ancestor: “(T)he work of salvation for all the people which he so nobly undertook has now been handed to me. I dedicate myself totally to its completion.”62 The tradition of Islamic militancy was also revived by religious leaders, such as Abubakar Gumi, who inspired the foundation of Izala. Calling for a purification of Islam, Gumi opposed the mysticism and the belief in miracles on the part of the Sufi brotherhoods, especially the Tijaniyya. Whoever adopted the prayer posture and the recitations of this group made himself an unbeliever, someone whom anyone was allowed to kill.63
The status of Christians
43Boko Haram leaders chose their targets carefully. When operating in a Muslim environment, they were cautious not to harm ordinary people. School buildings, for instance, were burnt at night to ensure that pupils were not directly affected. When attacking Christians, however, they killed indiscriminately. Churches were bombed during Sunday services in order to produce as many casualties as possible: men, women, and children. Yet these attacks on infidels only began after the execution of Yusuf in July 2009, and the purpose of this new strategy has not become clear. In an interview with Daily Trust, Boko Haram’s spokesman gave southern Nigerians, most of whom are Christians, an ultimatum to leave the North.64 This call for a physical separation sounded like a prelude to secession. Yet in another statement, the group demanded that all Christians in Nigeria, including President Jonathan, convert to Islam.65 And in a third statement, Abul Qaqa assured Christians that they would be protected under an Islamic state.66
44Islamic orthodoxy prescribes that Christians (and Jews) enjoy security of life and property under a Muslim government. When Boko Haram’s spokesman explained his organisation’s policy towards Christians, he referred to this principle but insisted that it was not applicable in the present situation. Christians were not entitled to enjoy the peace assured by Islamic authorities because they had not asked to be placed under Islamic protection.67 They were not ready to submit to Muslim rule but resisted the extension of Shariah and engaged in violent conflicts in order to stop it. It is understandable that many Muslims in the North were embittered by this resistance. The Christian minority in the North hindered them pursuing their dream of a religious renewal. Although Muslims formed a clear majority of the population, they were not allowed to shape their own social and political environment. In Zamfara State, where Christians were too insignificant in number to offer much resistance, Muslims could introduce far-reaching legal reforms; but in Kaduna State, where Christians accounted for at least a third of the population, only a restricted version of the Islamic penal code could be passed. Moreover, it was clear to the politicians who had initiated the Shariah project that the secular government in Abuja would not tolerate a consequent application of the new legislation. What they had promised – a far-reaching Islamisation of state and society – could not be achieved. Critics of this insincere, politically motivated Shariah – like Ibrahim Zakzaky, who had been inspired by the Iranian revolution – argued that the pious campaign was a farce. The instigators had known in advance that true Shariah was not possible as long as the power of infidels was not broken. Zakzaky assumed that the time was not ripe for an Islamic republic and that Nigeria’s Muslims had to accept compromises when fighting to strengthen their position vis-à-vis infidels. His main rival, the Saudi-oriented Izala, also assumed that it would take a long time to transform Nigeria into an Islamic state. The Nigerian Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, the most comprehensive umbrella organisation, concurred: “an Islamic State, … although desirable in the eyes of every Muslim, is not attainable in Nigeria, given the present realities of the country”.68 Boko Haram, by contrast, proclaimed that the secular government could be toppled and that Nigeria’s Muslims should stop collaborating with it. The time had come to revive the jihadist tradition. However, there is nothing in the classical doctrine of jihad that would justify the deliberate killing of women and children. Islamic orthodoxy demands that violence be directed only against male combatants, while women and children, who form part of the war booty and may be enslaved, have to be spared.69
45The Prophet, as he is remembered in the canonical texts, was not a campaigner for religious tolerance. When conquering Mecca, he desecrated the main ‘pagan’ sanctuary and smashed, with his own hands, ‘idols’ belonging to the shrine. According to the classical schools of Islamic Law, idol worship is a capital offence punishable by death. This view informed legislators in Nigeria when they began in early 2000 to enact ‘full Shariah’. The Shariah Penal Code of Zamfara, which was largely adopted by most other Shariah states, decreed: “Whoever … takes part in the worship or invocation of any juju … shall be punished with death.”70 This paragraph of the new law has never been enforced. Nevertheless, adherents of the indigenous African religions have learnt that they cannot count on protection from state authorities, when their religious freedom is violated. Most of them have been put under pressure to abandon their ancient shrines, discontinue religious festivals, and give up dancing and drumming. Christians (and Jews), who worship the same Abrahamic God as the Muslims, are in a better position. The divine law, as it was reconstructed in Medina, Kufa, and Baghdad, grants them the right to retain their faith, though only with certain restrictions. They are not allowed to evangelise, to build new churches, and to display their religious symbols. They enjoy some autonomy when regulating internal affairs but otherwise have to accept the legal and political order established by Muslims.
46Nigerian clerics, businessmen, and politicians, many of whom have gone on pilgrimage to Mecca, are aware that the strict regulation of public and private life, which Shariah prescribes, affects Muslims as well as non-Muslims, and that physical punishments such as flogging and amputation are meant for any offender, no matter what his faith. Why should a Christian thief be treated more leniently than a Muslim thief? However, Nigeria’s Shariah campaigners found it advisable not to inform Christians about their legal status under Shariah, assuring them that they had nothing to fear: “all practicing Muslims know that God had said that there is no compulsion in religion. Therefore Shari’a will not be forced on anybody. It will only be forced on the Muslims.”71 However, the assertion that “Shari’a has never had anything to do with non-Muslims”72 and that Christians have no reason to reject it is grossly misleading. Muslims “expected Christians to be ignorant of the status of non-Muslims according to the classical treatises on an Islamic state”.73
47The intricacies of Islamic Law were not known to most of the Muslims I met in rural Yobe. However, they generally agreed that infidels should not be granted equal rights and that public affairs should be determined by those who were guided by God. Christians were not perceived as part of one’s community; they were an alien influence that had to be kept in check. The brunt of the resentment was directed against Igbo Christians from south-east Nigeria, who had settled all over the North as traders, artisans, and small-scale businessmen. They were widely seen as representatives of Western civilisation, who had brought with them all the vices of the West: greed, permissiveness, and lack of respect. As their way of life was supposed to have a corrupting influence on Islamic societies, it seemed best not to allow them to have any impact on public life. One way of excluding them was by stressing the Islamic identity of the indigenous population. If the Muslim majority decided to run its affairs on the basis of Islamic laws, then there was no place for infidels to participate in law-making and determine public life.
48The Shariah paradigm does not contain principles that would give non-Muslims equal rights. It is true that Shariah in northern Nigeria has been enforced at best half-heartedly and one can get away with breaking the law, but there are no legal safeguards that guarantee individual rights. Christians can only protect their rights granted by the Nigerian Constitution, as long as they are strong enough to contain the spread of Islamic Law. As the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto put it, there is “no alternative to democracy [and] secularity of the state”.74 Separating state and religion would limit the politicisation of religion, and it would make it easier for the adherents of different religions to get along with each other, provided that all sides felt bound to a secular arrangement. Religious communities would not be forced to compete for control of the state, if they agreed not to use the state apparatus to enforce their divine injunctions. However, it is unlikely that Muslims in the North will come to share this view. With the Shariah campaign, more than ten years ago, Muslim politicians, intellectuals, and religious leaders discarded the secular principles of the constitution; now they have no other rules on which a common polity with Christians and traditionalists can be built. When condemning Boko Haram, northern politicians said that Islam means peace, but they did not specify what a peace based on Islamic principles would look like.
The way out
49Western observers have called upon the Nigerian authorities to get serious about the eradication of poverty and social injustice. Instead of focusing on military repression, they should tackle the causes of the crisis and improve the living conditions in the backward states of the North. The governors of these states argued similarly, underlining the need for a sustainable development, mass economic empowerment, skills acquisition, and an effective administration. In order to achieve this, they demanded that the federal government give them additional funds. However, the problem with the North is not so much a lack of money but how it is spent. For nearly four decades northern politicians and army officers dominated the Nigerian state and appropriated for themselves the largest share of the oil revenues, yet their part of the country is the least developed. Giving them more money will not eliminate poverty. The governor of Borno, who called for a Marshall Plan in support of the impoverished North, promised to create half a million jobs.75 However, this is neither realistic nor would it lead to a viable solution, because Nigeria’s public administration already has too many employees on its payroll. Seventy-two per cent of the federal government’s budget is spent on the salaries and pensions of its staff. Little money is left for investments in the country’s infrastructure, yet the pressure on politicians to provide more jobs will not relent, because the Far North has virtually no industries to absorb the rising number of young men entering the job market: “[O]urs after all, is still an economy that imports everything including used underwear.”76 With the economy declining, state authorities will be confronted with a tidal wave of popular anger:
50Nigeria is sitting on a keg of gun powder if the population growth of the country continues to rise without putting in place deliberate policies that would provide job opportunities … From what I saw in the affected areas, hundreds of youths were still in the houses of their parents doing nothing.77
51Most factories in the urban centres have closed down, and even the agricultural sector is in crisis, as the country does not produce enough food to feed its own population. In Yobe State, arable land has become so scarce that peasants are driven off their property. Villages fight over boundaries; family members are cheated out of their plots; sons try to sell the land of their fathers, and fathers sell away family land that should have been inherited by their sons.
52Nigerians cannot wait for their country and its citizens to become affluent. They have to find ways to contain the violence and get along with each other. However, an agreement that would end the insurgency in the North is not in sight. Boko Haram raised the question of a social transformation through religion; it brought Shariah back into the centre of political controversy, a Shariah that can be turned against the religious and political establishment. In order to end the crisis, Muslims in the North have to discuss what type of Shariah – if any – they want. This debate is largely an intra-Islamic affair, because Christians cannot contribute much to it. As infidels, who have rejected the teaching of the Prophet, they cannot tell Muslims how to go about their religious obligations.
53Muslim critics of Boko Haram suggested that the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and other mainline organisations “ought to be proactive in educating the masses about the true Islam”.78 The problem is that religious experts hold widely divergent views about Islam and the demands it may make on its adherents. Most ordinary Muslims agree that Shariah should play a role in the organisation of state and society, but they cannot agree to what extent the divine laws should govern their lives. Many politicians pay only lip service to Shariah and obstruct its implementation, but do not openly call for its abrogation. They cannot risk a confrontation with Muslim clerics, as they have discredited themselves with their Shariah gamble. Islam is a dangerous religion to play with. Since the political class started to campaign for the extension of Islamic Law, it has been snared in the Shariah trap. There is no easy way for it to extricate itself.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Adamu, A.U. (2010), African neo-Kharijites and Islamic militancy against authority: The Boko Haram/Yusufiyya Kharijites of northern Nigeria. Paper presented to the Islam in Africa Working Group of the African Studies Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, 24 February (unpublished).
Alkali, M.N., A.K. Monguno & B.S. Mustafa (2012), Overview of Islamic actors in northeastern Nigeria, NRN Working Paper No. 2. http://web.archive.org/web/20140512085342/http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/nrn/WP2Alkali.pdf.
Anonymous (2012), “The popular discourses of Salafi radicalism and Salafi counter-radicalism in Nigeria: A case study of Boko Haram”, Journal of Religion in Africa 42: 118-144.
Brenner, L. (1973), The Shehus of Kukawa: A history of the Al-Kanemi dynasty of Bornu. Oxford: Clarendon.
Brenner, L. (1992), “The jihad debate between Sokoto and Borno: An historical analysis of Islamic political discourse in Nigeria”. In: J.F.A. Ajayi & J.D.Y. Peel, eds, People and empires in African history: Essays in memory of Michael Crowder. London/New York: Longman, pp. 21-43.
Campbell, J. (2011), “Nigeria: The morning after”, New York Times, 2 May.
Clarke, P.B. & I. Linden (1984), Islam in modern Nigeria: A study of a Muslim community in a post-independence state 1960-1983. Mainz/München: Grünewald.
Crampton, E.P.T. (1979), Christianity in northern Nigeria. Second Edition. London: Chapman.
Crisis Group (2010), Northern Nigeria: Background to conflict (Africa Report no. 168 – 20 December 2010), http://web.archive.org/web/20200611214018/https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/168-northern-nigeria-background-to-conflict.pdf (Accessed 11 February 2013).
Diamond, L. (1995), “Nigeria: The uncivic society and the descent into praetorianism”. In: L. Diamond, (a.o.), eds, Politics in developing countries: Comparing experiences with democracy. Second Edition. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, pp. 417-491.
10.1515/9781685858452 :Freedom House (2002), The Talibanization of Nigeria: Radical Islam, extremist Sharia law and religious freedom. http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/Nigeria%20Report. pdf (Accessed 12 November 2004).
Gwarzo, T.H. (2003), “Activities of Islamic civic associations in the northwest of Nigeria: With particular reference to Kano State”, Afrika Spectrum 38(3): 289-317.
Harnischfeger, J. (2008), Democratization and Islamic law: The Sharia conflict in Nigeria. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
Hodgson, M.G.S. (1977), The venture of Islam: Conscience and history in a world civilization. Vol. 1. The Classical Age of Islam. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.
Human Rights Watch (2012), Nigeria: Boko Haram targeting schools, 7 March. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/07/nigeria-boko-haram-targeting-schools (Accessed 14 May 2012).
Kane, O. (2003), Muslim modernity in postcolonial Nigeria: A study of the Society for the Removal of Innovation and Reinstatement of Tradition. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
10.1163/9789047401551 :Kenny, J. (1996), “Sharia and Christianity in Nigeria: Islam and a ‘secular’ state”, Journal of Religion in Africa 26(4): 338-364.
10.1163/157006696X00163 :Kenny, J. (2012), “Can Boko Haram win?”, The Guardian (Lagos), 27/28 February. http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/Guardian.htm (Accessed 14 May 2012).
Krings, M. (2004), “Osama Bin Laden vs. George W. Bush in Nigeria. Zur lokalen Transkription globaler Ereignisse”. In: C. Epping-Jäger (a.o.), eds, Freund, Feind & Verrat: Das Politische Feld der Medien. Köln: Dumont, pp. 252-65.
Kukah, M.H. (2009), “Boko Haram: Some reflections on causes and effects”, Missio 34: 21-35. http://www.missio-hilft.de/media/thema/menschenrechte/studie/34-nigeria-de-en-fr.pdf (Accessed 3 May 2012) [archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20160526162120/https://www.missio-hilft.de/media/thema/menschenrechte/studie/34-nigeria-de-en-fr.pdf].
Last, M. (2000), “La charia dans le Nord-Nigeria”, Politique africaine 79: 141-152.
10.3917/polaf.079.0141 :Last, M. (2008/2009), “The pattern of dissent: Boko Haram in Nigeria 2009”, Annual Review of Islam in Africa 10: 7-11.
Lavers, J.E. (1984), “Kanem and Borno to 1808”. In: O. Ikime, ed., Groundwork of Nigerian history. Second Edition. Ibadan: Heinemann, pp. 187-209.
Loimeier, R. (1997), “Islamic reform and political change: The example of Abubakar Gumi and the Yan Izala movement in northern Nigeria”. In: E.E. Rosander & D. Westerlund, eds, African Islam and Islam in Africa: Encounters between sufis and Islamists. London: Hurst, pp. 286-307.
Maier, K. (2000), This house has fallen: Midnight in Nigeria. New York: Public Affairs.
Mazrui, A.A. (2001), Shariacracy and federal models in the era of globalization: Nigeria in comparative perspective, (Paper presented) at the conference on ‘Restoration of Shariah in Nigeria. Challenges and benefits’, sponsored by the Nigeria Muslim Forum, and held in London, on April 14, 2001. http://www.sharia2001.nmnonline.net/mazrui paper.htm (Accessed 30 April 2004).
10.35632/ajis.v26i3.383 :Mohammed, A. (2010), The paradox of Boko Haram. Kano: Moving Image Limited.
Paden, J.N. (2005), Muslim civic cultures and conflict resolution: The challenge of democratic federalism in Nigeria. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Pérouse de Montclos, M.-A. (2012), Boko Haram et le terrorisme islamiste au Nigeria: Insurrection religieuse, contestation politique ou protestation social? Centre d’études et de recherches internationales. Sciences Po. http://www.sciencespo.fr/ceri/sites/sciencespo.fr.ceri/files/qdr40.pdf (Accessed 11 February 2013).
Peters, R. (2003), Islamic criminal law in Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Books.
Pew Research Global Attitudes Project (2011), Osama bin Laden largely discredited among Muslims publics in recent years. 2 May 2011. http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-largely-discredited-among-muslim-publics-in-recent-years/ (Accessed 19 March 2013).
Reynolds, J.T. (1997), “The politics of history: The legacy of the Sokoto Caliphate in Nigeria”. In: P.E. Lovejoy & P.A.T. Williams, eds, Displacement and the politics of violence in Nigeria. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, pp. 50-65.
10.1177/002190969703200105 :Sani, S. (2011), “Boko Haram: History, ideas and revolt”, Newsdiary, 3 August. http:/www.newsdiaryonline.com/shehu_boko_haram.htm (Accessed 11 February 2013).
Shettima, K. (2012), “The challenges of insecurity in Borno State”, Leadership, 15 May (reprinted in Sunday Trust). http://www.leadership.ng/nga/columns/24704/2012/05/15/chall enges_insecurity_borno_State_gov_kashim_shettima.html (Accessed 11 June 2012)
Sulaiman, I. (1986), “Islam and secularism in Nigeria: An encounter of two civilisations”, Impact International (London), 24 Oct.–13 Nov. 1986, pp. 11-12.
Tilde, A. (2009), “We are Boko Haram”, Nigerian Village Square, 20 August. http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/aliyu-u-tilde/we-are-boko-haram.html (Accessed 10 May 2012).
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (2012), Annual Report 2012. March 2012. http://www.uscirf.gov/images/Annual Report of USCIRF 2012(2).pdf (Accessed 14 March 2013).
Walker, A. (2012), What is Boko Haram? United States Institute of Peace, Special Report 308. http://www.usip.org/publications/what-boko-haram (Accessed 27 July 2012).
Zamfara State of Nigeria (2000), Gazette. No. 1. 15 June 2000. Vol. 3. Law No. 10: Shariah penal code law. Gusau, Zamfara State: Ministry of Justice.
Zenn, J. (2012), “Boko Haram’s radical ideologue: An in-depth look at northern Nigeria’s Abu Shekau”, Militant Leadership Monitor, Special Report, January 2012, pp. 13-17.
Notes de bas de page
1 In Y. Olowolabi, “Anarchists threaten nation’s unity”, Tell (print edition), 29 October 2001, 36.
2 Freedom House, Talibanization, 51.
3 Zamfara Government Advertorial, “Zamfara State One Year of Purposeful Leadership”, Hotline (print edition), 4 June 2000, 24.
4 Maier, This house, 186.
5 Mazrui, Shariacracy, (chapter ‘Globalization and Islamic revivalism’); Harnischfeger, Democratization, 112-54.
6 Zamfara Government Advertorial, “Zamfara State One Year of Purposeful Leadership”, Hotline (print edition), 4 June 2000, 24.
7 Abdul-Azeez Suleiman, “Shari’a: Yarima vs. the Mallams”, Kaduna Weekly Trust, 26 July 2003, in Paden, Muslim Civic Cultures, 166.
8 Maitama Sule. In: N. Ebije, “FG must empower north”, Daily Sun, 11 May 2012.
9 Johnnie Carson, Ass. Secretary of State for African Affairs, in (Anon.), “US Official: Violence in Nigeria isn’t about religion”, Daily Trust (print edition), 6 April 2012, 29.
10 Abubakar Shekau in a video message, in (Anon.), “Jos Bombing: Text of video Statement by Jama’atu Ahlus-Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad”, Elombah, 28 December 2010.
11 A detailed study on sermons, interviews and debates between Boko Haram leaders and some of their Izala critics arrives at a similar conclusion: “misrule and poor governance resulting from the legendary corruption of Nigerian political leaders are not the explicit concerns of these discourses and counter-discourses on Boko Haram …. Yusuf was chiefly concerned with avenging his followers’ injuries rather than raising Nigerian citizens’ objections to the abuse of power by security forces, nor does he voice any criticism against the broader problem of poor governance and misrule by Nigerian political elites that many commentators claim to be the explanation for the Boko Haram insurrection” (Anon., Popular Discourses, 119, 130-31).
12 Adamu Adamu, “Gazafication of the North”, Daily Trust (print edition), 16 March 2012, 64.
13 Some governors made it clear that they dislike Shariah. In Kano, Rabiu Kwankwaso announced that no cleric could tell him what to do, “no matter how long his beard is” (Anon.), “Paralysed by Fear”, The Economist (print edition, 10 January 2004, 32). Yet he was forced to pass comprehensive Shariah laws and set up a Shariah vigilante. Moreover, he was voted out of office after just one term.
14 Crisis Group, Northern Nigeria, 21, 38; (Anon.), “Most Nigerians reject Boko Haram”, Daily Trust (print edition), 21 February 2012, 10.
15 The purpose of my visits to Nigeria, from January to April 2011 and 2012, was not to study Boko Haram, and I did not try to contact members of the group. I can refer only to conversations I had with ordinary Muslims, who often spoke about the rebellion and the state of emergency that had been imposed on parts of Yobe, Borno and a few other states.
16 Shehu Sani, Boko Haram, (chapter ‘His Threats’).
17 Campbell: The morning after.
18 I heard the same argument by northern intellectuals, for instance at the University of Maiduguri: Boko Haram, though a nasty organisation, may achieve through massive bombing what progressives in the North had always called for, namely good governance. Faced with the prospect that Nigeria might descend into chaos, the ruling class had no choice but to initiate a radical change lest they lose the basis of their existence: the oil rents.
19 Beer had become expensive; thus, villagers crossed into Gombe State and bought their bottles at a private club attached to the Ashaka Cement Company. Yet the club stopped selling alcohol when Boko Haram extended its bombing campaign into Gombe. This did not prevent rich people from getting their alcohol, while the poor had to accept that Shariah in Nigeria had a clear class bias. Instead of drinking alcohol, some men in the streets were sniffing glue. And on the university campuses, the ground was littered with empty bottles of cough syrup, which students drank to become intoxicated (see (Anon.), “Codeine Abuse Spreading Like Wild Fire“, Daily Trust, 29 December 2012).
20 In a study of the Shariah campaign in Kano, T. H. Gwarzo (Civic Associations, 311-13) found that all Muslim organisations, from the conservative brotherhoods to the radical ‘Shiites’, called for the establishment of an Islamic state. M. Last (Charia, 143, 147) insisted that support for the extension of Shariah was not a matter of Islamic radicalism or ‘fundamentalism’: “Parmi tous les musulmans, un consensus se fait autour de l’idée, que la charia est juste. (…) ceux qui soutiennent l’application de la charia ne sont pas des radicaux, mais plutôt des musulmans modérés”.
21 Kane, Muslim modernity, 136-38.
22 Sulaiman, Islam and secularism, 11.
23 The Federal Ministry of Education estimated that “about 9.5 million school children are currently outside the conventional school system” ()Anon.), “FG and Almajiri schools”, Daily Sun, 13 April 2012).
24 Ahmad Sakida, “Reporting terrorism in Africa”, Blueprint, 19 April 2012.
25 (Anon.), Popular Discourses, 136-37.
26 Sani, Boko Haram, (Chapter: Who are Boko Haram); (Anon.), Popular Discourses, 122.
27 Pérouse de Montclos, Boko Haram, 6, 8, 16.
28 Abul Qaqa, spokesman of Boko Haram. In: M. Mark, “Boko Haram vows to fight until Nigeria establishes Sharia law”, The Guardian (London), 27 January 2012.
29 (Anon.), Popular Discourses, 133. – Following the attacks of September 11, 2011, ‘Osama’ became the most popular name for new born sons, just like ‘Saddam’ had become popular at the time of the Iraq war (Krings, Osama Bin Laden, 255-258; J. Nwokocha, “Gusau in the Grip of Extremists”, Vanguard (print edition), 11 November 2001, 14). In 2010, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project (Osama bin Laden, 1) found that “confidence” in the Al-Qaeda leader was still high. Among Muslims in Nigeria as a whole, the approval rate was 48 per cent (and in the North probably higher). This was the highest rate in all countries analysed in the survey.
30 Ulama of the Caucus, in Alkali (a.o.), Overview, 13; M.Q.S. Isa, “Controversy over Proposed FG, Boko Haram Dialogue”, Daily Trust, 15 June 2012.
31 See Alkali (a. o.), Overview, 30, for Borno and other states in north-east Nigeria.
32 The Bushawa faction, with its headquarters in Jos, followed the policy of Saudi Arabia by supporting President Bush’s war against Iraq, while the Saddamawa faction, based in Kaduna, denounced the US intervention as an attack against fellow Muslims.
33 Diamond, Nigeria, 441-42.
34 Peters, Islamic Criminal Law, 55.
35 I. Bwala, “Riding the Sharia Tiger”, Tell (print edition), 30 July 2001, 66.
36 In the riots following the 2011 presidential election, more than 400 churches were burnt or destroyed in northern Nigeria (United States Commission, Annual Report, 109). Angry protesters also set fire to the private houses of the Sultan of Sokoto, the Emir of Kano, and the Emir of Zaria, who were forced to go into hiding temporarily (Campbell: The Morning After).
37 The areas where Shariah contravenes the Nigerian Constitution are analysed in Peters, Islamic criminal law, 31-42.
38 I. Ibrahim, “How Obasanjo, IBB created Boko Haram”, Insider Weekly (print edition), 26 March 2012, 15.
39 Rev. Fr. Omonokhua of the Catholic Secretariat, in C. Omonokhua, “The need for inter-religious dialogue”, The Guardian (Lagos), 2 July 2012.
40 Dr. Mu’azu Aliyu, in Wikipedia, article on “Boko Haram” (Accessed 7 May 2012).
41 White Paper based on the report of the Ambassador Usman G. Galtimari committee, partly reproduced in T. Abbah, “White paper on insecurity: Report Links Boko Haram with London Scholar”, Sunday Trust, 3 June 2012.
42 This official view has shaped the attitudes of Muslims in the Far North, no matter what their organisational affiliation: “most of the Tarika, Izala and Shiites interviewed view the 19th century Fulani Jihadist, Othman Danfodio’s Hausaland as a model” (Alkali (a.o.), Overview, 29).
43 Abul Qaqa, spokesman of Boko Haram. In: H. Idiris, “Boko Haram says no more talks with FG”, Daily Trust, 21 March 2012.
44 Ibid.
45 Abul Qaqa. In: H. Idris, “Boko Haram: Why we won’t listen to sultan”, Daily Trust, 3 October 2011.
46 Human Rights Watch, Boko Haram.
47 Mohammed, Boko Haram, 41.
48 Shekau argued similarly: “We are not fighting Western education itself, what we are opposed to are the various un-Islamic things slotted into it” (in Zenn, Radical Ideologue, 14).
49 Prof. M. Modibbo, the executive general of the Universal Basic Education Commission, stated that “more than half of the teachers in some Northern states cannot read or write” (in (Anon.), “50% Illiterate Northern Teachers”, Blueprint, 29 June 2012).
50 Last, Pattern of Dissent, 10.
51 Godwin Ugwu, “Educational imbalance: The North and the rest”, The Guardian (Lagos, print edition), 24 May 1994.
52 Sani Hassan Kontagora in M. Mumuni, “Western education is useless”, Tell (print edition), 9 July 2001, 53.
53 Prof. Ben Nwabueze, a former minister of education, spoke of an “incredible decline in educational standards” and “near-illiterate university graduates”. In: G. Oke, “The mistakes Rotimi Williams and I made about Nigeria’s constitution”. Vanguard, 21 March 2013.
54 Abul Qaqa, spokesman of Boko Haram in M. Mark, “Boko Haram vows to fight until Nigeria establishes Sharia law”, The Guardian (London), 27 January 2012.
55 Abubakar Shekau, in I. Sheme, “‘No reconciliation’ Boko Haram leader blows hot in first video”, Newsdiary, 25 July 2011.
56 Abul Qaqa, in Human Rights Watch, Boko Haram.
57 Hodgson, Venture, 178, 197; Kenny, Boko Haram.
58 The ruling dynasty of the Borno Empire had been Islamic for more than 700 years. In the sixteenth century, Borno was seen as one of the four main sultanates in the Islamic world (Lavers, Kanem, 201). Its political and religious leader in the early nineteenth century, Shehu Al-Kanemi, wrote letters to Sokoto, protesting the invasion of his country, arguing that both empires, Borno and Sokoto, were Islamic and should not fight each other. The debate between the leaders of Sokoto and Borno over the legitimacy of the jihad is summarised in Brenner, Jihad Debate.
59 Brenner, Shehus, 25, 32.
60 Abul Qaqa in H. Idiris, “Boko Haram says no more talks with FG”, Daily Trust, 21 March 2012. – Abul Qaqa depicted the Sokoto Caliphate as a peaceful, thoroughly Islamic empire and thus as a counter-image to the present Nigerian nightmare of violence and corruption. This meant that the utopian world Boko Haram was fighting for had really existed and could exist again if Nigeria’s Muslims mustered the determination of their forefathers: “peace will never reign until when Sharia as a complete way of life is restored 100 per cent; just like the way it was practiced during the period of Daular Usmaniyya” (Abul Qaqa, in H. Idris, “Boko Haram: Why we won’t listen to sultan”, Daily Trust, 3 October 2011).
61 Reynolds, Politics of History, 56-60.
62 Ahmadu Bello, in Crampton, Christianity, 89.
63 Loimeier, Islamic Reform, 298.
64 Abul Qaqa, in H. Idris, “Boko Haram: State of emergency meant to attack Muslims”, Daily Trust (print edition), 2 January 2012, 7.
65 Walker, Boko Haram, 11; Abul Qaqa, in (Anon.), “No going back on Jihad, Dasuki Lied says Boko Haram”, Sahara Reporters, 10 July 2012.
66 Abul Qaqa, in M. Mark, “Boko Haram vows to fight until Nigeria sstablishes Sharia law”, The Guardian (London), 27 January 2012.
67 Abul Qaqa, in (Anon.), “No going Back on Jihad, Dasuki Lied says Boko Haram”, Sahara Reporters, 10 July 2012.
68 Dr. Lateef Adegbite, Secretary General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, in Clarke & Linden, Islam, 172.
69 Hodgson, Venture, 191.
70 Zamfara State of Nigeria, Shariah Penal Code, Section 406. – The term ‘juju’ is defined in Section 405: “‘Juju’ includes the worship or invocation of any object or being other than Allah”.
71 Muhammadu Buhari, in (Anon.), “The two sides of Buhari”, Hotline (print edition), 19 March 2000, 12.
72 Y. Mahmud, “Where right is wrong”, Hotline (print edition), 19 March 2000, 25.
73 Kenny, Sharia, 347.
74 Kukah, Boko Haram, 34.
75 Shettima, Challenges of insecurity.
76 M. Al-Ghazali, “Boko Haram, CIA and conspiracy theories”, Daily Trust, 28 February 2012.
77 Kashim Shettima, Governor of Borno, in (Anon.), “The deserted areas of Maiduguri”, Weekly Trust, 7 July 2012.
78 Ujudu Shariff, in Mohammed, Boko Haram, 119.
Auteur

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International - CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Anti-corruption campaign in Nigeria (1999-2007)
The politics of a failed reform
David U. Enweremadu
2012
Boko Haram: Islamism, politics, security and the state in Nigeria
Marc-Antoine Pérouse de Montclos (dir.)
2014
Violence in Nigeria
A qualitative and quantitative analysis
Marc-Antoine Pérouse de Montclos (dir.)
2016
Transnational Islam
Circulation of religious Ideas, Actors and Practices between Niger and Nigeria
Élodie Apard (dir.)
2020