This is a guest post by Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens from the new Hitchens-Maher ‘Focus on Islamism‘ blog
********************
This week, the focus on Islamic extremism has briefly shifted to Nigeria and a group called Boko Haram. The group have gone on a killing spree in northern Nigeria, leading to the deaths of at least 150 people.
The Boko Haram, who also reportedly call themselves ‘Taliban’, are led by a Mohammed Yusuf and their name translates from Hausa as ‘western education is forbidden’. They certainly seem to practice what they preach, and Yusuf has been quoted as saying that he rejects claims regarding the spherical nature of planet earth.
What Boko are in fact forbidding is any teachings that they deem as un-Islamic, and they intend to force this anti-education agenda on the rest of the country. The group seems to have tried to take control of certain cities in the north of the country, including Maidiguri, and their attacks are mainly focused on the police and other government institutions.
A form of Sharia law has been in place in northern Nigerian states since 2000, and the Zamfara state was the first to impose it. The Borno state, where much of the violence has occurred, soon followed suit. For many Nigerian Islamists however, Sharia has not been implemented ‘in full’, as many of the harsher sharia punishments have, on the whole, not been carried out. Thus, the Boko Haram were formed in 2004 to resist attempts at ‘watering down’ sharia law.
The recent violence is but the inevitable result of placating Islamists with concessions. When dealing with adherents to a supremacist and expansionist ideology, giving in to their demands rarely does more than encourage more bigotry and violence intended to impose sharia theocracy whether it is wanted or not. There is no better example of this than the Malakand Accord in Pakistan, which handed Malakand to the Taliban in the hope that is would quench their thirst for power, only for it to encourage Baitullah Mehsud (head of the Pakistani Taliban) to attempt further forays into the country.
According to Nigerian journalist Mannir Dan Ali:
“the whole situation seems to be a failure of intelligence, a failure of the security forces to act before matters reached the point that they have now reached. We could literally see it coming over the past few weeks.”
Many, including myself, have seen this coming over the past few years. As with the Afghan Taliban’s destruction of the ancient Buddha statues in Mach 2001, there have been a number of warning shots from Nigeria’s Islamists since 2000, which have been largely ignored. One of these was in the Zamfara town of Kaduna in 2002 where over 100 people were killed when Islamist thugs rioted in protest of the Miss Universe contest that was being held in Abuja at the time. The second event which should have pricked up the ears of the Nigerian central government and the international community was the 2003 prohibition of polio vaccines by the paranoid mullahs of Nigeria’s northern Kano state. This was on the basis that the vaccines were in fact a western/Jewish plot to either spread AIDS or render Muslim women infertile. Alas, all of their research and studies on this plot were unable to determine exactly which one it was. Thanks to this masterstroke of Islamist paranoia and stupidity, polio:
spread to 10 surrounding nations that had been polio-free for years, leaving nearly 700 children paralyzed and re establishing polio in four countries. (Scientific American, December 2004)
The 2002 and 2003 events, along with many others, should have been seen as prime examples of the growth of radical Islam within Nigeria, and should have been dealt with accordingly. Instead it has been allowed to fester and the violence that we are now witnessing should come as no surprise. Al-Qaeda have long ago identified Africa, and Nigeria in particular, as fertile ground and the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab have already openly aligned themselves with bin Laden. Boko Haram would very likely do the same if presented with an opportunity, although concrete connections with al-Qaeda are yet to be uncovered.
The violence in northern Nigeria should not be ignored in the same way as previous warnings, and must be dealt with before al-Qaeda forge yet another deadly alliance.
14 Comments
Nigerian Islamists mainly justify their unjustifiable so called ‘Islamic’ positions on the maliki school of thought – one of the four main schools. Sharia courts started operating in 2000, and covered 12 northern states in Nigeria.
One example is where ‘circumstantial’ evidence is permitted to allow the stoning of women for adultary and flogging for illegal sex e.g pregnancy is considered sufficient evidence to convict a woman of adultery. For the male defendant, on the other hand, the Shari’a penal code adopted by these Islamists requires that the act of adultery must have been witnessed by four independent individuals before the man can be convicted.
It has resulted in situations such as those of Bariya Magazu, Safiya Husseini and Amina Lawal. The women were found guilty and sentenced to death, or flogging, on the basis of their pregnancy, whereas the men named in the cases were acquitted for lack of evidence.
In the case of Bariya Magazu, the 13/14 year old girl was accused of extra-marital sex and accused three men of raping her. The judge failed to order an investigation into her claims, AND charged her with falsely accusing the three men, who had denied having sexual relations with her. Because she was unmarried, she was saved from being stoned to death. Instead, she was sentenced to one hundred lashes for supposadly having illegal sex, and an additional eighty for bringing ‘false’ charges against three men who she claimed had raped her. The eighty lashed punishment was later dropped, but still lashed 100 times!
Two women were stoned to death for adultary. Safiya Husseini and Amina Lawal. In both cases, the men alleged to have been involved in the adultery were let off for lack of evidence. This is the result of the different standards of evidence required for men and women.
This is what happens when Islamists take over. Truely disgusting!
Seerat,
I disagree with your conclusion.
This is what happens when uneducated corrupt rulers attain power and use Islam to implement hudud.
A modern Islamic State, which HT and many other Islamic groups call for, would use advanced techniques such as DNA testing to conclude guilt fairly.
Although no one has implied anything to the contrary, lets understand the gravity of the offence that is Adultery both Islamically and socially..
I take it HT would have to import the modern DNA testing technology from the West, which would no doubt have put sanctions on their mythical state. Khilafah dependent upon the West, I love it.
Humayrah,
You seem to be making some quite sweeping accusations without having much to go on judging from Seerat’s original post. All he says is that a number of women in Northern Nigeria have been treated with the upmost contempt by Islamists who see them as no more than chattle.
You seem to suggest that you are happy with the way some women are treated by Islamists, is this true?
Seerat, I would imagine, supports a system where everyone is allowed to wear what they like, and you seem to support a system which kills women if they dont wear the only clothing that has been allocated them. Which sounds better?
Also, even if one were to assume your lurid(and quite revealing) accusations toward Seerat had any truth, it would still not be as disgusting as whipping pre pubescent girls for being gang raped. You should be ashamed of yourself
Wake up and stop wasting your life
spittoon moderators,
remove ‘jimmy’s’ above comment. Although it is yet another reminder as to the mentality of some of the people we are dealing with, it is beyond contempt and lowers the integrity of the blog.
What does DNA testing have to do with anything? HT would still be executing or lashing people for trivial offences!
Humayrah – I suppose you forget the parts of Islam which ask you not to make disgusting sexual comments about men tossing off.
Er. Bad news Humrayrah. You’re not submitting yourself to God – you’re submitting yourself to a bunchy of gnarly old scholars who have decided that they know what God is thinking. There’s a big difference!
Whoah. Humayrah – you’re not for real are you!?! LoL. To think that you almost had me convinced there for a bit.
That says a lot more about you rather then anyone else. Maybe covering up isn’t such a bad thing in your case.
@ Abdul Rehman – “A modern Islamic State, which HT and many other Islamic groups call for, would use advanced techniques such as DNA testing to conclude guilt fairly.”
So HT would use modern techniques to prove guilt ‘fairly’. So if this guilt has been proven, would HT then punish the offenders by flogging and stoning?
Would there be different standards for men and women, would punishments differ? Would men be punished at all?
There have been a series of sad, pathetic and filthy comments on this thread all from a single IP address. They’re gone now and if you (Humayrah/Jimmy) return with anything resembling the filth you have been spewing over this blog then any of your future comments will be deleted as well.
The Islamic Shariah council has a view on the hudood and how it is obligatory to implement them in their purest form:
http://clarifyislam.wordpress.com/
I think it is relevant and worth posting one of the Q&As – References in the texts below can be found in the site above. The letter has been signed by 2 prominent British Sheyookh:
Ql) what is the Islamic ruling on statements stating the shariah law as barbaric and what is the ruling on saying Hudood are incompatible wit contemporary life?
As a Muslim we should know that our religion is perfect without any imperfection as Allah says; “this day, I have perfected your religion for you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion”
Therefore, belittling them or calling them as out-of-date constitutes disbelief as Allah says;
“Then do you believe in part of the scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.”7
It is mentioned in the book by AI-Haafiz Abil Hassan AM bin AI-Qittan AI-Faasi he says:
“and the people of Islam have agreed upon from the Jinn and humans in every time and in every place with sound confirmed agreement that the Quran which has been sent down by Allah upon His prophet is the truth and a necessity for every person to follow it”
Leaving any part of Quran or changing it is going against the consensus of entire Muslim nation. The author mentions another consensus in his book;
“and they all have agreed (unanimously) that whosoever believes in Allah and His prophet and in all that which has been reported from him authentically and did not have doubt in Tawheed of Allah (Lordship, Worship & Names and Attributes) or in prophethood or in Muahmmed (himself) or in any single letter which he has come with or in the shariah which he has come with narrated from him authentically, so whosoever negates in any of the things which we have mentioned or have doubt in anything from them and he dies upon that state then he dies as a disbeliever mushrik, inhabitant of Hellfire forever” ‘
If you were to ask: “is every single shariah law unchangeable”? We say that shariah law is constituted in two segments:
1) Laws which are fixed for certain crimes such as adultery, murder, theft etc
2) Laws which are not fixed and are executed based up liaising between individual and society such as drinking wine etc. These laws or punishments are initiated by religious scholars or supreme leader who can choose to implement various methods for such actions such as either to lash them, or expel them from country or imprison them etc
Now the question is asked whether these laws are barbaric or not?
Barbaric is truly a conformist word where they emulate certain punishments of the old and replicate them in modern day society to symbolize how cruel they were for mankind. However, if one was to look at modern day warfare, it is evident in their usage of artillery being more barbaric and leaving no mercy at all for the enemy. Countries are accumulating atomic warheads, chemical arsenal etc for their so called “peace” missions whereas they are causing more havoc,, destruction, and cruelty to people than others.
So who determines what is barbaric and what is not? Rather Allah says in Quran
“And there is (a saving of) life for you in AI-Qisas (the law of equality in punishment), O men of understanding that you may become the pious”
So the underlining factor behind laws are to deter criminals from committing crimes and we know that not all will adhere to them so which system is applicable? Look at the current systems in placed and see their results and compare them to those countries using Islamic criminal law. The results are overwhelmingly supporting for the implementation of shariah law.
It is further mentioned by Imam Abi Bakr Muhammad bin AI-Husayn Al-aajoree statements of the companions and their students (Tabieen) regarding those who denied the law of stoning;
“Chapter: Warning from school of thoughts of those people who deny the shariah which is a compulsory upon Muslims to have certainty in:
AH bin Zayd reported from yusufbin mahraam who said; ibn Abbas gave us a sermon in Basra so he said, Omar bin Khattab the leader of Muslims stood within us so he said:
“O people! Verily there will be people from this nation who will deny Rajm (stoning) and deny Dajjal and deny the pond of prophet and will deny the intercession of prophet and will deny the punishment in the grave and will deny that some people will be taken out from the hellfire after they have been punished”
In another place imam Al-aajoree mentioned another statement of the companions;
“all bin zayd narrated from yusuf bin mihraan who narrated from ibn Abbas who said that Omar bin Khattab said;
“O people! Indeed rajm (stoning) is truth, so do not deviate from it and the proof is that the prophet stoned and abu bakr stoned and I also stoned. Hence there will be people from this nation who will deny stoning, who will deny dajjal “12
In another place he mentions
“verily the prophet stoned two Jews who fornicated and verily abu bakr stoned and omar bin khattab stoned and AH bin abi taalib stoned a woman called Shuraaha who committed fornication while she was a divorcee/widow so he lashed her on Friday and stoned her on Saturday and said;
“I stoned her in accordance to the Book of Allah and upon the sunnah of prophet Muahmmad”
Now by looking at all these statements of the companions, there remains no doubt that they never saw such laws as barbaric because they knew that it has come from the Most Wise the Most Merciful and He would never do injustice upon His slaves.
Abdul Rehman – I would appreciate it if you, like everyone else on this forum, would put ideas into your own words and now paste huge chunks from other sites.