SHARI'AH IN NIGERIA

[Dan-Sokoto]

Assalaam Alaikum!

I here by post an article I just read in Nigeria's Guardian Newspaper of Friday, 8 Novemeber 2002. It is by one Reuben Abati reviewing a book on Sharia'ah in Nigeria. I find the article and the book very intriguing, thought provoking on contemporary issues facing Nigeria.

Please read on and lets us share your views on both the article and the book. Though i do admit the limitation of not having the benefit of reading the book on its entirety for one to fully and appropriately appraise its content, instead of relying on what Abati says is in the book.

"A BOOK ON SHARIA"

By Reuben Abati

"I HAVE just been reading, in this season of Ramadan, a slim but interesting book by Hakeem B. Harunah, Shari'ah Under Western Democracy in Contemporary Nigeria: Contradictions, Crises and the Way Forward. Lagos: Perfect Printers Ltd., 2002, 108 pp. It is one of the recent attempts at a detailed book-length study of the introduction of the Sharia as a religious and legal orthodoxy beyond the prescribed constitutional limits in the last three and a half years of democracy in Nigeria with far-reaching social and political implications. Relying on research, personal observations and existing details, Dr. Hakeem Harunah, Associate Professor of History at the University of Lagos, has documented in great detail up till this point, the main issues that have been thrown up by what is now referred to as the Sharia phenomenon. Equally foregrounded in this book is the contradictory heritage and nature of the Nigerian judicial and legal system. It is important to note the author's background and orientation, for in discussing religion in Nigerian politics and society, ideology is necessarily a basic consideration. Dr Harunah is a Moslem, a historian and scholar. In reviewing the Sharia debacle, his approach is mainly that of an academic. He neither preaches nor confesses any bias, and it is for this reason that he has come up with a book that will be found useful by anyone seeking an informative account and analysis of the Sharia in present-day Nigerian politics.

The context of his analysis is worth constructing. The successful conduct of a political transition programme, culminating in the hand over of power by the military to civilians on May 29, 1999, was generally seen as the second liberation for the Nigerian people. But one of the major lessons of the last three and a half years, or the Fourth Republic as it is otherwise called is that elections in themselves do not solve all of a nation's problems. If anything, the conclusion of elections may well confront a country with many of the issues that it has been trying to avoid for years, and this confrontation with historical processes is often not without crises and contradictions. Significantly, this has been Nigeria's recent experience.

A major turning point in this regard has been the introduction of the Shariah as a "full-fledged" legal and religious orthodoxy in 12 states of the Northern part of the country, beginning with Zamfara state, and spreading gradually to 11 other states. Sections 260 - 264 of the 1999 Constitution focus on the Sharia, noting that its jurisdiction is limited to "civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law". This is further amplified in Section 277 where the competence of a Sharia court is defined in fuller detail as a law that is made strictly for Moslems, and restricted only to personal law. The framers of the Nigerian constitution since independence had seen the need to acknowledge the country's cultural and religious diversity, and the inclusion of civil Shariah in the constitution is evidence of this. However, Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution prohibits state religion. Chapter Four of the same constitution outlines the fundamental human rights of all citizens. Nigeria is equally a signatory to international conventions on human and peoples rights. The recent introduction of the Shariah in the northern parts of the country to cover criminal matters has in operation raised constitutional, ethnic and religious issues and divided the country along partisan religious and ideological lines.

In this book, Harunah looks at all the sides of this debate. He is concerned that the crises that have been thrown up by the controversy over the application of the Sharia are capable of affecting the stability of the present democratic process, and also, the image of the country. He reviews specific cases, and provides tables of reported incidents of the Shariah involving stoning to death, or the amputation of hands and limbs. He observes that whereas Muslim faithfuls may speak of the primacy of their faith, the application of the Shariah in a multiethnic, pluralistic society that operates a Western type democracy is bound to throw up basic contradictions, create crises in form of conflict with other religious faiths and the state, and Western institutions. He reviews the efforts that have been made so far to address the problem, and proffers suggestions as to the way forward. The Shariah has invariably been a volatile and emotional issue in Nigerian politics, its inclusion in the constitution to deal with personal law is a form of compromise, but the truth is that the Moslem North has never really accepted this to be a true reflection of its own aspirations. Recent developments therefore are offshoots of an existing trajectory, an indication that the crises associated with this are bound to continue for as long as the national question remains unresolved.

What we seek to isolate for the purpose of this column is how the author identifies the contradictions involved in the introduction of the Shariah to cover criminal issues or what he calls, "the new Shariah legal system". The first contradiction he says, "is having to use aspects of a Western-oriented democracy and its component institutions and agencies for the implementing (sic) the full-fledged Shariah legal system in Nigeria." The contradiction arises from the fact that the Shariah is best applied under an Islamic theocracy whereas Western democracy has Christian roots and character, whose values are at variance with the norms of the Sharia legal system. The challenge then is how to apply the Shariah under a Constitution whose orientation is pro-Christian in terms of values?.

The second contradiction that he sees is the implementation of the Shariah in the absence of a "state religion", the prescribed model by the Prophet (SAW). The third is the lack of uniformity in the implementation of the Shariah by the northern states. It is to be supposed that this is perfectly understandable. It is a clear indication of the impression that the Northern states are not necessarily interested in Islam or freedom of religious choice, but in politics, and the Shariah has become a tool for mass propaganda and mobilization. The fourth contradiction as identified by the author is that the implementation of the criminal Shariah violates the Federal Constitution. The import is that it is to that extent illegal, and thereby null and void. The fifth contradiction is that whereas the Shariah is meant to promote freedom of choice, it necessarily ends up traducing basic fundamental human rights, and Harunah outlines some of these breaches, and public responses to them since 1999. What is in part responsible for this he notes, is the incompetence and overzealousness of the Shariah judges. Very true!

The sixth contradiction is how federal resources, collected even from "anti-Islamic activities" are used to fund the Shariah. The net effect is that in the last three years, the country has witnessed a spate of religious riots, between Moslem and Christians and widespread anxieties by the latter over the introduction of the Shariah. The author reviews the Federal government's response to the Shariah challenge but his analysis is not critical enough. The point needs to be made that the Obasanjo government has been dishonest in tackling the Shariah challenge. It remains so far a test of the constitution; to allow a section of the country to violate the Constitution so brazenly and to be allowed to get away with it is further confirmation of the increasing failure of the Nigerian state. The rule of law and order cannot and ought not to be selective in application, but what has happened is that the politicians, with their eyes fixed on the next elections are reluctant to take on such a volatile issue as the Shariah. Harunah offers a number of suggestions , the principal substance of which is the insistence on the secular nature of the Nigerian state, and in effect, the return of the northern states to the status quo ante, to prevent a further heating up of the polity. In this respect, I concur. Indeed, certain Moslems may disagree with the kind of contradictions he has outlined but these are precisely the kind of issues to which attention ought to be drawn as the Sharia debate continues.

But what is missing in his analysis, I suppose, is a psychological and political profile of the principal figures behind the crises, as a way of demonstrating that indeed what we are confronted with is not religion but the selfish ambitions of a vote-seeking and rent-collecting elite. Relying on the good faith of the authorities in the affected 12 Northern states to return to the status quo ante may achieve no result. Mass delusion is a strong instrument in the hands of power mongers and the Shariah appears to be achieving that effect. It is sustained by the widespread poverty and illiteracy in the North, as well as the subsisting feudal structures of political and social authority. In the 12 Northern states where the new Sharia is in operation, good governance is a myth; the people are suffering but they cannot ask questions because of the fear of the Shariah, and meanwhile, the state authorities are not accountable to anyone. Safiya, Amina Lawal, Jangedi and other Sharia victims are living metaphors of the regular abuses of power that we are confronted with. It is instructive that many Moslems have had cause to condemn the implementation of the new Shariah, as a derogation from the tenets of Islam.

It is further noteworthy that the principal victims have all been poor people. Rich Northerners and their families are so far being presented as saints; the hypocrisy involved in the Shariah as it is now, is so obvious that the Federal Government and the political party systems ought to respond to it as a national emergency. We find here also, the sharp dichotomisation of the country into North and South, creating both social and psychological tension. That the contradictions that Harunah identifies have been allowed to continue is in part, a reflection of the weakness of institutions, and the virtual impotence of both the state and the political party system. This is where the problem lies, not in Western democracy, for whereas Western liberalism may have pro-Christian roots, the issues of justice, equity and fairness that have been indicated by the misapplication of the Shariah by the Governor of Zamfara state and others are issues of universal concern, supported even by Islam which contrary to its abuse by politicians is a religion of peace and justice. Human rights, gender discrimination and abuse of power and office, are issues of concern that need to be addressed to protect the public space from a predatory political elite. The education of the civil populace both in the North and the South would be required on a continuous basis to make it impossible for politicians to manipulate the public mind, using religion as a dubious shield.

But even more importantly, the Shariah crisis strengthens the position of those who continue to insist that there are too many contradictions within the Nigerian state. The politicization of the Sharia, religious and ethnic violence, quarrels over resource allocation, and power rotation are all symptoms of a deeper and malignant malaise, namely the failure of the state and its institutions and the absence of a national consensus on critical issues. Harunah's Shariah Under Western Democracy in Contemporary Nigeria: Contradictions, Crises and the Way Forward is another proof of the need for such a consensus, leading to a reinvention of the Nigerian state. The bigger lesson again is how democracy is but only the beginning of a process in the life of a nation."

Salaam!

Dan-Sokoto

[Blaqueen]

well... does it EVER occur to some people that..

SHARIAH has ALWAYS been in nigeria....

U report urself to shariah courts by ur OWN self... if u dont waka carry urself go... u dont involve ur self.. simple...

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

i dont get all the fuss.... Shariah can work perrrrfectly in the F.R.of N!!!!!!

so quit rantin'... and let people educate themselves on the Shariah...

ps... its always the criminal penal code that's vexin' people... well, who send the people to commit the crime... (i wonda!!)

[lionger]

FDQ

Yes sharia has always been in Nigeria, even under military rule. Afterall Sharia courts existed in the north long before 1999. However, what Yerima introduced into Zamfara is a completely new thing to Nigeria. If Sharia as it exists in Nigeria now was always there, then why all this ruckus? Did Christians just wake up from sleep or what? Yes, sharia has always been there. But i don't think the penal code has. I will refer to it as the 'new sharia'.

Furthermore, how about addressing the contradictions Haruna raised so i can be perfectly 'educated' on the Sharia? i'm not sure u fully read this article, knowing how you dislike 'long posts', so i'll paraphrase the contradictions Haruna mentioned.

1) The new sharia is best operated under an islamic theocracy rather than a democracy. Countries like Turkey are better fitted for Sharia, yet it doesn't exist there!In fact, its a democracy! Isn't Nigeria, with its ethnic/religious complexity, the worst place to introduce the new sharia?
2) The new sharia violates the Federal constitution. If that is true, then it means the Northern states have effectively seceded. Remember what happened to the east and your good friend Ojukwu (hehehe) when they tried that a few decades ago?
3) The new Sharia does not make sense legally in the absence of a State religion.
4) The new Sharia is a political tool meant to keep greedy politicians in power, thus can never be implemented uniformly by the northern states and consequently ?is of no help to the masses. This has been my biggest point about today's sharia and has been mentioned by others on this forum. If the punishment for stealing is now amputation, then shouldn't this also be applied to corrupt politicians? Will it ever be? Why hasn't this happened to IBB?
5) Sharia is supposed to be promote freedom of choice, yet Nigeria's sharia does exactly the opposite partly due to the 'incompetence and overzealousness of the Sharia judges'.
6) Federal resources (which non-muslims definitely contribute to) are being used to fund sharia. Why should a christian taxpayer's money be used to fund a project that does not 'apply' to him?

At least try and listen to the opposition's argument, FDQ, instead of constantly dismissing it as rubbish. Till date I have not heard valid reason on this forum why we should let sharia be in nigeria. I ernestly await your reply.

[nura]

I'm sorry lionger I think most christians  in this country do not understand the relevance of Shari'a in the life of a muslim. I have said it before in this forum that Islam is more than a religion that you'll practice in a room between you and your God or every Friday in the mosque. Islam is a complete way of life it guides the muslim on how to live his life. Even small things like how to go to the toilet, how to comb your hair, wear clothes, lie down to sleep are decreed. As Allah Almighty tells us in the Qur'an that Our best Example is the Holy Prophet (SAW) and that any of his laws are laws of Allah.

I pray to disagree with my brother Hakeem B. Haruna as there is no specific method that is to be strictly followed to do the right thing. It does not matter whether it there is an Islamic system of government on ground or western system of government provided there is an opportunity to proclaim the Word of Allah above that of man then a muslim must do it. According the Holy Prophet (SAW) Jihad is of three types; you can use your hand to exclaim and proclaim the word of Allah above that of man and Satan, or you use your mouth or you use your heart wich the prophet said is the weakest of all jihads. The Governor of Zamfara State Alhaji Ahmed Sani, may Allah reward him greatly has succeeded in doing a Jihad and he did this with honest intentions and will go down in history as the first muslim leader in Nigeria to bring about a complete revolution in the application of Shari'a and we ae very grateful. May Allah reward him!

I can not understand the Christians in this country, the Shari'a has not been applied on any christian and it will never as the Holy Prophet has never tried any non-muslim with the Shari'a according to Islam but with their books and since they have the canon law let them go and use it and leave us with our Shari'a. So why the hoolabaloo as if muslims have not been tried from time in memorial with the christian canon law? And they are trully funny because they will tell you that they are afraid that the same Shari'a will be taken to their states/local governments how can that be possible, when christians in the shari'a states are tried with canon law what wll be the use of shari'a courts or Qadis there. Sometimes you'll find professors that reason like illitrates or are mischeviously/intentionally acting like them.

Lionger and Abati should relax if they are christians for the Shari'a is for muslims and muslims alone and if they are worried about the muslims that may be punished by the law  
it is not their business since those muslims chose Islam above other religions including christianity and they are very aware of Shari'a and all other tenents of islam.

[lionger]

hi AbuMujahid,

Thanks for your reply. I would like to ask you a few questions. First of all, what is the difference b/w Islam and sharia? Or are they the same thing? U say it is a complete way of life but other muslims have told me its just a penal code.

Secondly, wasn't there a sharia b4 1999? What is the difference b/w that sharia and the new sharia?

Thirdly, how come sharia was not even discussed under Shagari's (he was its main champion and first brought it into the constitution) government, but 20 years later under Obasanjo?

On your disagreement w/ Haruna: The Sharia is so awkward that it is being enforced by local vigilante groups in some northern states. Does this make sense to you? Doesn't this show the awkwardness of the Sharia in Nigeria in that it cannot even be enforeced by the Nigerian police? Nigeria is such a diverse mix, my friend. Like I said before, better fitted countries like Turkey and malaysia don't even use Sharia. Nigeria is just not the place for it. Look at what has happened to the Sudan.

Finally, on your statement about Sharia not being applied to Christians: Do you mean that non-muslims can buy alcohol, go to nightclubs, use coed taxis, buses and schools in Sharia states? Do you think the vigilante groups differentiate b/w the two? Didn't Shinkafi pronouce a fatwa on Isioma Daniel, a christian? I know in other threads you have rejected his pronouncement, but would this have happened if the present Sharia was not there? What does this tell you about the motives of the northern politicians?

This sharia brouhaha has greatly increased misconceptions about Nigeria in the eyes of foreigners. Many ppl have come up to me with the idea that Nigeria is a muslim country, which I disagree with, since Christianity is my way of life as well as that of many others in Nigeria. Nigerian Christians may just be paranoid, but I feel the biggest losers in this are the northern masses. They don't even know it. Development will continue to go unchecked.

Btw I don't know what you mean by christian law; some ppl just read the first five books of the old testament and conclude that its christian law; it is not. As a christian I do not live under the law; I live under grace.

[nura]

Lionger

Islam means to submit totally to the will of Allah this is through action and relationship between one and other creatures of Allah (SWT). Actions means actions of worship such as believing in Allah as the only Supreme Being, His Messengers, His Angels, The Books He sent to mankind, The Day of Judgement and Destiny (Whatever happens to one is from Allah whether good or bad) and then establish the prayers, give zakat, fast in the month of Ramadan and Attend the pilgrimage in Makkat.

Muamalat or relationship between one and other creatures of Allah is guided by the Shari'a. Shari'a is a part and percel of Islam it is the part that guides man to man and man to other creatures relationship. It is not just a body of laws, it i motre than that, it is also loyalty in your place of work, comittment to ones family, kindness to animals and alot of other things.

As a complete way of life therefore and being also a religion that does not separate state and "church" or mosque, Islam has to guide the muslim as to how to live with his fellow creatures on earth hence the Shari'a, just like the constitution and the penal code together. It derives it's sources from The Holy Qur'an, The Sayings and Actions of the Holy Prophet and the independent judgement of the companions.

Shari'a can work without the political structuresespecially when you are talking about the penal aspects of Shari'a such as the civil and criminal as pect of the law.

A christian can drink in a Shari'a state but not in public as that may offend other people or encourage non drinkers and children. You can also do nightclubbing in your house as long as you are not going to be a nuisance to your niehbours and you wont create disturbances. And of course Allah knows best.

Why is turkey better fitted? And turkey is not actually a democratic country, a country where the armed forces control the state, you know if an Islamic Party wins election today in turkey the armed forces will intervene and remove it and any party that will campaignto bring Shari'ah to the forefront of affairs in the country will win election hands down. You can therefore see that the poeple are for Shari'a but they are just not powerful enough yet. There is Shari'ah in Malaysia and Indonesia similar to the one in Nigeria. And I have my opinion about the war in Sudan may be in another session we may discuss that. Furthermore you also need to understand that there are school of thoughts in Islam which are actually judgements made by four different scholars according to their understanding, although they are all right but in some ways they differ based on that therefore some application of the Shari'a are different from others. Please note that these schools of thought are only different in some judgements and not in any other aspects of islamic beliefs.In Islam we live under the laws of Allah and for that reason even if we are not in a muslim country we should be allowed to practice our religion as we are supposed to especially when by doing that we will not step on the rights of adherents of other religions.

As muslims we believe that development come from Allah and as far as you follow His decrees and obey His laws by leaving what He forbids and doing what He allows. And we also believe that the purpose of our creation is to Worship Allah alone and Shari'a is part of that worship. And that is why we are always very emotional about religion. It dosn't make sense to keep living without achieving the supreme objective of living.

Thank you

[lionger]

abumujahid

thanks again for your reply esp. the clarification of the differences b'w islam and sharia. However, based on your writeup i must say that we all need to sit down and have a serious discussion in Nigeria. You have to agree that there is something seriously wrong when vigilante groups start enforcing laws in a society; that is a recipe for disaster.what you say may be correct IN THEORY, but in practise its a completely different matter, and where Nigeria is concerned, it definitely is! Corruption and injustice will spoil it, just as it has spoilt almost everything else in Nigeria.

another point i need to make to you is that christians are not the only non-muslims in Nigeria. apart from the traditionalists, there's a growing number of ppl with no religious affiliation. This is especially true for the new generation. These are the ppl that would like to go clubbing and drinking, not christians lol. I said Turkey was a much better place for this kind of sharia because most ppl in it are muslims and accept it, as you say. Everyone is emotional and passionate about their relgion, not just muslims. Exactly y religion should be kept away from politics in a diverse country like Nigeria.

[Anonymous]

Lionger!
let me start by affirming that, i am not affliated to any religion, less my motive be misunderstood in the characteristic nigerian way.

Please tell me in what way does a muslim's shariah practise effect a non-muslim in a democracy? Moreso, when the Muslims insist it does not apply to non-muslims? I find the nigerian case of xtians opposition most intriguing and intolerant. Islam is not an evengalical religion like xtianity where they go door to door handing out leaflets for people to convert to their religion. I have had the misfortune times without number of being confronted by xtian street preachers insisting on telling me about christ despite my telling them that i am not a xtian. But they insist and i let them without taking any offence. I am also told in a country like the united states, some states like nevada (las vegas) gambling and prostitution are permissible by law, while in some other states they are not. If you want to enjoy those vices in america you travel to such states and if you don't want you don't. In the same vein, in nigeria if you feel a state like zamfara does not meet your expectations social or otherwise, you decide not to have anything to do with it. But if you an ibo for instance who is either a muslim or interested in raising your children according to islamic virtue you can either go and settle or send your children to grow up in zamfara. why all this hullabaloo? my understanding of a democracy may be wrong, but i am of the opinion that, people should be given some measure of freedom of choice most importantly where such freedom does not impinge on anybody's own like shariah practise in nigeria.

without sounding rude, i wish to refer you to a nigerian website called gamji.com where i have seen some brilliant and patriotic nigerians like one Mr Nowa and Muyiwa whose writings are most instructive, balanced and progressive in highlighting way forward for nigeria. please endevour to read all their writings and i hope you find them enlightening.

shaba

[Rose]

Shaba I completly agree with you.

[lionger]

lol hi shabba

first of all, i would much rather have muslim 'evangelists' moving around preaching to people about their religion than sharia.  I have no problems with ppl trying to spread their religion, as long as they don't kill or harm me for non-acceptance, and i know that the christian evangelists in nigeria do not kill dissenters.

u think only christians are against sharia? my friend, i don't think ppl with no particular religious affiliation (the new generation mostly) are happy with sharia in nigeria at all. secondly, i'd like you to read my response to abumujahid's last post. i'm a christian, and as such i don't care for prostitutes, gambling or night clubs. My point on that was in response to Abumujahid's (and your) idea that sharia will not be applied to non-muslims. If that's really the case, then what about the fatwa on isioma? would that have happened if sharia was not there? is possible that a muslim non-northern politician could have done what shinkafi did?

Thirdly, i think i've hit the crux of my disagreement with many of you pro-sharia folks: sharia in theory vs. sharia in practise. Your arguments all point to the fact that sharia is not a problem in theory; but is that the case in practise in Nigeria? Can't you see the point that those who started this sharia thing are not interested in islam but in their pockets, that they are the only winners and the losers are the northern masses? shabba and ice i would like you guys to respond to the points Haruna made about the way sharia is being practised in nigeria, aka the contradictions? Is he right?

[al_hamza]

oh dear,
lionger.....
your sooo briliant,
i simply love your responses.
please can you tell us how we should practise our religion?

[Muhammad]

Salam
Lionger there seems to be a misunderstanding of the said 'fatwa' on Isioma Daniel. One thing should be clear. Nigeria is NOT an Islamic State. Therefore non Muslims cannot and indeed will(shall) never be subject to Islamic law just as they would not be subject to Singaporean statutes. Secondly, even in a homogeneously Islamic countries, the issuers of fatwa are the Ulama (clerics) not the Kings, viziers  ... todays governor and dep govs etc.
Thirdly,there seems to be this culture in Nigeria where claims are not substantiated. I say this because it was Deputy gov of Zamfara not the gov who issued that fatwa ( or opinion).
Even at that, the opinion of the Zamfara clerics is not and will never become law beacuse it lack precendence.
Finally, the fact is , and will forever remain, that the Islamic code will NOT be applied on non-muslims because they are not adherents of the religion. To do otherwise means imposing our religion on others and the Quran is very clear " No compulsion in matters of Religion". I hope this should clear the self imposed misunderstanding of the Sharia.
Peace!

[lionger]

al hamza
my friend, you obviously missed my point entirely. i'm not telling you how to practise your religion; i'm raising questions about how politicians are using it to their benefit adn to the disadvantage of the masses who sadly don't know better.

amin
thanks 4 ur reply. like i said to al hamza, everyone  seems to miss my point. monsieur if indeed i have a misunderstanding of sharia today, it is because of the way it has been used in nigeria. let's forget the fatwa, that was an embarassment to everyone (btw, how come no action was taken against the culprit?). amin, all this 'ranting' as FDQ would say - is not out of concern for non-muslims, but for the muslims themselves! anyways, we're in election time; lets see how much sharia has improved the lives of zamfara and other ppls in sharia states.

[Blaqueen]

mhm..i wonda...

[Eskimo]

Friends,
As far as the truth is concerned this is how the situation looks like:
Islam to muslim is a total way of life. It tells muslims every aspects of their lifes socially, economically, spiritually, politically....so it is wrong to define Islam as just a religion; they way religion is defined in dictionaries. Islam is a CULTURE of its adherants.
Christianity and most other religions (minus Judaism: which is similar to Islam in most aspects) are more concern with spiritual life only... "what is God's..." and seperate state from church..."to Caesar, what is Caesar's..." So while Christians share the same faith all over the world (forget about Catholism, Protestanism, etc) they all have different cultures that has nothing to do with religion. (May be that is why an Igbo widow has to shave her head, a French woman go about the street "naked" while a Tangle Woman from Gombe Covers herself in Muslim-like dress).
Man views other religions from his religious point of view.That is why it is strange to a Christian for somebody to allow religion interfare into his political life. While to a muslim, politics is just part of his religion like daily prayers.
People in Nigeria are living according to their culture and traditions without any fuss. But when muslims say they want to live according to their "culture and traditions" there is foul cry from all corners of the country. Why?
We are in a democratic country where not only religion but cultures are free to be practiced. If you dont like people cultures, please keep it in your heart and just practice yours.