The Sultan and several emits in the north claim ancestry from Uthman Dan Fodio and who started a hereditary dynasty around 1804.
There are several dynasties in Nigeria who claim, based on traditional beliefs, some right for inheritance of their title and position.
In Islam there is no such provision for hereditary religious leaders.
Even in Saudi Arabia,the King is a King and not a religious leader as the Sultan claims to be?

This situation is a problem if there are Muslim sects that challenge this leadership such as the Shiites or non Hausa groups like the Kanuri?

One reason the Fulani were so successful in Northern Nigeria was the very large number of slaves that were traded through Kano during the slave trade
When it ended large numbers of slaves who were Hausa speaking were freed in the region.
These individuals came from everywhere without being Hausa.
However they were easy to incorporate into the Fulani project because they got a better deal than they did under the Hauz kings the Fulani deposed.
Being mostly slaves they had little knowledge of Hausa history and could not provide an effective counter.

Essentially we have an area populated mainly by Hausa Speaking descendants of slaves of unknown origin led by Fulani conquerors.
Those who were autochthonous had their history and identity systematically deleted from their consciousness.
Now everyone is Ibrahim Mohamed or Abdusalaam Abubakar.
The enslavement and Arabization is complete with a near total loss of what it means to be Hausa.

Hope is not lost

Many Hausas and genuine Muslims question why their religious leaders should inherit their positions and why they cannot be Hausa

The hausa,s really need to wake up
Expels the invaders from their region
Which ever way they do it will be just fine

Lol all this very silly. The fact everyone is so bent on maintaining monarchy. They're figureheads that rule over traditional institutions. All the political power rest with the stste government that regulates and maintains their existence.

In Islam there is no such provision for hereditary religious leaders.Even in Saudi Arabia,the King is a King and not a religious leader as the Sultan claims to be?

Your claim is debatable and you're neglecting to mention other historical precedents. The caliph is religious and political leader in Islam. It became hereditary during Umayyad caliphate. These guys probably copied that practice.

Many Hausas and genuine Muslims question why their religious leaders should inherit their positions and why they cannot be Hausa

When hausas will make a thread complaining or demand different. This isn't a presssing concern.

limeta:
The hausa,s really need to wake up
Expels the invaders from their region
Which ever way they do it will be just fine

Lol where are the invaders from?

Blue3k:
Lol all this very silly. The fact everyone is so bent on maintaining monarchy. They're figureheads that rule over traditional institutions. All the political power rest with the stste government that regulates and maintains their existence.



Your claim is debatable and you're neglecting to mention other historical precedents. The caliph is religious and political leader in Islam. It became hereditary during Umayyad caliphate. These guys probably copied that practice.



When hausas will make a thread complaining or demand different. This isn't a presssing concern.

Can you substantiate this claim with evidence ?

The caliph is religious and political leader in Islam

It seems you responded without comprehension
The sultan and emirs are different from so called TRADITIONAL leaders
The point is that they are purported RELIGIOUS LEADERS as well as monarchs .
There is nothing debatable about the fact that there is no provision for inherited religious leaders IN ISLAM

FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY
The fact that Muslims do a thing e.g. suicide bombing doest not make it Islamic
So I have no duty to offer precedents.
Your claim about Umayyad dynasty is tangential and irrelevant. Whatever happened there has never been established as a template of Islamic succession
There were Muslim kings in the North of Hausa descent centuries before DanFodio.
They were not SPIRITUAL leaders
Now regarding your claim

0m0nnakoda:

Can you substantiate this claim with evidence ?

The caliph is religious and political leader in Islam

It seems you responded without comprehension
The sultan and emirs are different from so called TRADITIONAL leaders
The point is that they are purported RELIGIOUS LEADERS as well as monarchs .
There is nothing debatable about the fact that there is no provision for inherited religious leaders IN ISLAM
The fact that Muslims do a thing e.g. suicide bombing doest not make it Islamic
So I have no duty to offer precedents.
Your claim about Umayyad dynasty is tangential and irrelevant. Whatever happened there has never been established as a template of Islamic succession
There were Muslim kings in the North of Hausa descent centuries before DanFodio.
They were not SPIRITUAL leaders
Now regarding your claim

Caliph means sucessor. They serve as sucessor to Mohammed in political and religious affairs. It's common knowledge to anyone who read history. They are just traditional rules with an added religious component. The same general facts apply. They sultan is like other rulers through out history the base their authority from God. There's no rule against heritable rule in islam. That's also the reason it debated who succeeded Muhammad after his death.

Lol you claim about there being no heretical claims in Islam is wrong just hence Umayyad caliphate. It wasn't considered anti islamic at the time. The sunni shia divide is partly a result of differing beliefs on the practice.

Blue3k:


Caliph means sucessor. They serve as sucessor to Mohammed in political and religious affairs. It's common knowledge to anyone who read history. They are just traditional rules with an added religious component. The same general facts apply. They sultan is like other rulers through out history the base their authority from God. There's no rule against heritable rule in islam. That's also the reason it debated who succeeded Muhammad after his death.

Lol you claim about there being no heretical claims in Islam is wrong just hence Umayyad caliphate. It wasn't considered anti islamic at the time. The sunni shia divide is partly a result of differing beliefs on the practice.

Opinions are not substantiation

I think you are confused
Heretical??

I do not remember using that word
You are distorting my word.

Do not conflate issues


Islam is based on the Quran and Hadith

None of those has provision for caliph or indeed succession

Indeed Islam is clear that the prophet was the Seal or Final so where the idea of succession comes from is bizarre.
The prophet never chose a successor and was clear that he was the last Messenger

Succession as a new prophet?


That there was a caliph after Muhammad died does not make that Islamic any more than 9/11 bombing is Islamic.

If caliphate are ,as you claim part of Islam then provide any reference to the Quran or Hadith telling us the function of a Caliph and how they were to be chosen
HOW many caliph are there today in the Islamic world

0m0nnakoda:

Opinions are not substantiation

I think you are confused
Heretical??

I do not remember using that word
You are distorting my word.

Do not conflate issues

Islam is based on the Quran and Hadith

Indeed Islam is clear that the prophet was the Seal or Final so where the idea of succession comes from is bizarre.
The prophet never chose a successor and was clear that he was the last Messenger

Succession as a new prophet?

That there was a caliph after Muhammad died does not make that Islamic any more than 9/11 bombing is Islamic.

If caliphate are ,as you claim part of Islam then provide any reference to the Quran or Hadith telling us the function of a Caliph and how they were to be chosen
HOW many caliph are there today in the Islamic world

Heritable is what I meant.

The definition of caliph is pretty clear and historical precedents are there. The caliph role was leader of the umma. He's not there to add on to Islam. Here's what some muslims use to justify need for Caliph. There's no caliphs today because there are no caliphates. Like all religious views its subjective. If were objective facts there would only be one kind of Islam like math.

The traditional institutions in north will only be reformed if they actually have a problem. It's strange that it isn't hausa's making these threads. Its not like they dont know the history. I really dont see them complaining about the religious component. Why not get rid of monarchy all together?

Allah had promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then who so is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious. (Surah Al-Nur, Verse 56)

The 9/11 example isnt good since you can argue Jihad is Islamic doctrine. The Koran and Hadith both give blessings to it. A better example would be almajari in my opinion. Maybe there's some verse they use to justify that institution as well.

It was narrated that ‘Amr bin ‘Abasah said:
“I came to the Prophet ﷺ and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.’”

sunnah ibn majah 4:24:2794

Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward -

quran 4:95

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "The best life is that of the man who holds his horse's rein in Allah's way and flies on its back to the places from whence he hears a war cry or the clatter of arms, seeking martyrdom or slaughter on the battlefield;

riyad as saliheen 12:1299

Blue3k:


Heritable is what I meant.

The definition of caliph is pretty clear and historical precedents are there. The caliph role was leader of the umma. He's not there to add on to Islam. Here's what some muslims use to justify need for Caliph. There's no caliphs today because there are no caliphates. Like all religious views its subjective. If were objective facts there would only be one kind of Islam like math.

The traditional institutions in north will only be reformed if they actually have a problem. It's strange that it isn't hausa's making these threads. Its not like they dont know the history. I really dont see them complaining about the religious component. Why not get rid of monarchy all together?



The 9/11 example isnt good since you can argue Jihad is Islamic doctrine. The Koran and Hadith both give blessings to it. A better example would be almajari in my opinion. Maybe there's some verse they use to justify that institution as well.

Wordiness only leads to more confusion

First of all try to understand before trying to prove you are smart

My point is that there is no Islamic sanction for Caliphates
Crucially

WHAT PROPORTION OF ISLAMIC STATES THROUGHOUT history have been under caliphates
You are arguing that the definition is.........

Hahaha definition of Caliph is pretty clear?
Really?

There is a definition??

It is in English?Presumably its definition has not changed in 1400 years?

A dictionary entry is not the same as definition.
Not every entry is a DEFINITION

You are putting a lot of energy into proving baseless assumptions.
Actually Jihad IS part of Islam. Does that make 9/11 jihad.
What jihad means can vary with speaker

In your mind it is Jihad and not a good example in my mind it is terrorism and a very good example
But it appears in the Quran over 60 times
The issue is that CALIPHATE IS not codified ANYWHERE in Islamic literature in terms of functioning
There us no quote anywhere attributed to Mohamed about Caliphate
He did not have any son or named successor
Even Abacha was called Khalif when IBB was in power.

By the way the Sokoto Caliphate was abolished over a hundred years ago by the British.


Historical precedents are not religious precedents
That a thing happened in Islamic space does not make it an Islamic event

0m0nnakoda:

Wordiness only leads to more confusion

First of all, try to understand before trying to prove you are smart

My point is that there is no Islamic sanction for Caliphates
Crucially

WHAT PROPORTION OF ISLAMIC STATES THROUGHOUT history have been under caliphates
You are arguing that the definition is.........

Hahaha, the definition of Caliph is pretty clear?
Really?

There is a definition??

It is in English? Presumably, its definition has not changed in 1400 years?

A dictionary entry is not the same as the definition.
Not every entry is a DEFINITION

You are putting a lot of energy into proving baseless assumptions.
Actually, Jihad IS part of Islam. Does that make 9/11 jihad?
What jihad means can vary with speaker

In your mind it is Jihad and not a good example in my mind it is terrorism and a very good example
But it appears in the Quran over 60 times
The issue is that CALIPHATE IS not codified ANYWHERE in Islamic literature in terms of functioning
There is no quote anywhere attributed to Mohamed about Caliphate
He did not have any son or named successor
Even Abacha was called Khalif when IBB was in power.

By the way, the Sokoto Caliphate was abolished over a hundred years ago by the British.

The Sokoto caliphate was obviously a case of using Islamic jihad to gain political power, such ideology was widespread among so many Sahelian regions from which the Fulanis go inspiration from, they just have to use the Quran and Hadith to legitimized their criminal ventures. This now leads to the question of why Islam can easily be used to pursue a political affair and vehicle to gaining political and personal power.

The event in the middle east, north Africa, India subcontinent and the Sahel region of Africa has pointed to a similar pattern where Islam is normally used as a vehicle to get support for a political campaign in other to subjugate and dethrone the traditional rulers of this place.

Coming to the true intention of the founder of the Sokoto Islamic caliphate, historians believe that Usman dan fodio was only interested in becoming the traditional ruler of this place but don't have any justification to such title being an alien to the land, the only justification he may have is the religion of Islam.

myobjective:


The Sokoto caliphate was obviously a case of using Islamic jihad to gain political power, such ideology was widespread among so many Sahelian regions from which the Fulanis go inspiration from, they just have to use the Quran and Hadith to legitimized their criminal ventures. This now leads to the question of why Islam can easily be used to pursue a political affair and vehicle to gaining political and personal power.

The event in the middle east, north Africa, India subcontinent and the Sahel region of Africa has pointed to a similar pattern where Islam is normally used as a vehicle to get support for a political campaign in other to subjugate and dethrone the traditional rulers of this place.

Coming to the true intention of the founder of the Sokoto Islamic caliphate, historians believe that Usman dan fodio was only interested in becoming the traditional ruler of this place but don't have any justification to such title being an alien to the land, the only justification he may have is the religion of Islam.

Interesting stuff but tangential and off point

The point is there is no established Islamic tradition for an inherited father to son caliphate.
Or any other kind of caliphate for that matter.

So even if there were to be a caliphate it is not Islamic for succession to be patrilineal.
Even the current king of Morocco who claims to be a descendant of the prophet is not a caliph

Now information is widely available and people are questioning the right of Fulani to establish ruling families

Let me point out that foreigners coming in to establish dynasties is not new
We have seen similar in other places, Benin, Oyo/Ife, England etc
Dynasties succeed if they integrate totally into their host communities

0m0nnakoda:

Interesting stuff but tangential and off point

The point is there is no established Islamic tradition for an inherited father to son caliphate.
Or any other kind of caliphate for that matter.

So even if there were to be a caliphate it is not Islamic for succession to be patrilineal.
Even the current king of Morocco WBO claims to be a descendant of the prophet is not a caliph

But most of this caliphate in the north didn't start off like that in the first place, over the years the system got more corrupted as ambitious amir (emir) got into power and decided to personalised and turn the succession to be patrilinear

myobjective:


But most of this caliphate in the north didn't start off like that in the first place, over the years the system got more corrupted as ambitious amir (emir) got into power and decided to personalised and turn the succession to be patrilinear

I do not know the facts for all Emirates but some of them claim to be Dan Fodio descendants


Before Dan Fodio there was a Hausa Caliphate in Kano

The Fulani caliphate was developed using the same model that herdsmen are using today.
Settle in the host communities for generations if necessary and when the time comes to join up and destroy from within.

Because they are embedded within the target community they are difficult to counter and their genocidal tactics difficult to revenge as their communities are difficult to identify

Now West Africans can seen the whole picture which they did not for centuries , now they can and will hunt the Fulani from Senegal,to Mali to Guinea and give them a dose of their own medicine.
Even the Hebe are waking up

[quote author=Blue3k post=86706430]Lol all this very silly. The fact everyone is so bent on maintaining monarchy. They're figureheads that rule over traditional institutions. All the political power rest with the stste government that regulates and maintains their existence.



Your claim is debatable and you're neglecting to mention other historical precedents. The caliph is religious and political leader in Islam. It became hereditary during Umayyad caliphate. These guys probably copied that practice.



When hausas will make a thread complaining or demand different. This isn't a presssing concern.




Lol where are the invaders from?

Futa jalon is a bit far from zoogeria isn't it

0m0nnakoda:

Wordiness only leads to more confusion

First of all try to understand before trying to prove you are smart

My point is that there is no Islamic sanction for Caliphates
Crucially

WHAT PROPORTION OF ISLAMIC STATES THROUGHOUT history have been under caliphates
You are arguing that the definition is.........

Hahaha definition of Caliph is pretty clear?
Really?There is a definition?? It is in English?Presumably its definition has not changed in 1400 years?A dictionary entry is not the same as definition. Not every entry is a DEFINITION

[s]You are putting a lot of energy into proving baseless assumptions.
Actually Jihad IS part of Islam. Does that make 9/11 jihad.
What jihad means can vary with speaker

In your mind it is Jihad and not a good example in my mind it is terrorism and a very good example
But it appears in the Quran over 60 times
The issue is that CALIPHATE IS not codified ANYWHERE in Islamic literature in terms of functioning
There us no quote anywhere attributed to Mohamed about Caliphate
He did not have any son or named successor
Even Abacha was called Khalif when IBB was in power.[/s]

The verse I gave is what muslims use to justify the caliphate. The Sunnis believes Abu Bakr was the rightful sucessor. If you disagree with them about their religion that's fine. I'll give you a map of Umayyad caliphate below. The definition is correct is correct. That's what the caliph was historically. Post the Arabic definition disputing the fact if you disagree.

You're all over the place. I said jihad is Islamic hence 9/11 bombing can be considered Islamic. Post your hadith or Koran scriptures explaining what jihad is and why does 9/11 not fit definition.

That there was a caliph after Muhammad died does not make that Islamic any more than 9/11 bombing is Islamic.

Why are you concerned about sultan of sokoto more than Obas? Are you ok with monarchy as long as it doesn't have religious component? Politicans in the north dont campaigning on this fridge issue. The people seem cool with it. If your taxes happen to fund them it's understandable why your upset.

limeta:
Futa jalon is a bit far from zoogeria isn't it

Lol they're not Nigerians and they got Buhari to presidency amazing.

So Im going to come in on this.

Mecca was the founding of Islam and Muhammed 'SAWS" was first muslim. In the pre-Islamic era Priests, not monarchs, ruled Mecca. Muhammed had no precedent for monarchy but he had a clear and defined structure and heirarchy for priestdom, priesthood and succession. The blood lineage of Muhammed himself are called Sheriffs. The priesthood of Muhammed is called Khalifa. Anglicized, it became Caliphate.

In the course of expanding Islam to different political territories and cultures it also acquired political credits and traction. So where traditional dynasties of monarchy embraced Islam, they equally turned Islam into State religion. With time, and in certain cultures, Statehood and Islamic Priesthood became one.

One of the principles adopted by early muslims is that where statehood and priesthood are co-located, priesthood, that is Islam...., must have supremacy. To symbolize this arrangement they adopted an Islamic flag...called the flag of the faithfuls. Anyone not in possession, or under allegiance to the flag is automatically regarded an unfaithful...or unbeliever....commonly Kafir!

With time the flag assumed sacredness. So that it is viewed as a doctrine of God. Authority of divine continuance...or Caliph....is simply passed on by handing that flag to a believer.

In other words....similar to the indoctrination of handing calabash with parrot egg to a Yoruba king.....and without exchange of words he intuitively knew what to do, likewise when the flag of faithful is handed to a believer, he intuitively knows to carry that flag past the frontier of established Islam and go plant it as the new order amongst a land of kafirs. This usually end in conflict and bloodbath. The expansion of Islamic faith is expected to be total. In other words, the Caliphate ...those in custody of the numerous flags, believe and expect that one day everybody on earth will be a muslim and there will be no land upon which the flag of the faithful is not flying. Those who oppose this expectation or stand in its way are the ones that must forcefully be eliminated. The process of their elimination is the Jihad. That is, you are a friend of the flag....or you are threat and an enemy to it. If you are not eliminated there is risk that you will raise an army that will eliminate the flag and destroy succession and expansion of Islam.

I am not sure if you all follow me so far but I hope you do...

Sultan is a priest, not a traditional monarch. He has the flag of the faithfuls. They have identified Nigeria as a easy catch and the least difficult to Islamize. Over the past 40yrs especially, they have made tremendous gains and in expansion and conversion. They expect it to be total with successive fulani leadership in the center. This is why they abhor anything to do with regional or restructred governance.

The Islam practiced by Uthman dan Fodio and his successors do not know anything called terrorism. To them, the blood of kafir is of no value to the supremacy of the flag. The sultan does not see himself as a subject of Nigerian constitution, he views himself as head of the faithfuls and his seat of power as a parallel authority but above the reach of the Nigerian laws and orders. To cement this belief the military made him head of all units of organizations in which he participates. He is even head of traditional council of Nigeria.....even though he is a religious leader, not a traditional cultural leader as commonly understood in indigeneous lands in Nigeria.

I will stop here.