₦airaland Forum

ItsMeAboki:
Although you claim not to be holding brief for him, you seem not have been following my arguments closely enough and are unwittingly doing the same.

My first comment on this thread was to emphasise the legitimacy of the law and advise anyone who disagrees with it to challenge it in the court.

Unfortunately, the gentleman ignored my position and persisted on his ignorant views by referring to Sharia laws as inconsistent with the secular nature of the country and a parallel constitution.

Note: the ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol in Kano was not enacted (as many still wrongly assume) under Sharia law; but rather, under the general legislative powers entitled to the state as provided by the constitution.

The intention of the said law (even though consistent with Islamic prohibition of alcohol) was clearly directed at curbing the ongoing problem of addiction to intoxicants in the state (alcohol among them) but not targeted against any particular group. It is important to also note, that although Sharia as practised in all Nigerian Sharia states have not been imposed on non-Muslims; however, Christians have reacting to it with unreasonable intolerance and hostility.

On the other hand, the Benue anti grazing laws, even though legitimate as already mention, seemed to have been targeted against Fulani herders in particular; because of some of the conditions attached to it e.g. making it difficult for the herder to acquire land and retain it for that purpose; through impractical requirement for annual land grant renewal (which can be easily denied/cancelled at any time irrespective of the herder's already tied down investment) - that is why the MACBAN felt sufficiently aggrieved to challenge it in court; just like anyone who disagrees with any aspect of Sharia (or any law) is advised to do, instead of spreading unnecessary hatred and ignorance.

1) Once again, nobody was disputing the legitimacy of the law. You're an educated person, and I'm finding it hard to understand why you can't seem to follow the line of argument - which is very simple, coherently expresses, and asserted again and again here. Legitimacy has never been what was in question. You raised the issue of legitimacy and started spewing irrelevancies about "challenging the law in the courts" to somehow shut down the argument. It was basically a way of saying "shut up and mind your business....we can make any law we like". While I care enough about the erosion of secularism to spend some minutes of my day talking about regressive laws in the North, I don't give enough of a shiit about Kano to challenge anything in any court.

2) Yes, Sharia law as conceived in the North is incompatible with Nigeria's secular constitution. The law belongs in regressive Islamic theocracies, not in a secular republic with a secular constitution. These were supposed to be customary/magisterial laws addressing issues like marriage and divorce, adjudicating family disputes and inheritance etc, but were elevated to infringe on the Nigeria criminal justice system, basically turning it into a parallel constitution. It was only allowed to slip through because Obasanjo didn't want to stoke flames and took threats of violent unrest in a volatile North seriously.
I also offered no commentary on the alcohol ban being under Sharia law or state legislation. The fact is it is the Sharia states that ban alcohol consumption. I was addressing the religious fundamentalism that motivates the passing of such a law, not the technicalities of the roots of the law.

3) Neither Kano, or any other of the Sharia states that banned alcohol did it because of any "addiction to intoxicants". There has never been an alcohol addiction epidemic in Kano or anywhere else. They passed the law because alcohol consumption is anathema to the Sharia code, and laws like that are typical tools of control for the Northern elite. And who says Sharia law has not been imposed on Christians. I'm betting most of those who have seen millions of bottles of their alcohol smashed are Christians who violated no law of the Federal republic.

4) Benue's anti-grazing laws targeted curtailing the murderous activities, and criminal encroachment and trespassing of nomadic herdsmen. That most of the murderous herdsmen are Fulani is incidental. Never ceases to amuse me how a particular group of people seem to get themselves in murderous conflicts with host communities all across Nigeria (all over the North, Middlebelt and even stretching down South), but still play the victim and never seem to ask themselves why they are the common denominator in most deadly ethnic conflicts in Nigeria. But yeah.....it is the fault of the Benue government for trying to protect the lives and livelihood of its residents.
I might as well say that laws against drug trafficking, and proliferation of banned substances are "targeted" at destroying the livelihood of Igbo drug merchants. That's what you sound like. Poor Fulani victims that some states are wary of marauding, murderous herdsmen. They should be welcome in all communities to graze their cattle anywhere they want on any farm they want at any time they want. Else, you'll be massacred, even as they play the victim.

VolvoS60:
^^^
No Sir.

I have followed your arguments very closely. I agree with you that the courts will be the final arbiter. What I took exception to was your assertion that the right of states to legislate is the sole bone of contention – and that once that right is acknowledged then there is nothing left to argue about. I have been as clear as possible in differentiating between the rights of states to legislate and the merit, wisdom and intent (the terms used by you and the other fellow) of said legislation. There’s no point going back and forth on this so I’ll not say any more.

Are you absolutely sure that the alcohol ban in Kano was enacted under powers granted by the Nigerian Constitution and not Sharia law? I would appreciate any proof of this (links, dates, timelines, etc). Assuming what you say is accurate, the question of the agency of enforcement comes up. If the alcohol ban was enacted (as you say) under powers granted by the Nigerian constitution, why is enforcement being carried out by the Hisbah? If the alcohol ban was enacted under “general legislative powers” provided by the Nigerian constitution (your words) then why is enforcement being carried out by Islamic religious police and not the Nigeria Police? Do you see the contradiction Sir?

Again, I want to make clear that I am not holding brief for the fellow you were debating with. But he has a point about how some Nigerians view Sharia law as a parallel constitution – a view point borne out of hard experience. Nigeria has several companies that make alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. The activities of these companies are regulated under federal law. These legally registered companies pay taxes to the federal government and there is also VAT charged on their products. These tax revenues are shared among the federal, state and local governments. To the best of my knowledge, no Sharia state has opted out of these tax revenue receipts. And yet, Sharia states seize and destroy alcoholic drinks in transit or at points of sale. Isn’t that a contradiction?

I note with wry amusement your comment about how “Sharia as practised in all Nigerian Sharia states have (sic) not been imposed on non-Muslims”. You cannot claim to know more than the late CJN Mohammed Bello. Justice Bello (in an interview before his death) stated clearly that Sharia law in Nigeria, would in practice, affect non-Muslims. I will always respect the man for telling it like it is and indeed history has proved him right.

My last point to you Sir, is a request for information. According to you, the intention of Kano’s alcohol ban was clearly directed at curbing the ongoing problem of addiction to intoxicants in the state (alcohol among them) but not targeted against any particular group”. Can you tell me what these intoxicants are?

First of all, I am a citizen of Kano State with first hand experience and knowledge of what is happening in the state - and categorically stand by what I earlier said as factual (i have no reason to lie); if on the other hand you have any evidence to the contrary, then pls forward them; more over all the references you asked for are easily accessible via google - simply click and all will be revealed.

Secondly; I don't see anything to argue about if someone chooses to exercise his right over what has already been legitimise to him by law.
The Sharia laws are legitimate rights for Muslims and for the states who wish to implement them - your views are entirely your and do have have any relevance to their reality or validity; I repeat, nobody is being prevented from going to court to challenge them.

Thirdly, some laws both (Federal and states) may be difficult implement; sometimes the political will to do so is absent, as was the case with the FG/NPF when the Sharia criminal codes (in Kano State among others) were introduced under the OBJ regime; the said OBJ was to set the tone by publicly labelling them as 'political Sharia.'
The lack of political will (as opposed to legal grounds) of the Federal police led to need for the state to form its own 'sharia police' or Hisbah, through the legitimate means of the law.

I know that this is mentally hard for some you to comprehend, due to your blind hostility against Islam and therefore cannot reason logically; however, the Hisbah is not different from any other agency a state may wish to create in order to address its peculiar needs e.g. Livestock Guards in Benue to regulate/enforce anti open grazing; LAMATA in Lagos to regulate BRT etc - your only problem seem to be that Hisbah is Islamic - simple.

If some Nigerians wrongly view the Sharia as a parallel constitution, does that make them right or legitimise their ignorance/misconception - how daft is that?

I have already addressed the issue of rights states to their share of VAT tax from alcohol, especially as the said states also have responsibilities to their non-Muslim residents - there is therefore no point repeating it again.

Hahaha, so the views of one person, in this case Justice Bello, is supposedly the Grande Norm at the total exclusion of others; including the actual realities on the ground.
Pls explain how has the Sharia code for Muslims affected non-Muslims, e.g. where has Islam imposed on them or they are prevented from pursuing their religion, or forced to use the Sharia courts etc - except for twisted misconstrued phantom allegations concocted from hostile quarters with a fixation of hate against Muslims/Islam.

Of course I am not ruling out isolated cases of individual abuse within the system just as much as you would expect to find in the generality of the Nigerian legal and law enforcement system - so pls do not bring up such examples, if any.

ItsMeAboki:
First of all, I am a citizen of Kano State with first hand experience and knowledge of what is happening in the state - and categorically stand by what I earlier said as factual (i have no reason to lie); if on the other hand you have any evidence to the contrary, then pls forward them; more over all the references you asked for are easily accessible via google - simply click and all will be revealed.

^^^
OK. Noted.

Point of correction though - you are a citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and an indigene of Kano State, not a citizen of Kano State.

ItsMeAboki:
Secondly; I don't see anything to argue about if someone chooses to exercise his right over what has already been legitimise to him by law.
The Sharia laws are legitimate rights for Muslims and for the states who wish to implement them - your views are entirely your and do have have any relevance to their reality or validity; I repeat, nobody is being prevented from going to court to challenge them.

^^^
OK. As I said earlier, all this will be decided by the courts. What this means is that all I said earlier, referencing (in your posts and the other fellow's posts) concepts such as wisdom, merits and intent of legislation is irrelevant. It also means that all you said about Benue's anti grazing law being targeted against Fulani herdsmen is also irrelevant. These laws (both Sharia law and Benue's anti-grazing law) exist and that's all that matters. If and until they are repealed by higher courts. QED.

ItsMeAboki:
Thirdly, some laws both (Federal and states) may be difficult implement; sometimes the political will to do so is absent, as was the case with the FG/NPF when the Sharia criminal codes (in Kano State among others) were introduced under the OBJ regime; the said OBJ was to set the tone by publicly labelling them as 'political Sharia.'
The lack of political will (as opposed to legal grounds) of the Federal police led to need for the state to form its own 'sharia police' or Hisbah, through the legitimate means of the law.

^^^
I have no idea what you mean in the first sentence above. I also have no idea what you mean in the second sentence about the federal police's "lack of political will". Lack of political will to do what exactly?

ItsMeAboki:
I know that this is mentally hard for some you to comprehend, due to your blind hostility against Islam and therefore cannot reason logically; however, the Hisbah is not different from any other agency a state may wish to create in order to address its peculiar needs e.g. Livestock Guards in Benue to regulate/enforce anti open grazing; LAMATA in Lagos to regulate BRT etc - your only problem seem to be that Hisbah is Islamic - simple.

^^^
Ok sir, now you are getting personal. I do not know which individuals the "you" referred to in your post above are. With no justification whatsoever you have classed me as part of a mentally challenged, bigoted group incapable of logical thought . I have tried to keep this debate civil and on an even keel. I have tried to address issues and not you personally - I do not know who you are and have never met you before. If you are not bereft of honour Sir, you will do the right thing, tender an apology and retract those ill-thought out words you uttered up there, Sir.

On to the matter of enforcement agencies of government. I stand by my comments in my last post. There is a massive contradiction in establishing an Islamic police force to enforce a 'law' promulgated under powers granted by a 'secular' constitution. Hisbah means 'guarding against infringements' or 'accountability in accordance with the Shariah'. Can the sacred be used in the defence of the profane?

If you cannot see the contradiction there is nothing more for me to say.

ItsMeAboki:
If some Nigerians wrongly view the Sharia as a parallel constitution, does that make them right or legitimise their ignorance/misconception - how daft is that?

^^^^
The issue is whether you are correct in stating that they are wrong in viewing Sharia as a parallel constitution. In this same country a fatwa was placed on a Nigerian citizen some years ago for 'blasphemy' and Nigerian muslims (or at least a vocal group among them) were unequivocal in their support. They made it clear they considered it a religious duty (binding on all Nigerian muslims) to kill the woman. If that is not a parallel constitution I don't know what is.

ItsMeAboki:
I have already addressed the issue of rights states to their share of VAT tax from alcohol, especially as the said states also have responsibilities to their non-Muslim residents - there is therefore no point repeating it again.

^^^
Again you are wrong, sir. Your justification for Sharia states collecting VAT from alcohol sales is that said states "have responsibilities to their non-muslim residents"? Come on, sir. There are millions of non-muslim Nigerian teetotallers who will recoil and say "Not in my name"! You have made the common error of associating non-muslims with automatic alcohol consumption (or whatever 'vice' of the month is on display). At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will state for the last time that there is a major cognitive dissonance in the actions of sharia states in Nigeria on this matter of VAT from alcohol. That is the truth and it must be said, no matter how inconvenient it may be.

ItsMeAboki:
Hahaha, so the views of one person, in this case Justice Bello, is supposedly the Grande Norm at the total exclusion of others; including the actual realities on the ground.
Pls explain how has the Sharia code for Muslims affected non-Muslims, e.g. where has Islam imposed on them or they are prevented from pursuing their religion, or forced to use the Sharia courts etc - except for twisted misconstrued phantom allegations concocted from hostile quarters with a fixation of hate against Muslims/Islam.

^^^
The late Muhammed Bello's view isn't the grundnorm. Basic law was there long before him and it is still there, long after he passed on. Its just that he was spot on in his assessment of the impact of Sharia law on non-Muslims in Nigeria. The fact that he also happened to be the CJN was an added bonus.

Large segments of this entire discussion centre around how Sharia in Nigeria has negatively affected non-muslims in this country. My previous post refers to this matter. This very post also refers to it. News reports provide copious examples across Nigeria. What further explanation do you require?

ItsMeAboki:
Of course I am not ruling out isolated cases of individual abuse within the system just as much as you would expect to find in the generality of the Nigerian legal and law enforcement system - so pls do not bring up such examples, if any.

^^^
OK.

I still have one more request from you Sir - information about the list of intoxicants causing addiction in Kano State.

VolvoS60:
^^^
OK. Noted.

Point of correction though - you are a citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and an indigene of Kano State, not a citizen of Kano State.



^^^
OK. As I said earlier, all this will be decided by the courts. What this means is that all I said earlier, referencing (in your posts and the other fellow's posts) concepts such as wisdom, merits and intent of legislation is irrelevant. It also means that all you said about Benue's anti grazing law being targeted against Fulani herdsmen is also irrelevant. These laws (both Sharia law and Benue's anti-grazing law) exist and that's all that matters. If and until they are repealed by higher courts. QED.



^^^
I have no idea what you mean in the first sentence above. I also have no idea what you mean in the second sentence about the federal police's "lack of political will". Lack of political will to do what exactly?



^^^
Ok sir, now you are getting personal. I do not know which individuals the "you" referred to in your post above are. With no justification whatsoever you have classed me as part of a mentally challenged, bigoted group incapable of logical thought . I have tried to keep this debate civil and on an even keel. I have tried to address issues and not you personally - I do not know who you are and have never met you before. If you are not bereft of honour Sir, you will do the right thing, tender an apology and retract those ill-thought out words you uttered up there, Sir.

On to the matter of enforcement agencies of government. I stand by my comments in my last post. There is a massive contradiction in establishing an Islamic police force to enforce a 'law' promulgated under powers granted by a 'secular' constitution. Hisbah means 'guarding against infringements' or 'accountability in accordance with the Shariah'. Can the sacred be used in the defence of the profane?

If you cannot see the contradiction there is nothing more for me to say.



^^^^
The issue is whether you are correct in stating that they are wrong in viewing Sharia as a parallel constitution. In this same country a fatwa was placed on a Nigerian citizen some years ago for 'blasphemy' and Nigerian muslims (or at least a vocal group among them) were unequivocal in their support. They made it clear they considered it a religious duty (binding on all Nigerian muslims) to kill the woman. If that is not a parallel constitution I don't know what is.



^^^
Again you are wrong, sir. Your justification for Sharia states collecting VAT from alcohol sales is that said states "have responsibilities to their non-muslim residents"? Come on, sir. There are millions of non-muslim Nigerian teetotallers who will recoil and say "Not in my name"! You have made the common error of associating non-muslims with automatic alcohol consumption (or whatever 'vice' of the month is on display). At the risk of sounding like a broken record I will state for the last time that there is a major cognitive dissonance in the actions of sharia states in Nigeria on this matter of VAT from alcohol. That is the truth and it must be said, no matter how inconvenient it may be.



^^^
The late Muhammed Bello's view isn't the grundnorm. Basic law was there long before him and it is still there, long after he passed on. Its just that he was spot on in his assessment of the impact of Sharia law on non-Muslims in Nigeria. The fact that he also happened to be the CJN was an added bonus.

Large segments of this entire discussion centre around how Sharia in Nigeria has negatively affected non-muslims in this country. My previous post refers to this matter. This very post also refers to it. News reports provide copious examples across Nigeria. What further explanation do you require?




^^^
OK.

I still have one more request from you Sir - information about the list of intoxicants causing addiction in Kano State.

According to my Cambridge English Dictionary; a Citizen is a person who is a member of a particular country or lives in a particular town or city.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/citizen

I don't know how an apparent learned person like you would make such a blunder and therefore assume a singular exclusive definition or interpretation for such a common word.

This may perhaps explain for your apparent one dimensional approach to the argument and a rigid mindset that seems not to want to accommodate a contrary or different view other than its own - almost to the point of bigotry.


In view of the above, I am convinced that there is very little to gain in continuing with this issue, having already addressed all the salient points raised - to no avail i.e. legitimacy of the ban of alcohol in Kano; use of the Hisbah; Sharia as a component and not parallel to the Nigerian constitution.
For example, I cannot see why I have to explain that a simple statement such as, "having responsibilities for non-Muslim residents," meant responsibilities such as building roads, hospitals etc which such residents also enjoy in the state - it should be obvious.

With reference to my earlier response (to your question on noncompliance by the NPF) pls follow this link - it may broaden your current horizon.
http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/AHRLJ/2014/12.html

As for the issue of intoxicants; kindly refer to your dictionary, you will find all the answers there.

I will conclude by repeating myself for the final time: anybody who is not happy with the prohibition of alcohol in Kano State, establishment of the Hisbah and the Sharia laws as permissible under the Nigerian constitution, is free to challenge the said rights as exercised by the ppl and government of Kano State, in a competent court of law - views of armchair critics will continue to be irrelevant and of no effect whatsoever to these fundamental rights; no matter whose ox is gored.

BTW; I am sorry if my earlier comment hurt your feelings - no offence intended.