By Professor Abdullahi Danladi
Following my recent article, “Nigeria at 66: The Nation We Have, the Nation We Need,” a brother raised a number of important questions concerning my argument that Islam offers not merely a religion of personal faith, but also a moral and political framework capable of addressing some of the deep-rooted problems confronting Nigeria and humanity. His questions deserve a serious response, not because disagreement is undesirable, but because honest disagreement, when approached with sincerity, can deepen understanding.
The central questions are these: How can an Islamic system operate in a religiously diverse society such as Nigeria? How can the fears and suspicions of Christians be addressed? Are Muslims themselves sufficiently united to provide the leadership required for an Islamic system? Who would lead such a government? What lessons should we draw from the states where Sharia was introduced? And would Nigeria not be better served by developing a home-grown political system founded on values such as justice, rule of law, human rights and civil liberties rather than identifying governance primarily with a particular religion?
These are legitimate questions. But I believe some of them arise from an understanding of Islam and Islamic governance that is narrower than what Islam actually represents.
Let me begin with what I consider the most important point: Islamic governance should not be reduced to the question of whether a government declares itself an “Islamic state.” The deeper question is what principles govern the exercise of political power.
The Qur'an says:
«“Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice.” — Qur'an 4:58»
This verse goes to the heart of governance. Political authority is an amanah, a trust. Justice is not an ornament to be added to government; it is one of its foundations. A ruler is not the owner of the state, and public resources are not the personal property of those who temporarily occupy political office.
This is why I am not arguing that Nigeria can solve its problems merely by changing the name of the government or by replacing one political class with another that happens to be Muslim. If corruption remains, if public money is stolen, if the poor are abandoned, if the judiciary is manipulated, if citizens are denied justice, if political office becomes a means of personal enrichment and if the weak have no protection, then merely attaching the word “Islamic” to such a system would accomplish very little.
Islam must be judged by the principles it demands, not by the label attached to those who claim to represent it.
This brings us directly to the question of religious diversity.
Does the presence of Christians and people of other faiths make Islamic governance impossible?
No.
The historical experience of Madinah is particularly relevant here. The political community established by the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was not composed exclusively of Muslims. It included different religious and tribal communities whose relationships were regulated through a political arrangement traditionally known as the Constitution of Madinah. It established mutual obligations, collective security and responsibilities among different groups while recognising their distinct identities.
The importance of Madinah for our discussion is not that Nigeria should attempt to reproduce seventh-century Arabia in the twenty-first century. That would be historically simplistic. Its importance is that religious plurality, in itself, was not regarded as an insurmountable obstacle to political organisation under the leadership of the Prophet.
The real question, therefore, is not simply: “Are there Christians in Nigeria?”
The real question is: “What constitutional, legal and moral guarantees exist for every citizen?”
A Christian should be able to worship God without fear. A Muslim should be able to worship Allah without fear. A traditional believer should be protected in his legitimate religious practice. Every citizen should have security of life and property. Every citizen should have access to justice. No person should be persecuted merely because of his faith.
That is not a concession to Christianity. It is justice.
And justice is Islamic.
The Qur'an is unequivocal:
«“There is no compulsion in religion.” — Qur'an 2:256»
It also says:
«“For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.” — Qur'an 109:6»
And even in dealing with people of other faiths, the Qur'an commands Muslims to act with justice and goodness toward those who do not fight or expel them because of their faith.
Therefore, the Islam I am referring to cannot be reduced to forced conversion, religious intimidation or the humiliation of minorities. Such conduct would contradict the very moral principles upon which Islamic governance is supposed to rest.
Indeed, if Muslims want Christians to believe that Islam offers a better moral framework for governance, the strongest argument will not be political propaganda. It will be the conduct of Muslims themselves.
Let Christians see Muslims who are honest with public money.
Let them see Muslims who refuse to steal even when nobody is watching.
Let them see Muslims who treat political office as responsibility rather than privilege.
Let them see Muslims who protect the rights of minorities.
Let them see Muslims who cannot tolerate injustice even when the victim belongs to another religion.
Let them see a government in which the son of the ruler does not receive privileges denied to the child of the poor.
That would be a far more convincing argument for Islam than thousands of speeches about Islam.
The problem, therefore, may not be that Christians have an irrational fear of Islam. Some of those fears may be based on genuine historical experiences, political manipulation or the behaviour of Muslims who have presented a distorted image of Islam. Such fears should not simply be dismissed. They should be addressed through justice, dialogue, transparency and good conduct.
Trust cannot be demanded. It must be earned.
The same principle applies to the question of Muslim disunity.
It is true that Muslims disagree among themselves. They differ in jurisprudence, theology, political interpretation and schools of thought. Sunnis and Shi'a have important differences, and even within these traditions there are numerous disagreements.
But disagreement does not necessarily make collective action impossible.
Human societies have never required complete intellectual uniformity before they could cooperate.
Christians themselves belong to different denominations. Political parties contain people who disagree on numerous issues. Academics belonging to the same university may disagree profoundly on theories and methods. Yet they can still work together where common interests exist.
Islamic unity should therefore not be understood as requiring every Muslim to erase his school of thought.
Unity does not mean uniformity.
A Muslim can remain committed to his jurisprudential tradition while cooperating with another Muslim against corruption, poverty, insecurity, illiteracy and injustice.
The same principle can extend beyond Muslims. A Muslim and a Christian do not need to agree on every theological question before they can agree that stealing public money is wrong, that children deserve education, that human life must be protected, that widows and orphans deserve support, that political leaders must be accountable and that the poor should not be permanently excluded from the nation's wealth.
This is where the concept of amanah becomes particularly powerful.
The Nigerian crisis is not fundamentally a shortage of constitutions, political parties, manifestos or educated people. Nigeria has produced brilliant lawyers, economists, engineers, scientists, administrators and intellectuals. We have had constitutions, elections, commissions, agencies, development plans and countless reform programmes.
Yet something continues to go wrong.
Perhaps we should ask a more uncomfortable question:
What happens when the people entrusted with managing the national wealth no longer regard that wealth as a trust?
This question takes us directly to the economic condition of Nigeria.
There is an important distinction between macroeconomic improvement and improvement in the life of the ordinary citizen. A government may legitimately point to improvements in revenue, reserves, inflation trends or fiscal balances. Those figures may be real and should not be dismissed merely because citizens are suffering.
But the citizen has another set of statistics.
The Nigerian household measures the economy in cups of rice, transport fares, school fees, electricity bills, hospital charges, rent, petrol and the ability to obtain meaningful employment.
The farmer measures it by whether he can safely reach his farm.
The manufacturer measures it by electricity, diesel, logistics, foreign exchange and access to credit.
The student measures it by whether his parents can still afford his education.
The patient measures it by whether he can afford treatment.
The ordinary worker measures it by how many days his salary survives after it enters his account.
This is why the phrase used in one of the responses to my article is particularly instructive: “prosperity in the treasury and penury in the marketplace.”
That is the danger of judging national progress exclusively from the dashboard of government.
Government may look at the dashboard and see improving figures. The citizen looks through the windscreen and sees food prices, insecurity, unemployment, transport costs, school fees and shrinking purchasing power.
Both pictures may contain some truth.
The mistake begins when one side insists that the other side must be hallucinating.
Economic reform may sometimes require painful decisions. Some inherited distortions may genuinely need correction. Government cannot indefinitely finance unsustainable policies simply because citizens have become accustomed to them.
But the question remains: Who bears the pain, and who ultimately receives the benefit?
If citizens are repeatedly told that today's suffering is necessary for tomorrow's prosperity, then tomorrow must eventually arrive.
Otherwise, sacrifice becomes an ideology rather than a temporary instrument of recovery.
And this is where the cancer metaphor used by the President becomes particularly interesting. If Nigeria is described as a patient suffering from a disease that has been allowed to spread for decades, then one must also ask: Who allowed the disease to spread?
Corruption did not suddenly appear in 2023.
Institutional decay did not begin yesterday.
Waste, patronage, poor management, abandoned infrastructure, corruption and weak accountability have accumulated across successive administrations.
The political system cannot therefore behave as though the Nigerian people caused the disease and must now bear the entire cost of the treatment.
If the patient must undergo painful treatment, then those who contributed to the disease must also face accountability.
This is precisely where Islamic political morality becomes relevant.
The Islamic concept of leadership is not simply about possessing authority. It is about being answerable for authority.
The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) taught that every person entrusted with responsibility is a shepherd and will be questioned about his flock. This principle transforms leadership from privilege into accountability.
A governor should ask: What happened to the people entrusted to me?
A minister should ask: What happened to the resources entrusted to me?
A civil servant should ask: What happened to the public trust entrusted to me?
A legislator should ask: Whose interests am I serving?
A president should ask: What will I answer when the power I exercised in this world is no longer available to protect me?
This is a fundamentally different understanding of political power.
And it is here that I believe Islam offers something that Nigeria desperately needs: a moral framework capable of placing limits upon the appetite for power and wealth.
The same principle applies to public borrowing.
Borrowing is not inherently evil. A responsible government may borrow to finance productive infrastructure, education, healthcare, transport, energy, industrialisation and other investments that create value for future generations.
The real questions are:
What was borrowed? For what purpose? Who benefited? What was created? Who will repay it?
If a nation borrows billions and future generations inherit productive industries, functioning railways, electricity, modern hospitals, good schools and prosperous businesses, then borrowing may have created an asset.
But if they inherit only debt while the borrowed resources have disappeared into corruption, inflated contracts, abandoned projects and political patronage, then the debt becomes an intergenerational injustice.
This is why Islamic governance cannot be reduced to the criminalisation of a few visible sins while ignoring the larger economic architecture of society.
An Islamic approach to governance must address poverty, wealth distribution, education, healthcare, employment, economic opportunity, protection of property, welfare of the vulnerable and accountability for public resources.
The Qur'an warns against wealth becoming something that merely circulates among the rich.
That principle is profoundly relevant to Nigeria.
A country cannot call itself successful while enormous wealth exists alongside extreme deprivation and millions of citizens struggle to meet basic needs.
This brings me to another important objection: What about the northern Nigerian states that introduced Sharia? Are they better governed than the states that did not?
This is a fair question, and I do not intend to evade it.
We should not pretend that the experience of states that introduced Sharia automatically proves that Islamic governance has succeeded in Nigeria. Nor should we pretend that every failure in those states is proof that Islam itself has failed.
There is a critical difference between Islamic principles and the performance of people who claim to implement them.
If a government introduces Sharia but corruption continues, poverty remains widespread, public resources are mismanaged, justice is applied selectively and political elites remain above accountability, then we have every right to ask whether the spirit of Islamic governance is actually being implemented.
Sharia cannot be reduced to punishments.
Justice before punishment.
Economic justice before moral condemnation.
Education before ignorance.
Protection of life before political slogans.
Accountability before authority.
Welfare before ostentation.
If these dimensions are absent, then merely announcing that Sharia has been introduced does not automatically create an Islamic society.
We should therefore be intellectually honest enough to say that the Nigerian experience provides lessons, both positive and negative, rather than treating it as a simple success or failure story.
The next question is perhaps the most difficult:
Who will lead an Islamic government?
My answer is that this question should not be used to dismiss Islamic governance because Islamic political thought itself has never been reduced to one universally accepted institutional arrangement.
Muslim scholars have historically debated questions of leadership, authority, consultation, representation, accountability, succession and the relationship between rulers and the governed. Sunni and Shi'a traditions have developed different understandings of political authority, while scholars within each tradition have also disagreed.
But beneath these differences are principles that are remarkably important: justice, trust, consultation, accountability, public welfare and protection from arbitrary power.
Therefore, instead of asking only, “Who will be the leader?” we should also ask:
Who controls the leader?
Who can hold him accountable?
What prevents him from stealing public wealth?
What protects the citizen from arbitrary authority?
What guarantees the rights of minorities?
What happens when the ruler himself becomes unjust?
How are public resources managed?
How are the poor protected?
How does the citizen participate in determining his political future?
These questions are more fundamental than the title attached to the ruler.
And this brings me to the suggestion that Nigeria should develop a home-grown system based on rule of law, human rights and civil liberties.
I have no objection to that proposition.
In fact, I welcome it.
The disagreement is over where we obtain the moral principles upon which such a system is built.
Why should Nigerians assume that justice, human dignity, accountability, social welfare and protection of human rights must be accepted only when they are described in secular or Western political vocabulary?
Why can an African society not draw from its own religious, cultural and philosophical traditions while also learning from the experiences of other societies?
Islam is not foreign to Nigeria.
Muslims have lived here for centuries.
Islamic scholarship, law, ethics, commerce and education have formed part of the history of northern Nigeria and beyond for generations.
Therefore, speaking about Islamic principles of governance is not an attempt to import an alien civilisation into Nigeria.
At the same time, I do not advocate throwing away everything Nigeria has inherited from constitutionalism, modern law, democratic participation or human-rights discourse simply because some of these concepts developed elsewhere.
Wisdom should be taken wherever it is found.
The real question is whether we can develop a Nigerian political order that draws from the best of our intellectual, religious and cultural resources while protecting the dignity of every citizen.
And here again, Islam has an important contribution to make.
The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not simply unite Arabia by telling people to abandon their identities. He transformed a society divided by tribe, bloodline, wealth and competing loyalties into a community governed by a higher moral purpose.
But the lesson should not be misunderstood.
Nigeria is not seventh-century Arabia.
We cannot simply copy historical institutions and expect them to solve modern problems.
What we can learn is the power of a shared moral vision.
Nigeria desperately needs such a vision.
A Nigerian identity should not require Muslims to cease being Muslims or Christians to cease being Christians.
Rather, Nigerians should be able to say:
I am Muslim, and I am Nigerian.
I am Christian, and I am Nigerian.
My religious identity does not prevent me from recognising the humanity and citizenship of another.
That is the kind of unity we need.
And perhaps this is where Islam and Christianity have more in common than our politics often allows us to admit.
The Christian scriptures call for justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Jesus taught that the greatest among people should be a servant.
The Qur'an commands justice, trust and responsibility.
These traditions may differ profoundly in theology, but they can converge on an important moral truth: leadership exists to serve human beings, not to exploit them.
Therefore, I am not proposing a Nigeria in which Muslims triumph over Christians.
I am proposing a Nigeria in which justice triumphs over injustice.
I am not advocating a Nigeria in which Christians are tolerated as second-class citizens.
I am advocating a Nigeria in which every citizen is treated with dignity.
I am not suggesting that political office should become the possession of Muslim clerics.
I am arguing that whoever governs Nigeria—Muslim or Christian, religious or otherwise—must understand political power as a trust and must be held accountable for how that trust is exercised.
And I am not arguing that Islam has a magical formula that will automatically transform Nigeria the moment it is announced.
No system can compensate indefinitely for dishonest people.
But political systems can either encourage moral behaviour or make corruption easier.
Institutions can either restrain power or facilitate abuse.
Political culture can either reward integrity or reward manipulation.
Islam seeks to build a political morality in which power is constrained by justice, wealth by responsibility and leadership by accountability before God.
That is the contribution I believe Islam can make to Nigeria.
The brother who raised these questions is therefore right about one thing: Nigeria needs a political system that protects rule of law, human rights and civil liberties.
Where I differ is in the assumption that these values stand outside Islam or that embracing them requires Nigeria to look exclusively elsewhere for its moral foundations.
Islam has its own profound language for these principles: adl for justice, amanah for trust, shura for consultation, haqq for truth and rightful claim, and responsibility before Allah for every exercise of authority.
Perhaps, therefore, the real debate should not be Islam versus democracy, Islam versus Christianity, or Islam versus human rights.
The more important debate is:
What kind of political order can produce a society in which power serves the people, wealth serves society, law serves justice and leadership remains accountable?
If a system achieves those things, then we should examine why it works.
If a system fails to achieve them, we should have the courage to question it.
Nigeria has experimented with military rule, civilian rule, parliamentary government, presidential government, federalism, numerous constitutions, countless political parties and endless development programmes.
Yet the fundamental crisis remains.
Perhaps our greatest failure has not been that we chose the wrong political vocabulary.
Perhaps it is that we have repeatedly separated politics from morality.
We have made elections about winning.
We have made government about controlling resources.
We have made public office about privilege.
We have made political loyalty more important than truth.
We have made poverty a statistic and corruption a political strategy.
This is why I continue to argue that Nigeria needs more than economic reform. It needs moral reform.
And this is precisely where my argument for Islam begins.
Not with compulsion.
Not with domination.
Not with hatred of Christians.
Not with the persecution of minorities.
Not with the romanticisation of Muslim rulers.
But with the simple proposition that human beings entrusted with power must answer for how they use it.
Nigeria does not need Muslims to defeat Christians.
It does not need Christians to fear Muslims.
It does not need one religion to humiliate another.
It needs justice.
It needs integrity.
It needs leadership that understands power as amanah.
It needs a political culture in which public office is service rather than personal enrichment.
And it needs citizens mature enough to examine ideas on their merits rather than rejecting them merely because of the identity of those proposing them.
Perhaps, after sixty-six years of searching, this is the conversation Nigeria should finally have.
Not who will dominate Nigeria?
But what moral principles will govern Nigeria?
Not which religion will defeat the other?
But how can people of different faiths live together under justice?
Not who owns political power?
But who is accountable for it?
And not merely whether Nigeria is economically recovering on paper, but whether that recovery has reached the kitchen, the farm, the workshop, the classroom, the hospital and the ordinary Nigerian family.
That is the Nigeria I am talking about.
And that is why I continue to believe that Islam deserves to be considered—not as an instrument of domination, but as a profound moral framework for restoring justice, accountability, human dignity and responsible leadership to a nation desperately in need of all four.
No comments:
Post a Comment