Panel #2A:

"Islamism & Arabism in Sudan Conflicts"

Islamization of Law in Sudan and Nigeria Compared

Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban
Rhode Island College

In 1983 Sudan instituted Shari`a as state law, and between 1999 and 2001 Nigeria’s northern states adopted Shari`a as the sole law in force. Sudan is 70% Muslim, with the rest of its people animist and Christian, primarily in the south. It is estimated that one of five Sudanese is of Nigerian origin due to continuous influx of Hajj and economic migrations from the West. In Nigeria 80% of the north and 30% of the south is Muslim, with Christians and animists co-existing in Africa’s most populous nation, making it the nation with the largest Muslim population as well. Both of these nations have serious Muslim-Christian fault lines. One component to the failure to resolve the chronic civil war in Sudan is the “non-negotiable” issue of Shari`a for northern rulers, while inter-communal violence between Nigeria’s Muslims and Christians has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, often in and around religious sites. Like Sudan, the sentiment of “no going back on Shari`a” is growing in the northern states of Nigeria.
The patterns of increasing Islamization in Sudan in the 1970s and 80s and in Nigeria in the 1990s are parallel, with bans on alcohol production, sale, consumption; suppression of public prostitution; creation of courts of “prompt” “emergency” justice where appeals are limited; and public punishments of hudud (‘to the limit’) penalties of lashing, flogging for immorality and of amputation of limbs for theft and stoning for adultery. In Katsina state, the case of Amina Lawal has attracted world attention for the sentence of a hadd penalty of stoning for her conviction of adultery has precipitated a governmental crisis with the federal government opposing the sentence, but refusing to interfere directly for fear of a confrontation between the Muslim north and the rest of the country over the case.
This paper reviews the parallel developments in the history of Shari`a in Sudan and Nigeria, from the introduction of Islamic states from the 15th century, through the comparable experiences of British colonialism, to the different post-independence paths each country took, and, finally, to the high degree of parallelism that is occurring today with respect to the issue of Shari’a in state politics and national unity. My 1987 book Islamic Law and Society in the Sudan is a legal anthropological study of Shari`a law before Islamization in 1983, and allows me to compare the interpretation and practice of Islamic law before and after Shari`a became state law that underwent a conservative shift under the Islamist phase of Ja`afar Numeiri’s rule (1977-85) and that of Omer al-Bashir under the National Islamic Front since 1989. The paper will analyze not only the parallels, but the significant differences between Nigeria and Sudan, especially in terms of their post-independence nation-building. The paper will also address issues of universal human rights in the context of the application of the hudud penalties in both Sudan and Nigeria, the only two African countries and among only a small number of all Muslim societies, that have applied these penalties in contemporary times. The related issue of the politics of Shari`a in African states with significant non-Muslim populations, and the matter of freedom of religion in nation-states will also be addressed.

Federalism & the Tyranny of Religious Majorities: Challenges to an Islamic Federal State in the Sudan

Ahmed el-Tayeb el-Gaili,
Harvard Law School

Sudan presents a classic case of religious majoritarian authoritarianism. This Paper aims to document majoritarian tyranny against non-Muslims in Sudan and to explore the viability of federalism, within an Islamic framework, as a viable response to “Islamic” majoritarianism. In addressing this question, the inquiry proceeds in three successive parts: First, why might federalism be a viable response to majoritarian tyranny against the rights of minorities in secular democracies? Second, given its prospects in a secular context, can federalism succeed when it is drawn along religious lines? Specifically, are there inherent conflicts in federal solutions among Muslim majorities and non-Muslim minorities? Finally, applying the above analysis to Sudan, does a federal Islamic state offer an adequate response to majoritarian authoritarianism against the country’s non-Muslim minorities? The central proposition of the Paper is that, as far as religious minorities are concerned, religious federalism is a contradiction in terms since the religious ideology of the federal state undermines any federal protections against majoritarian tyranny.

The Arab States and Sudan’s Civil War, 1983-2001

Richard Barltrop
Department of Politics and International Relations
Oxford University, England

This paper focuses on the question of what impact Sudan’s relations with the Arab states have had on the course of politics and the civil war in Sudan, specifically in the period 1983 to 2001. Considerable scholarship exists on Sudan’s relations with African and Western states and the impact these have had on the country and the war. However scholars and policy-makers (especially in the West) have tended to underestimate the importance of Sudan’s relations with the Arab world. As this paper argues, set alongside other foreign relations, the country’s relations with the Arab world have in fact contributed importantly to domestic political instability and to the prolongation of the civil war. This has occurred as a result of basic asymmetries in Sudan’s foreign relations, the availability of multiple options for external support for Sudanese political actors, and the multi-polar characteristics of the regional system in which Sudan is located. These factors have contributed to a pattern of shifting alliances in Sudan’s foreign relations, in which intra-regional Arab rivalries have been reflected in Sudanese politics. In turn this has helped to sustain the cycle of changing regimes and political instability in Sudan, in which changes of government have invariably been accompanied by major shifts in foreign relations. The paper is drawn from the author’s ongoing doctoral research into the role of external actors in the civil war, and MPhil thesis, The Arab States, Iran and the Sudanese Civil War, 1983-1999 (Oxford University, 2001; unpublished).

Egypt and Sudan's War Revisited

Jwothab Amum Ajak
Independent Scholar (Australia)

Egypt could have brought into play her good relation to all parties in the conflict both in the South and North as a valuable asset in a similar role to that of the countries of IGAD that support acceptable Sudanese peaceful settlement in disregard of the outcome. Rather than cooperating with a discredited regime which more than any government before it has compounded Sudan problems.

The premise and methodology upon which to build a unitary state must be based first on the universal principles of equality, justice and pluralistic democracy. These must be in place first as an agreed constitutional framework or pillars upon which to build and define the unity. Otherwise to pursue peace and a unitary state without a definite prior knowledge of what is in for all the different regions, people and cultures will be an illusive endeavor. No body will take that for granted. The accumulated experience of many dishonored agreements and political expediency warns against that too.

A manipulated peace and a unitary state achieved through sheer diplomatic, military power or both will be a short-lived temporary episode that will hardened Southern Sudanese resolve to free themselves from an Arab-Muslim dominated state, backed from across the borders A unitary state maintained that way will be a suspect and counterproductive. There is no other option except for the Sudanese to decide for themselves. And if they are going to live peacefully then there is no alternative to the principle of equality, justice, freedom, multiculturalism and plural democracy.

The fear of a separate state in South Sudan as a result of a referendum through self-determination is proved to be unfounded save the fact that the new state will not have the developmental need or the ability to prevent the flow of water to Egypt. Moreover with every passing day Southerners are giving assurances and guarantees that even in case South Sudan secedes they will not harm Arab or Egypt security.

Problems of Sudan stems from misunderstanding the conflict and consequently offering the wrong solutions, which are short of universal principles, beliefs and values. Egypt is misunderstanding her role and relationship with the regime and is making a big miscalculation of the outcome of her involvement, which I believe will be quite contrary to what she is looking for "to maintain peace and a unitary state."