Part 4: Boko Haram terrorism: The feudal-theocracy vs. secular-democracy civil war

Since Boko Haram began, Nigeria has effectively been in an unacknowledged and one-sided civil war between Shariya advocates and Democracy adherents; this may alternatively, and more instructively, be described as a one-sided civil war between the organized Caliphate /ACF/Sahriyaland/Boko Haram on the one side vs. on the other side, the unorganized Non-Caliphate/Secularist/Democratic Nigerians; i.e. between a feudal-theocracy faction and a secular-democracy faction within Nigerian society. The sooner this is recognized by the confused and unorganized Non-Caliphate/Democracy side, the better for them. For until they understand that what is going on is a civil war they cannot put up a proper fight, and fight to win. Until they understand their Caliphate enemy, they cannot figure out how to fight them.

Non-Caliphate Nigerians need to figure out the dynamics of Nigerian history and decide whether they want to be enslaved forever by the Caliphate. And if they find that prospect unacceptable, they must go into war mode and defeat, once and for all, the Caliphate colonialists who have been fooling, dividing and subduing them since 1960 in accordance with Sir Ahmadu Bello’s injunction that Nigeria should become an estate of Dan Fodio’s descendants. [See  Q1 at start of this essay]

And that has been the agenda, down to this day, of the Caliphate and its political leaders (Ahmadu Bello, Tafawa Balewa, Shehu Shagari, Umaru Yar’Adua, Maitama Sule, Lawal Kaita, etc. since 1960) and of its military agents (Yakubu Gowon, Theophilus Danjuma, Murtala Mohammed, Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, Muhammadu Buhari, Ibrahim Babangida [IBB], Sani Abacha, Abdulsalami Abubakar, Aliyu Gusau, Abdulrahman Bello Danbazzau, Col. Sambo Dasuki, etc. since 1966). And that is the agenda of Boko Haram, the terrorist outfit that the Caliphate and its Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) sponsored when they lost control of the Nigerian government and armed forces in 1999). And that is the agenda for which Buhari insists on being crowned as president in 2015, whether or not Nigerians actually vote for him, or else. . . he and the Caliphate terrorists will unleash a bloodbath on the country.

The first skirmish in this unacknowledged civil war took place way back on February 21, 2000, the day the Shariya Jihadists began resorting to mob violence in Kaduna, in their follow-up to the adoption of Shariya by the Arewa (Far North) states which had thereby repudiated the secular democracy constitution of Nigeria. By adopting shariya as their constitution, they committed  de jure secession from Nigeria. As nothing was done about it, they became emboldened. Using Boko Haram, they have unleashed a war on Nigeria with two alternative objectives: to impose their shariya on all of Nigeria if they win; or to consummate their secession, if they lose. 

But though the Caliphate and its jihadist agents have known all along that they were unleashing war on Nigeria, the leaders of Non-Caliphate Nigerians, their intended victims, have had no clue about the nature of what has been happening since 1960. Which suits the Caliphate jihadists just fine. For they have been free to pummel their blind and confused opponent to the brink of defeat where he is tottering today. 

Non-Caliphate Nigerians in general, and President Jonathan in particular, have not recognized that what is going on now is a civil war. Which is why President Jonathan has been approaching Boko Haram as an internal security matter rather than as a political problem requiring radical political surgery: excising Shariyaland from Nigeria, Orkar style; which is why President Jonathan has been replaying Ironsi, and trying to appease the unappeasable enemy; and which is why non-Caliphate Nigerians are not clamoring for general mobilization against the Caliphate and its Boko Haram agents; which is why the Churches, despite the Government’s clear inability to protect them, are passive about the bombing and massacres of their people, and are turning the other cheek and pleading for “peace”, instead of reviving the ancient tradition and spirit of the Church militant, like when Bishop Adhémar of Monteil,  organized and led European volunteers to fight the jihadists of his day in the First Crusade.

Since it is clear that the Federal government cannot guarantee their security, Nigeria’s Christians  can’t continue to look to President Jonathan to protect them; they need to take responsibility for their own security, on the understanding that David was a warrior against Goliath; but a Jonathan is not a David. Besides, only a fool defends himself in a war by relying only on good luck. The Christian clergy in Nigeria have an obligation to lead a Crusade against the  Caliphate  Jihadists, as European history has shown that a military Crusade is the only correct answer to a Jihad.

What does Boko Haram want?

There are two versions of Boko Haram’s objective: a maximal as well as a minimal agenda.

(a) The maximal agenda is to Islamize and impose shari’a on all of Nigeria. I n December 2011, Boko Haram issued a bulletin in which it restated its mission as follows:   


“We want to re-emphasize that our main objective is the restoration of the Sharia Legal System in line with the teachings of the Holy Qur’an.  We want the Nigerian Constitution to be abrogated and Democracy suspended and a full-fledged Islamic State established. We want to emphasize that trouble started in this part of the world when the white men came, colonised our land, chased away the Emirs and righteous leaders and then replaced the system with Western Legislative, Judicial and Executive procedures.  They also changed our pattern of learning and upbringing to the detriment of moral teachings; that was exactly what prompted the establishment of our organization.”

--(   Daily Sun, December 19, 2011)

(b) The minimal agenda is to consummate Shariyaland’s secession and enforce shari’a totally in the 12 states that make up Shariyaland, and overthrow the  sarkuna (The Sultan and Emirs and feudal ruling class of the  Caliphate ) and replace them with new rulers who will enforce Shari’a more strictly than the Sultan and his emirs, who the Boko Haram consider insufficiently Islamized and Arabized. That is why Boko Haram has begun attacking Emirs, as in Potiskum, and sent threats to and made attacks on Sokoto, the capital of the Caliphate:

Emir’s bodyguard, mosque aide hurt in suicide attack in Potiskum    On August 3, 2012 · In  News   (Accessed October 2012)

Boko Haram’s Dangerous Expansion into Northwest Nigeria: (Accessed October 2012)

This minimal agenda was, in part, articulated by Abu Zaid as follows:


‘It is mandatory for Islam to have a sovereign land where  Sharia is being practiced in the strict sense so that  the dialogue will be between the Islamic country and  the country of the unbelievers’

–Abu Zaid, Boko Haram spokesman, while rejecting dialogue with governmentSunday Life , 26June2011, p. 25.)

This means that Shariyaland, the Caliphate territory, should become a sovereign country and its dialogue, if any, will then be with a Secular Democratic Nigeria from which it has formally seceded.

The rest of the minimal agenda, the part against the Sultan and emirs, is contained within Abu Qaqa’s statement of their maximal agenda that we shall now examine.

To see the maximal agenda of Boko Haram –what they will do if they are not stopped from carrying their war beyond Shariyaland territory, and if they win--consider this report from October 2011:


Boko Haram to FG "Total Shari'a in Nigeria or no Peace"

...Says Qur'an is Above Nigerian Constitution    (Accessed October 2012)


General Buhari

The militant Islamic group, Boko Haram, which has been responsible for much of the insecurity in Nigeria due to its spate of bombings and attacks on security forces has sent an email to major news outlets signed by its spokesman, Abu Qaqa, to say that there will be no peace in Nigeria until there is a total implementation of Shari'a law in Nigeria.
            Their email which was written in Hausa language had the following message to Nigerians and the authorities "the country would not have peace until there is 100 per cent implementation of Sharia law in the country as enshrined in the holy Quran as well as immediate release of all our members who were detained and in the custody of security agencies for no just cause”.
            The group which has been celebrating the fact that the FG held a low level Independence Day celebration apparently because of them also declared that they had no iota of respect for the Sultan of Sokoto and other traditional rulers from the North.

In his email, Qaqa disqualified the Sultan thus "our position is that the Sultan is just a traditional ruler who revolted against the teachings of his ancestors and put the Nigerian Constitution ahead of the teachings of the Holy Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet.”
            This is not surprising especially as NaijaPundit had earlier published a leaked wikileaks cable in which the Buhari team had told American Embassy officials that they had no confidence in the Northern Traditional rulers in general while naming the Sultan of Sokoto and the emir of Kano specifically as people who had tried to corrupt the judiciary.
            This agenda of Islamising Nigeria while alarming to some is nothing new to students of history who would recall that this has always been the agenda of the Northern establishment right from pre colonial times.
            For instance the First Premier of the North, the revered Sir Ahmadu Bello did say only eleven days after Nigeria's independence that "The new nation called Nigeria should be an estate of our great grandfather Othman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We use the minorities in the north as willing tools and the south as a conquered territory and never allow them to rule over us and never allow them to have control over their future." – Parrot Newspaper October 12, 1960.

Nigerians may also recall that the late Sheik Abubakar Gumi had advocated that Nigeria should be ruled exclusively by Muslims. 

Nigerians may also recall the statement credited to former Military Head of State Buhari to the effect that Muslims should only vote for a Muslim candidate. Of course Buhari later clarified his statement that what he meant was that Muslims should only vote for those who will promote their religion. How that differs from his original statement is still a mystery. But of course Nigerians do remember that religion was used by Buhari's party, the CPC to campaign and mobilize during the last elections.

How the FG hopes to contain Boko Haram remains to be seen especially going by their latest email but most Nigerians are scratching their heads and asking themselves whether there is any correlation between the comments made by a prominent member of the Northern establishment, Lawal Kaita, to the effect that "we (who are this ‘we’?) will make Nigeria ungovernable for Jonathan" if he wins.
            Now that Jonathan has won and attempts are being made to make Nigeria ungovernable, many Nigerians are telling Jonathan that yes he may not need to be a "lion" but Nigeria needs a leader that is also not a sheep!

All Nigerians should be thankful to Abu Qaqa for publicly articulating the maximal version of the political agenda of Boko Haram. It should now be clear that Boko Haram is the current, and terrorist, agent of those whose mission since the 1940s [as we have seen above in the statements quoted in Part Two] has been to Islamize Nigeria and “advance shari’a”. Most Nigerians have not been aware of that mission, and have not been able to organize an appropriate response to it.  Henceforth, nobody in Nigeria has the excuse of ignorance. We must each face the issue and answer the question:  Do you want Nigeria to become an Islamic country ruled by the Shari’a, as in Iran, the Afghanistan of the Taliban, etc? And if you don’t, what are you going to do about it?

Make no mistake about it: Boko Haram’s terror campaign is a Caliphate political weapon. The solution to Boko Haram is political and straightforward: concede their minimal agenda and excise Shariyaland, Orkar style. Spin them off and let them carry on their Jihad in their separate country. If they bomb their emirs and Sultan, that will be their affair, and Nigeria won’t be involved, and won’t have to deploy its personnel and resources to sort that out. It is none of our business to save the Caliphate colonialists from the terrorist army they raised to use against us.

Nigeria is an example of what S. P. Huntington, a leading American political scientist, called a ‘torn country’. Nigeria is torn ideologically between the  Caliphate-Jihadist Shariyaland and the Non-Caliphate /Secular-Democratic Nigeria; between the Caliphate version of One Nigeria as the feudal theocratic colony of the heirs of Dan Fodio, as articulated by Sir Ahmadu Bello in 1960; and the version of a secular democratic Nigeria that was perhaps best articulated by Chief Obafemi Awolowo in 1978-79. [See the quotes  Q1 and  Q2 at the start of this essay]

            Those are the contrasting ideologies and projects between which Nigeria has been torn.  Boko Haram’s minimal agenda, as contained in Abu Zaid’s statement [See  Q31 above], is fundamentally a demand for partition of Nigeria between Shariyaland and a Democratic Republic of Nigeria; between a territory committed to Ahmadu Bello’s feudal-theocracy version of Nigeria and a territory aspiring to Awolowo’s Secular-Democracy version of Nigeria. Fortunately, as the two territories are distinct [see  Map #1 at the beginning of this essay], Nigeria can be easily partitioned between them, with minor boundary adjustments in the borderline states.  I wholeheartedly support that partition and invite Nigerians to stop postponing the necessary and inevitable.

Corruption and the Caliphate

 I should add that the solution to the vexed issue of corruption in Nigeria is related to the solution to Boko Haram. The average Nigerian who is opposed to corruption is hardly aware of the historical roots in Caliphate colonialism/hegemony of Nigerian-style “corruption”.   Nigerian-style corruption is actually lootocracy --the brazen looting of the public treasury by an official. What secularist Nigerians regard as looting of the public treasury is no such thing in the feudal ideology of the Caliphate.  Under feudalism, the wholesale appropriation of state property by an official is not considered theft, but simply his entitlement as the holder of a fief/feudal office!   That’s what one is granted a fief for in exchange for loyalty and services to be rendered to his monarch who appointed him to feudal office.

Under Caliphate feudal ideology, a public office is a fief for the life-support of the official and his retinue of relatives and retainers , provided he renders the prescribed allegiance and services to his overlord. If one were sent to administer the Customs or NEPA, one would be entitled to embezzle its funds to the best of one's ability and greed.  Hence the Caliphate-derived Nigerian practice where, once salaries are paid, and even before they are, a department's budget allocation is treated as being for the responsible official to put in his pocket. Which is why the Caliphate-serving 1999 constitution institutionalizes and protects this entitlement with an immunity clause that encourages a Governor to seize and export his state’s budgetary allocation, hence the flagrant and rampant money-laundering by Nigeria’s state governors.  After half a century of unpunished practice, lootocracy has become entrenched as the norm in Nigeria and is imitated by all and sundry; which is why officials, down to the policeman at the checkpoint and the messenger sent to get a file, brazenly extort money from the members of the public that they are officially paid to serve. Nigerian officials have become  addicted to lootocracy even though a significant and vocal segment of the population is opposed to it and decries it as “corruption”. But calling lootocracy by the name “corruption” is a gross misnomer and the error should be rectified: it is like  calling a bank robbery that empties the bank vault by the name ‘pilfering’ or  calling by the name pick-pocket a  bank robber  who has made away with millions. So long as the Caliphate remains part of Nigeria, this Caliphate-introduced practice and Caliphate-condoned attitude will be preserved. Hence eradicating lootcracy in Nigeria, like eradicating Boko Haram, is conditional on kicking their Caliphate sponsors/protectors  out of Nigeria.


Part Five: What is to be done? The Caliphate must go! Kick the Caliphate out of Nigeria before Dec 31, 2014, so we can have peace and move forward to true federalism and general prosperity.



About the Author

Chinweizu is a historian and Neo-Garvey Pan-Africanist. His books include  The West and the Rest of Us, (1975); and  Decolonising the African Mind (1987).

All rights reserved.

© Chinweizu 2013

[1]     (Accessed Jan, 2013)

[3]  (Accessed Jan, 2013)

[5] (Accessed Jan, 2013)

[9]  (Accessed Jan, 2013)

[11]  (Accessed Jan, 2013)