Social Advocate Faults Christian Activists’ Anti-Shariah Presentation Before US Congress

A social advocate, Hon. Aminu Mohammed, has criticised what he called a recent attempt by a group of Nigerian Christian activists to discredit the practice of Shariah law during a joint session of the American Congress, saying the move has revived an old and unnecessary debate.

Mohammed expressed concern that much of the narrative being pushed by the group was driven by fear, misinformation, political interests, and emotions rather than by history or lived reality.

Addressing a press conference on Monday, Mohammed said strongly condemned the “action by certain Christian groups intent on creating tension between Muslims and Christians.

“Not long ago, the same individuals appeared before the U.S. Congress and alleged that genocide was being carried out against Christians in Nigeria, claims that were unfounded and aimed at portraying Nigerian Muslims negatively before the world.”

He assured that attempts to portray Shariah as a threat will similarly fail.

According to him, Muslims in Nigeria will not accept a system of governance that excludes Shariah, which he described as a constitutionally recognised legal framework that does not interfere with the rights of Christians.

Mohammed emphasised that Shariah, as practiced in Northern Nigeria, poses no threat to non-Muslims.

He described the Shariah practice as a humane, rights-based legal tradition whose influence shaped not only Muslim societies but also aspects of Western legal thought, including the roots of English and American common law.

Mohammed, who doubles as President of the Bauchi Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (BACCIMA), added that “When people hear the word ‘Shariah’ today, they imagine something foreign or extreme. But historically, European scholars regarded it as one of the most advanced legal systems of its time.”

Citing scholars such as John Makdisi, he noted that English common law adopted several legal mechanisms from Islamic law through Norman contact with Muslim Sicily, including contract enforcement remedies, property restitution processes, and the fact-finding jury system. These features, he argued, had no parallel in Roman or Anglo-Saxon law.

“If Shariah were inherently unjust, why would medieval England, a non-Muslim nation, quietly adopt its principles to reform its justice system?” he asked.

He also recalled that early American jurists recognised the sophistication of Islamic law, referencing the 1894 U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. Vs. Addams, where the court cited legal scholars such as Justice Joseph Story and George Sale, who described Shariah as rational, humane, and protective of civil rights long before Europe adopted similar standards.

He added that early U.S. Congressional publications also acknowledged Islamic contributions to global legal civilisation, including the emphasis on contractual rights, judicial integrity, and protection of minorities, values still central to modern constitutionalism.

Mohammed argued that criticisms of Shariah in Nigeria often ignore constitutional realities, “Shariah applies only to Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot be prosecuted under Shariah criminal law, cannot be forced into Shariah courts, and maintain full access to secular courts,” he said.

He noted that many non-Muslims voluntarily choose Shariah courts in civil matters because they are often seen as faster, clearer, and less corrupt. “Shariah persists not because it is imposed, but because it delivers justice,” he added.

According to him, Nigeria legally recognised three parallel legal systems, common law, customary law, and Shariah law, each serving the communities that subscribe to them.

This, he said, represents multiculturalism rather than division.

He highlighted the universal principles underlying Shariah, justice, equity, due process, protection of life and property, limits on the power of rulers, commercial fairness, and the rights of the weak. These values, he said, shaped civilisations and influenced global legal traditions.

Mohammed argued that recent attacks against Shariah are driven by political fears and Western misconceptions, where the term has been turned into a stereotype rather than its understanding as a legal reality.

He urged Nigerian leaders, scholars, jurists, and the media to counter distortions with facts, stressing that Shariah in Northern Nigeria is neither a threat to non-Muslims nor a constitutional violation.

“A system once respected by English monarchs and acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court cannot suddenly be portrayed as unfit for the Muslims who believe in it today,” he said.

He also called on Nigerians to resist imported fear narratives and embrace the country’s legal diversity, “Nigeria is strongest when every community practices its faith without fear and when our legal systems, Islamic, secular, or customary, work together for justice and human dignity.”