Revival and Reform: W. Africa and the Sudan
In Muslim Africa the thirteenth century of the hijra (1785-1882 ce) might be categorised as a century of revival and reform. There were two underlying factors influencing this trend towards religious regeneration (tajdid).
In the first place the twelfth century of the hijra (roughly the eighteenth Christian century) had witnessed the growth of wider reformist movements in both Sufi and juristic circles which bore fruit in the thirteenth: the battle against antinomianism and anthropolatry in Sufi circles had given rise to reform in certain orders such as the Naqshbandiyya and the Khalwatiyya, while in juristic circles the dead hand of the madhhab (school of jurisprudence) system was being lifted by scholars of the Hadith school of Medina who favoured ijtihad (scholastic initiative) in the search for a return to the Sunna of the Prophet. This led in turn, on the one hand, to the growth of new Sufi orders such as the Egyptian Sammaniyya with its Sudanese offshoot the Tayyibiyya and the highly Sunna-oriented orders deriving from Ahmad b. Idris al-Fasi (d. 1836), such as the Mirghaniyya/Khatmiyya and Rashidiyya in the Sudan and the Sanusiyya in Libya; on the other hand, it led to the greater juristic eclecticism of Muhammad b. Abd al-Wahhab in Arabia, Shaykh Uthman b. Fudi in Nigeria and al-Hajj Umar in Guinea and Mali.The second factor influencing the trend towards religious regeneration in the nineteenth century was the widespread belief in tropical Africa that the thirteenth century of the hijra would witness the appearance of the Mahdi, that final reformer of Islam who would introduce an era of justice and righteousness and the triumph of true Islam leading immediately to the Day of Judgement. Shaykh Uthman was keenly aware that the time of the Mahdi was close at hand and though he denied that he was himself the Mahdi, he saw himself as the harbinger of the final reformer.
There were also Mahdist overtones to the movement of al-Hajj Umar and several migrations eastwards to ‘meet the Mahdi’ originating from northern Nigeria later in the century. Finally, at the very close of the thirteenth century, in 1881, came the ‘manifestation’ (zuhur) of the Sudanese Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad.There are several points of both comparison and contrast between the movements of Shaykh Uthman and Muhammad Ahmad. In the first place both were rural-based movements claiming a monopoly of religious orthodoxy and orthopraxy, directed primarily against urban-based ruling elites who considered themselves Muslim but were adjudged by the reformers to be so corrupt as to have passed beyond the pale of Islam. In the case of Shaykh Uthman these were the rulers of the Hausa states and in the case of Muhammad Ahmad they were the Turco-Egyptian officials who governed on behalf of the Khedive of Egypt. In both cases they were accused of fiscal oppression, arbitrary justice and loose living. Both reformers took the view that whoever opposed them was also to be classified as an infidel. Shaykh Uthman invoked the Qur’anic principle that the believers are friends one to another and that whoever prefers an unbeliever over a believer is himself an unbeliever; this he then applied to whoever supported or encouraged the Hausa rulers, including the ruler of Borno. Similar arguments were made by al-Hajj Umar against Ahmad b. Shaykh Ahmad Lobbo, ruler of the Islamic state (diina) of Hamdullahi, who supported the Bambara of Segu against the reformer. In the case of Muhammad Ahmad belief in his mission as Mahdi was taken to be an article of faith, backed by the consensus of Muslim thinking (ijma) about the obligation to support the ‘Mahdi of Allah’ at the End of Time. Both men used similar techniques to muster their following and to distinguish the ‘true’ Muslims: declaration of mission, withdrawal (hijra) from the land governed by the infidels and finally struggle (jihad) against them.
The basic difference between the two men lay in the nature of the authority each claimed.
Shaykh Uthman’s authority was temporal and limited, originally grounded in obedience to him as a shaykh of the Qadiriyya order and respect for him as a scholar of the law (faqih) and publicly proclaimed in his designation by his followers as Commander of the Faithful (amir al-muminin) and thus supreme ruler of an ever-growing Islamic state after his hijra. As a Sufi he founded no new order but remained a devout Qadiri, while as a jurist he remained a Maliki and a self-confessed traditionalist (muqallid), despite a tendency towards eclecticism which led to a degree of anti-madhhabism (opposition to the schools of jurisprudence) late in life. Muhammad Ahmad’s authority, on the other hand, was seen as cosmic and permanent until the end of the world. He claimed the absolute allegiance of all Muslims by virtue of his having been sent by God to take charge of the community (umma) of Islam, to reform it and lead it to triumph over all other religions. Though a Sufi of the Tayyibiyya suborder, as Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad had a spiritual authority which abrogated that of the orders, and devotions centred on his prayer manual, the Ratib, were to replace usual Sufi litanies. Similarly, in matters of jurisprudence, his authority was unique and sui generis. He issued authoritative edicts both through letters and proclamations (manshurat) and pronouncements in public gatherings (majalis), many of which were subsequently recorded in writing. Though a full study of his fiqh (jurisprudence) has yet to be made, available evidence seems to indicate the predominate influence of the Maliki madhhab.Both of these movements led to the creation of Islamic states, but their subsequent histories were very different. Shaykh Uthman’s state eventually covered most of north-western and west-central Nigeria as well as Adamawa on the Nigeria-Cameroon borderland and parts of south-western Niger. Centred on Sokoto (and hence sometimes called the Sokoto Caliphate) the Islamic state was administered through provincial emirs descended from original jihadist flag-bearers who were responsible to the wazir of Sokoto.
Leadership of the state was in the hands of descendants of Shaykh Uthman, beginning with his son Muhammad Bello, and they used the title amir al-muminin or the Hausa equivalent Sarkin Musulmi. The Sokoto state survived the British conquest of 1902-3 to become the basis for indirect rule. Since Nigerian independence in 1960 it has survived two civilian and several military administrations and the emirs still command authority, if not much direct political power.In the Sudan the basis of an Islamic state administration had barely been laid when the Mahdi died (June 1885) without having brought about the triumph of Islam or filling the world with justice and righteousness’. Undismayed, his closest companion, Abdullahi, succeeded him with the title of Khalifa and consolidated his gains, ruling over a state that was a good deal less tightly knit than the Sokoto state until the Anglo- Egyptian conquest (often called the ‘reconquest’) of 1898. Unsuitable, both for political and administrative reasons, to be used as the basis for indirect rule, the Mahdist state ceased to exist after 1898, though sentiment for the Mahdist cause and devotion to Muhammad Ahmad’s descendants survived through a quasi-tan'^a (brotherhood) organisation known as the Ansar and eventually a political party, the Umma party. The Mahdi’s great-grandson, the Oxford-educated al-Sadiq, continues to play a major role in Sudanese political life.