The Struggle of Islamic Sharia in Sudanese Politics

By Dr. Yasser Yousif

Were it not for irrational political rivalry and malicious foreign interference dominating Sudanese politics, the 2005 Constitution—agreed upon by national forces—could have served as a sound foundation for a model of unity between the predominantly Muslim and Arab-cultured North, and the South, with its African culture and diverse religions.

It could have provided a logical answer to the long-standing debate over the relationship between religion and state—a debate that fueled wars, deepened divisions, and scattered national paths.

That constitution encapsulated the collective wisdom of national history, addressing the sensitivities of coexistence within a modern state marked by religious and ethnic diversity and surrounded by multifaceted challenges. The political movements that contributed to that document reached a level of maturity that prioritized common ground and avoided causes of discord.

Article One of the Constitution affirmed that Sudan is a democratic country with diverse cultures and languages, where races and religions coexist. It deliberately avoided declaring an official state religion while balancing sources of legislation: (Sharia, consensus, and northern values for the North, and customs, traditions, and religious beliefs for the South).

In terms of rights and duties, the constitution established equal citizenship as the standard and recognized all Sudanese languages as national languages deserving respect and development.

That was the textual vision. However, in practice, Sudanese elites continued their familiar patterns of engaging in losing battles, blurring tactical and strategic objectives, aiming for petty political gains rather than long-term national victories.

Islamic Sharia remained at the forefront of national contention. While the question of religion and state was indeed significant, the divided elite’s approach only intensified the conflict and hampered efforts to build a stable and prosperous state after independence.

Several factors led to this outcome, including the limited vision for implementing Sharia, particularly when faced with the challenge of a modern state established by colonialism. The colonizer himself played a key role, training generations whom he trusted would continue his legacy after his departure.

Additionally, intense political conflict transformed Sharia from a foundational national principle into a mere tool for political competition, with political forces clearly divided over its implementation.

The Sennar Sultanate offers a practical model for applying Sharia according to its historical understanding within Muslim experiences—as a way of life rooted in societal culture and reflective of its organic composition.

Founded on Islamic principles and later developing its scientific and spiritual knowledge within that framework, the Sultanate applied Sharia in its broad Maqasid (objectives)-based definition, encompassing ethics, customs, transactions, beliefs, and acts of worship—as defined by Ibn Taymiyyah:

> “The correct view is that Sharia encompasses every act that brings about religious and worldly reform. It consists of the Book of God, the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be upon him), and the consensus of the righteous predecessors concerning beliefs, acts of worship, foundations, practices, politics, rulings, and charitable acts.”

 

In addition to the vast range of permissible actions, the Sennar Sultanate incorporated a mystical dimension through the spread of Sufi orders.

Sharia was the natural expression of society across Sudan’s medieval kingdoms—Sennar, Taqali, Al-Musabba’at, and Darfur.

Despite Sudan’s geographical isolation from the major centers of Islamic civilization and the relative newness of Islam, scholarly activity quickly spread through these societies.

In Sennar, the largest of these kingdoms, its rulers promoted religious scholarship by inviting scholars and jurists. Notable figures such as Ghulam Allah ibn A’id, Awlad Jaber, and Mahmoud Al-‘Araki became symbols of Islamic cultural dissemination.

Later, Sufi figures such as Taj Al-Din Al-Bahari and Sheikh Hamad Abu Danana arrived in the late 16th century, laying the foundations of Sudanese Islam on the twin pillars of Sharia and spiritual realization.

A supreme court was established in Sennar, alongside local courts in outlying areas.

Additionally, there were the so-called “white Sharia judges”—scholars who resolved disputes in rural areas purely according to Sharia law. The “Ajawid” judges also operated at the time, similar to modern-day arbitrators.

As Muhammad Hassan Al-Mufti noted in his valuable work The Evolution of the Judiciary in Sudan:

> “All judges were righteous men—learned, practicing, just, devout, pious, and respected Islamic elders known for virtue and integrity.”

 

What made Sharia a societal and judicial system was its independence from state authority, serving as a natural expression of communities that embraced Islam and built their lives accordingly.

They understood well that:

> “Sharia did not come to redesign society—as the modern state did—but to guide it according to what is known and customary, aiming for justice and social harmony that would allow societal structures to perform their functions smoothly.”

 

This meaning, emphasized by Wael Hallaq, was evident in both the social and political consciousness of Sudan’s old kingdoms. These societies drew their legislative spirit from well-established Islamic knowledge and experience.

Thus, Sharia was not confined to legal codes but was applied instinctively in transactions, beliefs, and law.

Their embrace of the Maliki school—which emphasized objectives, public interest, and blocking harm, particularly in criminal and commercial matters—facilitated the integration of Sharia into daily life and legal systems.

The public’s acceptance and Sharia’s success stemmed from it not being merely a legal code or jurisprudential doctrine, but a dynamic discourse organically tied to its surrounding world, growing within the very society it aimed to serve.

Sharia as Ideology

The first signs of division over Sharia appeared during the Mahdist State. The Mahdi abolished traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence and introduced new sources of legislation: inspiration, visions, voices, and spiritual presences.

Thus, legislation came from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the Mahdi’s proclamations. Judicial authority was centralized under the Mahdi—unlike in the Sennar Sultanate, where Sharia remained community-based and the judiciary was independent.

The Rules of Judgments proclamation by the Mahdi reflected the legislative mindset of that era. His and his successor’s reliance on personal proclamations as a third source of law created a unique ideological culture—one rooted in their particular interpretations of Islamic texts.

By discarding the inherited jurisprudential tradition—developed over centuries and providing flexibility and vitality—the Mahdi and his successor provoked a significant rupture in Islamic legal heritage. The scholars, who had grown in influence during the Turco-Egyptian rule, broke away from the Mahdist movement.

They led a counter-discourse grounded in traditional jurisprudence, opposing the Mahdi’s vision from within Islamic tradition itself.

Despite the fierce battle, the disagreement ultimately revolved around the best way to apply Sharia.

How the Conflict over Sharia Began

British colonial rule radically transformed Sudanese society by dismantling the Sharia-based legal system that had governed it for centuries.

Like other colonial powers, the British viewed Sharia as unfit for managing a modern state. As missionary Spencer Trimingham summed it up in Islam in Sudan:

> “From the beginning, the British viewed Sudanese people as backward and exploited.”

 

Thus, they imposed new legal systems imported from Britain and India, creating a modern judiciary.

However, to avoid provoking Muslim sensitivities, they established a parallel, lesser judicial system to handle Muslim personal status matters under Sharia.

In doing so, the British entrenched legal dualism and instilled disdain for traditional Sharia-based systems.

After independence, a new battle emerged between an elite indoctrinated in Western legal traditions and a nascent Islamic movement that, feeling weak, sought alliances to confront the Westernized establishment backed by state power.

The Islamic camp had two defining traits that later fueled conflict with secular forces:

1. State-Centric Reform: The dominant Islamic current saw political power as the primary tool for social change, advocating for reform from the top—through persuasion or coercion, if necessary. They often cited the saying (falsely attributed as a hadith):

> “God deters through authority what He does not deter through the Qur’an.”

 

The secular elite feared this challenge to their inherited modern state structure—seen as “the very symbol of the colonial legacy.”

2. Sharia Reduced to Law: The Islamists limited their confrontation with secularists to constitutional and legal debates, using Sharia as a political slogan—especially to embarrass parties with Islamic affiliations or to challenge the then-powerful Communist Party.

 

From independence until the 1969 May Revolution, the Islamist vision for Sharia remained unclear. Their enlistment of Zafarullah Ansari, secretary to Abul A’la Maududi, to draft a constitution, showed the underdeveloped nature of their proposal.

Yet, this did not stop Dr. Hassan al-Turabi from demanding Sharia’s implementation. As he said:

> “The truth must not be delayed until every scholarly inquiry is complete or circumstances fully align. The guidance of religion is to act upon the truth as soon as its general direction becomes clear.”

 

In the next part, we will explore the evolution of the Sharia conflict and how it turned into an intense political struggle where Sharia was used as fuel—despite the 1973 Constitution declaring it a source of legislation and Dr. Turabi’s 1978 legal review revealing that only 10% of Sudan’s 286 laws required adjustments to align with Sharia.

Source: Al Jazeera Net