[Preamble]    [Goals and Objectives of Zakat ]   [Zakat in Sokoto and Borno ]    [British Colonialism ]   [Zakat in the Colonial Period ]  [Zakat in the Post Colonial Period ]   [Future, Challenges and Conclusion ]   [References ]  The Fate of Zakat in the Colonial Period In imposing these heavy and ever increasing taxes on the natives, the British, it would appear, must have hoped that the Muslim subjects would find it impossible to pay Zakat. This then would have starved the religious rulers and scholars of funds and all the religious institutions like schools that were relying on this source would have collapsed and died a natural death. Things did not quite worked out that way as Muslim subjects continued to pay Zakat and the Emirs continued to collect it. Having under taken not to interfere with religion, the British were keen to show that they would abide by their words and would not want to come out categorically to stop the payment of Zakat. But when what appeared to be their first strategy did not work, they found it expedient to come out, if indirectly, to stop the payment and collection of Zakat. They issued a directive that apart form the taxes imposed by the colonial government no other ones were to be collected. The Emirs predictably protested. "The Shehu of Borno, for example, argued that stopping him from collecting the Zakka would amount to a departure by the British from their undertaking not to interfere with religious matters, adding that at any rate the peasants themselves would object to being relieved from paying it." When the news reached the Sultan of Sokoto that the British were intending to make the collection of Zakat "illegal", the Sultan asked J.A. Burdon, the British resident in Sokoto to write to Lugard and appeal to him not to interfere with Zakat. [35] Other emirs presumably protested and eventually the British relented but under two conditions: "That its payment on the part of the peasants and cattle owners should be voluntary and that the British would be given a quarter of the Proceeds."[36] The emirs acceded to these conditions and the collection of Zakat continued, but not for long. To the British, the payment of Zakat by the Muslim subjects was more than a matter of economics. Their wish to abolish it appear to go beyond the need to starve the emirs of such material resources that could confer on them some financial independence and therefore some measure of autonomy. The Payment of Zakat was seen as compliance to the dictates of Islam and its collection by the Emirs and their agents was seen as a recognition of the Emirs religious and moral leadership. Both of these tend to delay and eventually subvert loyalty to the British, and at a time when they were trying to find a foothold in the colony this must have been perceived by the British to be a risky business. Thus they continued to find ways they could discourage and eventually abolish Zakat. In 1907, the British decided to increase the general tax, but informed "clearly" the Emirs and District Heads, "that the [increased] General Tax includes the Zakka and is not in addition to it" [37] Thus trying to incorporate what ever zakat may be given into the coffers of the British and at the same time stop any ruler from collecting any Zakat, creating a de-facto abolishment of Zakat. Expectedly this order was not obeyed, "two District Heads in Sokoto were caught collecting it and the Sultan was promptly ordered to depose them on that account, an order which he obeyed. The two District Heads were the Sarkin Burmi of Bakura and the Ardon Dingyadi." [38] From Yola, the Resident, G. W. Webster, reported that "corn Zakka is paid by a large percentage of the population over and above the regular taxation."[39] Webster was keen to clarify, in his report to the Governor General, that people have been sufficiently informed of the abolition of Zakat, yet after paying the General Tax, "several people anxiously enquired if they might also pay the Zakka to the District Head, what became of it, was not their affair, but pay they must as a matter of religion." "I do not pretend", Webster added with a tinge of worry, "that this feeling is the universal spirit but I think there is a strong local feeling of the religious importance of the payment of zakka."[40] Seeing this tenacity of the Muslim subjects to continue to pay Zakat, G. W. Webster urged the British to "recognise its payment [once more] and take our share." Having began to appreciate the role of Zakat, Webster was kind enough to suggest that in "this case a percentage of the total tax should be laid aside for charity act." [41] The Governor General did not, however, buy Webster’s suggestion. He may have felt that whatever gain they may make by taking "their" share could not contain the danger posed to their rule by this rather tenacious religious feelings. The Governor finally moved to make the collection of Zakat "illegal and those chiefs caught demanding or accepting it were liable to being accused of extortion and punished accordingly." [42] This finally sealed the fate of the Zakat under the British colonial government. Though the faithful continued to find ways of paying Zakat and the Emirs and District Heads continued to receive it throughout the colonial period, [43] the whole exercise remained hazardous. No demand can be made of it, since any individual or community not prepared to pay could report the person making the demand to the British and the person could then be tried for extortion. In this way the British succeeded in not only abolition Zakat, but more importantly in abolishing or at least discouraging, the expression and fulfilment of religious obligations, of which Zakat is only one. In this and several other ways, some to subtle to discern, the British supplanted the practice of Islam, subverted Islamic values and paved the way for the entrenchment of secularism, which was to disengage State from religion and to confine Islam to a private affair. This gave them sufficient freedom to restructure the Nigerian economy, education, law and administration along European lines, making us forever dependent and never free to be ourselves again, or so they wished and planned for.