04/09/2026
*THE “FIRST NIZAMIYYAH” CLAIM: PLEASE STOP REWRITING HISTORY*
Some people have now started circulating Dr Sakariyau Alabi Aliyu’s research as though it proves that Darul Uloom was the first Nizamiyyah in Kwara State.
It does not.
In fact, if anything, a careful reading of Aliyu’s work creates a serious problem for that claim.
Let us be very clear.
Aliyu describes Darul Uloom, established in Ilorin in 1963, as the:
“first Markazi institution in Ilorin.”
That is what the scholarship says.
Not:
“first Nizamiyyah in Ilorin.”
Not:
“first organised madrasah in Ilorin.”
Not:
“first curriculum-based Islamic school in Kwara State.”
So please, let us stop upgrading “first Markazi institution” into “first Nizamiyyah” simply because the former does not sound grand enough for the argument being pushed.
Those are two different claims.
And academic research should not be forced to say what the author never said.
Now let us come to the more embarrassing part.
If by نظامية you mean an organised, structured, formalised and curriculum-based madrasah system, then Aliyu’s own historical account points to Shaykh Muhammad Kamalud-deen and the Adabiyyah tradition before Darul Uloom ever existed.
Aliyu describes Kamalud-deen as transforming his school into a “modern madrasah.”
He records the use of blackboards, uniforms, classification of pupils according to learning level, structured teaching, and what he describes as an “increasingly formalised curriculum.”
He also characterises the Adabiyyah development as movement from traditional Qur’anic schooling towards a “more structured pedagogy.”
Read that again.
More structured pedagogy.
Formalised curriculum.
Modern madrasah.
Organised classes.
So what exactly is the definition of Nizamiyyah being used by those making this claim?
Because if Nizamiyyah means organised and systematised schooling, then the evidence they themselves are circulating already documents those features under Adabiyyah before 1963.
And scholarship citing Aliyu’s thesis, specifically around p.118, places Kamalud-deen’s reforms involving benches, tables, blackboards and uniforms in 1942.
Darul Uloom came in 1963.
That is a 21-year gap.
Twenty-one years.
So before anyone writes “Darul Uloom is the first Nizamiyyah in Kwara State. Gbam.”, perhaps they should first explain how something established in 1963 becomes “first” when the same academic source documents formalised madrasah reform decades earlier.
History is not magic.
Dates do not disappear because they are inconvenient.
Chronology does not change because somebody belongs to a particular educational lineage.
And adding “Gbam” at the end of a historical assertion does not convert it into evidence.
The irony is that the very research now being used to support this claim actually makes the broader claim harder to sustain.
What Aliyu gives Darul Uloom is an honourable and important place in history:
the first Markazi institution in Ilorin.
Fine.
Let it retain that honour.
But first Markazi is not first Nizamiyyah.
If you want to claim “first Nizamiyyah”, then define Nizamiyyah academically, provide the criteria, and demonstrate that no earlier institution met those criteria.
You cannot simply change labels in the middle of the argument and expect everyone to accept it as history.
And let us also be intellectually honest: nobody needs to diminish Shaykh Adam Abdullahi al-Ilori.
His contribution was enormous.
He developed, standardised, expanded and propagated a highly influential model of Arabic and Islamic education.
That is historical greatness in its own right.
But greatness does not require manufacturing precedence where the chronology does not support it.
Likewise, acknowledging the earlier reforms of Shaykh Muhammad Kamalud-deen does not diminish Shaykh Adam.
Both men made major contributions.
What is unacceptable is the repeated attempt to collapse distinct historical categories, misread academic research, and then present the resulting claim as settled fact.
That is not scholarship.
That is institutional propaganda dressed in academic clothing.
So the matter is simple:
If Nizamiyyah means Markaziyyah, then say Markaziyyah.
If Nizamiyyah means organised, structured and formalised Islamic schooling, then Aliyu’s chronology points earlier, to the Adabiyyah/Kamalud-deen tradition.
You cannot have it both ways.
Historical precedence is established by evidence, dates and documented development, not by repetition, sentiment or institutional loyalty.
And an academic thesis should never be recruited as a partisan slogan.
Read Aliyu properly.
Respect the chronology.
Respect the scholars.
And please, stop rewriting history.
Gbam is not a citation.
Kamil Al-Adabi
