Igbo Israel Online

The Igbo clan – a collection of extended families – is the highest unit within the Igbo society. The Igbos, unlike all of their neighbors, never coalesced into a kingdom, a centralized state, or even a federation of independent clans.

The Igbo people are made up of hundreds of clans. These clans act with complete autonomy in every important matter; none rule over any other. Each clan has its religious heads: the elders, the chief priests, the Umu Nri priests, the dibias (Igbo doctors), and ndi amuma (the prophets). These individuals ensure that the people and land are kept nso (holy), which is the foundation of the Igbo religion. Each clan maintains its own security; every member of the clan is a “police officer,” in a very informal way. The Igbo police themselves and guard their clan; when the need arises for a special execution of justice they use mmonwu (the masquerade). This judicial system, in its effectiveness and fairness, is far in advance of any other system of which I am aware. Its primary goals are to determine the truth and to reconcile, and not to bestow ‘victory’ upon a party in a dispute.

The clans have everything that normal states have. The youth organizations, known as ‘age grades’ (otu ogbo), ensure that the clans’ territories are kept clean and neat; that the streams and rivers are cleaned periodically (in my locality this activity is called igwo mmiri); and that graves are dug when death occurs in the community.

In economic matters the same autonomy is noticed as in political and judicial matters. Each clan has its own markets and makes rules that ensure the smooth running and effective operation of the markets. No clan ever tries to impose itself on other clans; this extreme autonomy of the Igbo clans (i.e, their independence from each other) is remarkable considering that the Igbos are of one stock and should be expected to have joined together to form a single political entity. All the immediate neighbors of the Igbos are organized into kingdoms and have even, in some cases, conquered some of their neighbors and formed empires. While some scholars have suggested that the impulse to form centralized entities was rooted in the need for common defense, such scholars have generally been unable to understand why the Igbos failed to respond to the same stimuli in the same manner. After all, the Igbos were faced with the same threats and dangers that the Bini and Yoruba faced.

In examining the social organization of ancient Israel, I found what could pass as a near facsimile of Igbo society. Careful study of the Bible reveals that individual Israelites and individual Israelite clans were, for the most part, completely autonomous in the early period of Israelite history. Quite remarkably, political power was decentralized in ancient Israel. During this time, the people of Israel identified much more with their families than with any other authority or authorities. Such is indicated by Saul’s response to Samuel (1 Samuel 9) upon being offered the kingship: “Am I not a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? And my family, the least of the families of the tribe of Benjamin?”

We can better understand Saul’s apprehension through a comparison with Igbo society. Like an Ozubulu man who knows that he is an Igbo but would see himself first and foremost as a member of Ozubulu, Saul knew that he was an Israelite but his attachment to Benjamin was decidedly more pronounced. I have observed, during those very early periods in Israelite history, identifying more with the tribe than with the nation of Israel was the rule, rather than the exception.

One may therefore argue that the clans were, more or less, the primary units of political authority in Israel in those days. In support of this theory, we list more than a few prominent Israelites who were identified by their family/clan names:

We have Joash the Abiezrite (Judges 6), Jair the Gileadite (Judges 9) and Jephthah the Gileadite (Judges 10:3), and Abdon the Pirathonite (Judges 12:3). Similarly, we have the Shechem and Abimelech saga (Judges 9); Shechem, which was an Israelite clan, saw itself as a distinct entity with a distinct interest and agenda in Israel.

In contrast to this social structure, consider the neighbors of Israel. In those days, an Edomite, an Ammonite, or a Midianite stalwart might simply be addressed as an Edomite, Ammonite, or Midianite. His familial and clan affiliations were not deemed very important; for example, we know that Goliath was a Philistine, but we do not know his clan or his family. One might argue that this is due to the Israelite nature of the document that provides the information about these historical figures, which is why it gives much more detail about the Jewish figures. However, the argument is not convincing, as we find the same tendencies in relation to the Igbos and their Nigerian peers. A typical Yoruba or Hausa man is likely to identify more with the empire, kingdom, or metropolis from which he came or that is closest to his place of birth, while the Igbo would more likely than not identify himself just with his clan.

As has been noted, the individual Igbo clans operate as independent entities, to a large extent. We can see the uniqueness of this system by comparing the ancient Israelite society with its neighbors and the Igbo society with its neighbors. The Bible tells us that Edom was already an established kingdom in very early times; in Genesis we read that numerous kings reigned in Edom, long before a king of Israel was appointed! Kingdoms, like empires, tend to absorb the political groups which comprise them as they coalesce into a single entity.

Around the Igbos we have the Bini Kingdom (Edo), the Yoruba kingdoms (which were at one point absorbed by the Yoruba Oyo Empire), the Idoma Kingdom, the Igala Kingdom, and – further north – the Hausa Kingdoms, which fell under the Fulani Empire. Side by side with them all are the Igbo clans.

Francis Kwame Buah, an African historian, while acknowledging that the Igbo society is uncommon due to its unique sociopolitical structure, attempted to explain its peculiarity by suggesting that the forest region in which the Igbos live could have precluded them from forming centralized states. However, he gave up this speculation almost mid-way, noting that centralized states of other peoples were formed in those same forests.

II. The History and Composition of an Igbo Clan

As all Igbo clans have a similar history and “class” structure, I will use the Ozubulu clan as a case study, for the sake of convenience. The Ozubulu clan is located in present-day Anambra State within the Igbo territory in Nigeria.

According to our oral tradition, a certain man migrated from across the river Niger and traveled to the present site of Ozubulu, where he resettled. He married and had several children, among whom were four sons: Amakwa, Egbema, Eziora, and Nza.

This man became known as Ozubulu. The descendants of his four sons are the people who today identify themselves as “the people/children of Ozubulu.” Three or four other classes of persons are also parts of this family of Ozubulu:

The Umu Nri, who are resident in Ozubulu, are Igbos from a clan/group of clans that correspond to the biblical Levites. The Umu Nri settled among other Igbos as well and continue to fulfill certain priestly/ritual functions, such as the purifications necessary when “abominations” are committed by their host clans.

The ohu, who are viewed as having emanated from slave origins, probably acquired that status from a situation akin to what is presented in Deuteronomy 15:22, in which the children of Israel were enjoined by Moses to deal fairly with any Israelite who, through strained circumstances, found himself or herself sold into indentured servitude. It should be noted that, among the Igbo, this servitude or “slavery” is quite dissimilar, in almost all respects, to the Arab and European institutions of slavery and the slave trade.

The osu (misnamed by the English as “outcasts”) are bona fide Igbos who sought refuge with the God of Abraham (Chukwu Abiama) in ancient times. Their status was identical to the status of the Israelite that sought refuge in the sanctuary or any other place in which the God of Israel had a shrine, in ancient Israel.

Lastly, there are some Ozubulu people who migrated from Arochukwu and Arondizuogu, both of which are Igbo clans. Their descendents, like the Nri, migrated to other clans in ancient times but retained ties to their original clans.

All the aforementioned groups are “children of Ozubulu.” All will describe themselves as Umu Ozubulu or Ndi Ozubulu (i.e., children or people of Ozubulu). The history and structure of most Igbo clans fit the description offered above.

III. The Nature of Igbo and Israelite Democracy

I must reiterate that the Igbo clans are totally free and independent of each other, and the level of independence between them is perhaps as much as the one between the United States and Canada, or Nigeria and Ghana. There are friendly ties between clans for sure – which emanate from inter-clan marriages, friendships, and the knowledge that all share a common Igbo heritage – but they remain completely independent entities. This state of affairs never deteriorated to the extent of one clan interfering in the internal matters of another.

The Igbos did not centralize their political system or develop a monarchy. The monarchic system is antithetical to real democratic values; entities/nations/peoples become kingdoms due to a variety of factors, ranging from custom, dictatorial inclinations, and the need for a strong ruler, among others. Similar tendencies, including greed and acquisitive aspirations, also lead entities to embark on empire building.

As I had also mentioned, the Igbos are surrounded by peoples that have centralized entities, atop of which sat kings. The particular circumstances of some of those peoples were and are similar to that of the Igbos. For example, the Igbos are but one group that inhabits the same stretch of forests, near the coast of the Atlantic ocean, for as long as many care to remember. Yet the Igbos failed to develop into the highly centralized political systems found among their neighbors. The Igbos did not centralize and form kingdoms because their customs do not allow for such; one must go to ancient Israel to find the very same customs that prohibited the Igbos from centralizing and organizing themselves under a king.¹

Israel at its earliest stages was seriously decentralized, organized as a “theocratic” democracy. The “king” of the Israelites was God, who was represented by authentic men and women of God, like Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Deborah, Samuel, etc. However, as history unfolded, Israel eventually bowed to the tendency to centralize power and sought to establish a monarchy. Nevertheless, when we look at the Israelite monarchy we see that all it had in common with the Gentile monarchies of ancient and modern times was just the word ‘king.’ Whereas kings and queens among the other nations were seen as divine and semi-divine, the Israelite monarch was seen as merely a first among equals. Whereas among the neighboring peoples the king was a god, whose word was divine law, among the Israelites the king was subject to the Law of the God of Israel, just as – or even more than – the ordinary Israelite. If the rule of law, and not arbitrary “justice,” is what distinguishes democracies from autocracies then we can agree that ancient Israel was a democracy. This is actually, essentially, how the society of ancient Israel appears from the Igbo perspective.

IV. The Igbo Family and Community

Having outlined the basic structure of the Igbo society, we must yet explore how this society actually works – beginning with a very important feature of Igbo society: Women’s representation in government.

From what has been presented so far it is clear that Igbo women were seen and heard, ruling on and influencing social policy at all levels. Humphrey Akaolisa has noted that the Igbos were probably were the first people to feature adequate female representation in the governing of the society. I would add that the phenomenon is further evidence of our Israelite heritage, and is noticeable even in the biblical accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Our first ancestral matriarch, Sarah, was more or less the equal of Abraham. She was the driving force behind the inclusion of Hagar in family life, as well as the advocate for Hagar’s and Ishmael’s eventual departure.

Likewise, Rebecca’s power and influence in the family is readily felt in the narratives detailing her instructions to Jacob. Jacob himself had to consult his wives (our other ancestral matriarchs) before taking his leave of Laban’s estate. On this point, Dr J.H. Hertz notes that this was yet “another instance of the dignified position of women in ancient Israel. The Patriarchs do nothing without consulting their wives, whom they regard as equals.” He also explains Jacob’s calling them aside “to the field” as signifying a private discussion, understood to mean that he had utmost respect for them and their positions. This receives added significance when we juxtapose such a course of action with the Igbo protocol in equivalent situations.

An Igbo husband will call aside his wife or wives to engage in igba izu (lit. “to whisper together”), whereupon he will confer with her or them in quietude. Similarly, if any Igbo needs to talk with any of the parents at a gathering, he or she must engage in igba izu with them. This activity expresses and implies that, out of respect, he or she will respectfully whisper/talk with a low tone, rather than talk to them in a normal fashion.

From the perspective of biblical Israel, as well as the contemporary Igbo perspective, it is clear that the womenfolk are genuinely valued as pillars of the family and of society. As has been demonstrated, the Igbo family is a microcosm of the Igbo clan which in turn is typical of Igbo society as a whole.

In his informative literature, Chinua Achebe eloquently illustrates the ideal relationship between an Igbo husband and wife in Things Fall Apart. There, he relates the degree of love between Ndulue and his wife, Ozoemena:

“When [Ndulue] died this morning, one of these women went to Ozoemena’s hut and told her. She rose from her mat, took her stick and walked over to the obi. She knelt on her knees and hands at the threshold and called her husband, who was laid on a mat. ‘Ogbuefi Ndulue’, she called three times and went back to her hut. ‘When the youngest wife went to call her again to be present at the washing of the body, she found her lying on her mat, dead.”

The freedom that is so characteristic of Igbo society extends to the parent-child relationship as well. Achebe describes a common occurrence: “His youngest son, Nwafor now came into the obi, saluted Ezeulu by name and took his favorite position on the mud-bed at the far end.”

Achebe’s words remind us of the relationship between another “priest,” Jacob, and his youngest son, Joseph. Joseph was close enough to his father so as to become his father’s spy against his brothers. Moreover, we can see from the Bible that the other eleven sons of Israel were also very close to their father as well, and respected (but did not fear) him. From Achebe’s narrative, we see Nwafor, at four, walked into his father’s obi and saluted him by name; he had gotten so comfortable with his father that he had acquired a favorite position in the obi. Among some of the neighbors of the Igbo people, the whole scene would be quite inconceivable and incomprehensible. To some it would be pure sacrilege for the boy not to prostrate before his father! Furthermore, in Achebe’s narrative, the boy and his sister could even talk in the priest’s presence. Their only punishment (for being so quarrelsome with each other) was a stern warning to “keep quiet there, you two.” One’s mind can’t help but stray to the earlier story of the other ‘priest’ — Jacob — who likewise only told Joseph to (basically) “shut up” when he narrated his dream.

Growing up in Igboland, I myself experienced the type of familial relationship which Achebe describes. My late father, J. Anekwe Ilona, was a great man in all respects. He had accomplished much in his life; he had married, had gotten children, and acquired wealth – compared to him, I was not too important. Yet I readily observed how my father treated me with respect! For example, his morning routine as he passed my room on the way to the washroom was to stop, knock, open my door, look in, and say, “Good morning, Remy!” I would return “Good morning, Papa,” and he would continue to the washroom. My mother (who passed on as I was reviewing this section) always extended similar respect to me.

At the level of the “nuclear family,” an Igbo man is expected to present any important matter to his wife and children for deliberation, and the decision on such a matter is reached by consensus. Such was my own experience, growing up in my father’s household. Even as an adolescent my opinion was compulsorily sought on any matter that would affect me and the family.

In Achebe’s historical narrative, a highly authoritarian Igbo man (named Okonkwo) would not even think of deviating from this tradition – that decisions affecting the family as a whole must be reached by consensus. In Achebe’s narrative, this is exemplified in Okonkwo’s consultation with his daughters to obtain their consent to marriage (beyond his own preference on the matter), a necessary and essential process. This is a typical example of how an Igbo family conducts its affairs.

The extended family operates along similar lines. In all important matters, and these may range from the birth of children to marriage to the worship of God to funerals, every adult member of the extended family is consulted. In Igbo language this social unit may be called umunna (lit. “children of the fathers”).

Normally, if a child is born to an Igbo family, the whole family is informed and everybody joins in the rejoicing because the child “belongs” to every member of the extended family. If a bride is coming in to the family, the same rule applies. In fact, Igbos agree that the entire family is “married” to the bride, in regards to their responsibilities to her and her responsibilities to them. Her husband has exclusive rights to her only in sexual matters. As the Igbo aphorism goes, “ofu onye a da ho anu nwanyi”; that is to say, “a wife doesn’t belong only to her husband, a wife belongs to the family.” There is a traditional duty for extended family members to train and educate any orphan in the family, as well as rally around and help any member that is slipping into poverty.

When a death occurs in the family even though the immediate/nuclear family of the bereaved bears the major cost of the funeral, the extended family has a duty to contribute certain amounts in wine, food, and money. Each individual member of the family has the duty to mourn with their bereaved member.

Regarding matters of worship, every extended family has an obi (the equivalent of a synagogue among Jews); just as every adult Igbo man has his own obi. Extended families worship together, the men inside the obi and the women outside the obi, but remaining in its environs.

V. The Running of Family Affairs

Traditionally an Igbo family meets every week on the Eke ukwu day, the 7^th/8^th day of every two-week cycle (the Igbo have a four-day week). The men and women meet separately to engage in communal worship. Important family matters are also discussed and resolved at such meetings. Every adult male (who pays the family dues) has a right, and is in fact required, to be present and contribute his voice to the resolution of any outstanding matter. The decisions of the men are binding on the entire family (although women may ignore the decisions of the men, they do so only occasionally). This meeting of the men-folk is called nzuko umunna (congress of kinsmen). That of the women is called nzuko umu nwanyi (congress of the women).

Still another group that is involved in running the affairs of the extended family is the umu okpu (“our daughters that have married”). They too have periodic meetings, where they deliberate on matters that affect their kinsfolk. They may be summoned (or even summon themselves) to adjudicate difficult family matters. They are feared and respected, and may even (in rare cases) over-rule the men-folk.

Another influential group is the ndi ikwu nne. The closest parallel to this group may be found in the social structure of ancient Israel. Laban is nna ochie / onye ikwu nne of Jacob and Esau; he is their maternal uncle. This relationship is an important one among the Igbos. The ndi ikwu nne may influence the workings of their extended family but there must be general consent before they can step in. To illustrate, Laban could have settled the rift between Jacob and Esau if he was invited; to the Igbos, he would have been viewed as a surrogate father to them both. We can see evidence of this relationship elsewhere in biblical Israel. When Absalom slew Amnon his brother, he simply fled to ikwu nne ya, to the family of his mother’s kinsmen, exactly to Talmai the son of Ammihud, king of Geshur. It is interesting to note that Absalom got total safety in ikwu nne ya – as would an Igbo!

As we leave the family unit, addressing the extended family unit and continuing upwards to the other units of the Igbo society, the bond of brotherhood starts to get thinner and thinner. The meetings are less regular, with only the elders of each family gathering to discuss routine matters. Yet even at this “distant” level everybody must meet to discuss extremely important matters.

Matthew O. Orji alludes to the role of the family as the basic unit of Igbo society in the following passage:

‘The communities (families) that made up one single town (clan) were each responsible to the town as a whole. The community was made up of many families and the families were each responsible to the community. But the responsibility of the community to the town and that of the family to the community were not total. This was because there were certain matters which the family had exclusive powers to deal with, without referring it to the community. Likewise the community had authority to dispose of certain matters without reference to the town’.

Even at this primary stage it is evident that authority and power are not centralized at any level. Individuals can exercise a measure of freedom, just as families can, as well as kindred groups; right up to the individual clan, which may only take its decisions collectively (i.e., without having to defer to one potentate).

Additionally, there is no real room for arbitrary and thoughtless conduct on the part of individual groups within Igbo society. Traditionally, families are barred from causing enmity between themselves and those of neighboring clans, an action which would certainly affect the entire clan itself. The extended family (the “community” in Orji’s parlance) was not allowed to engage in war with neighboring clans without the knowledge and consent of the whole clan.

A question presents itself: Without any one person in clear authority over the rest, how are communal decisions made among the Igbo?

Within the democratic governments described above, there are “firsts among equals.” For the umunna, i.e. men folk of the family, their “first among equals” is the oldest man in the family. He is the aka-ji-ofo (the possessor of the staff, akin to the staff all tribal leaders had in biblical Israel). This individual opens all discussions with a prayer and ends all discussions by speaking last, after all the others have spoken. He more or less aggregates the views of his brothers, refines them, removes unlawful and immoral suggestions in them, and politely expresses the remainder as the decision of the family. Dissent is allowed, in which case there is more discussion, until a consensus is reached.

For the purposes of this study, we could see this eldest man (aka-ji-ofo) as the elder of this family. As Dr. Herz explains in his commentary on the bible, “In primitive times, the head of the clan or the firstborn acted as the priest.” My late father was an aka-ji-ofo and the acting priest for the family. When he died, his younger brother, Igwegbe, took over his position as the aka-ji-ofo. Both my father and his successor had and have the right to lead in religious affairs in the family as their fathers did before them.

Professor J.B Webster and others explain that among the Igbo, the elders’ opinions are respected and regarded highly not merely because of their age but also because of their role as priests, within the family. One recalls the biblical image of Moses and the elders of Israel commanding the Israelites to keep the instructions of the Lord (Deut. 27).

Another key individual involved in running family affairs is nwa di okpara, “the son of the first son.” This position is hereditary, unlike the position of aka-ji-ofo which is acquired upon becoming the oldest member of a family. The first son of a family is the di okpara, the legal successor of his father. His brothers are his equals but he is the “first among equals”; when he dies, his son becomes the nwa-di-okpara. However, if his son is older than every other member of the family, he also becomes the aka-ji-ofo (which his father had been before him). The nwa-di-okpara could also be called nwanonaobi, the child that lives near and maintains the obi.

Generally, in purely familial matters the aka-ji-ofo is the only person to whom the other family members defer (although his younger brothers are respected too, in lesser degrees according to their ages). However, if the family has to meet the general clan, the aka-ji-ofo may go with the nwa di-okpara and other brothers that precede the nwa-di-okpara.

Among Igbo women, the most senior wife in the family is the “first among equals.” If her husband dies, she is the first to be married among the surviving wives. Her position is one of honor. Among the umuokpu (“married daughters”) their oldest member is their chief. Her position is also one of honor.

Concluding Thoughts

In the beginning of this essay, I pointed out that the Ozubulu people believe that all members of the Ozubulu clan(s) are basically descendants of one man (plus a few friends and allies who attached themselves to Ozubulu in ancient times and fully identified with Ozubulu). I believe that this belief in a common ancestral root has helped to nurture the feelings of brotherhood and kinship among the Igbo, accentuating the communal spirit within our society; and the place we found the strongest parallel to this phenomenon was in Israel.

Israel was a theocratic democracy, and I submit that all the evidence I have marshaled portrays the Igbo society as such as well. As in all human societies – where decay is almost inevitable but can be prevented by vigilance – when the society of biblical Israel began to deteriorate, it slipped to what could at worst be described as a “theocratic-constitutional monarchy,” with the democratic spirit still very much alive. To illustrate, King Saul viewed himself as subject to Samuel, the man of God, as the Law required; and unlike “real kings” in ancient and modern times he did not even have a palace or capital but lived in his own house in Gibeah. Additionally, he did not accumulate many wives and had no standing army. His successor, David, respected and deferred to Nathan the prophet. As a bona fide Israelite, David recognized that he was no better than any other Israelite, and stoically absorbed and endured the insults of Shimei the son of Gera (II Samuel 16). An immature advisor might suggest that the insulter be killed but David (thoroughly schooled in the traditions of Israel) refused such advice and instead simply took the insults – and that was something that no real potentate, in ancient or modern times, could do.

In the first book of Kings, we find that Ahab had to remonstrate with a common citizen (Naboth) who refused to sell his vineyard to him. Ahab’s evil wife, Jezebel, had to ingenuously devise a plan to get rid of Naboth and thereby gain possession of his vineyard. This encounter reveals much about the Israelite society of ancient times. In the society of biblical Israel, just as in the Igbo society, every individual was entitled to a portion of the “Land,” unlike in most other societies where all the land was vested in, or belonged to, the sovereign head of state.

Furthermore, as I have stated before, in Israel as well as among the Igbos, citizens knew their rights and were ever-ready to exercise them!

In biblical Israel, Rehoboam (against good counsel) addressed the people Israel as if he had become a potentate; when he had finished speaking, the people of Israel spoke also – and because what the king had said was contrary to the laws and traditions of Israel, the people staged a boycott of the king and his government! We have seen that in the Igbo society, everybody was, and is, given a voice in matters of how he or she is governed.

It is well known that the ancient Israelites did not maintain a standing army – and the Igbo would not have even known what to do with a standing army, had they had one! In both societies, life is deemed too serious to be frittered away on irrelevant matters like war.

Along these lines, there was no regular police force in either society. Instead, the entire citizenry policed itself. Just as boycotts and the ostracism of malefactors were sufficient deterrents against evil people, there were no prisons in ancient Israel or in the Igbo society. Repeatedly, God warned that evildoers would be “cut off” from Israel; the Igbo have adequate measures for “cutting off” evildoers. For example, when confronting the colonial authority which was approaching them with a new religion, tradition, and set of laws – that would divide the society and weaken it – the Igbo elders simply warned their clansmen not to have anything to do with the invaders; and those that persisted in doing so were ostracized (and not imprisoned, killed, or harmed physically).

It is unnecessary to add anything to our description of the Igbos’ great respect for individual rights and freedom. Allied to this feeling – this desire to never be shackled – is the Igbos’ total abhorrence of authoritarian leadership. As history has it, when some European missionaries, themselves subjects of kings or queens, requested to see the king of an Igbo clan, the clans-people responded that “there is no king here!” They informed the astounded missionaries that the Igbo have “the chief priests and the elders” as their rulers.