Pondering the Origins of Maidaki Hauwa (c. 1463-1565)

What were the origins of one of the most powerful women in the annals of Kano history? This question is directly pertinent to questions of marriage alliances, the growing power of queen mothers or royal women, and the relations between Kano and other powers. Indeed, in the case of Maidaki Hauwa, it would go on to shape the reign of no less than 6 kings of Kano. This brief post shall explore the competing theories and defend the Gaya hypothesis for Hauwa’s origins.

According to one Kano chronicler, el-Arabi, Hauwa was the daughter of the ruler of Gaya, Agalfati (or Aganfi).[1] Unable to locate the text of this chronicle, one suspects el-Arabi connected Hauwa to Gaya’s ruler because Agalfati’s name appears in the Kano Chronicle before the reign of Muhammad Rumfa. In addition, some oral traditions associate Muhammad Rumfa with Daura and Gaya. According to Dokaji Alhaji Abubakar, Rumfa allegedly spent time in Gaya before coming to Kano.[2] This may have influenced el-Arabi’s account, perhaps suggesting an important alliance between Gaya and Rumfa. M.G. Smith, on the other hand, proposed a Gaya origin for Muhammad Rumfa’s mother, Fatima.[3]

Whatever the case may have been, the Rumfawa were linked to the powerful rulers of Gaya. Indeed, the Kano Chronicle also connects Agalfati with Machina, an important town whose rulers claimed ties to the Sayfawa.[4] The legendary story of origins for Machina’s kings claims their ancestor was a half-brother to a Sayfawa mai, the son of the first to rule from Gazargamo.[5] Interestingly, the kings of Machina resided in a palace of brick, a symbol of royal authority or status in Kanem and Borno. This suggests that the legend may be accurate in at least identifying an important connection or status with regard to Borno’s ruling dynasty. If the Gaya ruler Agalfati really was a son of the king of Machina, they may also have once been in the orbit of Borno. Much more information is needed to clearly establish this. For example, oral traditions cited by Muhammad Jamilu Abba link Gaya’s foundation to migrants from Jibede in the Dutse Gadawur territory.[6] Either way, traditions associating with Rumfa with Gaya may have influenced el-Arabi’s belief in Hauwa’s Gaya origin. An alliance sealed through marriage with Gaya’s chiefs may have been essential in gaining access to the throne for Rumfa. After all, Gaya had already proven its power through its involvement in the deposition of Umaru (1410-1421).[7]

The other theory, of a Songhay origin, is highly unlikely. Proposed by Murray Last, the only source for this notion is Leo Africanus. Per Africanus, the Askia of Songhay (Askia Muhammad I) supposedly conquered Kano and other parts of Hausaland. After defeating Kano’s ruler, he then made the Kano king marry his daughter.[8] But there are many problems with this theory. First, if one accepts 1493 as the date of Askia Muhammad’s accession to the throne of Songhay and 1499 as the year of Rumfa’s death, it is hard to imagine Maidaki Hauwa and Rumfa would have had a son old enough to become king of Kano in 1499. There’s also the issue of the Kano and Songhay sources making no mention of this at all. The Tarikh al-Sudan does refer to Songhay invasions of Agadez, conflict with Kebbi, and a 1514 raid on Katsina. But these events took place long after the death of Muhammad Rumfa. Furthermore, when Songhay sources do allude to Kano, such as Ali Fulan’s flight there in 1529, there is no mention of Songhay conquest or forcing the payment of tribute.[9] Perhaps the flight of prominent individuals from Songhay to Kano is additional evidence of the lack of any subjugation of the latter by the former.

Moreover, the description of Kano by Leo Africanus is more consistent with the reign of Abdullahi, Rumfa’s son. Africanus accurately noted that Kano had achieved military success against Katsina and Zaria.[10] Thus, the usually accepted chronology as well as the written sources and relevant traditions from West Africa do not support this theory. Consequently, if Leo Africanus is reliable at all, the Askia would have forced Abdullahi to marry his daughter. The “obvious candidate” for the Askia’s daughter would then become Lamis, a remarkable woman who significantly shaped events in the reign of Muhammad Kisoki.

            In addition, some sources from Kano support a Hausa origin for Hauwa. Translated lists of kings from manuscripts even name her father. According to one, he may have been Babari.[11] These lists are hardly conclusive evidence, but they could be interpreted as additional evidence against the Songhay origins theory for Hauwa. Against this must be considered other manuscripts which name Abu Bakar’s mother as Kuyina or Ukin.[12] But the lists do not readily support a Songhay origin or any ties to Askia Muhammad. Even Lamis, whose name is rendered in one manuscript as Lamis Tamajikanna, is difficult to connect with the Songhay.

The queen’s ability to ensure her son succeeded and that her brother began to exert a strong influence on the royal court of her grandson, one which seems to overlap with Gaya and eastern Kano interests, lends some support to the theory of Gaya origins. A pattern in later Kano-Borno relations can be detected across the centuries in the Kano Chronicle. One notes a tendency of Gaya’s ruling family trying to dominate Birnin Kano’s court and the development of policies which favor Gaya or suggest anti-Borno stances. To the extent that one accepts Barkindo’s theory of Rumfa’s caliphal ambitions as a challenge to the primacy of Borno and Songhay, this could have facilitated an alliance between anti-Borno Gaya and Rumfa. Indeed, a later era of Gaya influence in Kano’s court apparently led to the creation of new towns with additional walls, prompting a Borno campaign in the 1730s.[13] This is quite similar, apparently, to what transpired in Muhammad Kisoki’s reign, according to glimpses from Ahmad b. Furtu’s chronicle and the Kano Chronicle.

Perhaps the Gaya origin theory of Hauwa is still missing crucial support in the sources, but it does have a logical basis. Furthermore, it elucidates, or proposes a theory, for why she may have become the first Mai Daki or Babar Daki, with great powers and her own retainers. Her high status in Rumfa’s reign, or at least those of their son and grandson, could have begun through a close alliance with Gaya. Alternatively, she could have come from Dutsi or another powerful chiefly lineage in Kano or another part of Hausaland. But the Gaya theory “fits” best with what historians have been able to reconstruct of the Kano state in this period. The Songhay princess theory has little to no support in the sources or in the usually accepted chronologies.

---

[1] Bawuro M. Barkindo, “Kano Relations with Borno: Early Times to c. 1800,” in Bawuro M. Barkindo (ed.), Kano and Some of Her Neighbours,156.

[2] Dokaji Alhaji Abubakar, Kano ta Dabo cigari, 29.

[3] M.G. Smith, Government in Kano, 1350-1950, 104.

[4] H.R. Palmer, “The Kano Chronicle,” 76.

[5] See C.J. Lethem, “Bornu Province Bornu emirate Marchena District Assessment report by C.J.Lethem” for many details on Machena and the genealogy of its kings.

[6] Muhammad Jamilu Abba, “The Role of the Sarauta institution in Shaping the Spatial Growth and Community Integration in Kano City,” in Abdalla Uba Adamu (ed), Kano in the Second Millennium, 122.

[7] M.G. Smith, Government in Kano, 1350-1950, 104.

[8] Murray Last, “From Sultanate to Caliphate: Kano, 1450-1800,” in Bawuro M. Barkindo (ed.), Studies in the History of Kano, 69. 

[9] John Hunwick, Timbuktu and the Songhay Empire: Al-Saʻdi's Taʼrīkh Al-Sūdān Down to 1613, and Other Contemporary Documents, 113-114, 349.

[10] Ibid., 287.

[11] See Paul E. Lovejoy and John Hunwick, “Not Yet the Kano Chronicle,” Sudanic Africa 4 (1993), 121. In one list, the mother of Abu Bakar Akkadu is named Awwa ta Babari. According to the Kano Chronicle, this sarki was a full brother of Abdullahi. Thus, Hauwa’s father may have been named Babari.

[12] Ibid., 106, 111.

[13] See Behique Dunama, “A Tentative Study of the Reign of Muhammad b. al-Hajj Hamdun (1729-1744),” https://thedreamvariation.blogspot.com/2026/02/a-tentative-study-of-reign-of-muhammad.html.

The Obligations of Princes: An Essay on Moslem Kingship

Although it is a dated translation, Baldwin's The Obligations of Princes: An Essay on Moslem Kingship is one of the more accessible translations of al-Maghili's treatise on politics. Written for the ruler of Kano, Muhammad Rumfa (r. 1463-1499) when al-Maghili lived in Kano, Taj al- Din fi ma Yajib 'ala l- Muluk shows how the influential North African scholar conceived of an ideal Islamic state. Throughout the short treatise, al-Maghili focuses on the role of the king or sultan as a force of justice who seeks to rule in a way to support the spiritual and material well-being of their subjects. An essential refrain throughout the text is translated by Baldwin, "The veiling of the king from his subjects is the source of all mischief" (p. 7). Throughout several short chapters, the reader is reminded of this. 

Since the question of how to rule justly was a central aim, al-Maghili's account gives a number of directives to Rumfa on how a king should rule. As previously mentioned, a king must not veil himself from his subjects as this is the source of all mischief. Indeed, "God has not invested you with power that you may lord it over your subjects and dominate them; He has put you in authority only to foster their spiritual and material well-being." In order to avoid that pitfall, a ruler must "Manifest your love of what is excellent, and of worthy people; show your hatred of corruption and corrupt people" (7). And while a prince is allowed to adorn their person and court, they must not exceed what is acceptable for men or reduce their treasury. In other words, the king can and will look "the part" through lavish clothes, courts, and jewelry. But, there must be moderation so that kings will not abuse the treasury. Muhammad Rumfa appears to have followed this through his own lifestyle.

Besides, these aforementioned injunctions, al-Maghili offers a number of reasonable guidance on administration, the conduct of war, and the duties of the prince in these spheres. A king should always have a guard at hand and also endeavor to use guile rather than outright war when feasible. Princes must be skeptical of those who come bearing presents and to forfeit strongholds they cannot hold. These suggest that an ideal ruler must know how to operate a state in which military matters require diplomacy and guile. Furthermore, overexpansion or attempting to make gains one cannot hold are foolish. In the context of competing Hausa kingdoms of the 15th century, this advice could be seen as a warning to be careful about entanglements one cannot win or turn to one's advantage. To what extent Rumfa followed this is unclear since he went to war with Katsina for 11 years without either side winning.

Lastly, it is worth mentioning that in judgement and the law the duty of the ruler is to ensure justice and support. Indeed, these two are the pillars of royal authority. Thus, upright and informed witnesses must be included for taking testimony in a case. Similary, princes cannot accept bribes or take money in cases In addition, al-Maghili writes, "It is the bounden duty of a great prince to sit everyday where the women and children may have access to them" (15). Clearly, the ruler cannot be completely separated or divorced from his subjects. The weakest and most minor among them should be able to reach the king when they have legitimate grievances or complaints about his administrators or governors. Justice likewise entails lawful collection of retinue and taxation. This must follow religious law and avoid seizing goods from the people. In fact, the ruler should be liberal and use state revunies to suppor t those in need, strengthen defenses or fortresses, and provide for the Islamic religious establishment. The poor, oprhans, descendants of the Prophet, and others must be supported, too. 

If a ruler violated these rules for proper Islamic governance and became tyranical, al-Maghili views them as illegitimate. Subjects were under no obligation to support these rulers if a rebellion breaks out. Instead, al-Maghili wrote, "Leave him and your claims on him, for God will take vengeance on a tyrant by means of a tyrant, to the ruin of them both" (18). Here one can see that, to al-Maghili, the political authority immediately lost legitimacy when it violated the core precepts of Islamic statecraft. In other words, the consent of the governed is a core part of the state contract. One can see here the seeds of Uthman dan Fodio's jihad which rocked the region in the 19th century as various Habe governments were accused of corruption, unjust practices, and violating Islamic tenets. As al-Maghili's responses to Askia Muhammad demonstrate, similar accusations were made against Sunni Ali of Songhay. In Air, too, the al-Lamtuni's questions to al-Suyuti of Egypt indicate a similar problem with widespread political corruption and a number of other practices which both viewed as unjust.

In that light, it is interesting to compare the ideal vision of a Muslim ruler described by al-Maghili (who also responded to questions from Askia Muhammad of Songhay) with what is known of Muhammad Rumfa. Based on the The Kano Chronicle, Muhammad Rumfa is remembered for having undertaken a number of innovations as well as welcoming sharifs. Given his vast number of wives and for allegedly being the first to use ostrich feather sandals and the kakaki, Rumfa appears to have elevated the royal court's style, ostentation, and power, both symbolically and politically. But in terms of the veiling of the king from his subjects, it is difficult to discern how and to what extent Rumfa may have tried to ensure access to his subjects. Perhaps the giving of state offices to eunuchs was meant to increase the power of the sarki as these officials would be bound to Rumfa? In that sense, he may have followed al-Maghili's recommendation to appoint governors who did not buy their positions with gifts and to closely scrutinize how his officials administered areas under their control. But the lenthy war with Katsina said to have taken place during his reign may be an example of failing to recognize an impossible situation that requires relinquishing strongholds and focusing on guile or other strategems for military victory.