The Association of Muslim Professionals of South Africa (AMPSA) has reacted to Professor Ziyad Motala’s opinion piece published on this website where he criticised AMPSA’s position which holds that voting in a democratic is haraam.
The response was issued by the AMPSA Shura Council:
In a recent article interspersed with personal attacks, the author, brother Ziyad Motala, appears to be highly offended by the position of the Association of Muslim Professionals of South Africa (AMPSA), and that of Mufti Emraan Vawda, that democracy and Islam are fundamentally incompatible. His personal attack on members of AMPSA as being hypocritical, his suggestion that AMPSA members should move to Afghanistan if unhappy living under kufr and his gratuitous and unwarranted personal criticism of Mufti Vawda are deeply regrettable and wholly inconsistent with proper Islamic etiquette.
While we remain unapologetically firm and steadfast on the principles we espouse , we are also mindful of the injunction of Allah (Azza Wa Jal) and the sunnah of our beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ) that as between believers proper decorum and dignity should always be maintained, particular in our speech and inter-personal discourse. Allah, the Sovereign, says:
‘And by the Mercy of Allah, you dealt with them gently. And had you been severe and harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from you; so, pass over (their faults), and ask (Allah’s) Forgiveness for them; and consult them in the affairs. Then when you have taken a decision, put your trust in Allah. Verily, Allah loves those who put their trust (in Him).’ (Surah Aali Imraan, 3:159)
‘Look not with your eyes ambitiously at what We have bestowed on certain classes of them (the disbelievers), nor grieve over them. And lower your wings for the believers (be courteous to the fellow-believers).’ (Surah Al-Hijr, 15:88)
‘O you who believe! Let not a group scoff at another group, it may be that the latter are better than the former; nor let (some) women scoff at other women, it may be that the latter are better than the former; nor defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. How bad is it, to insult one’s brother after having Faith [that is, to call your Muslim brother (a faithful believer) as: “O sinner”, or “O wicked”, etc.]. And whosoever does not repent, then such are indeed Zalimun (wrong-doers, etc.).’ (Surah Al-Hujuraat, 49:11)
It is with due respect for the ethic so enjoined upon us that we proceed to traverse brother Ziyad’s criticisms and briefly canvas why we say they are unfounded.
The central feature of AMPSA’s position is in fact ignored by brother Ziyad; that is, that democratic rule denies Tawheed: the sovereignty and legislative authority of Allah Ta’aala. Democratic processes are presented as virtuous when the reality of the politics of disbelief is obvious – it is characterised by deceit, expediency, arrogance, treachery and covetous marketing. The recent coalition (euphemistically and deceitfully described as a government of national unity) between the African National Congress (ANC) and the Democratic Alliance is a clear example. The treachery and opportunism of these parties ought to be a sobering reminder to believers, who are governed by the purity, honesty and justice of Islam, that the politics of disbelief do not and cannot yield anything but injustice.
In his article, brother Ziyad provides no academic support whatsoever from Islamic sources for his assertions, drawing instead only on anonymous scholars that ignore clear and unambiguous Quranic texts and hadith, and seek instead to draw rulings from the maqasid of the Shariah. As AMPSA has pointed out, the maqasid of the shariah explain the shariah’s purpose but are not sources in themselves for deriving rules as to permissibility or impermissibility. The reference in the article to an unnamed ‘prominent’ scholar who, according to the article, identifies a low intelligence quota as one of the reasons many Muslims choose not to vote in democracies is libellous and deeply offensive. This unnamed scholar ought to reflect deeply on the arrogance that is manifested in such a spurious claim. Brother Ziyad, with respect, ought not to have sullied his article with such a despicable quote.
Equally disturbing is brother Ziyad’s broad swipe at jurists who have highlighted the incompatibility of democracy with Islam by suggesting that such views are sourced in a movement to prevent opposition to despotic rulers in the Arabian Peninsula .This allegation ignores the fatwas published on AMPSA’s website (from which it sought guidance), none of which emanate from Arab lands and all of which have been issued by South African Ulama. The article seems to suggest that opposition to despotic Muslim rulers is the preserve of western leftist Muslims and that all Muslim jurists that oppose the system of democracy must be supporters of despots; that assertion is simply outrageous and reflects a disturbing bias or ignorance.
The jurists and scholars that have identified the inherent incompatibility of democracy with Islam include many local and foreign ulama living in lands of so-called democracy. We are certain that brother Ziyad would not regard them as despot-supporting jurists. It is worth noting that AMPSA rejects, out of hand, the Madkhali movement that calls for the preservation of existing despotic rule in Muslim lands and eschews any form of opposition thereto.
Conspicuously absent from the article is an actual analysis of the Shari’ position on democracy. Brother Ziyad’s assertion that the flaw in AMPSA’s argument is that it considers constitutional law immutable is simply wrong. The incompatibility between Islam and democracy does not arise from the immutability or otherwise of constitutional law; it arises from the philosophical underpinning of the issue as to who has the right to legislate and the denial of Tawheed. Hence it matters not if the constitution may change, an unlikely occurrence in any event which requires a two third parliamentary majority. The denial of the sovereignty of Allah Ta’aala is rooted within it.
His reference to France is similarly fallacious. Linking low Muslim voter turnout to the oppression of Muslims is, regrettably, a classic case of Muslim victim shaming. It ignores the fact that when voters turned out in a democratic election to vote for Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, these places were subjected to coups and wars because those that won sought to replace liberal democratic values with Islamic ones. What exactly a high Muslim voter turnout would have done in France to prevent the anti-Islamic bigotry of the French establishment is not expanded upon in brother Ziyad’s article. It is noteworthy that the European Court upheld France’s hijab ban because of French values. If one strips the court’s ruling to its essence, the court found that concealing the face was tantamount to a barrier against others, based on the importance of the face in social interaction, and would breach ‘the right of others to live in a space of socialisation which makes living together easier’.
Brother Ziyad criticises AMPSA for its averment that the secular law in South Africa is grounded in disbelief. He calls it simplistic. That South African law is grounded in disbelief is incontrovertible – there is no nuance or subtlety in disbelief. It is what it is.
We disagree strongly with brother Ziyad’s suggestion that that Muslims can reject aspects of the Constitution – compliance with its provisions is clearly mandatory, and non-compliance carries legal consequences. There is a profound difference between compliance with constitutional provisions and calling for their repeal. It’s the former that defines living under its kufr.
Brother Ziyad states that the Constitution, although the supreme law of the land, is capable of being amended and must be understood as a constantly evolving document. The Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, whatever it may claim; the law of Allah Ta’aala is supreme. The mere recognition that a law other than the law of Allah Ta’aala is supreme is antithetical to the Shariah. Secondly, it’s an exercise in sophistry to indulge in speculation about the theoretical possibility of an amendment to the Constitution, and to assert thereby that because it may potentially in the future not contain haraam (prohibited under the shariah) provisions, it should be treated as acceptable. In any event, this begs the question: who is the sovereign? In Islam, it is Allah Ta’aala and no other. In democracy, it is every other. That is the profound and irresoluble conflict between democracy and Islam.
Brother Ziyad adopts the view that when casting a vote one can pick and choose (internally one presumes) what aspects of the party one agrees with and what one does not agree with. He ignores the essential outcome of voting; that is, the choosing of the governing party . How can one, in such circumstances, limit the consequences of one’s choice? One simply cannot. The purported intention is irrelevant. It’s the exercise of the choice to vote that counts. Voting is about giving mandates, not the opportunity to express one’s feelings. When the mandate is given, the voter’s role ends. It’s that simple. Ask those Muslims, who claimed that they were voting for Palestine when they voted for the ANC, to withdraw their vote for the ANC because of the coalition between it and the pro-Zionist DA.
As Muslims living under kufr, we should be restless because we are deprived of the blessing of living under the Sharia. We should not be expending time and effort in prolonging our existence under kufr, let alone participating actively in its governance processes. We must be active campaigners to supplant kufr with the law of Allah. That is our task. That is the need of the hour. We encourage brother Ziyad to use his talents to help the ummah develop a strategy to establish the law of Allah Ta’aala throughout the world and to rid the ummah of the oppression (dhulm) that kufr, by its nature, imposes on mankind.
And Allah Ta’aala undoubtedly knows best! May He guide one and all to the right path!
