1. Introduction

This is the first opportunity that I have to address a gathering of the Muslim Youth Movement after the departure there from of five of us in 1983. Many here may not be aware of it, but the Call of Islam is - historically speaking - a group that splintered from the MYM. I am not exactly sure what is the meaning of my presence here today after a lapse of five years but, whatever, I trust that it augurs well for progressive Muslim unity and the common good of our country.

My presentation is titled "Mosques: The Battle for Control - Some Reflections". I prefer to describe my address here today as ‘reflections’ since that allows me to present an image of a humble scholar or observer without any pretensions to very definite theories, just sort of musings on something that I happen to be involved in. Referring to it as 'reflections' is also an escape device from the MYM request that I have a 'paper' that must be presented. 'Reflections' enables me to cough up such a paper without having to do all the academic input and research which normally would have been expected.

I may start my reflections with a brief overview of some of the current or recent battle zones or trouble spots. The list of current wars is so long that even the briefest of overviews would be a few pages, but I shall, nevertheless, try to be brief. After that I propose to deal with three such wars in detail since they are the clearest reflection of all the factors that go in to the waging of mosque wars. I will then reflect on some of the principles of Islam that are being violated or upheld during these battles and the role or potential role of progressive Islamists in their escalation or termination.

2. An Overview of Local Mosque Conflicts

Some of the current or recent local battles are being waged in Bonteheuwel, Belhar, Mountview, Hanover Park. St Athans Rd and Lentegeur. Skirmishes - sometimes behind the scenes - occcur on a painfully regular basis at numerous mosques all over the Cape such as Bridgetown and Valhallah Park at regular intervals. Rare indeed is the community where people have recollections of a period without "gielaaf" (controversy).

2.1 Bonteheuwel

The Sayed and Gool families initiated the project / built the mosque with an entrenched clause whereby the life trustees were to come from the following four entities: The Gool Family Trust, The Sayed Family Trust, Muslim News and the Islamic Publications Bureau. (The last three entities are virtually identical). This has been a perennial bone of contention in the community with disputes about the competence/incompetence and honesty/dishonesty of imams and legitimacy/illegitimacy of current committees providing regular side dramas of tragedy for the community. The current issue is the position of the Imam and the management of the child caring facility on the premises. Recently the Muslim Judicial Council’s Arbitration Committee facilitated an agreement whereby both parties would have equal numbers on the new committee with trustees to be elected at a general meeting.

At the general meeting the imam had sixty to seventy percent of the support of the residents present and ensured the election of trustees who are loyal to him. (Lists of names were supplied to people to indicate whom they should vote for.) The anti-Imam lobby was, however quite vociferous about allegations of embezzlement of mosque funds by the imam. An agreement was reached whereby a Commission of Enquiry was appointed to investigate the allegations. Such a commission was appointed by the joint mosque committee but was disbanded when the trustees (all the imam's supporters) insisted on the right to attend committee meetings and subsequently swamped the anti-imam elements. The pro-imam elements made much of the fact that the leaders of their opponents were all from outside the area "wat jy nooit wagtoes hier in die masjid kry nie". A few months had lapsed since the Commission which I chaired was disbanded - and our information is that there had been an absolute re-alignment of forces and that the struggle continues.

2.2 Hanover Park

A group of Imam Abu Bakr Simons' students had the Masjidur Rahmaan built in Hanover Park "for the Imam" after the forced removal of District Six inhabitants to that area. After a while, the imam preferred to move back to his previous mosque in Ellesmere Street where he is still serving. Sheikh Ebrahim Majiet is the present imam whilst Simons still teaches at the madrasah in Hanover Park. All of the original and legal committee members are from outside Hanover Park (Bo-Kaap, Walmer Estate, Surrey Estate and Woodstock). Several residents were co-opted on to the committee after considerable local pressure a year ago. They are still referred to as the "co-opts". The established members are bitterly opposed to the continued imamate of Majiet and have leveled allegations of incompetence, dishonesty, slander, vulgarity and some further unsavoury issues. All the local people on the committee - the co-opts - are determined to side with Majiet. (Majiet's side is being led by one Armin May who has announced his candidature for the tricameral elections.) Several dismissal notices were served on Majiet who casually ignored them and responded with scathing attacks on his opponents from the mimbar. His opponents do not seem to enjoy any local support and were unable to dislodge him.

The MJC adjudicated in this matter and found Majiet guilty of dishonesty, using abusive language and that "his role as leader leaves much to be desired". He was counseled and because of the enormous amount of community support for him, the committee was asked to re-instate him. The established committee was also requested to ensure that its administration is transformed "in such a manner which ensure that the people of Hanover Park have the final say over matters directly affecting them". The established committee members rejected the findings of the MJC - especially the request for Majiet to be re-instated and approaches were made to a group of obscurantist vigilantes to oust Majiet. The Council of Masajid intervened and the matter is now back with the Arbitration Committee of the MJC whose members – including myself - have officiated at the mosque for the previous two Fridays and who have effected Majiet's amicable departure.

2.3 Belhar

A Mr A Hamza was expelled from the Belhar Islamic Society in 1977. He left vowing to build his "own mosque which is going to be bigger than the one which you guys are busy with". Ten years afterwards he had fulfilled his promise. The Nurul Huda Mosque is one of the largest in Cape Town and the one being built by his opponents doesn't have a roof yet. He was the official collector of the society formed by himself (The Nurul Huda Islamic Society), earned ten percent commissions and at times earned up to five thousand rands per month. He, his two sons and a close friend were the life trustees of the society with his two cousins being additional trustees. ("I would have made my daughters also trustees if the Shari`ah allowed it."). He handled everything from the purchasing of new plots to the sound system for jumu`ah. His son was the caretaker and his wife cleaned the mosque’s towels.

He alone appointed imams and - being an ardent Shakierite – [a Cape based neo-Mu`tazilite group named after the late Shaikh Shakier Gamildien] ensured that all the imams came from those quarters. They were handsomely remunerated - up to one thousand three hundred rands per month; All of this for a mosque that on a very good night gets a crowd of five worshippers. All went seemingly well until Imam Mi`raj Abrahamse - also a Shakierite - left due to some wage disagreemeent and after Hamza insisted that Abrahamse move into the three-roomed residence built for the imam. All hell broke loose and the community revolted in a display of bitterness, rage and venom at what was regarded as Hamza’s tyrannical behaviour. To quote from the MJC judgment in the matter, "We have rarely seen such a remarkable man with such commitment and yet an enormous capacity to alienate people."

His initial response of "Tell them all that they can go to hell and to enjoy the journey" gave way to a more amenable attitude after careful and gentle diplomacy. It was a community pitted against a single person. "Hamza was the society and the society was Hamza." (All quotes taken from MJC judgment in Belhar dispute.) The dispute has been resolved and a local committee under the chairpersonship of the MJC is now conducting its affairs until a general meeting is going to be held after a long period of reconstruction. The new committee is minus Hamza, minus all the previous officials who have crossed swords with him and minus the people who led the fight against him. Certain individuals have also been banned for various periods from any involvement in the affairs of the society.

These are a few examples of the kind of conflict permeating the management of mosques where the struggle seemingly rotates around pointless personality clashes. Others are more explicitly ideological or ethno-cultural. A Recent example of the former is the St Athans Rd dispute where Qiblah elements had clearly claimed a victory in having liberated the mosque until the whole coup was aborted with the active support of the obscurantist vigilantes. A dispute with strong ethno-cultural overtones is the Bosmont dispute where the MJC was called in because "ons is mos daarem eie. Ons is almal Afekaaners".

3. The Causes of these Conflicts:

3.1 Philantropism versus Community building

Many a person or groups of people of 'goodwill' want to do something for Islam; something which also enables them to feel good about it. The building of a House for Allah to these people is the purest form of good. The notion that they could be building a structure which is merely a compensation for a broken ego, or compensation for guilt at the exploitation of workers or for their conspicuous consumerism seldom occur to these people. That their norms and values have been shaped by their business practices or class position which often mean condescension towards the ordinary worshipper - especially if the mosque is in aa working class area - escapes them entirely. Mosques are then run like shops or factories with the owners completely unaccountable to the consumer. When communities revolt against the management then the latter often responds with astonishment? "Can't they see what we have built for them?" This is not unlike the response of kind and gentle boss who is faced with demands by workers for a share in the company's profits. The dispute at the Mountview mosque is a case in point: "We did not go around to collect money from the community and thus there can exist no democracy regarding the affairs of the mosque. We have ignored the letter of the musallis". Thus spoke the chairperson of the Mountview mosque.

The Arbitration Committee of the MJC made the following pertinent point in a recent judgement: "The Houses of Allah are administered for Allah by individuals or a group who do so on behalf of the community and with public funds. It is quite unlike a private company that is only accountable to its shareholders. The general public does not have to have a direct financial share in a mosque for it to demand accountability."

Bonteheuwel and Hanover Park are another two manifestations of this and the result has been a legacy of bitterness and alienation on the part of ordinary congregants who are desperate for a say in the running of the affairs of their mosque. I remember - as a child in Bonteheuwel - the awe and reverence with which we regarded the Sayed family and how all eyes turned towards them whenever they came to the mosque. I remember how everything had to 'wait for Rashid' before the matter could be finalised. They were nice, but the man who represented them was deeply resented - not unlike the village mukhtar or tax collector of the great Pasha who sat in Istanbul. In Hanover Park we find a subtler version of the same condescension. The more "decent people" built the mosque and cannot let ownership pass into the hands of the local "Dicks, Toms and Harries." The conflict around Majiet may pass but the burning issue of community control over a mosque in their area is going to emerge again.

This process of erecting mosques is fortunately an exception to the norm in the Cape and hence the response of revolt - even if delayed. This is the accepted pattern in Natal and the Transvaal which ensures the relative absence of conflict, the presence of docility and the reduction of mosques to well managed temples of ritual whose towels are changed by some sanitary company. This form of control is sometimes compounded by the presence of formidable individuals who become the focus of antagonism. I am sure that many of those present here can identify at least one such character who came to epitomize all the woes of mosque battles. Referring to one such entity I - in a recently delivered judgment - said: "What we have here is a truly remarkable man with an enormous capacity for work. It is however beyond dispute that the construction of any structure - especially a masjid - is unacceptable if the price - oor initial impetus for its building is dissension and antagonism. This is confirmed by the shar`i principle of daf`ul mufsada muqaddamun `ala jalbi`l –manfa`ah (warding off dissension takes precedence over bringing about benefits).

A mosque is not only a building; it is an idea, a sacred building, a centre of worship and community life. A masjid is for Allah as he says in the Qur’an "And indeed the mosques are for Allah so call not in partnership with Allah any other deities (Surah Jinn, 18). However, He is ilahin-nas", the Lord of Humankind, and so one cannot build a House for Him and be indifferent to people or walk over them in the process of building that house. One cannot therefore, say, that the mosque is for Allah so damn the people." It must also be borne in mind that a masjid in Islam is not exclusively a house of ritual worship but a centre for the development and growth of the community of Muslims. Even the Ka'bah al-Sharifah is referred to by Allah as in the Qur`an as the "first house determined for humankind".

Our finding is that in this case people felt walked over and thus alienated from the mosque because one person with an enormous capacity to alienate people is synonymous with the mosque.

He became the mosque, his contempt for them was returned and those who rejected him felt under obligation to reject involvement with the mosque and even the mosque itself. Their contempt or indifference towards the mosque led to greater burdens falling on him which he readily assumed with all the determination of a martyr.

He did appeal for people to come forward to assist. People seldom responded to these calls and when they did, they found themselves without any say in the project. When they demanded such a say his response was to "tell them that they did not come to work for a say or name and fame but for Allah and if they did not want to work for Allah then they can f...  off."

The presence of these personality types only compound the problem although they are often seen as the problem. They abound especially in working class areas and much of the theory of arbitration and mediation that one may have learnt at workshops or seminars goes to the wind when one comes up against gut level rawness and mudslinging. A recent meeting between two parties who seemed to know nothing about meeting procedure left me quite exasperated. They were standing up and interrupting all the time and were doing so "on a point" all the time. Whenever I asked "On a point of what are you standing and demanding the floor? I was stared at as if I had two heads.

Despite all of this, people have the right to govern their own lives and to run their own affairs. In one such area recently I had definite proof that the community was electing a dishonest person as their leader and they were not interested in the proof of such accusations at all. We did not intervene and today there is a community discovery of the worth - or lack of it - of this imam. Thhe point though, is that the community went through a process of discovering it and grew through it. It may be minus a few hundred rand extra that may have been embezzled in the meanwhile but it was their experience. Far too often do well-meaning but naive and paternalistic individuals arrogate to themselves the right to determine the direction and pace of growth in poorer communities.

Tension and conflict is not always negative and there is such a thing such as creative tension. Conflict often has its roots in structural causes and the ad-hoc intervention of the do-gooders do little to empower ordinary communities or facilitate the building of communities. One is not suggesting a disengagement of professionals or businesspeople from the working class communities but an involvement under their leadership and allowing oneself to be transformed by that involvement on the basis of the dominant values of those communities - values that, upon closer examination, are far closer to prophetic norms than that which we desire to teach them.

3.2 Theocratic Fascism vs Liberation Theology

There is a particular personality type that lends itself to religious leadership. I now run the risk of being too psychologistic but believe that even this has structural causes. People who work towards religious leadership are often insecure and unfulfilled individuals with a deep hunger for respect. The hold that religion has over the minds and hearts of people ensures immediate reverence for the repository of its skills mystique and secrets. The religious profession is one profession wherein you do not have to display any competence to be regarded as a somebody and the ways of joining the fraternity are numerous and extremely flexible that allows the owner of the minimum gray matter to slip through. The professionalization of Islam enables this to continue and we - the clergy - remain the ones who control the community. Personal insecurity often leads to bullying and that is what we end up doing with our communities. Religious leaders skirt behind the garb of their supposed or real knowledge and very often deliberately and calculatedly confuse their supposed or real knowledge with their very often insecure and inadequate persons. "I am the carrier of knowledge. To respect knowledge is to respect me."

This breeds contempt for ordinary people who may be ignorant of the laws but filled with the spirit of Islam. Committees - especially the ones elected by their communities - often represent that spirit but the imam is contemptuous of them. Through their contact with him on a regular basis they are often exposed to his inadequacies that may escape the Friday worshipper or the Big-Night frequenter. Most ordinary people are impressed with the skills of oratory - or demagogary - and hardly distinguish between style and content. Little Hitlers then emerge as Big Hits with ordinary congregants.

Being the personification of religion and religion being perfect it means that we are beyond reproach. When gaps are discovered in our performance by committees then it is often too late. The Imam had by then established his position as an orator and the embodiment of the community's religious life. (Communities of course - through sheer lack of motivation - more than willingly transfer this responsibility of their religious life on to the imam). The imam now appeals to the community who more often than not demands his re-instatement. The imam becomes a law unto his own and the presence of another law - when another imam moves into the area - has often set the scene for the bitterest of feuds. Achmat Davids' "Mosques of the Bo-Kaap" is littered with accounts of such wars.

In a recent mosque dispute one of the parties asked for the mosque built by the opposing entity to be declared a masjid al-dirar - a Mosque of dissension - the effect of which would be to denounce the building and declare the performance of prayers therein as invalid, or to raze it to the ground or to reconsecrate it as waqf. I was about to take the issue seriously and began intensive jurisprudential research into it when my colleagues on the Arbitration Committee warned me not to open a can of worms that will make the controversy of `Id with Mecca look like a squabble over lollipops. The Western Cape - I then learnt - abounds with mosques that have built to accommodate unaccommodating high priests who could not descend from their thrones - or is it mimbars?

The following text from Surah al-Taubah - instead of being a law to protect Muslims from anarchy and to ensure fear of Allah - becomes cannon fodder with which to destroy the enemy:

And they (the hypocrites) who have established a separate house of worship in order to create mischief and to promote apostasy and disunity among the believers... have been warring against Allah and His apostle. And they will swear to you, "We had the best of intentions!" - while Allah Himself bears witness that they are lying.

Never set foot in such a place! Only a house of worship founded from the very first day upon God-consciousness and a desire for his goodly acceptance is worthy of your setting foot therein [a masid] wherein there are people desirous of growing in purity, for Allah loves those who purify themselves.

We have often argued that there is no priesthood in Islam but have failed to take cognizance of the fact that Muslims do have priests and that there is no process for their authentication or rejection. I sometimes wonder if the standardization of religious learning and its professionalization is not a useful short-term option to consider. Even if it means working towards a definition of a Gatiep, Imam, Shaikh, Maulana or Mufti. Amongst Muslim professionals it is trendy to malign the `ulama and to rubbish them as obstacles to any kind of progressive Islam. I view this as bourgeois contempt for the most authentic form of leadership ever evolved by our community. The imams are the products of our community. They are the barometres of where our people are; to reject them is too reject our people. They are there because of their personal ambitions but also because of the educational, emotional and spiritual needs of the people. That they do such an appalling job and are never deposed is a reflection on all of us and our own failure to provide any meaningful or significant alternative individuals or structures.

I have earlier on argued that it is a particular type of individual who lends himself to religious leadership in the imam sense of the word. I would also like to suggest that it is a particular type of Islam that lends itself to being exploited by such individuals. It is the Islam of with vestiges of Hindu mythology, anecdotes of the Isrealites, spurious ahadith and a fossilized corpus of dated jurisprudential idiosyncracies. It is only an Islam for which enacting responsibility can be transferred to a guru in the shape of the omnipotent imam that can be abused. An Islam of reason, dynamism, spiritual depth and progress can only draw believers who want to run their own Islamic shows. I believe that the only long-term solution to the of the problem of this mutually destructive symbiotic relationship between priest/quack and patient is the deprofessionalization of Islam; a deproffessionalization which comes from a theology which is liberated from obscurantism and which liberates people from fascist theology and socio-economic and political oppression.

The kind of personality clashes that have characterized mosque disputes and the slavish adherence to the cult of the personality has been relatively absent in the ranks of the Islamic Movement in South Africa and I would want to ascribe this to the fact that it has sought to cultivate responsible Muslims - responsible in the sense that people are encouraged to assume responsibility for their own lives.
 
Much has been done to liberate Islam and to approppriate it as a comprehensive ideal for all of humankind and a tool for the destruction of socio-economic oppression in our land. If this very significant - although limited trend is to continue - then the days of "Ja maar Shaikh Ighsaan het gese" is clearly numbered".

I have earlier on referred to the contempt that working class people are held in by proffessionals who manage the affairs of mosques. We must also be alert to the dangers of Islam becoming the fiefdom of Islamist yuppies who theorise about the mustadafin fi’l-ard without any kind of involvement with them and whose theories are born and nurtured in isolation from their struggles. A theology of liberation is one wherein the Word of Allah interacts dialectically with the work of Allah - people, especially the ones for whom He displays "a preferential option" - if may borrow that Catholic phrase - "of the poor and non-person". Communities are sensitive about people who enter their lives to organize or conscientize them in a condescending fashion and will eventually revolt against such a mosque management even if it were conducted in an efficient manner because they know when are being ignored - even being trampled upon - and of being an object in another's worldview. Our authenticity is determined by our willingness become of them and by the struggle to be transformed by them even as we strive to transform them.

Many of us in the contemporary Islamic movement have done an enormous amount to shake the thrones of religious monopolists who appropriated Islam for their own unfulfilled lives and broken egos. The wide-scale availability of Islamic literature in English, the easy access to translations of the Qur’an and the mushrooming of groups to reflect on their Islam and its role in society are some of the terribly exciting manifestations of this. However, we need to understand the need for us to go beyond ourselves and not to be a sophisticated substitute for incorrigible drones who masquerade in the priestly garbs of religion. We cannot be a substitute for them. The people must take responsibility for their religious lives. This ought to be the ideal that we must work towards.

The Claremont Main Rd phenomenon is an interesting and exciting one. The idea of an imam calling his congregation and reflecting with them on current issues - even if they are essentially theological - and enabling them to participate in decision-making is the kind of movement that I am thinking about. I believe that this is the only mosque in the country and the first one where community consultation is meaningful and participatory. The fact that the mosque is not located within a community and that - to the casual observer - only middle class people frequent these reflections (- only they would bother to drive out there - are two serious negative factors in that process. Pointers for the future are, however, being created and one cannot underestimate the value of that process.

3.3 Shura (mutual consultation) versus Control

The community around the mosque and the frequenters thereof are the people most directly affected by decisions pertaining to its affairs and yet are often deprived of the lowest level of consultation - an Annual General Meeting whereby they can be informed about the affairs of the masjid. A masjid is the focus of the vertical-horizontal quest of a Muslim. It is here where we attempt to reach to Allah whilst we reach out to each other. The role of the Prophet's mosque in Madinah is the clearest manifestation of this and this is underlined by the numerous exhortations to the worshipper to offer his/her prayers in congregation. It is therefore interesting to note that Allah refers to the mosques as for Him and yet 'for humankind'. In Surah Jinn: 17 Allah says: "And Indeed, the masajid are for Allah so call not in partnership with Him any other deities." Allah also refers to the Masjidul Haram on two occassions as "my house" (Baqarah, 125 and Haj, 26) whilst He on one occasion refers to Himself as 'The Lord of this House' (Quraysh, 3). However, in Surah Ali Imran: 96, He, referring to the Ka'bah, says that "the first house determined for humankind was indeed the one at Bakkah (Mecca)". Now, I am not unaware that the usual explanation of this verse is quite simply that the first direction of prayers fixed for worshippers to face was Mecca. The fact, though, that He is ilah al-nas (the Lord of Humankind) does make my alternative understanding - that masajid are also houses for humankind - perfectly plausible.

If consultation in the general affairs of the community is regarded as obligatory in the Shari'ah then it follows that this must be the case with a building that is 'for them'. Only Allah can use the expression 'for them' with its grace or kindness connotations and not any of His subjects - including wealthy philantrophistts who may want to believe that they are building a place of worship 'for them'. They build it for Allah but the community or its delegated agents become the material owners or guardians thereof.

Although there are only two verses in the Quran which contain a direct reference to shura there are number of references to it being practised. Abu Hurairah (RA) has said: "I have never seen anyone else who consults with his companions more than the Prophet." As for the two direct references, In Surah Ali Imran, 159 Allah says: "It is by the Mercy of Allah that you were lenient with them, for if you had been rough and hard-hearted they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult with them on the matter". Referring to this verse, Shaikh Muhammad Al-Awwah, the Egyprian jurist, says: "The Qur’anic text was revealed in a manner and circumstances which were definite, leaving no room for any doubt that shura was one of the basic principles of the Islamic ... system and one of the highest values which the Muslim Ummah should always and under all circumstances adhere to." Whilst the compulsory nature of shura is established by the context of revelation of the above verse it is inherent in the text of the other, (Shura, 38) wherein Allah describes the believers as those "who conduct their affairs by shura". He says: "And those who answer the call of their Lord and establish prayer and who conduct their affairs by shura, and who spend of what we have bestowed upon them". Here the obligation of shura is given equal importance as the other fundamentals such as Salah and Zakah. “It is then no small wonder that the early jurists have determined 'that shura is of the aza’im al-ahkam (major commandments) which should be enforced, not abandoned' and that it is an 'undisputed obligation of Muslims to remove a ruler who relinquishes shura'. “(Al-Awwah)

In the beginning of my paper I referred to 'the role or potential role of Islamists in the escalation or termination of battles for control of masajid'. I was clearly suggesting that the escalation of such wars is an option - indeed, at times even obligation on them and on the community. If it is a shar'i obligation on Muslims to remove a ruler who has abandoned shura then it follows that it is a shar'i obligation on a community to remove a committee that has abandoned shura. Most jurist hold that this an obligation irrespective of the competence or otherwise of the although there is a minority opinion that such an obligation only arises in the face of manifest injustice.

There are numerous mosque committees all over the Cape whose constitutions bind them to the conducting of an annual general meeting and yet their communities cannot recall when last - if ever - one was held. Indifferent and alienated congregants just troop off to another mosque in a surrounding area - where they don't mind being ignored because they sense that they have no territorial claim on that mosque - or they just don't bother with congregational prayers any more.

There are times - and perhaps mercifully so - when the entrenched authorities – often referred to as 'bosses' - cross the threshold of decency and community indifference and alienation give way to a wave a anger, bitterness and resentment. It can even pour forth with suddenness and on a scale which leaves everyone astounded despite years of apparent docility. "We are astounded that it took the community so long to revolt," stated a recent MJC judgment. Says a hadith of the Prophet (PBUH): Allah's curse is on the person who leads a people whilst they hold him in contempt". The curse of Allah must take effect and we as the agents of Allah on earth must ensure that it does.
 
There are suggestions that attempts should be made by overseeing bodies such as the Muslim Judicial Council or the Council of Masajid to enforce the conducting of such meetings. This is a bit myopic in that it does not take cognizance of the organizational weakness of these entities, the structural reasons for community apathy and committee control, and the fact that no single Muslim organization commands the allegiance of all the Muslims. It also ignores the inevitable failure of any solution which is imposed from the top and for which there is insufficient grassroots preparedness. The failure of the Qiblah takeover of the Masjidus Salam in St Athans Rd Mosque - with which I shall deal in greater detail later on - is reflective of the last point when an entire community stood on as spectators in a battle for control of their mosque.

Communities have a duty to revolt when not only shura but also muhasabah (accountability) are being violated. Money that is even more sacred than public money is involved and the absence of public scrutiny of those funds can only lead to corruption. Innuendo and open allegations litter our community about the financial affairs of a large number of mosques and societies. Occasionally these accusations are baseless but are the obvious consequence of non-accountability. People have the right to believe that there is something to be hidden if you refuse to face them in public about the use or abuse of their money.

I have refered at length to the conduct or non-conduct of Annual General Meetings. I must point out that this is the minimum requirement for a mosque committee that still reflects a community having transferred responsibility for the conduct of its affairs to a group of people whom they only hear from in a detailed manner once every year. Mosques - all of us will agree - are the foci of Muslim communityy life. This is where our community is being built, our cries being echoed, our spiritual wounds being healed and our socio-economic problems being confronted. This is after all the story of Madinah. If all of this is true then shura, when applied to a masjid's congregation, cannot mean a community coming along once a year and listening to what has been decided for them or what was done on their behalf in the past year. Shura - in this sense - does not mean consultation but nothing less than a process of participatory democracy with the trustees being the supervisors and guardians of that process.

4. Ideological Battles

A comparative study of contemporary mosque disputes with that of, say, ten years ago will reveal some fascinating differences. The most important difference to my mind is that a number of current battles have a distinctly ideological air about them that was relatively absent ten or twenty years ago. I am not suggesting that a community battle against a group of outsiders for control of their mosque or a battle to depose a Shafi’i imam and replace him with a Hanafi has nothing ideological about it but am referring to a struggle which is essentially ideological even if it has a central figure around whom the battle may seemingly rotate and which may give the battle an air of the cult of the personality. There has been a number of sporadic attempts to unseat dynasty mosques where families or ethnic clans were constitutionally entrenched and to substitute these entities with democratically elected officials. Most - if not all - of these attempts have failed and resentment about the blatantly racist nature of constitutions such as that of the Grey Street mosque, in Durban, the Muir Street mosque in Cape Town or the Laudium mosque in Pretoria is muted and limited to the isolated pockets of progressive Islamists.

The peaceful functioning of these committees is a sad reflection of where exactly our community and a tonic for the Islamist romantic who thinks that our community - even if the community is defined as those living in the Western Cape - is firmly in the camp of the progressive and democratic forces in our country. Every single mosque built in an Indian area before 1980 has a race clause in its constitution. The destruction of racist constitutions was one of the passions of the Muslim Youth Movement in its heydays and a past president, Abu Bakr Mohammad, vowed publicly that he would tear up the constitution of the Grey Street mosque rather than take up the seat reserved for him as the young and upcoming leader of their clan. Nothing came of that. Nothing much can be said about such battles against racist constitutions because there are hardly any and this, by itself, is an indictment on the community.

The community has over the last ten years witnessed very distinctly ideological battles for control over mosques. The two entities who have been the most enthusiastic actors in this field has been the Qiblites and the Shakirites. The latter have, of course, been much more successful than the former with its acquisition of no less than eight mosques - or minbars if not mosques - and the former is saddled with a bloodied nose after its evacuation of the Stegmann Rd Mosque, its retreat from Hanover Park, the abortion of the St Athans Rd mosque coup attempt and its current disenchantment with the Claremont Main Rd Mosque.

The strategy or modus operandi of the Shakierites has been far more traditional than that of their counterparts and this accounts for their success. Students of Shaikh Shakier got themselves appointed/were appointed to the posts of imam in the traditional manner and generally did a good job wherever they were. The fact that this group is also deeply committed to ongoing learning, that it does so in the most sophisticated, consistent and organized manner and that they meet on a weekly basis to discuss community issues and its inclusion in the forthcoming khutbah has gone a long way in their entrenchment in their posts. Their sermons clearly come across as topical and well researched. It is often controversial but this usually serves to enhance their popularity. Their skillful use of jurisprudential language and powerful symbols of Sunni Islam such as Al-Azhar has enabled then to be an organic part of the community that cannot be wished away. Presently they are in control of the following mosques: Lentegeur, Aspeling Street, Duinefontein, Heideveld, Upper Chiappini Street and Kalk Bay. The imam of the Fifth Avenue mosque is a “grandstudent” - in the grandson meaning - of Shaikh Shakier but that entirre Southern Suburbs region is under the sway of the MJC or its president and his imamate there does not really amount to much in terms of Shakirite hegemony. They have shown a willingness to resort to violence and gangsterism to retain their positions in mosques and ensure the enforcement of their jurisprudential positions such as on the slaughtering methods of beef, the direction of the Qiblah and lately on the question of `Id With Mecca. The drama surrounding all of these and the controversy generated by their escapades often obscures the fact that this not essentially the reason for their influence. Their influence is enforced by these but its roots are essentially in the successful way that they have appealed to a significant sector of the community on the basis of the latter's own symbols and religious language.