Website: www.aaiil.uk

Ahmadiyya Muslim court case in Cape Town, South Africa, 40 years ago

Friday Khutba by Dr Zahid Aziz, for Lahore Ahmadiyya UK, 14 November 2025

“Say: Who gives you sustenance from the heavens and the earth? Say: Allah. And surely we or you are on a right way or in manifest error. Say: You will not be asked of what we are guilty, nor shall we be asked of what you do. Say: Our Lord will gather us together, then He will judge between us with truth. And He is the Best Judge, the Knower.” — ch. 34, Saba, v. 24–26

قُلۡ مَنۡ یَّرۡزُقُکُمۡ مِّنَ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ قُلِ اللّٰہُ ۙ وَ اِنَّاۤ اَوۡ اِیَّاکُمۡ لَعَلٰی ہُدًی اَوۡ فِیۡ ضَلٰلٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ ﴿۲۴﴾ قُلۡ لَّا تُسۡـَٔلُوۡنَ عَمَّاۤ اَجۡرَمۡنَا وَ لَا نُسۡـَٔلُ عَمَّا تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ ﴿۲۵﴾ قُلۡ یَجۡمَعُ بَیۡنَنَا رَبُّنَا ثُمَّ یَفۡتَحُ بَیۡنَنَا بِالۡحَقِّ ؕ وَ ہُوَ الۡفَتَّاحُ الۡعَلِیۡمُ ﴿۲۶﴾

I have recited these verses because today I will be relating to you some aspects of a court case which was coming to a close exactly forty years ago in Cape Town. This day in 1985 I was sitting about 6000 miles from London in a court room in Cape Town, listening to the conclusion of a case presented before the judge by advocates on behalf of our Jamaat in that city. I was there as the translator and interpreter for our great scholar the late Maulana Hafiz Sher Mohammad, who had been in the witness box, giving testimony as an expert on Islam and on our Jamaat’s religious beliefs. Before the case he had prepared documents in Urdu, which largely I, but also one or two other persons, had translated into English. During the hearing of the case, from 5 November to 14 November, when he was in the witness box for about five and a half days, I stood besides him and interpreted for him between Urdu and English.

The court case had been started in 1982 by our Jamaat in Cape Town, to be exact on behalf of one of our members, the late Mr Ismail Peck. It was mainly against a body of Sunni Muslim religious leaders, called the Muslim Judicial Council or MJC. This body had been inciting the Muslim public to hatred, violence and social ostracism against our members by publishing allegations that we are kafir and outside the fold of Islam. Mosques under their control were denying entry to our members. There was a cemetery in Cape Town whose land had been given long ago by the British King to be used as a burial ground for the Muslim community. Its trustees, under the influence of the MJC, were denying our members burial rights in that cemetery. Our Jamaat was seeking court orders against them to say that as we are Muslims we cannot be libelled as having left Islam, and we cannot be denied entry into mosques or burial in that cemetery.

Before any court hearing takes place, there is an exchange of documents between the two parties, in which one party puts forward its claim and the other party gives reasons why the claim is wrong. Our Jamaat, in filing its claim, naturally stated that any person who accepts the five pillars of Islam — that is, the Kalima, prayer, fasting, zakat and Hajj — is a Muslim. As we accept these, we are Muslims. Our opponents, in their document of reply, wrote:

“Acceptance of such principles alone does not constitute the touchstone by which a person is properly identified as a Muslim. There are many other principles and beliefs, acceptance of which is essential to the true Muslim and failure to accept which constitutes apostasy.”

They went on to list reasons why they regard Ahmadis as outside Islam. The two main ones were that (1) we accept as our religious leader the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who (according to them) claimed to be a prophet, and (2) that we deny belief in Jihad or religious war against unbelievers in Islam. Our side asked them, if, as you say, there are many things apart from the five pillars which a person must accept in order to be a Muslim, then give us a list of all of them. They replied: We don’t need to inform you of all of them; we are saying that you are failing to accept some of them.

This is a plain and clear admission that they cannot give any positive definition of who is a Muslim. The reason is that once they give a list of all that person must believe in order to be a Muslim, then power goes out of their hands if someone fulfils those requirements. They want to be able to declare any Muslim that they want to as being outside the fold of Islam on some grounds that they conjure up by their own whim, and that is not possible if they tie their own hands by giving a definition.

Our opponents in Cape Town, the MJC, in preparing their case, had called upon help from the top-most Islamic scholars and legal experts from Pakistan. They presented their names and qualifications in the list of witnesses who were going to appear in court on their behalf. These advisors held very high positions in Pakistan in the religious and legal fields, and were public figures whose names often appeared in the newspapers in some connection or other. No one else in the world was better qualified, or more knowledgeable or more experienced than these specialists to prove that Ahmadis are not Muslims. They had decades of experience in this murky work. Yet, as later events showed, they were never intending to appear in court. The parading of their qualifications was only done to impress the court. By comparison, on our side we had merely one expert witness, Maulana Hafiz Sher Mohammad.

In order to avoid defending their standpoint against us in court, they presented another argument. They submitted a plea to the court that as the case involves the determination of religious questions, it is not appropriate for a non-religious court, such as the Supreme Court of the Cape Province, to try to resolve these questions. They further stated that the question whether Ahmadis are Muslim or not had already been decided by various Muslim religious bodies based in Muslim countries, and therefore the court in Cape Town should accept the decision of those bodies which was that Ahmadis are non-Muslims. When the court hearings opened in November 1984, the year before the final hearings, our opponents applied to the court that it should first decide on the question:

“whether or not the Court should decline to hear the merits of the dispute as to whether Ahmadis are Muslims or not”.

Our opponents and the distinguished experts who had travelled from Pakistan to be in court were desperate to prevent the matter of “whether Ahmadis are Muslims or not, according to the Quran, Hadith and Islamic teachings” being discussed in court. As a result, the judge postponed the hearings till he had determined their plea. It was next July, 1985, that he delivered his ruling, saying that the courts of their country can certainly rule on doctrinal disputes when necessary. He added:

“Indeed it appears to me that the resolution of the question whether Ahmadis are Muslims or not may well be more fairly and dispassionately decided by a secular Court such as this than by some other tribunal composed of theologians.”

But the anti-Ahmadiyya Muslim religious leaders cannot accept any fair and impartial forum, but only one which they have control over.

The date of 5 November 1985 was now set for the hearing to resume, at which we would present our case, our opponents would raise their objections to it, then they would present their case and we would raise our objections to it. When the hearing opened, the advocate for our opponents announced in court that they do not accept that the court can rule on this issue, and therefore they:

“wish no longer to participate in these proceedings”.

Our opponents, their lawyers and their supporters, who had filled the courtroom, then walked out. This meant that the case would have to proceed on a one-sided basis. Maulana Hafiz Sher Mohammad had prepared a detailed presentation about who is entitled to call himself a Muslim, what are our beliefs, and that the allegations against us, on the basis of which we are declared as outside Islam, are all false. He was in the witness box for five and a half days, and under questioning from our own advocate he went through all his presentation. Our opponents had themselves chosen not to put their case. Judgment was given on Wednesday 20 November 1985. The judge summarised all the religious and legal evidence presented, and on the basis of that he granted our member, who had started the case in his name, the verdict that he “is declared to be a Muslim and as such to be entitled to all such rights and privileges as pertain to Muslims.” The case was over and the verdict was in our favour.

It is important to remember that the court was not deciding who is a real and true Muslim as a Muslim should be. It was deciding who is the person, according to Islam, that other Muslims should consider as a Muslim and a member of the Muslim community in this world’s life. We wanted that judgment in order have our rights as Muslims established, such as the right to be safe from accusations that we are outside Islam, the right to enter mosques for prayer, and the right to use any facilities, such as the cemetery in question, intended for use by Muslims. To define who is a Muslim for those purposes, Islam has set a very low bar and threshold, in order to make the Muslim community as broad as possible. It has taught Muslims that anyone who acknowledges the Kalima or appears on the face of it to pray as Muslims should or calls himself a Muslim even without having much understanding of the religion, should be regarded by them as a fellow-Muslim as far as his or her rights in this world are concerned.

Of course, the goal which we set for ourselves is not to remain at that basic level, but to follow Islam to the utmost in terms of having faith in it, practising it and developing within us all the qualities that Islam requires a Muslim to show. That is our concern, for which we are responsible before Allah, but how good or bad we are as Muslims, how right or wrong our beliefs are, is not the concern or business of any other Muslim, or religious institution, or court of law or government.

This court case proved that the anti-Ahmadiyya religious leaders and legal experts themselves know, and know for certain, that their claim that members of the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement are not Muslims has no basis whatsoever when judged in any fair and impartial forum by the standards of the Quran and Hadith. Otherwise, they would have appeared in court, believing that they had a chance of winning. The verses I recited at the beginning require us to say to others: Either we are right or you are right, either we are wrong or you are wrong, neither party will be held responsible by Allah for what the other party did. In other words, why are you so concerned about us being wrong, when you will not be bearing responsibility for it? It is Allah Who will judge us, and He is the Best Judge, and His judgment is what matters in the end.

Lastly, may Allah accept the services of all those members of our Jamaat around the world, inside and outside South Africa, whose sacrifices led to this great victory for us humble ones — Ameen. And that was only possible by the help of Allah.

Website: www.aaiil.uk