A discourse with the editor reveals failures and fears to take on Islamic fundamentalism.

By Lawrence Nowosenetz

The Daily Friend (DFr) is a publication of the South African Institute of Race Relations, a proud an distinguished organisation established almost 100 years ago which has always stood for promoting democracy, freedom and rule of law. In short, classical liberalism. 

In a recent text conversation with Michael Morris (MM) the editor of DFr I drew his attention to the statement of Dr Imtiaz Sooliman, head of Gift of the Givers who was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Cape Town.  This subject was the basis of an article by the writer:  University of Cape Town’s ultimate degradation – honouring Dr Sooliman (Lay of the Land 31 March 2026).

Dr Sooliman who is widely lauded as a great humanitarian expressed some extreme views which are quite irreconcilable with democracy and freedom. In a public interview on 7 October 2024, being the first anniversary of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, he said:

“I don’t follow international law or human law. I follow Koranic law. I am a Muslim. I don’t need any permission from anybody in the world to tell me what to do. I break the laws all the time. Breaking the law is laws of the West and people and governments. It’s not Islamic law. I follow Islamic law, and Islamic law overrides any other law. … I don’t have to follow any law. My law is very clear to me. Allah himself has instructed me. I don’t need men to tell me what to do. I don’t follow them.”

Islamic law is quite different to Western law in that whereas democracy separates the state and its legal authority from religion, Koranic law is theocratic and makes no such distinction. The supreme authority is a religious leader whose authority cannot be questioned or challenged by legal restraints.  Sharia, the legal framework of Koranic law does not protect individual rights as understood in liberal democracy. It is repressive and authoritarian. Women and homosexuals are oppressed and discriminated against. Apostacy is punishable by death.  Historically non-Muslims were given the status of Dhimmi in Muslim countries where they were treated as inferiors, had to pay a special tax and had to dress in a certain way to identify themselves as non-Muslims. This is where the Star of David attached to the clothing of Jews originated. These practices are no longer followed but indicate the fundamentalism of Sharia law. Today Iran and Afghanistan are examples of Islamist repressive authoritarian theocratic rule. 

Mr Morris was invited by the writer to express whether this statement of Dr Sooliman was in accordance with democracy and the rule of law in South Africa. He was not in agreement. He was not prepared to say that the statement of Dr Sooliman was a clear expression of rejection of South African law. His opposition to censuring Dr Sooliman for his adherence to a theocratic ideology and rejection of man-made law are worth examining in order to expose the serious flaws. At the outset Mr Morris endorses a dispassionate approach and in a spirit of enquiry, whether he lives up to that desirable standard is in doubt:   

MM: “The statement was short and cannot be taken on face value.  The true test of what he meant would be to interview Dr Sooliman to obtain clarity or provide further context.”

There is a profound moral principal involved being that people are accountable for their deeds. Speech is included. More so when the statement is made publicly by a public figure such as Dr Sooliman. It is perfectly proper and widely practised to comment on face value of what prominent people say.  Importantly, although he made this statement in 2024, despite countless interviews he has given since then, he has never modified or repudiated a single word.   Strangely he has never been asked what he meant. No one seems to have misunderstood his message. His statement was sufficiently comprehensive to confirm that he rejects laws of man. His language is plain and unambiguous.   Shorter statements than his such as political slogans have traction and are usually well understood without any embellishment.      

MM: “It is unfair to single out the “fervent religiosity” used by Dr Sooliman as it is much like the views by Jewish and Christian fundamentalists who declare they owe fealty only to God and no other. There have been comments to this effect made by readers of the DFr.  Are they also subversive of the very values UCT should be safeguarding?”

There is a fundamental difference between the fundamentalist readers of DFr and Dr Sooliman. He is a public figure who received a high honour for his humanitarianism. This is unique and unprecedented. No leader, whether fundamentalist or otherwise has publicly rejected the law of South Africa in the democratic era. The last time that happened was during   Apartheid.

Islamism is radically different to any Jewish or Christian “fervent religiosity”. The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, political Islam, which Dr Sooliman supports goes much further. It promotes using violence in the form of Jihad to establish domination and power in non-Muslim countries. Dr Sooliman, through Gift of the Givers made donations to Al Aqsa Foundation, an organisation forming part of the Union of Good, a coalition of Islamic charities supporting Hamas’ infrastructure, an organisation on the US State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations.  The chairman of Union of Good was Sheik Yusef Al-Qaradawi a high-ranking member of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2011, Dr Sooliman received an award from Sheik Yusef Al- Qaradawi for his service to Palestine.   Al-Qaradawi is known as the key figure in shaping the concept of violent jihad and the one who allowed carrying out terror attacks, including suicide bombing attacks, against Israeli citizens, the US forces in Iraq, and some of the Arab regimes. He was banned from entering some Western and Arab countries. A true humanitarian would have distanced himself from Al-Qaradawi as many Muslim leaders have done. 

Certainly, no religious Jewish or Christian leader in South Africa has publicly defied democratic South African law in the name of religion. If indeed people of any faith have made similar public religious claims to Dr Sooliman, they ought to be wholly and immediately censured. Such statements violate the raison d’etre of democracy: The social contract which has underpinned liberal democracy for centuries. This is worthy of guarding by custodians of freedom such as The Daily Friend .    

MM: “Not only the Koran, but the Torah and Bible are not repositories of human rights either” 

At best a half truth. Indeed, there are parts of the Jewish and Christian Bible such as acceptance of slavery that are today abhorrent.  However, modern political notions of justice and individual liberty owe much to Jewish and Christian teachings, rather than the Koran. The US Constitution is a prime example of the influence of Christianity.  Koranic law places submission to Allah as a foundational value whereas the same cannot be said of Judaism and Christianity with regard to the relationship with God.  Judaism teaches a holy covenant and Christianity teaches love of God through Jesus Christ.  Islamic theocracy is inconsistent with the rule of the law of man.

MM: “Preserving liberty cannot be advanced by curbing liberty. Freedom of speech must be tolerated in order to counter intolerant ideas.”  

In principle, yes, subject to Popper below. There is no suggestion of curbing the freedom of speech of Dr Sooliman. His speech is however subject to censure. The  DFr  should be in the forefront of declaring Dr Sooliman’s statement inappropriate and in clear conflict with Western democracy and liberty.  Karl Popper, the renown Austrian-born British philosopher to whom I referred in our conversation, proposed the paradox of tolerance:

“We should therefore claim in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”  (My emphasis)

The Open Society and its Enemies Vol 1: K.R Popper (Routlege 1966) p 211 

Dr Sooliman’s statement has not reached the criminal level but his Islamist theocratic views are clearly on the trajectory of intolerance.  To repeat: He should be censured, not prevented from expressing himself freely.  The South African Constitution itself recognises limitations to basic rights. Section 36 provides that the Bill of Rights “for limitation to the extent that it is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity equality and freedom …”  There is no room for repressive Sharia authority in South African law. 

MM: “Confronting him with semi-facts, innuendo, guilt by association and so on, only risks making him seem strong and you seem weak.” 

A somewhat vague, personal and unsubstantiated remark unworthy of dispassionate discourse. The confrontation is based on the ipse dixit (exact words) of Dr Sooliman. There is nothing semi factual or innuendo (suggestion).  His Islamist Muslim Brotherhood affiliations are on public record and indeed his own biography makes that plain. It is the duty of responsible people to call out dangers to democracy – no contest of strength is involved. Just accurate and reasonable analysis to enlighten and inform. 

MM: “The meaning given to Dr Sooliman’s statement by the writer was convenient to his preconceptions.” 

This is an ad hominem, personal and unsupported attack on the objectivity and the careful, fact-based assessment by the writer.  The ideological background of Dr Sooliman is well documented and this includes beyond any question his adherence to the Muslim Brotherhood teachings as well as his support of Hamas. These are not preconceptions or subjective opinions of the writer but well documented background history on the worldview and political stance of Dr Sooliman. No reasonable person can conclude otherwise. 

IN CONCLUSION

On 27 October 2025 Dr Sooliman declared to certain UCT interested parties:

“… to threaten your students and your university because you’re acting on the base of Israel. I think you should be stripped of your citizenship and thrown out of the country.”

An illiberal proposal which raises serious problems not merely because of its injustice and unconstitutionality, but also because it would require man-made law and enforcement to put into effect. The same legal structure Dr Sooliman says he does not need. It also is problematic because it is intrinsically anti- humanitarian and in violation of basic human rights.  It does not behove a person who is bestowed with a prestigious honour for his services to society to make such dishonourable remarks. 

Fortunately, South Africa has principled leaders prepared to speak out in upholding democracy. Recently convicted and sentenced EFF political leader Julius Malema made threatening and disparaging remarks about the prosecution and judiciary. This too cannot be tolerated.

“At a time when South Africa continues to confront significant challenges within its criminal justice system, it is important that leaders act responsibly and uphold the institutions designed to protect citizens. Accountability must be accepted with dignity, and disagreements must be addressed within the framework of the law. The rule of law is not negotiable. It is the foundation upon which our democracy stands. Undermining it, through reckless and unfounded attacks on the Judiciary, places that foundation at risk, and with it, the rights and freedoms of all South Africans.

Statement issued by Adv. Glynnis Breytenbach MP, DA Spokesperson on Justice and Constitutional Development, 17 April 2026.    

It is troubling that an editor should go such lengths to find contrived and disingenuous arguments to evade the pressing and unavoidable reality that Dr Sooliman holds very hostile views on Western democracy and the rule of law which stand uncontradicted. The Daily Friend should protect freedom of expression by publishing the comments made by the writer about the views of Dr Sooliman as they are central to protection of democracy. At the very least, freedom of speech demands a frank and open publication of the concerns raised, no matter how unreasonable or disagreeable these are to Mr Morris.  The loser in stifling this crucial examination of Dr Sooliman’s language is the hard fought South African liberal democracy itself.

About the writer:

Born in Pretoria Lawrence Nowosenetz obtained his BA at University of the Witwatersrand and LLB at the University of South Africa. He has been admitted as an Attorney in South Africa and as an advocate in South Africa. He practiced at the Pretoria and Johannesburg Bar and worked as a human rights and labour lawyer at the Legal Resources Centre a public interest law firm. Lawrence was Awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and completed professional internship in the USA. He was a a labour arbitrator and mediator, part time Senior Commissioner at the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) as well as a panelist at Tokiso Dispute Settlement. He was a member of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and Pretoria Chairman. He has also served as an Acting Judge of the Hight Court, South Africa. He now lives in Tel Aviv.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).