‘Islamophobe’ gets prayer calls silenced

● A judge has ordered an Isipingo Beach madrasah to silence its calls to prayer after a self-confessed Islamophobe, who lives two doors away, complained that “it gives the suburb a distinctly Muslim atmosphere” and interferes with his private space.

But the lawyer acting for Madrasah Taleemuddeen said he will immediately note an appeal against Durban high court judge Sidwell Mngadi’s Friday ruling.

Aslam Mayet said the madrasah — an Islamic educational institution — uses no amplification in its five daily calls to prayer and the applicant, Chandra Giri Ellaurie, had made no allegation that noise levels, as regulated by by-laws, were being exceeded.

“The implications of this judgment are staggering and can have an impact on mosques, churches and temples, and even in disputes between neighbours regarding barking dogs,” Mayet said.

Ellaurie, who represented himself in the proceedings, also sought an order that the school, which has about 340 students, “cease its operations in the area and its property be sold to the state or a non-Muslim entity”.

Mngadi described Ellaurie, who has lived in Isipingo Beach since 1966, as a Hindu who was “unashamedly opposed to the Islamic faith”.

“He regards Islam as a false religion that discriminates against non-Muslims and non-believers. He holds the view that Islam promotes cultural racism, does not uphold the divinity of man, and lacks commitment to truth and the pursuit of truth. He believes it is not a religion protected by the constitution as everything it stands for is contrary to the constitution,” the judge said.

The madrasah acquired its property in 1999. Ellaurie alleged this was done contrary to the zoning laws at the time and “in collusion with the municipality”.

He said the school had turned what was once a “diverse, peaceful residential suburb” into a Muslim enclave.

The calls for prayer — “a foreign sound” — began at 3.30am and invaded his private space, he said. It attracted Muslims to the area and kept non-Muslims away, he added, resulting in a 30% increase in the Muslim community over the past 15 years and “group arrogance and dominance”.

Mngadi said Ellaurie had contended that in asking for the banning of the madrasah, he was acting in the public interest.

“However, he had no answers when asked who he was acting for and who had given him the authority to do so. He also had no answer when he was asked what the madrasah had done to him that entitled him to ask for it to be banned.

“In my view he has no standing to seek this order,” he said.

The judge said Ellaurie was “misguided” in his attempt to show that Islam was not a valid religion and the court was not in a position to analyse scriptures.

Mohammed Illyas Patel, the madrasah’s moulana, or religious leader, said in an affidavit that he objected to the application as a matter of principle. “We cannot pander to such bigotry,” he said.

Patel submitted affidavits from other Hindu neighbours who said there was no noise disturbance.

But in granting the interdict ordering the madrasah to silence its calls to prayer, the judge said Ellaurie was entitled to enjoy the use of his residential property, his private space, and “unfortunately he finds the call to prayer offensive due to his views towards Islam”.

“I am aware that an interdict is an extraordinary remedy which is not granted lightly. The applicant has, on a balance of probabilities, established a right to the use and enjoyment of his property.

“The interference constitutes an injury and a continuous injury. It could be argued that he could move away … but in my view this is extreme and does not constitute an alternative legal remedy.”

In terms of the order, the madrasah has to ensure the calls to prayer “are not audible” in Ellaurie’s home.

Faisal Suliman, of the South African Muslim Network, said the judgment was disappointing, especially because the call to prayer was not amplified, but was read out by an individual within the property.

“Had it been amplified, one could have made a legal argument for it not to be. But I cannot believe a call to prayer that is unamplified can be so loud in his [Ellaurie’s] home that it should constitute a legal infringement of his rights or a noise nuisance.

“We would like to see this appealed. The onus should be on him, using sound experts, to prove it’s an [encroachment on] his rights.”