By Neelam Rahim
The nationwide anti-immigration protests on June 30 have exposed growing divisions within South Africa’s Muslim community, with religious organisations, scholars and community leaders offering differing responses to the country’s immigration crisis, public frustration over governance, and the treatment of vulnerable migrants.
At the heart of the debate are competing interpretations of justice and responsibility. While one group of Muslim organisations has condemned the anti-immigration mobilisation as a dangerous expression of Afrophobia, Islamophobia and vigilantism, others argue that opposing the protests risks overlooking legitimate concerns among the country’s poor about crime, corruption, unemployment and the state’s failure to enforce immigration laws.
The latest intervention comes from the Gauteng Muslim Shura Council, based in Soweto, which issued an open letter to the 22 Muslim organisations that publicly opposed the June 30 march.
Addressing the organisations directly, Amir Muhammed Gadimang said the council’s intention was not to create division within the Ummah, but to challenge what it described as a serious error of judgement.
The council argued that Islam does not require Muslims to remain silent in the face of governance failures. It questioned why religious institutions had taken a public stand against a march calling for lawful governance while appearing less visible on issues such as corruption, organised crime, drug trafficking, illegal mining, human trafficking and the daily hardships experienced by millions of South Africans.
“Calling upon the state to enforce its own laws is not inherently an act of hatred or prejudice,” the letter states. “A distinction must be made between opposing unlawful conduct and condemning people because of nationality or ethnicity.”
The council further questioned why opposing the June 30 march appeared to have received greater urgency than public campaigns against corruption and organised crime.
It called on Muslim organisations to support stronger immigration enforcement, the eradication of corruption, decisive action against organised crime and human trafficking, and the protection of both South African citizens and lawfully present migrants.
However, the coalition of 22 Muslim organisations offered a markedly different assessment.
In a joint statement released ahead of the protests, the organisations rejected the planned shutdown and warned that recent anti-immigration mobilisation had become increasingly associated with intimidation, violence and lawlessness.
The statement expressed concern that Africans from neighbouring countries were increasingly being targeted, describing the trend as xenophobia and Afrophobia. It also warned that Muslims living in townships had reportedly been targeted simply for wearing Islamic dress, fuelling what it described as Islamophobia.
“We dare not remain silent in the face of mob threats, intimidation and lawlessness,” the organisations said.
The coalition maintained that enforcing immigration laws remains the responsibility of the South African government and its authorised agencies, not self-appointed individuals or private groups.
At the same time, it called on the government to eradicate corruption and extortion within the Department of Home Affairs and ensure that immigration processes are handled efficiently and transparently.
The organisations further urged Muslims not to participate in the June 30 shutdown, encouraged mosque leaders to dedicate sermons to condemning xenophobia, Afrophobia, Islamophobia and vigilantism, and called on Muslim business owners to adopt fair labour practices while communities provide humanitarian support to displaced migrants and South Africans in distress.
Adding another perspective to the debate, religious scholar and migration researcher Dr Jameel Asani described the statement issued by the 22 organisations as “morally courageous” for directly confronting the violence and hostility experienced by migrants.
Speaking to One Nation Media (ONM), Asani said the immigration debate cannot be separated from the lived experiences of vulnerable people. His views draw on 3 years of ethnographic research among Malawian Muslim migrant communities in Mayfair, Fietas, Brixton and Lenasia.
“The statement by the 22 organisations is morally courageous,” Asani told ONM. “It names this as Afrophobia. It names the targeting of Muslims for wearing Islamic dress as Islamophobia. It calls on scholars to dedicate this Friday’s khutbah to condemning xenophobia and vigilante violence.”
While praising the statement, Asani criticised engagements between Muslim leaders and anti-immigration activists that, in his view, failed to explicitly acknowledge the suffering experienced by migrants.
“You cannot call a meeting ‘very positive’ while our African Muslim brothers and sisters are being lynched outside,” he told ONM.
“You cannot speak of social cohesion while people are being turned away from hospitals because of where they were born. Dialogue that does not name the harm is not dialogue. It is a form of cover.”
Asani also challenged Muslim institutions to examine their own treatment of undocumented migrants, arguing that some migrant workers had been exploited while others had reportedly been excluded from charitable assistance because they lacked South African identity documents.
“The requirement for South African IDs before giving food to a hungry Muslim is a betrayal of our own values,” he said.
He maintained that Islamic teachings require Muslims to stand with the oppressed regardless of nationality or immigration status, adding that the current moment demands moral clarity from religious leadership.
Meanwhile, the United Ulama Council of South Africa (UUCSA) adopted a more measured position.
In a public statement issued ahead of the planned shutdown, UUCSA unequivocally rejected violence, intimidation and vigilantism, stressing that the preservation of life, dignity and public order is non-negotiable.
At the same time, the council acknowledged that widespread socio-economic challenges, including unemployment, crime and pressure on public resources, have contributed to genuine public frustration that requires urgent and lawful intervention.
UUCSA affirmed that peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected right, but stressed that any demonstration must remain lawful and must not infringe on the rights, safety or dignity of others.
The council also urged religious institutions, civic organisations and community leaders to work with law enforcement and local stakeholders to protect lives, property and neighbourhoods while promoting calm, stability and social cohesion.
Although all three interventions draw upon Islamic principles of justice, compassion and accountability, the June 30 protests have revealed significant differences over how those principles should be applied in practice.
For the Gauteng Muslim Shura Council, the priority is demanding accountability from the state and addressing failures in governance and immigration enforcement.
For the 22 Muslim organisations and Dr Asani, the immediate moral obligation is to protect vulnerable migrants from violence, intimidation and exclusion while ensuring that public frustration does not descend into vigilantism.
UUCSA, meanwhile, has sought to balance recognition of public grievances with an unequivocal rejection of violence and lawlessness.
As South Africa continues to grapple with immigration, unemployment and social cohesion, the debate has highlighted not only differing views on policy, but also a broader conversation about the role of Muslim leadership in responding to one of the country’s most contentious and emotionally charged issues.
