Mohamad Vayid does not speak for Muslims

As President of the National Economic and Social Council, Mr Mohamed Vayid does not speak for Muslims. By totally and unequivocally agreeing with the disgraceful and shameful judgment of Paul Lam Shang Leen against the right to use loudspeakers for the azaan (the call for prayer) at the Quatre Bornes mosque Hidayat-E-Islam, Mr Vayid clearly demonstrates, like the judge, equal contempt for Muslims and Islam.

That Mohamed Vayid is an intellectual is in no doubt, but this does not prevent intellectuals from being biased, prejudiced and even corrupt. In fact, intellectuals are proportionally more corrupt than ordinary people because they are in positions of authority and they abuse the confidence of ordinary people. Judges are no exception.

Vayid is reported to have said : " Nous sommes solidaires avec le jugement du juge Lam Shang Leen concernant l'utilisation des haut-parleurs. Il démontre que le cadre légal actuel est suffisant pour assurer la protection et le confort des citoyens. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'amender la loi pour atteindre ces objectifs". He goes on to say that it is not in the interests of the parties concerned to appeal against this judgment, as, according to him, this would delay "un retour à la normale dans les relations communautaires et, peut-être, risque d'exacerber les passions. " He also said that the judgment, including Lam Shang Leen’s judgment declaring null and void the election of Ashock Jugnauth at the 2005 general elections because Mr Jugnauth made an electoral promise for the creation of a Muslim cemetery, confirms that Mauritius Maurice “n'est pas une République bananière et qu'elle est un Etat de droit”.

I would like to ask Mauritians to consider the following:

1. Mohamed Vayid may be a Muslim, but he segregates himself from the majority of Muslims because he considers them inferior to him and his clique. He is not an expert on Islam and has no lessons to give to Muslims. By agreeing with the injustice created by Lam Shang Leen, he proves that he himself does not have a sense of justice and tolerance which he claims.

2. Although not specifically mentioned in the Holy Quran, the azaan is an obligation. It is a call for prayer and is not confined to the four walls of a mosque. In modern times, especially in big towns and cities, the use of loudspeakers is instrumental to this obligation. If Vayid has any notion of tolerance, he should know that non-Muslims must respect this in the same way that Muslims must respect the practices of non-Muslims, including atheists.

3. Vayid must learn that bad laws must be changed, and bad judges must be removed. Mahatma Gandhi did not gain the freedom of his country by respecting bad laws. The slaves were not liberated through the respect of bad laws. How many corrupt judges have sentenced slaves to death in their so-called ‘État de droit’? How many criminals are on the loose, and how many innocents are imprisoned by corrupt and prejudiced judges?

4. What does Vayid mean by ‘État de droit’? He is merely putting dust in people’s eyes. Laws are enacted, amended, repealed. He does not need to be a lawyer to know this. He argues that Mauritius is an ‘État de droit’ and not a banana republic, but at the same time he tells the parties concerned not to appeal against Lam Shang Leen’s judgment. If he really believed in an ‘État de droit’, he would have advised the parties concerned to go right through the Privy Council to gain justice. By his own admission, he is effectively saying that Mauritius is indeed a banana republic. The Mauritian Republic was never formed on republican values anyway. The Republic of France was formed on republican values known as laicity (laïcité).

5. If he had a sound understanding of Islam, he would have known that Muslims are very passionate about their religion, including the azaan which is an integral part of their religion. Because of his own bias and prejudices, Lam Shang Leen was wrong to prevent the Quatre Bornes mosque from using modern means, such as loudspeakers, for its religious purposes. Others use bells, Chinese firecrackers, and so on.

6. No judge can issue an order against X forcing X to restrain a third party which is not even a party to the case. In the case of the non-Muslim Gavin Glover v/s The Municipality of Quatre Bornes, the non-Muslim Judge Lam Shang Leen issued an injunction in Chambers ordering the Municipality of Quatre Bornes to force the Quatre Bornes mosque to stop using loudspeakers when the Development Permit granted in April 2003, 3 years before the present court case was entered, did not impose such restrictions. Gavin Glover did not object at the time, and the Municipality’s decision was not subject to review. I regret to say that Mr Vayid does not display any knowledge of his ‘État de droit’, and of how judges can manipulate facts to suit their own prejudices.

7. As far as Ashock Jugnauth is concerned, I advise him to appeal against Lam Shang Leen’s equally shameful judgment. Electoral promises are fundamentals of our democracy and cannot be regarded as corruption.


Mohamed Vayid has always been known for defending his own interests and not those of Muslims. His intellectual articles, with many fundamental flaws in them, may impress many until someone decides to expose him for what he really is. By flattering a biased judge like Lam Shang Leen, he is speaking in his own interests. To his disappointment, the Municipality of Quatre Bornes is right to appeal against such a shameful judgment. The azaan of Islam to the world must be preserved. It is the duty of every good Muslim to ensure its survival, whether Mohamed Vayid likes it or not. It is Lam Shang Leen who is responsible for the present social unrest in Mauritius, and is giving Mauritius a very bad name abroad. The government of Mauritius must ensure that it appoints judges who can deliver justice to its people and preserve their harmony through mutual respect. Mauritians detest mercenaries.

Yacoob Azan
California, USA / 5 April 2007
http://yacoobazan.blogspot.com