Pandor justifies jihad as sometimes ‘necessary’

African National Congress (ANC) veteran Dr Naledi Pandor, and previous minister of international relations and cooperation, shocked South Africans by proclaiming on 23 August that “we are permitted to engage in jihad when necessary” and that “we must ensure that all young Muslims embrace these values and become true activists in the protection of all who need protection support”.

While she may no longer be a minister, she still has stature and influence, especially as the new chairperson of the Nelson Mandela Foundation (NMF) and as a new honorary professor of education at the University of Pretoria.

Observers were astonished when she said this, considering that “jihad”, which can mean a spiritual struggle, generally refers to a struggle against the enemies of Islam, often justifying terrorism. Pandor is a Muslim convert, and she made the statement at a fundraising gala dinner at the Langa Masjid in Cape Town. Wearing a keffiyeh, Pandor said that she previously expressed these sentiments about jihad when she was in the United States (US).

She said that “Muslims are a peace-loving people, but were permitted to engage in jihad when necessary”, and went on to say, “social justice, and our belief in it, as well as our belief in the values in the Quran, means that we should be ready to protect these values when they are threatened”. Earlier in her speech, she said that “the beauty of Islam is that it does not choose to promote oppression or discrimination against any person, except those who advance hatred and injustice”.

She also said that Israel has been an “apartheid state” for its entire existence; that the land is “illegally occupied”; and that Israel began its “genocide” on 8 October 2023. On that date, Israel was still rescuing Israeli civilians and fighting Palestinian terrorists in its own country. Pandor said that Muslims “do not hate Jews”, and that they must fight for anyone who is oppressed, including Jews.

Political analyst Steven Gruzd says Pandor’s support for jihad matters. “Here, you have a former minister calling for jihad. When she was still in office, she called for protests outside US embassies. This speech will not help South Africa repair relations with the US. This is not toning down the rhetoric, quite the opposite.

“In some ways, she is yesterday’s story, but this is still incitement to violence, no matter who says it,” says Gruzd. “Perhaps being out of government has freed her to dispense with diplomacy. Whatever the context, justifying jihad is inciteful.”

South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) spokesperson Rolene Marks agrees that Pandor’s remarks “cross a red line. When a former minister of international relations says South Africans are permitted to engage in jihad, she is normalising the language of holy war in a country scarred by political violence and rising antisemitism. Such words embolden extremists, endanger South African Jews and other minorities, and shred our diplomatic credibility.”

Marks points out that in the immediate aftermath of 7 October, “Pandor sent messages of support and solidarity to Hamas. That speaks volumes. It comforted extremists and deepened fear.”

In her Cape Town speech, Pandor said she hated oppression, however, said Marks, “she repeatedly aligns with movements that target Jews. That is reckless populism, and a betrayal of constitutional values of dignity, equality, and freedom of religion.”

Dr Hussein Solomon, professor in the department of political studies and governance at the University of the Free State, says he thinks Pandor’s comments come from a place of wanting to return to government, especially after her recent criticism of the ANC and President Cyril Ramaphosa. “She wants back in, and senses Ramaphosa is very weak now. She wanted to continue as international relations minister.”

“Jihad does not equate to terrorism,” he says, “but in this context, it threatens the US with violence or war.” In light of worsening relations between Pretoria and Washington, “This is unwise, to say the least.”

Marks says talk of Pandor returning to government, with some hoping she would be a future president, “should alarm the country. It would isolate South Africa even further. It would deter investment, damage jobs and trade, weaken public health partnerships, and inflame communal tension. South Africa cannot afford a head of state who speaks the language of jihad.”

South African Jewish Board of Deputies national director Wendy Kahn says Pandor continues to “pursue an agenda that is unapologetically pro-Hamas, an organisation with which she has a long-standing and well-documented relationship”.

Her statement “reinforces her extremist views, which make no contribution to finding resolution, and alienate and offend not only South Africans, but also our most important trading partners”, says Kahn. “This call for jihad constitutes an incitement to violence.”

Benji Shulman, the executive director of the Middle East Africa Research Institute, says “calling for violence, which Pandor effectively does by implicitly endorsing jihad, is unacceptable. She seems also to have internationalised these views by making these statements in America. Officials in that country should be made aware of her stance so they can take appropriate action.”

Shulman says her words are also concerning “because of the roles that she plays in South African society, including being attached to various universities and as chairperson of the NMF.”

They’re also concerning “because Africa has increasingly become the centre of jihadi violence”, says Shulman. “People being murdered because of this ideology, particularly Christians, deserve better than having a person of this stature endorsing these forms of violence.”

Michael Walsh, senior research consultant at nonpartisan think tank, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, whose focus is on relations between the US and South Africa, says Pandor’s public defence of jihad isn’t surprising.

During the Biden administration, he says, Pandor gave a talk in the US reflecting on South Africa’s experience of apartheid, in which she “she stressed that protests may not be enough to achieve liberation. When protests fail, she suggested that it was permissible to resort to other means.”

He says it’s interesting that Pandor chose to make the remarks “when there is a risk that US agencies will be asked by US President Donald Trump or the US Congress to determine whether Pandor and her husband, Sharif Joseph Pandor, meet the criteria for US sanctions.”

Similar to Mcebisi Jonas, “these specific remarks suggest that Pandor has no intention of trying to mitigate that risk”, says Walsh. “This is despite the fact that such comments will provide ammunition for US sanctions on the South African government and ANC.”

Meanwhile, the SAZF has called on responsible leaders across parties and faiths to repudiate Pandor’s rhetoric. “Affirm the safety and dignity of every community,” says Marks. “Choose leadership that unites the country and restores South Africa’s standing in the world.”