KUFR LAW ! SECULAR LAW!
The following hate filled e-mail is hereby responded to in order that the Muslim public may have a clearer view of how the MMB operates. The e-mail issued by firstname.lastname@example.org (NOT the real samsulims.co.za) states:
THE KUFRIZATION BRIGADE, (MAJLIS AND JAMIAT DEDEUR)-
Our comment: Clause 3 of the MMB states:
“Equal status and capacity of spouses: A wife and a husband in a Muslim marriage are equal in human dignity and both have, on the basis of equality, full status, capacity and financial independence, including the capacity to own and acquire and to dispose of them, to enter into contracts and to litigate.”
The above is in direct opposition to the Holy Qur’aan which states:
1) “And for men over them (women) is a rank.” (Baqarah, aayat 228)
2) “Men are the rulers (appointed by Allah) over women….” (An-Nisaa’, aayat 34)
Whilst a husband and a wife are equal in human dignity, in Islam, they certainly do not enjoy full status as is clear from the following Qur’aanic Aayats:
- Men’s share of inheritance is double the share of a female (c4. v11)
- The testimony of two women equals to the testimony of one man (C2 V2892)
- Men may marry up to four wives, but not women (c4 v3)
- The right of Talaaq is vested in only men (c65 v1)
- Women must sit in Iddat, not men (c2 v228)
The Holy Qur’aan debunks the gender equality clause contained in the MMB. When an ideology, philosophy or law opposes the law of the Holy Qur’aan, can it be termed as Islam and Muslim? If such an opposition to the Holy Qur’aan is not Kufr, then what is it?
LAUGHABLY MASQUARADING AS JAMIAT 1970, AND JAMIAT GAUTENG RESPECTIVELY,
That the “Jamiat 1970” was formed back in 1970, is a fact which is backed by documentary evidence. This evidence will be produced in court soon. On the other hand “Jamiatul Ulama South Africa 1923” was formed in 2003 and announced on Radio “Islam” in 2006 by the “Secretary General” of the Jamiat himself.
ARE WELL KNOWN FOR BRANDING KAAFIR, KUFR AND JAHNNAMI ALL THOSE LEADING ULAMA AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE BEEN PROVIDING LEADERSHIP TO THE UMMAH
Our comment: Kindly furnish a single Aalim, leader, person or the name of a single organization whom the Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng has branded as a Kaafir. Insha-Allah, you will never be able to do so.
Yes, it is our responsibility to inform the public of statements and actions which constitute Kufr. An example is the MMB which contains an ideology which negates and destroys the Message of the Holy Qur’aan – the message that men have a rank over women.
IN A MANNER THAT IS UNPALATABLE TO THEIR WARPED UNDERSTANDING OF ISSUES.
Our understanding of Deen is as follows:
1) No Aalim in the entire history of Islam stood surrounded by a dozen crosses in a Church. We had a very senior Aalim doing this.
2) It is Haraam and wrong for Ulama to attend soccer matches where nudity and music etc. was the order of the day. Nabi Salallahu alayhi wasallam closed his blessed ears with his fingers when he heard the sound of a shepherd’s flute.
3) When Nabi Salallahu alayhi wasallam was insulted in an article which was published in the Sunday Times, it was Waajib upon us to call for a boycott. If our defence of Nabi’s Salallahu layhi wasalllam honour and Izzat was a “warped understanding of issues” then we are indeed honoured.
4) Our understanding of Deen is that the Holy Qur’aan has given man a rank above woman. On the other hand the MMB promotes gender equality.
The public can decide whose understanding is warped and who is closer to the Holy Qur’aan and the Sunnah.
IN THEIR MOST VOCIFEROUS AND HOOLIGANISTIC ATTACK AGAINST THE ULAMA HAQ
Which Ulama e Haq? The ones that refuse to answer our dignified correspondences? The ones that refuse to tell the public exactly which clauses are un-Islamic and non-negotiable? The ones that attend World Cup soccer matches and leave the Musallees without an Imaam? The ones that prefer engagement with the Sunday Times despite the paper branding Nabi Salallahu alayhi was allam as a “pervert and peadophile”? Which Ulama e Haq did we attack? The ones that cannot even whisper to the public that there is no gender equality in Islam? We are willing to enter into a dignified debate with any Aalim in public. Why do they avoid us?
So should ulama who attend churches, attend world cup soccer matches where music and nudity is the order of the day, conduct pornographic radio shows, be labelled as saints and pious people?
ON THE MMB, THEY AVER THAT AMONG THE REASONS WHY THE BILL IS KUFR, IS THAT SHAR’EE MATTERS WILL BE PRONOUNCED UPON BY A KAAFIR SECULAR COURT.
Yes, we stand by our claim for the following reasons:
The MMB clearly states:
“ A wife and a husband in a Muslim marriage are equal in human dignity and both have, on the basis of equality, full status,”
The present Bill allows for non-Muslim judges to pronounce Talaaqs on a Muslim marriage. How is it ever possible for a Jew or Hindu etc. to annul a marriage concluded in the name of Allah and His Rasul in a Masjied?
IF THE UMMAH WILL BE GUILTY OF KUFR,
It is not the whole Ummah who is guilty of this Kufr. It is rather a handful of Ulama who give preference to gender equality contained in the MMB over the “man have a rank over woman” Law of Allah.
BY TAKING THEIR MARITAL ISSUES TO THE KUFR COURT, WE ASK, WHY HAVE THE KUFRIZATION BRIGADE, REPEATEDLY RUN TO THE KUFR COURTS, WITH THE AID OF THE COUNTRY’S MOST NOTORIOUSLY CORRUPT LAWYER FROM MPUMALANGA, (OPERATING FROM GAUTENG) TO HAVE THEIR ISSUES SOLVED BY KUFFAAR LAWYERS BASED ON SECULAR KUFFAR LAW??? THE CARTOON ISSUE, THE ZAPIRO ISSUE, SANHA, AND NOW MMB… ARE SOME OF THE EXAMPLES WHERE THESE KUFR -COURT-HATING CHARACTERS HAVE RUN TO THESE VERY COURTS! NOT TO MENTION THE NUMEROUS MARITAL CASES WHICH THEY HAVE REFERRED TO THE KUFR COURTS.
The author has confused two issues:
a) Approaching a non-Muslim court in order to rule on issues in defense of Islam. The cartoon issue, the Zapiro issue and yes even the Sanha issue are issues which were taken to court in order to defend the honour of Nabi Salallalhu alayhi wasallam and Islam.
b) The other is to ask a non-Muslim judge to make a binding ruling in the name of Islam and under the banner of the Shariah.
THE IRONY OF THE LATEST COURT ACTION IS…. THEY WANT TO REJECT MMB THROUGH THE AID OF THE KUFR COURTS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT MUSLIMS TO TAKE THEIR MATRIMONIAL MATTERS TO THE KUFR COURTS BECAUSE THIS ACCORDING TO THEM IS KUFR!
There is no irony. Instead the above statement by the author is due to a lack of understanding of how the Shariah operates.
A Muslim’s life operates not on the basis of opinions, but rather on the Shariah. Whatever a Muslim and whenever a Muslim does anything he first examines his action on the scales of the Shariah. If the Shariah permits it, he has all the right to proceed. If the Shariah prohibits the action, then it is sinful for him to proceed. This is called “itaa’at”.
Now let’s examine the current situation:
Has the Shariah permitted us to seek assistance of Kufr courts for the advancement and protection of Islam?
Yes, it has. Take the example of a community that wants to built a Masjied. The local council refuses to give them permission. Just recently in the KZN province such a situation arose in the town of Queensborough. The case was heard by a court which decided that it is the right of the Muslims to built a Masjied.
Unlike the MMB, the non-Muslim judge did not give his verdict on the basis of Islamic law. He gave a ruling on the basis of secular law. Was it right for Muslims to approach a non-Muslim court? Yes, it was not only right but it was Waajib to obtain this right through initiating a court action which was permitted by the Shariah.
Similarly, it is Waajib for the Muslim to take any action permitted by the Shariah to stop the MMB which has amongst many other clauses the clause of gender equality which is in violent conflict with the holy Qur’aan. Nowhere has the Shariah denied and prohibited such court action.
SO WHY IS IT KUFR FOR ONE AND NOT FOR THE OTHER?
It is Kufr for one and not Kufr for the other because the one was not asking for rulings to be made in the light of the Shariah whereas the other (MMB) seeks to presently give a non-Muslim judge the right to rule on Islamic matters such as matrimonials etc.
THE LEADING ULAMA OF THE COUNTRY HAVE IN THEIR SUBMISSION TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REQUESTED THAT ALL MATRIMONIAL MATTERS BE PRONOUNCED UPON BY A MUSLIM JUDGE, ASSISTED BY TWO MUSLIM ASSESSORS ACCORDING TO SHAR’EE PRINCIPLES.
And what was the result? Was it not a denial of this fundamental and basic request by the leading Ulama? Was it not rejected? There is no mention of not only Muslim judges but even Muslim assessors! Worse, what was the reaction of the leading Ulama to this snub? Silence at large. No public outrage, no public condemnation. No public dissention called for. No public protest initiated.
HOWEVER THIS IS UNPALATABLE, UNACCEPTABLE AND KUFR TO THE KUFRIZATION BRIGADE
Where did we ever aver that Muslim judges and assessors are unpalatable and unacceptable to us? Where did we ever say that we do not want Muslim judges and that it is Kufr to have such judges and assessors? We would be the first to welcome Muslim judges and Muslim assessors as long as they rule in conformity with the Shariah.
WHO HAVE NO QUALMS IN RUNNING TO THE KUFR COURTS, FOR THEIR MATTERS TO BE DECIDED BY A KAAFIR JUDGE, BASED ON KUFR LAW.
Kindly cite ONE LAW of Kufr which we have embraced of a Kufr Judge in any of the cases.
IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE SON IN LAW OF MR.MAJLIS IS PURSUING A DEGREE IN THE FIELD OF KUFR LAW. NOW IS THAT ACCEPTABLE OR IS IT KUFR?
It is only Kufr if the person in question argues cases in the light of Kufr beliefs. If for instance he fights a case for a liquor company or a pork company or that a Masjied should not be built
AS FOR THEIR CORRUPT LAWYER FROM MPUMALANGA, WHO WANTS TO PROTECT THE SHARIAH, HIS ENTIRE LIVELIHOOD IS EARNED THROUGH DABBLING WITH THIS VERY KUFR LAW, IN FAVOUR OF LIKE MINDED CRIMINALS AND SCOUNDRELS.
If the lawyer is corrupt take him to court and prove his corruption. This should not be a problem especially since the author is already in favour of the current MMB which want the courts to proclaim verdicts on Muslim affairs. If he cannot prove it, every reader will have to come to the conclusion that the author is guilty of slander even as he attempts to point fingers at others.
THEREFORE DO NOT BE HOODWINKED BY THESE DOUBLE STANDARD, CONFUSED SPLINTER ORGANIZATIONS INTO REJECTING THE BILL
It is a fact that thousands of Muslims from the Cape till Camperdown in the KZN have rejected the MMB outrightly; it is a fact that more than two hundred organizations representing all facets of the Muslim Ummah – lawyers, doctors, traders, housewives and the youth have petitioned the Government against the MMB; it is an undeniable fact that hundreds of Ulama from all over the country and especially the KZN Jamiat are deadly opposed to the MMB and have spread their message bravely in scores of Masaajid and Institutions; It is a fact that TWO Msulim Ministers of Justices, despite having the authority to do so, did not implement and legislate the MMB; it is a fact that the Muslim Lawyers Association has alerted the public of the dangers of the MMB and have distributed scores of pamphlets making Amr-Bil-Ma’ruf clearly by stating that “The bill will promote a brand of Islam which is more palatable to Western secular values” AND “The Bill is unconstitutional because it changes Muslims Personal Law instead of just recognizing it”; it is a fact that brilliant attorneys and law professors such as Professor Zeyad Motala (Howard University) and Professor Ali Moosagie from U.C.T have decried the MMB.. The list goes on and on…
The question now arises if all these intelligent people, all these noble Ulama, all the other sharp scholars and others such as Hadhrat Mufti Elias, Mufti A.K. Hussain, and even Mufti Taqi Saheb (who has rebutted arguments in a cogent manner for polygany to be regulated) – are all of them in cohorts and cronies of the Majlis and The Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng? Are all these scholars so stupid, naive and gullible to be hoodwinked into rejecting the MMB by double standards and splinter organizations?
YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS ENDEAVOR IS IN FACT SUPPORT OF A CAUSE STARTED BY OUR PIOUS ULAMA HAQ MANY YEARS AGO.
Let’s have the criterion for Ulama-eHaq and please let’s, for the sake of truth, have some names. Let’s be clearly informed for the sake of Allah Most High, whether what those Ulama started is what the current MMB is all about. Did they intend the gender equality clause which is totally in conflict with the Holy Qur’aan? Did they intend prison sentences for Muslims who do not wish to apply to the Minister for permission to marry their seventeen year old daughters? Did those pious Ulama of Haq intend that the Shariah be mutilated and changed as even a secular group such as the Muslim Lawyers Association has pointed out? Let’s have some answers!
THIS IS ONLY THE START, INSHA ALLAH WE WILL SEE THE DAY WHEN ALL OUR MATTERS CAN BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW.
Despite the unjustified insults and slander we wish the brother well in his endeavour to change the Constitution of Republic of South Africa so that the hands of robbers be cut off, aduteres may be stoned and slandererers lashed in accordance to Islamic Law.
We extend a warm invitation to you in order to discuss and resolve any ssues so that the Ummah can acquire unity. We eagerly await your response which we are sure you would gladly accept.
ALHMADULILLAH, Thumma Alhamdulillha, the Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng has with the Fadl of Allah and the Du’aas of the sincere public, published and distributed fifty thousand copies of “The Shariah” newspaper in order to educate the Muslim Ummah about the MMB.
What is even more pleasing is that an ever increasing number of Masaajid and towns are now demanding that they want to be informed and enlightened about the MMB. The radio programs conducted are insufficient to satisfy the Muslim public.
The Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng has visited several towns and has been touched by the thirst of the Musalleees for first hand information.
When conducting our talks, we make it clear to the audience that we do not impose our views and that they should come to their own conclusions. Furthermore, we do substantiate our views with evidence.
No audience is too small and no Masjied is too far no for us to travel to, Insha-Allah. In fact, even a house would do.
Let it not be said on the day of Qiyamah that the Ulama who understood the perils of the MMB, did not inform us thereof! We, as Ulama, Insha-Allah, do not intend to be hauled in the Court of Allah by the scruff of our necks by the Ummah, for not speaking the Haq and protecting Islam.
“And upon us is only to give the message!”