An observer who was present at the constitutional court on 5 August 2021 where the matter pertaining to recognition of Muslim marriages and un-Islamic consequences was being heard, presents the following comments:


Assalamualaykum Muftisaheb


Shukran for your email.


The ‘Muslim’ population of South Africa is suffering from an identity crisis. Perhaps it’s worst- it’s actually a poverty of principles.


They’ve desperately grasped at the straws fed by the western society, who have dictated what parts of Shariah are ok to fight about. In a desperate attempt to feel a sense of belonging, they pretend to be feminists and children of democracy by portraying an Islam which is palatable to the kuffaar.


The WLC has spent millions on senior counsel including Nasreen Bawa and the two other advocates, who have sustained the attempted, veiled, smear campaign of Shariah since 2009. The thrust of their case, despite the aayat,… Bismilaahirrahmanirraheem: اليوم اكملت لكم،  is that Muslim women are left vulnerable by Shariah because there is no regulation of Shariah marriages, and no recognition.




The same Nasreen Bawa was paid millions in circa 2013, by the Zionist Funded DA, as one of its preferred advocates in in Cape Town. A google search reveals the snake skin she tried to cover with the scarf during the hearing on Thursday.


In what was the most important case for Muslims in the history of South Africa, all that many took away from the hearing was a video recording of Yasmeen Omar asking the person next to her, whether Bawa always dressed like a ninja, and wherein Yasmeen remarked that Bawa was pretending just for the WLC case.


The cold truth muftisaheb, is that Bawa has either become closer to Allah, which is unlikely considering her remarks regarding Shariah quoted hereunder, or , she was indeed pretending. When the case started in the Cape High Court, Bawa arrived bare headed, accompanied by other bare headed women of Muslim names, and two naked kaafirah women, asking the high court to help suffering Muslim women. It was only when Attorney Zehir Omar called her out for the unislamic dress, that Bawa began wearing a scarf. Pictures of the court proceedings proving that Yasmeen Omar was right are available on the internet. Bawa did not always dress with a scarf as she did at the hearing! The facts speak for itself. Bawa dressed up for the show!


In addition, the opportunistic ‘Mujahideen’ Muslims, who fight only for the scraps the west has allowed them to, jumping up and down about the ninja comment have conveniently omitted to mention that the comments by Yasmeen Omar were not directed to Bawa or anyone in the virtual hearing because through an inadvertent error on Yasmeen’s part, she did not mute the mic on her computer. There was no intent or negligence in its publication for that matter. Clearly, there was no intention on Yasmeen’s part to educate the people about the hypocrisy of Bawa and co. But Allah had his plan.


Many do not know, but Yasmeen Omar was not born Muslim. She took shahaada and has since developed a practice under Zehir Omar’s mentorship, assisting the poorest, voiceless and forgotten. The CV of most of these opportunistic mujahideen, will probably end where the introduction of Yasmeen’s begins.

Yasmeen, who they suggest is an islamaphobe, is the unspoken spinal cord  in Seminal cases such as Modderklip Boerdery, Mahlangu v De Jager 1996 (3) SA 235 LCC, Moela v Shoniwe (054/2004) [2005] ZASCA 33, Jeebhai v Minister of Home Affairs and Another [2009] 3 All SA 103 (SCA), Glencore Operations SA Pty Ltd v Mnguni  (LCC105/2017) [2018] ZALCC 2, WLC V President RSA 2009, Mohomed v President RSA 2020, to name a few.


If she’s an islamaphobe, and the opportunistic Mujahideen are not, then I certainly prefer being an islamaphobe!


The reality is, LAJNATUN NISAA’s position was made clear by Adv Reg Willis SC and Adv Abu Bakr Omar. UUCSA, WLC and the voter Hungry ‘Muslim Assembly” had to be reminded by Adv Willis SC, who told the Constitutional Court the following in response to a question from the court about whether they accept that there may be a need for recognition and regulation of Shariah marriages:


“They certainly cannot do that of their own- you see justice, the Muslim Shahaadah, I’m I’m, I’m not a Muslim- but these are the words- this is the oath that they take-

I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and the Prophet Muhammad is his last messenger and the holy Koran is the word of God -

they’ve taken an oath,  a covenant- something stronger than a contract. And they will explain to the court if need, what their value system is and how their value system unifies the community and society - unlike secular societies. “


There is a full recording of the hearing which appears in the following link.

I will try to arrange a typed transcript of the arguments so Mufti is aware of exactly what was said.


Justice Theron asked Bawa for her view regarding the impact of the interim relief granted by the SCA, on Shariah principles (the transmogrification and entanglement argument). In Lajnatun Nisaa’s argument, the point was made clear. In reply, despite the snake WLC (UUCSA’s illegitimate mistress and friend) telling the public that they don’t seek to change Shariah, in a desperate attempt to rescue their case for interim relief, Bawa said:


“I do accept that for the purposes of interim relief there is certain relief that is being sought for purposes of ameliorating the rights infringement which this court is facing. The conflict between the interim relief and Islamic law is not a question for this court. This court is looking at the question of rights infringement only.”

Later she continues and says:

“You don’t get to Shariah law. You don’t give any consideration to Shariah law. You apply the law of the land that is what the court  is supposed to.”


Whether the Constitutional Court ignores the Indian case in Shayara Banu which became entangled remains to be seen. It did appear that they understood Lajnatun Nisaa’s point, that Muslims who are happy to continue with Shariah consequence and live by Allah’s law, should be left alone.


Lastly Muftisaheb, you will remember that because we knew that government under President Zuma opposed WLC, we were happy to let government continue the fight to the SCA.


Something happened and Moulana Farhaan and Lajnatun Nisaa’s legal team had a premonition a few weeks before, so Lajnatun Nisaa attempted to re-join the fight at the SCA in November 2020. That instinct was spot on correct, because government under Cyril Ramaphosa shockingly surrendered on the unconstitutionality of the marriage act and divorce act during the hearing at the SCA. It appears that the WLC and Government’s advocate are great friends.


The removal of President Zuma appears to mark a new challenge for Muslims in SA - especially those without a spine, some covered by clothing, qurta’s and scarves,  and those who are seeking to ‘curry favour’ to borrow from Mufti AK’s words, such as Bham, Patel and co. That is something we must remain mindful of unless you feel differently Muftisaheb .


Muftisaheb, you will remember Yusuf Patel. The caricature who fakes an accent and markets for interest earning banks in South Africa. Tuchten J quoted a letter by Patel to the Minister where Patel says “it is quite conceivable that in the event of a conflict between Shariah and the constitution, the constitution will prevail”.


I’ve come to realise that the Americans and even alcohol, are less harmful for Muslims than Patel and Bham. Patel is not educated. If he was, he would know that there is no reason to ponder about the consequence of a conflict between Shariah and constitution, because section 15 of the constitution protects the right to freedom of religion, and the doctrine of entanglement as alluded to in the De Lange case of the Constitutional Court, cautions that the religious realm must be kept separate.


Considering Patel’s ignorance and arrogance, Dajjal and the effect it will have on the ummah appears quite conceivable!


Inshallah, I hope the CC is convinced to leave shariah Marriages alone.

3 Muharram 1443 – 12 August 2021