A total non-entity in Islamic terms – a secular lawyer, Mr.M.S.Omar of Durban, in his
abortive and desperate bids to project himself as an Islamic authority, has issued a stupid
response to the Shar'i Response which the Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa issued to an
absolutely baatil view propounded by some liberal molvis of a liberal so-called 'fiqh
academy' of India.

Our Response states with clarity the Shar'i grounds for the stupidity and invalidity of the
baatil resolution of some molvies of the 'fiqh academy'. The baatil resolution issued by a
very small clique of molvies of the 'fiqh academy' as well as our Response are reproduced
here so that Shuayb Omar's stupid response may easily be viewed in the light of our
Response. Even a cursory glance at our Response and the lawyer's bunkum response will
convince everyone that he has not answered a single one of the facts we had presented in
refutation of the fiqh academy's baatil resolution.

The secularist's response consists of only the following stupid ingredients:
(1) Venting of spleen with an invective against the Mujlisul Ulama.
(2) Some fiqhi ramblings completely unrelated to the subject under
In his ramblings, the poor lost soul has only sought to impress the ignorant and the unwary
by citing the names of some kutub of the Shariah without presenting the actual statements
and the related contexts in which the Fiqhi rulings operate.
Since Mr. Lawyer has not answered a single one of the facts on which we have based our
refutation of the fiqh academy's ghutha' (rubbish) resolution, there is nothing for us to
respond to. Nevertheless, we shall dilate a bit in order to demonstrate the stupidities with
which Mr.Omar seeks to bamboozle the unwary and the ignorant.

In his nafsaani tantrum, the lawyer presents the scenario of a Muslim husband seeking a
divorce decree from a kaafir court. He concludes that when the kaafir court issues a decree
of divorce on the request of the husband, then such decree of the kaafir judge will be a
Talaaq Baa-in. Indeed, Mr.Omar should get his head examined. Senility is sometimes the
introduction to insanity. The stupidity of the lawyer's arguments indicates towards this
mental catastrophe which is overtaking his brains. The Shariah refutes the lawyer's rubbish
in the following ways:
(a) Allah Azza Wa Jal has vested the right of Talaaq in the husband. The husband has
the full right to issue Talaaq. His verbal utterance of Talaaq terminates the Nikah.
(b) The validity of this inherent right of Talaaq does not require confirmation by anyone,
least of all a kaafir judge wallowing in spiritual and physical najaasat and khubth.
(c) For the Talaaq to take immediate effect, the husband need verbally say only: "I give you
One Talaaq', or words to this effect. No ratification by any authority is required for the
validity of the Talaaq issued by the husband.
(d) Now when this is the reality, what constrains the husband if he is sane in his brains, to
pay a lawyer such as Mr.Omar a few thousand rands to proceed to a kufr court and to ask
the kaafir judge to issue a Talaaq on his behalf? What type of insanity induces a husband to
undergo the disgrace of appearing in front of a kaafir court, spending thousands of rands in
legal fees, wasting considerable time (days, weeks and even months), advertising his
bedroom linen in a public court and undergo other indignities and inconveniences to secure
a Talaaq which he is able to execute in a second in the privacy of his home without the
ludicrous paraphernalia suggested by the bamboozling lawyer?
(e) Furthermore, if the judge of the secular court is not mad, will he entertain Mr. Lawyer's
application for divorce on behalf of the insane husband who happens to be his client and
whom Mr. Lawyer is financially fleecing in a futile exercise which is totally redundant? As
far as we understand, the judge is liable to order the Law Society to examine Mr. Lawyer
with a view to strike him off the roll for frivolity bordering on insanity.
When an Islamic marriage in South Africa is not a legal marriage, what in Hell is there for
the secular court to annul? The judge will have Mr. Lawyer evicted for his ghutha'
application. A secular court can annul only a marriage which is legally recognized in terms
of the law of the land. It cannot annul a non-existent marriage, and as far as the law is
concerned, the Islamic Nikah has no existence. Thus, the issue of a Muslim husband
applying to a non-Muslim court for divorce is insane, ludicrous, and will not be entertained
by the court.
(f) Then of clinching importance is the Shariah's negation of wilaayat for a non-Muslim
judge/court. The Shariah's Ruling in this regard is a fourteen century Ijma' (Consensus),
namely, a kaafir court has no wilaayat over a Muslim. Mr. Lawyer and the liberal molvies
who are plotting to confer wilaayat to kuffaar courts are silent on this issue. They have not
answered this objection. They introduce extraneous issues in their deceitful bids to sidestep
the Shariah's categorical negation of wilaayat for a kaafir court.
(g) It should now be abundantly clear that in South Africa as the situation currently prevails,
there is no possibility of a Muslim husband applying to a secular court to dissolve his
Islamic Nikah which has no legal effect. Yes, he can apply for dissolution of his legal
'marriage' in order to unfetter himself from the restrictions of the law which prevent him
from drawing up an Islamic Will if he had opted for a haraam legal marital regime such as
community of property, etc. But in so far as the pure Islamic Nikah is concerned, there is no
possibility for launching a divorce application in a secular court.
(h) In the light of the aforegoing explanation it will be clear that Mr. Lawyer has introduced
some red herrings in his gutha' response. He asks: "How does one characterize the
husband's oral acknowledgement and pronouncement that his marriage has irretrievably
broken down….."
In his own stupidity, Mr.Omar labours under the notion that all people are stupid, hence
they will swallow this piece of rubbish. What he has stated here will be characterized as
pure bunkum because in relation to the Islamic Nikah which is not a legal marriage, the
husband will not and cannot bring an application before a secular court for divorce.
(i) Mr. Lawyer claims: "The facts briefly are as follows: "a husband issues summons in a
secular Court in which he seeks a decree of divorce." This contention is a blatant LIE. In
South Africa a Muslim husband has never and is unable to issue summons in a secular court
for a decree of divorce to dissolve his Islamic Nikah. The application which the husband
makes pertains to dissolution of the kufr marital regime such as community of property. He
does not apply to the kaafir judge for a Shar'i Talaaq which he himself (i.e. husband) can
issue in a second without all the ghutha fuss as explained earlier.
Mr. Shuayb Omar has degenerated to a despicable level of misinformation and deceit in his
attempt to bamboozle the unwary Muslim public. With his red herrings he seeks to convey
the idea that a Shar'i Talaaq in South Africa will be valid only if decreed by a kaafir court.
(j) Then Mr. Miscreant Lawyer verges off into another stupidity in his plot to misinform
and bamboozle ignorant and unwary Muslims. He seeks to convey the idea that the non-
Muslim judge acts as the Wakeel (Agent) of the husband "for the purposes of effecting a
Firstly, as already clarified above, the secular court will not entertain an application for the
dissolution of a purely Shar'i Nikah which has no legal status. Secondly, a judge whether in
a kaafir court or an Islamic court, NEVER acts in the capacity of an agent for either of the
parties. The judge has jurisdiction over the parties and acts independently, not as the agent
of any one party. He acts or is supposed to act impartially. The secular lawyer such as
Mr.Shuayb can be an agent for a party, not the judge in his capacity as the officer of the
court in where he presides.
While a non-Muslim could be appointed one's Wakeel (Agent), he will not be acting as the
judge of a court when hearing applications and counter-applications. By equating a non-
Muslim judge in his judicial capacity to an agent of one party, and that too, in an imaginary
application devoid of reality and legality, Mr. Lawyer has only displayed his gross
ignorance and deviousness.
(k) Mr. Lawyer's futile attempt to argue his case and to confer wilaayat to the kaafir court
on the basis of Tasfweedhut Talaaq (delegation of authority by the husband to issue
Talaaq), and on the basis of Dalaalatul Halaal (the context of the circumstances), further
illustrates his ignorance or his deception. For the very same reasons expounded earlier, there
is no validity to these two devices in relation to the sitting judge. The non-Muslim court
does not act in the light of these two Shar'i devices nor does the law of the land allow him to
issue decrees in terms of these Shar'i stratagems. The judge is governed by the law of the
land, not by Islamic law.
Regarding the fiqh academy of India, some molvies in this liberal outfit are guilty of
perpetrating skullduggery. From pour Response to the baatil resolution issued by the clique
in the name of the fiqh academy, it will be conspicuous that an ulterior motive underlines
the resolution which has no Shar'i validity. It is devoid of Shar'i substance. We have already
explained the Shar'i bankruptcy of the baatil resolution.
The clique of miscreant molvies besides not providing a single Shar'i argument for the
baatil resolution, is guilty of suppressing the candid views of other Ulama of the academy
who have rejected the view which the baatil resolution propounds. In this regard, we
reproduce here, in full, the comments of the senior Mufti Abdullah Kaavi, the Head Mufti of
Darul Uloom Kanthariah, Gujerat, India, who had participated in the fiqh academy's
discussion on this topic.

Addressing the academy molvies, Mufti Abdullah Kaavi stated:
"Respected Muftis! Whither are we drifting at this time? We should ponder! Any kind of
interpolation, change and love for permissibility is not permissible in any way. At this
time, any decree of a non-Muslim judge, particularly with regard to Talaaq is not valid.
In reality it amounts to altering the laws of the Qur'aan and Hadith for conferring liberty
to women – such liberty which is alien to Islam.
I Have visited South Africa several years ago, and I am aware of the conditions of U.K. If
today we issue a decision on this (i.e. conferring wilaayat to a non-Muslim court), then
such an avenue will be opened up which will enable all our womenfolk, mothers and
sisters, to freely obtain separation (from their husbands by the decree of kaafir courts).
Lineages will become corrupted and it will become difficult to adhere to Islam. There is
no need for us to adopt some way for its permissibility On the contrary, we should reflect
if we should assist such faasiqah and faajirah women who are not prepared to accept
Islamic laws and to enlist the support of a non-Muslim judge for the obtainal of a decree
in conflict with the Qur'aan and Hadith.

The Qur'aan Shareef has in explicit terms rejected this and says: "Do not aid one
another in sin and transgression." In reality in the search for a way of permissibility (for
the wilaayat of a non-Muslim judge), we shall be opening up a door for faasiqah and
faajirah women of our lands for gradually increasing this (Fitnah) and for all Muslims to
become distressed……. Therefore, there is no need to devise any form of permissibility
(for conferring wilaayat to a non-Muslim court). On the contrary, there is a need to
devise ways and means to reform the sinners who go to a non-Muslim judge to obtain a
decree (of divorce). The local Muslims should devise ways (for reforming such miscreant
women). They should sever all ties with them or adopt any other course (for the
reformation of such women). May Allah Ta'ala grant us taufeeq."
Other senior Muftis of the fiqh academy have also rejected Mr.Shuayb Omar's attempt of
conferring wilaayat to a non-Muslim court over Muslims.
The attempt by Mr. Lawyer to confer Shar'i status to the non-Muslim court is part of a
sinister plot which the MPL crowd of miscreant molvies and modernists are hatching. Why
is Mr. Miscreant Lawyer hell-bent on securing Shar'i status for secular courts? There is no
real conundrum underlying this haraam move. The MPL or MMB (Muslim Marriages Bill)
firstly envisages legal recognition of Islamic marriages. In other words, the Islamic Nikah
should be automatically legally recognized.

Now if Muslim marriages are legally recognized, there will obviously be legal
consequences. One such consequence in the event of the breakdown of the marriage is
Talaaq. But Talaaq is valid only if administered by the husband or the Nikah is made Faskh
(annulled) by an Islamic court or a Committee of Ulama. If Talaaq is decreed by a secular
court, there will develop an anomalous situation in the event Muslim marriages are legally
recognized. On the one hand, the marriage will be legally recognized, and on the other hand,
the secular court will not have the power to annul the Islamic Nikah despite its legality in
terms of the law of the land. This is decidedly incongruous and a terrible headache for the
pro-MPL/MMB gang.
If the law legally recognizes the Nikah, it must logically have the power to annul such
Nikah. But according to the Shariah the secular court has no wilaayat over a Muslim, hence
its decree of Talaaq will not be valid. To overcome this anomaly, a miscreant group of
South African pro-MPL/MMB molvies journied recently to India fishing for fatwas which
confer wilaayat to non-Muslim courts.
The ignorance and deficiency in knowledge of these MPL molvies is shocking and
lamentable. Are they so stupid that despite being molvies and muftis and operating even
Darul Ulooms they lack the ability to do some simple research and come up with the
Shariah's verdict on this issue? Since they are fully aware of the Shariah's verdict on this
issue, they travelled to India to seek assistance. Now they seek to browbeat the Ulama of
South Africa with names and numbers. But they are sorely mistaken. We are not awed by
the conglomeration of molvies of the liberal fiqh academy of India.
We do not worship molvies and academies. Our criterion is the Divine Shariah. We are not
like the Bani Israaeel whom the Qur'aan castigates:
"They take their theologians and saints as gods besides Allah…"

Fatwas of present-day muftis neither awe nor impress us. Every fatwa regardless of who its
author may be, will be scrutinized and scaled on the Standard of the Shariah. The majority
of academy molvies are like sheep. They sleep the time away not understanding even simple
issues. Of the 500 academy molvies, how many have contributed academically to the
corrupt, kufr resolution of the clique?
There is absolutely no Shar'i and no academic merit in Shuayb Omar's stupid and emotional
response which has not answered a single one of our arguments presented in refutation of
the ghutha' and baatil resolution which the small clique of the 'fiqh academy' has issued.
The Shariah's fourteen century Ijma' is explicit and emphatic: "A kaafir court has no
wilaayat over a Muslim". The decree of a secular court is NEVER a Talaaq. The Nikah
remains valid. If in a future kufr dispensation, baatil wilaayat is conferred to the
secular courts, the Nikah will remain valid. Any woman who may obtain an
annulment/divorce from a secular court will remain in her husband's Nikah. Marriage
to another man will never be valid. The consequence of the plots hatched by the MPL
crowd, if they succeed, will be nothing but ZINA.