PO Box 3393, Port Elizabeth, 6056
30 Rabiuth Thaani 1432 – 5 April 2011
THE KUFR MMB
WHO ARE UUCSA’S 8 ‘LEADING MUFTIS’?
In its “Muslim Marriages Bill Update”, UUCSA, the tattered and torn paper organization alleges: “UUCSA had convened a special meeting of some of the leading Muftis of our country to discuss and study its proposed amendments. Alhamdulillah, UUCSA’s submission was supported by a bench of eight leading Muftis.”
Conventicles have become the hallmark of UUCSA. A conventicle is a clandestine religious meeting of dissenters. Since UUCSA is bereft of Shar’i arguments to substantiate its support for the Kufr MMB, it has become its salient feature to conduct clandestine meetings. And after the meetings (which perhaps were not even convened) UUCSA sends out some ambiguous mumblings. Its latest conventicle involving the ‘8 leading muftis’ is one such meeting to con and mislead the Muslim community.
It behoves UUCSA to present to the Muslim community:
- The names of the ‘8 leading muftis’
- The list of its proposed amendments.
UUCSA preposterously claims to be the representative of the Muslim community of South Africa. It therefore owes the Muslim community the obligation of casting off its mask of secrecy and to explain what exactly are the amendments and who were these ‘8 leading muftis’. It is almost a certitude that most of these muftis did not even understand the bill nor had even commented. UUCSA’s tactic is to enlist dumb sheep to rubber stamp the stupidities and the kufr of its miscreant drivers, namely some MJC sheikhs and NNB Jamiat molvis.
The amendments referred to by UUCSA are all old hat which we have already thoroughly debunked. The changes suggested by UUCSA are stupid and cosmetic, and do not address the kufr which permeates the whole Kufr MMB. UUCSA’s cosmetic amendments have been discussed in detailed articles.
UUCSA’s primary concern with the Kufr bill is not the kufr of the bill, but the deletion of the provisions which deal with the courts. Since the deletion of these provisions has dashed the hope of gaining lucrative jobs in the judiciary, UUCSA is feverishly ‘engaging’ behind the scenes to get the court provisions reinstated. The salary of a judge is R2 million a year, and his golden handshake is R20 million. This has all along been the juicy carrot which has sustained UUCSA’s demand for Kufr MMB.
UUCSA has absolutely no Shar’i motive, hence it has been supporting the Kufr bill with all its Kufr, right until the release of the bill for comment. After the publication of the bill shorn of the court provisions, UUCSA receded into a shell of silence – shocked into silence by the deletion of the court provisions which dashed all their monetary hopes.
That ‘8 leading muftis’ could sanction glaring kufr is inexplicable. They must have been extremely dumb muftis who did not understand head or tail of the Kufr bill and who were quickly bamboozled by the miscreant supporters of the kufr bill. These ‘8 leading muftis’ appear to be of the same ilk as SANHA’s carrion-halaalizing, rubber-stamping muftis whose condonation of the carrion could not bring joy to even SANHA. The same scenario is being duplicated by UUCSA regarding Kufr MMB. After all, the UUCSA crowd is the very same SANHA carrion-halaalizing crowd.
In its ‘Update’ UUCSA further alleges:
“UUCSA has undertaken a protracted process of consultation with various stakeholders to prepare a detailed submission on the Draft Bill. A series of meetings were held with Ulama, Muslim lawyers and Muslim judges.”
Another ‘series’ of clandestine meetings to dupe the public! UUCSA owes the Muslim community the obligation of spelling out its ‘protracted process of consultation”. When were these meetings held? Where were they convened? Who are the stakeholders? Who were the Muslim lawyers and Muslim judges who had participated? Was judge Navsa one of them? Why is UUCSA treating its ‘protracted process’ as a military secret. UUCSA has misled the government with the misinformation of it being the representative of the Muslim community. We are positive that the deluge of opposition to the Kufr bill must have opened the eyes of the government to realize that the claims of UUCSA regarding representation are utterly baseless. UUCSA is nothing but a mirage.
Who are the Muslim lawyers with whom UUCSA has consulted, and what was the view of the lawyers. The Muslim Lawyers Association of Gauteng is opposed to the Kufr bill, and has made its anti-MMB submissions to the Minister of Justice. UUCSA has to name the ‘Muslim judges’ who allegedly were participants it this “protracted process of consultation”. It is not lawful for sitting judges to become embroiled in a conflict of the community. A judge may not lend the prestige of his position to any particular group in a conflict. We therefore insist that UUCSA reveals the names of the “muslim judges’ who had participated in UUCSA’s clandestine ‘protracted process of consultation”.
The bill is so atrociously un-Islamic and in conflict with the Shariah that no amount of amendment will make it Shariah-compliant. Furthermore, a 100% Shariah-compliant document will be violently in conflict with the country’s Constitution. A synthesis acceptable to either the Shariah or the Constitution is thus an impossibility. This impossibility has constrained the Legal Resources Centre to say:
“It is conceded that Muslim marriages cannot remain completely unrecognised, but Islamic law as it stands in the Muslim Marriages Bill cannot stand the test of the Constitution. …..However, accepting Islamic marriage law as contained in the Bill would be more than just unconstitutional – it would be an absolute abandonment of many of our most important democratic principles. A compromise is required, but this compromise will have to come from the Muslim community. The compromise will also have to be greater than previously expected, if our Constitution is to be upheld. It is our submission that if the Bill is to survive constitutional muster the Bill has to correct every problem addressed in this submission and any other flaws fully, by bringing it completely in line with the Constitution. To many members of the Muslim community this may seem undesirable, but there does not seem to be a comprehensive solution that is simultaneously able to protect religious rights and adhere to our constitutional principles.”
While embracing such kufr is acceptable to UUCSA it will NEVER be acceptable to the Muslim community. We thus say: SCRAP THE KUFR BILL!!!
IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF EVERY MUSLIM TO DEFEND THE SHARIAH BY STATING HIS/HER OBJECTION TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE. WRITE A LETTER OF OBJECTION. DISSOCIATE FROM THE KUFR BILL. ASK THE MINISTER TO SCRAP THE KUFR BILL. SEND YOUR LETTER OF OBJECTION TO:
Mr. T. N. Matibe,
Ministry of Justice & Constitutional Development,
Private Bag X81,
Fax 086 648 7766;
PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF YOUR LETTER TO US FOR OUR RECORDS. JAZAAKALLAAH!
Our contact details:
P. O. Box 3393, Port Elizabeth 6056