plus minus gleich

Search our website

THE KUFR OF AN ATTORNEY

E-mail Print PDF

6 Ramadhaan 1432  (6-August-2011)
THE KUFR OF AN ATTORNEY
We reproduce here verbatim a letter which Advocate Mohammed Saleem Khan of Durban wrote regarding the kufr of attorney Aslam Mayat:
FROM:    Advocate Saleem Khan
TO:        JAMIATUL ULEMA, KWAZULU-NATAL
AND TO:    AMAL

Dear Honourable Alims and members of Amal,

RE:    CHANGES TO SHARIAH AND OTHER MATTERS

At a meeting of Amal (Association of Muslim Accountants and Lawyers) and the Jamiatul Ulema of KwaZulu-Natal held on 25th July 2011, Attorney Aslam Mayat expressed disagreement with the "Purdah" provisions of Shariah. Indeed, in an e-mail which he sent to Moulana Abdullah Khan, Jamiatul Ulema, KZN on 27th July 2011, he writes and I quote:¬
"You know that I am not enamoured with Purda meetings, but I personally am satisfied that in this meeting Munira was a full participant and in fact played an integral role".
In the same e-mail, Attorney Aslam Mayat writes and I quote -
"Advocate Khan said that the lawyers should not be permitted to change Shariah, of which the Ulema were the sole custodians. Advocate Motala said that it was a fallacy that Amal would want to pronounce on shariah and Amal had no intention of changing shariah.
I respectfully disagree with the Learned Advocates Khan and Motala...
From the MPL debacle, and in particular the divergence of views regarding "the right" of the husband to take a further wife, I have come to realise that it is possible to have different but valid interpretations of what a particular verse of the Quran means. Verses can even become abrogated by subsequent verses etc.'
In a further communication, Attorney Aslam Mayat expressed the following in relation to the Shariah position (as indeed the Quranic Injunction) relating to the husband chastising a wife with a miswaak and banishing her from his bed where she misconducts herself:¬-
"At the end of the day the essence of the point is that for Amal to be party to, or even condone, such conduct by the husband which so clearly offends against the SA Constitution is, in my humble opinion, a part that Amal should exercise great caution before going down on. Before Amal embarks on such a frolic I would expect thoughtful and reflective persons to carefully analyse and deliberate over it. To weigh up the pros and cons before an informed decision is made. There are some who will rejoice if Amal would take a step that could land it in hot water. Some may even use it to beat Amal on the head with it. The JSC episode should make us err on the side of circumspection and caution.
Of course Amal could take the contrary view that the above literature does not represent true Islamic Law, and want to chart an alternative brand of Shariah in a nonaligned pancheyat committee (which would, in its discretion, draw on the expertise of various ulema bodies, including Jamiat).
Which leads me to the proposal I made to Moulana Abdulla Khan that if this may be a good opportunity for the various bodies already involved in this work to get together and share their knowledge and experiences. Without going into any detail (some of which I shared with Moulana Abdulla Khan), amongst the many benefits is that it would partially overcome the scourge of "forum shopping".
I must repeat that these are my very own personal ramblings and I do not represent Amal or anyone else, any errors I made are all my own.
Jazakallah
It has always been a pleasure engaging you.
Yours respectfully
Aslam Mayat".
I was informed by Moutana Abdullah Khan of Jamaitul Ulema, KZN telephonically that as a result of certain criticisms I raised in connection with some of the aforegoing, Attorney Aslam Mayat and Attorney Enver Moolla met with him and at this meeting Attorney Aslam Mayat claimed to be hurt by my criticisms. I do not desire to cause "hurt" to Attorney Aslam Mayat, Mr Enver Moolla or anyone else, but in the interest of objectivity and compliance with my Islamic obligations, I invite you to express your views on the aforegoing.
Yours faithfully
MAHOMED SALEEM KHAN

The disagreement which attorney Aslam Mayat expressed on the Hijaab (Purdah) law of the Shariah – a law which is based on evidence of the Qat’iyuth Thuboot  category  - Qur’aanic aayaat and Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah – is an unambiguous refutation of the Qur’aan and Sunnah – an unambiguous rejection of the absolute commands of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Such rejection is unadulterated KUFR which expels Mr.Mayat from the fold of Islam. In other words, on account of his refutation of Islam’s Purdah Laws based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, Mr.Aslam Mayat has renounced Islam, and has entered the domain of Irtaad.
The consequences of Irtidaad (becoming a murtad) are:  
(1) Destruction of Imaan. The Renegade (Murtad) is expelled from the fold of Islam.
(2) Automatic nullification of Nikah. It is Waajib for the murtad’s wife to separate herself from her renegade husband.
(3)  If the murtad refuses to repent and renew his/her Imaan, the Muslim community has to compulsorily sever all ties with him/her.
Since the Jamiatul Ulama KZN was a participant at the meeting where attorney Aslam Mayat had expressed his kufr, it devolves on the Jamiat to inform the lawyer of his Irtidaad.
The comments which attorney Aslam Mayat has made on the Shariah in general, and on the Purdah issue in particular are pure bunkum and display the attorneys ignorance of the Shariah. Such bunkum does not require intelligent response. It suffices to say that he is guilty of kufr and in consequence has lost his Imaan.

Last Updated on Tuesday, 09 August 2011 12:46  

Hijri Date











Moon Phase