plus minus gleich

Search our website

WHO ARE UUCSA’S 8 ‘LEADING MUFTIS’?

E-mail Print PDF

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,

Pretoria 0001.

Fax 086 648 7766;

e-mail:   This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF YOUR LETTER TO US FOR OUR RECORDS. JAZAAKALLAAH!

 

Our contact details:

P. O. Box 3393, Port Elizabeth 6056

Fax 041-451-3566

e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Last Updated on Saturday, 09 April 2011 08:21  

Hijri Date











Moon Phase