plus minus gleich

Search our website


E-mail Print PDF


Belching his hatred for Islam and craving for the Musaajid to remain closed, one non-entity, Abraham Raso, who has no relationship with the Shariah, directed his bile and guile at the Mujlisul Ulama of S.A., the Jamiatul Ulama of S.A. at their attorney, Brother Zehir Omar. Inha-Allah, in a later article we shall adequately deal with his irrational, spiteful and hateful ranting. 

Here we reproduce a response to Abraham Raso by Advocate Feroz Boda who deals dispassionately with the irrational ranting of Abraham Rasol. To satisfy the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala, we have dispensed of the opening salutation and the Tasmiyah with which Advocate Feroz initiates his response. The Shariah’s protocols preclude the extension of the Islamic Salutation to the Murtaddeen. We are therefore constrained by Allah’s Law to delete the Tasmiyah and Salaam from Advocate Feroz Boda’s letter. Responding to Raso’s claptrap, Advocate Feroz says:


Is the request for a relaxation on gatherings in the case of masaajid religious extremism?

A response to brother Ebrahim Rasool

By Feroze Boda  6 April 2020

In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent the Most Merciful

Salutations upon Allah’s noble Messenger, Muhammed (s.a.w)

Asslamaualykum warahmatulllah

1 Social media has become the avenue for the dissemination of everything: good, bad, true, false, complimentary, disparaging, unifying and divisive.

2 It is difficult, often exhausting for the layperson to analyse everything that is received, evaluate its reasonableness, its correctness and then decide whether or not it should be believed, and shared with others.

3 When the content of what is received involves Islam and the ummah, the situation is even more difficult,

4 This is because we are enjoined by our deen to be conscious about how we receive and evaluate statements from others, what we say, and how and to whom we say things.

5 We are governed by limits that are prescribed by Allah, the Sovereign, the Legislator.

6 It is therefore most disheartening to see the manner in which some people use social media, directly or indirectly, to pursue agendas that are narrow and could be interpreted as vilifying other Muslims who have expressed differing opinions.

7 The corona virus has spawned much posturing, statements and conduct by many individuals and organisations that operate in the Muslim community that sadly, could fall within this category.

8 These statements and accusations occur in the context of the wholesale curbing of most, if not all basic civil liberties.

9 These restrictions, whilst perhaps well intentioned and even, as some would argue, necessary, are not above criticism.

10 Amongst its detractors is a former Supreme Court Justice of the United Kingdom, who has lamented the loss of the right to exercise and is recorded to have stated (with reference to the restrictions in the UK) that


“This is what a police State is like’.

11 To the best of my knowledge, no one has labelled the highly regarded jurist as an extremist.

12 Unsurprisingly, religious leaders of all faiths have grappled with whether these restrictions are proportionate to the harm intended to be prevented, and more importantly, whether they are consistent with their beliefs.

13 The Washington post for example recently published an article titled “Coronavirus creates conflict for churches, where gatherings can be dangerous”, highlighting the divergent views amongst Christians. The article does not suggest, nor has there been any serious suggestion by anyone else, as far as I am aware, that those Christians that seek to maintain congregational prayer (coupled with appropriate safeguards and restrictions)) are extremists or should be ostracised.

14 In South Africa, Zehir Omar, an attorney, acting on behalf of his clients (the Jamiatul Ulema of South Africa and Majlisul Ulema of South Africa), addressed a letter to the Minister of Justice in which he requested that the prohibition on public gatherings be relaxed in the case of masaajid. There may well be other individuals who support this request, but have for one reason or another, not openly associated themselves with it.

15 The letter has been disseminated widely and I do not repeat its contents.

16 It contains, as one would expect in a request that seeks the relaxation of laws, the rationale for the request, including reasons why his clients maintain that the opening of the masaajid would not be harmful.

17 Shortly thereafter, (within hours in fact) all manner of people and organisations that operate within the Muslim community released statements that either contain specific reference to Zehir’s letter, or that can only be interpreted (given the timing and contents) to be responses to the letter.

18 For the most part, these responses contain explicit and unequivocal support for all restrictions placed in terms of the regulations, praise for the efforts of the state, and unflinching backing for the continued closure of the masaajid.

19 I do not express any view about these divergences as this is not my purpose.

20 One response though, went further, and contained a clarion call for action to be taken against Zehir’s clients and others like them. This was the response of Ebrahim Rasool, a senior member of the ANC in the Western Cape

21 Whilst I find fault with Rasool below for what he said and how he said it, I am clear that he is my brother in Islam, and my comments are meant to address publicly what he has stated publicly.

22 He stated, amongst other things that 22.1 The request to the Minister represented the convergence of a “radio mufti”, part of a “bogus council” and a maverick lawyer

22.2 The Jamiatul Ulema of South Africa and the Majlisul Ulema of South Africa are: 22.2.1 misguided, and seeking to misguide,

22.2.2 charlatans, and

22.2.3 extremists-he goes so far as to allege that they “were supportive of, or ambiguous about, ISIS and violent extremism.”




23 In effect, as appears from the extract below, he calls for them (whom he refers to as the “fringe “) to be isolated. He states thus:


“The mainstream Muslim leadership must speak as one to tell the authorities that the people of the lower deck are a fringe, if vocal, minority; that they are misguided and seek to misguide; that, like all extremists, their extremism is now inert, but as soon as they find a source of power they will unleash destruction; and that together we have a responsibility to think of all the occupants of the boat.”

24 He somehow manages to conflate a request to relax laws curbing congregational prayer with what he terms “extremism”.

25 Asim Quereshi in his book,” A Virtue of Disobedience” says:


The clearest exposition of language as a site of resistance and disobedience to authoritarianism comes in my view from Timothy Snyder, who warns us how language is used to manipulate fears:

Listen for dangerous words

Be alert to the use of the word’s extremism and terrorism. Be alive to the fatal notions of emergency and exception. Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.

When the terms ‘radical’ or ‘extremist’ are used, it is always to vilify, or neutralise the opponent….

By choosing to accept their terms of reference for the debate, we choose to ultimately harm ourselves, for we can never consider ourselves as anything outside of the boxes in which they put us.”

26 Therein lies my main objection to Rasool’s statement. It is his use of vocabulary on which the “the war on terror” has been premised and justified

27 For what purpose does he use such labelling?

28 As Muslims, we know very well how such characterisations have been used as a weapon against us.

29 When such designations are used within the ummah, by Muslim against Muslim, we mimic our detractors, and adopt their animosity.

30 Regrettably, this is not the first time that the word “extremist” has been used by certain Muslims in South Africa to delegitimise the activities or views of other Muslims

31 A case in point is when a group of Muslim lawyers sought to use lawful means to require the state to investigate (and arrest), amongst others, Narendra Modi, for crimes committed against Muslims in Kashmir.

32 This lawful and legal request attracted the opprobrium and ire of certain Muslim groups, who were quick to designate these Muslim Lawyers as “extremist”. Why?

33 In addition to my profound objection to the use of the term “extremist” by Rasool there are further aspects of his statement that are deeply disturbing 33.1 It is wrong of him to assume and assert that he and others that think like him are rightly guided and are the ones referred in the hadith he cites in his statement as being from those “who observe the limits set by Allah”, and

33.2 He unjustifiably sees fit to deal with a legitimate legal request to relax regulations as a sign of “exceeding the limits set by Allah”.


34 Furthermore, as with so many of the organisations that reacted to Zehir’s letter, he assumes incorrectly that his “mainstream” position is the only acceptable shar’i position regarding the forced closure of masaajid and that his “mainstream opinion” regarding the maqaasid of shariah “is the only acceptable approach to its application.

35 This misguided approach has taken root within the ummah in South Africa and it is repressive in effect, because it stifles the legitimate expression of shari proof-based opinions that differ from the mainstream. Coupled with the labelling of dissenters as extremists, it allows misplaced nationalism and partisan politics to flourish at the expense of ummah and Islam.

36 Dear brothers and sisters, how we as Muslims, deal with each other in periods of strife, uncertainty and difficulty is a test from Allah .

37 It would be our loss and tragic if, in our desire to save lives, we destroyed souls.

38 I must also say to those who may be of the view that the Majlisul Ulema and the Jamiatul Ulema of South Africa are guilty of vile name calling and mockery in their publications ,and that Rasools’s statement is somehow their comeuppance , that it is not becoming of Muslims to gloat and wish evil on other Muslims, or to humiliate them publicly.

39 We would have achieved absolutely nothing if, in our stated goal of trying to stave of illness, we openly dishonour and vilify our fellow Muslims .Where we disagree reasoned and balanced debate must be preferred to intemperate and abusive language.

40 May Allah guide us, and protect the Ummah from the whisperings of Shaytaan, the accursed.

41 And Allah alone knows best.


Was salaam

(End of Advocate Feroz Boda’s Response).


Christian churches in several countries have vigourorusly objected to the oppressive closure of their places of worship. No one labelled them extremists and by implication ‘terrorists’.


Initially, even the Pope called for continued church services. He was not branded an extremist and a terrorist.


In South Africa, an African Christian church defiantly maintained that they would continue having congregational services. The priest said: ‘Ramaphosa is not God.” Only a High Court order obtained by the government prevented the church from proceeding with its services. The church elders were not branded extremists and terrorists.


Violating all protocols of ‘social distancing’ and other compulsory measures imposed by the government, the taxi industry revolted. The Minister addressed a large gathering of taxi personnel in a bid to placate them. There were no masks, no distancing whatsoever. They stood jam-packed and the Minister addressed them. Not a word of rebuke or reprimand was whispered by Mr.Raso or anyone else. On the contrary, the government acquiesced and the taxis today are operating as usual without observing the number of passengers and the other ‘health’ protocols stipulated by the government. Anyone can witness this truth on the highway. No one complains, least of all Abraham Raso.


Raso is in the Western Cape. Let the chap visit Hanover Park and Mitchells Plain to view the teeming millions in total violation of every protocol ordered by the government to combat the virus. This is the state of affairs in all townships, squatter camps and informal settlements all over the country. It is humanly impossible to enforce these protocols in the heart-breaking scenarios of poverty and inhuman conditions in which the millions dwell in zinc shacks which house whole families. They have to share communal toilets and communal taps.


The mine bosses are now clamouring and demanding that its members be allowed to continue mining from April 17. They are not lambasted by Raso as extremists and terrorists.


Another spook entity, the so-called Minara Chamber of Commerce, stupidly joining in the fray with its co-munaafiqeen begging the government not to relax the total ban on the Musaajid, now calls on the government to completely end the lockdown on 16th April. While for these slaves of the dunya economic circumstances justify ending the lockdown despite the story of the subsistence of the ‘pandemic’, the Deen of Allah Ta’ala has absolutely no consideration for these miscreants who masquerade as Muslims. Hence our requesting a relaxation to permit the Houses of Allah Ta’ala to function – a request directed to the President – is regarded as treason by the bootlickers.


This spook chamber, now says: “We anticipate that this lockdown cannot continue in the interest of our country and its people based on the state of the economy as well as the catastrophic economic impact with a longer lock down.”


Are these chaps not extremists and terrorists?


We the ‘extremists’ and the ‘terrorists’ have not asked for the ending of the lockdown. We only seek a relaxation in the oppressive law of repression which seeks to combat Allah Ta’ala. The Musaajid are viewed by the munaafiqeen to be the most abhorrent  places whilst Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that the “noblest places on earth are the Musaajid”, and the “vilest places are the market-places” – the places which are the haunts  of the chaps of the Minara outfit. Furthermore, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said the first being present in the morning in the market places is Shaitaan. That is why the Minara clique thinks like shaitaan and speaks like shaitaan belching their bile against Allah Ta’ala. Their venom spewed at the Ulama is in reality meant for Allah Ta’ala. They have the very same attitude which the mushrikeen of Makkah exhibited. Referring to the hatred of the mushrikeen for Allah Ta’ala, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“Verily, We know that what they (the mushrikeen) say cause you (O Muhammad!) grief. (Know) that verily, they are not falsifying you.  But (in reality) the zaalimeen (oppressors) are denying the Aayaat of Allah.”

(Al-An’aam, Aayat 33)

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was the Shield for the criticism which the mushrikeen disgorged for Allah Ta’ala. In the very same way, the Ulama-e-Haqq today constitute the Shield. While in reality these miserable munaafiqeen harbour a deep-seated hatred for Islam which their cowardice constrains them to conceal, they belch the rot and filth of their malice at the Ulama, hence their inveterate detestation for the Musaajid opening.


With utter shamelessness, driven by avarice and monetary lust, they call for the termination of the lockdown, conveniently shelving the threat of the virus. But opening of the Musaajid is anathema for them. For them Allah Ta’ala has reserved Darkul Asfal minan Naar. And, besides these, a disgraceful and painful chastisement in a variety of ways will apprehend them in this dunya. Warning these miserable munaafiqeen, the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“For those who perpetrate such (villainy) there is nothing but disgrace in this worldly life, and on the Day of Qiyaamah they will be driven to the severest punishment (in Hell-Fire).”

When Allah’s Athaab overtakes you all in this dunya, your millions and billions will be of no avail. The worms will devour your bodies in the Qabr, and the Qabr will crush you. Beware of the La’nat of Allah Azza Wa Jal. We promise all the munaafiqeen who have pitted themselves against Allah Ta’ala, His La’nat will apprehend you right here in this dunya.

14 Sha’baan 1441 – 8 April 2020


Hijri Date