2. AN ANALYSIS OF ITS JURM (CRIME)
Allah Ta’ala states: “Thus, have We decreed in every town that its leading criminals plot therein. And, they plot nothing but against themselves, which they do not even perceive.”
(Surah Al-An’aam, Aayat 123)
This article is in response to Uucsa’s baseless defence entitled ‘uucsa explainer’ which appeared on the website of an organization deceptively parading as JUSA. Their statements are all in maroon. Our response is in black.
Question 1: Why has UUCSA gone to the Constitutional Court?
A – UUCSA is neither an applicant nor respondent in the matter.
Response: Even on the issue of closing the Masaajid, uucsa was neither an applicant nor respondent. Why has uucsa introduced this red herring? Whether uucsa is an applicant or not, respondent or not, the fact is that uucsa is supporting the application of the WLC. How can an Ulama council support a feminist pro-equality group when it is undeniable that the views of the WLC are clear-cut Kufr!
B – The Women’s Legal Centre went to court to have Muslim marriages recognised.
Response: This is a deceptive statement. Uucsa fully supports what the WLC is doing insofar as going to court to gain Shaytaani legal recognition of Muslim Marriages which brings in its wake a host of Kufr stipulations all due to Kufr ‘feminism’ and Kufr concepts of ‘equality’. That the Kaafiraat are going to court is not disputed. But, the fact that the Murtaddeen are supporting the WLC, should also not be disputed. Uucsa should answer the question with a simple yes or no: Do you support the WLC in their quest for legal recognition of Muslim marriages?
C – Our role is simply to offer a perspective for the consideration of the Constitutional Court. Our function as amicus is to protect the interests of Islam and Muslims and to preserve the Shariah.
Response: What are the differences between uucsa’s perspective and the WLC’s? Uucsa should explain the differences in detail. In point B, uucsa acknowledges that the WLC is endeavouring to compel the government to enact legislation to recognize Muslim marriages. Laughably uucsa claims to protect the interests of Islam! Then, why were you pushing the Muslim Marriages Bill which has so many clauses in conflict with the Shariah that innumerable Ulama have introduced Imaan and Kufr into the discussion!
Furthermore, JamiatKZN seems to disagree with uucsa that uucsa wants to protect the interests of Islam and Muslims. Despite JamiatKZN being a member of uucsa, why has JamiatKZN disassociated from uucsa if uucsa is truly trying to protect the interests of Islam and Muslims? It is either JamiatKZN that is trying to protect the interests of Islam or uucsa. But, it cannot be both. Uucsa has shot itself in the foot with this statement.
The statement of uucsa falsely implies that JamiatKZN, Darul Emaan, Wifaaqul Ulama and ALL THOSE OPPOSING THEM are NOT protecting the interests of Islam and Muslims and or preserving the Shariah by opposing it’s actions.
Question 2: What is the hearing at the Constitutional Court about?
A – The central issue in the Constitutional Court hearing is to determine whether or not the Constitution places an obligation on the State to adopt legislation recognizing Muslim marriages and their consequences.
Response: Did you read uucsa’s 14-page written submission to the constitutional court? The very first statement of uucsa reads as follows:
“At the heart of this debate is the central issue of the State’s ongoing, continuing proven, foundational breach of its constitutional obligation to adopt comprehensive legislation regarding Muslim marriages and their consequences.”
Subhaan-Allah! Who is uucsa trying to fool? According to uucsa, it is the obligation of the State to adopt legislation recognizing Muslim marriages and their consequences! Read the above paragraph in italics again!!! As a Muslim, one may just imagine the consequences of such legislation! Will it be Kufr constitutional law or Islamic Law? The answer is obvious, yet the Murtaddeen are forcing the government to enact such legislation.
B – The hearing is not about the MPL Bill; it is not about laws pertaining to nikaah and Talaq. The hearing therefore has nothing to do with the Muslim Marriages Bill.
Response: Now, why is uucsa trying to disassociate the Bill from this court case? It is a fact that uucsa is pro-MPL. Does Nikah and Talaaq have nothing to do with the legislation of recognizing Muslim Marriages? How is it possible for uucsa to utter such drivel!
Furthermore, if according to uucsa the hearing has nothing to do with the Muslim Marriages Bill, then why did it promote the Muslim Marriages Bill in point 14.6 of its court submission. And in point 6, uucsa boasts about consenting to the draft MMB. Such consent is the elimination of Imaan. And all this proves that uucsa is promoting the MMB with this court case. May Allah Ta’ala take ‘care’ of this uucsa properly in this world. Aameen. Our Duas are heard by Allah Ta’ala and our Creator will definitely protect us from the satanism and Kufr of UUCSA.
C – The dynamics have changed because of the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling. MPL is no longer an option.
Response: Dynamics changed, but uucsa still promotes MMB! If MMB-MPL is no longer an option, then why still promote it? Why did uucsa mention it in their concourt submission? Uucsa deceives none but itself.
Question 3: Is it not wiser to simply abstain from getting involved?
A – We no longer have the luxury of debating whether we want our marriages regulated or not. The Courts have already decided and settled this matter.
Response: But uucsa wanted our marriages to be regulated by the government. The way uucsa puts it forward is as if it is innocent. Yet, all along, it has been siding with the WLC. It serves no benefit for uucsa to say that the courts have already decided and settled this matter when uucsa wanted the court to make this decision. Uucsa seeks to portray that it does not want our Nikahs to be regulated by Kufr Law. Yet, from the very beginning, it was very well apprised of the kufr consequences of legal recognition of Muslim Marriages. And uucsa is hell-bent on the government legally recognizing Muslim Marriages. Uucsa clearly stated that the government has failed in its constitutional “obligation” in this regard.
B – The Courts have given government 24 months to recognize Muslim marriages and their consequences by either amending existing legislation or passing new legislation, following the declaration of constitutional invalidity of the Marriage Act and the Divorce Act.
Response: Due to the ‘blessings’ of uucsa, the government will pass off the marriages of Kuffaar also as Muslim marriages. Jack and Jill will get married. Moulana Toffee and Sheikh Chappy will find justification for Muslims sporting Kaafir names, and also being gay and being part of the LGBTQ-community. Their ‘Nikah’ will have to be solemnized in the Musjid due to the blessings of uucsa’s written submission to the concourt and the support of the Murtad and Kuffaar women’s groups. The same could be said with regards to Madam and Eve!
How will the court even know what is Muslim when we speak of Muslim Marriages? Are Shias Muslim, O UUCSA Molvis? What is your Fatwa regarding the leader of the Shias in South Africa? A challenge is made to any of the members of uucsa to issue a Fatwa on him. Our Fatwa is clear: Mr. Haider of AFOSA is a Murtad Kaafir Shia! He believes in the 12 Imaams, degrades the Sahaabah, justifies Mut’ah prostitution, does NOT accept our Qur’aan, etc. etc. Now will such a Kaafir be regarded as a valid Muslim in the Kuffaar courts?
And uucsa was an advocate of Muslim marriages being recognized in court! What about a Shia Kaafir getting married to a Muslim (Sunni)? What does uucsa say about that??? Or will uucsa blame others for this also?
C – The Courts have also ruled that in the interim, the Divorce Act will apply to all Muslim marriages. The harsh reality is that the interim relief may become the default position for a long period of time if government drags its feet in amending existing legislation.
Response: The harsh reality is that the Kufr Divorce Act being applicable to Muslim marriages is due to the ‘barkat’ (actually curse) of uucsa. If uucsa was against the legislation of Muslim Marriages, it could have been a different scenario. But, Allah Ta’ala has His ways of exposing the Munaafiqeen to us.
Let us look at the reality. Muslim Marriages have not yet been legally recognized. But, the Divorce Act is already applicable to Muslims. Is uucsa so blind? This so-called interim relief is a precursor to the curse of our Shariah being subjected to mutilation. And all of this is because of uucsa. Uucsa must take the blame for this. Yet, the uucsa scoundrels can’t open their eyes and their hearts are sealed – typical Munaafiqeen!
If this is not an eye-opener for uucsa and it is not, as can be seen from uucsa’s concourt submission dated 22 July 2021, and its consequent pamphlets, then it should not be difficult to understand the Fatwa of Kufr applicable to uucsa. The Ulama-e-Haq know what they are speaking when they condemn the Mudhilleen, Munaafiqeen, and Ulama-e-Soo. UUCSA Molvis should hang their heads in shame!
D – We cannot allow the state to compel Muslims to follow secular law. If we sit back and do not actively work towards preserving the interest of Muslims, we will be forced to regulate our marriages and divorces according to the law of the country.
Response: But you Munaafiqs opposed the Ulama-e-Haq. Now you rubbishes speak of sitting back. You did not sit back. You actively supported the WLC!!!
Don’t be fooled by uucsa with its deceptive statements. Justice in Islam is very different from the laws of Kufr. They know the Kufr consequences of MMB and the consequences of legal recognition of Muslim marriages. Their Nifaaq is understood from such statements. They know the consequences, yet they were all along promoting the Kufr! Now who is who in this jungle? We are dealing with Kilaab, Khanaazeer and Humurum Mustanfirah here.
Question 4: Is it true that UUCSA did not consult one of its founding members, the JU (KZN), when applying to be amicus?
A – The fact that both UUCSA and the JU (KZN) appeared as amicus in the Western Cape High Court presenting diametrically opposing views attests to the fact that there was a tacit understanding that each party is free to pursue its own course of action.
Response: DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSING VIEWS!!! Are both parties right? No! Uucsa is wrong. Due to the severe opposition to uucsa, uucsa is more worried about its name than the Shariah. Many people have Alhamdulillah petitioned the government. Many Ulama are against uucsa on this issue. ALL THE ULAMA opposing uucsa are saying that they don’t want the Shariah to be changed or mutilated. It is thus clear that all the Ulama opposing uucsa are aware of the fact that uucsa’s involvement is in fact Kufr.
Now, how is it possible for Mu’aanideen like uucsa to consult their very own member Jamiat KZN when it is a fact that JamiatKZN regards uucsa’s support of the WLC to be dangerous for one’s Imaan? In fact, it is a negation of Imaan. The Imaan of Muslims is at stake when they promote the Bill. In any case, we don’t have any good expectations from the interfaith clergy!
B – This is an indication of the open accommodation of differences of view within UUCSA.
Response: The open accommodation of differences of view merely confirms the Shaytaani attitude of uucsa. Accommodation of Baatil, Kufr, Fisq, Fujoor, and Bid’ah is openly entertained by the enemies of Allah and the Friends of the Court!
(They – the human and jinn devils whisper their evil and adorned statements to one another) so that the hearts of those who do not believe in the Aakhirat incline to it (to their kufr), so that they become pleased with it, and so that they may indulge in whatever they (these kuffaar) fabricate.”
(Al-An’aam, Aayat 113)
What! Should I (Rasulullah –Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) search for another judge besides Allah whilst it is He Who has revealed to you (O Muslimeen!) the Kitaab with detailed explanation. And (even) those to whom We have given the Kitaab (Tauraah) know that it has been revealed from your Rabb with the Haqq. Therefore, do not become of the doubtful ones.”
(Al-An’aam, Aayat 114)
The aforementioned two Qur’aanic Verses have full application to Yusuf Patel, and the charlatans of BOGUS ‘uucsa’ whom he represents. They scheme with even the kuffaar – with the kuffaar Women’s Centre and other kuffaar entities – to fabricate laws which are repugnant and in direct conflict with the Shariah.