Allah Ta’ala states: “Evil plots will hem in none, but their conspirators.”

(Surah Faatir, Aayat 43)

Uucsa has put itself in an extremely tight corner. It has plotted against the Shariah as this short article will explain and now it is painfully endeavoring to wriggle itself out of the muddle in which it finds itself mired. Accordingly, a few of its blatant contradictions are presented here to give readers an idea of how hard it is trying to mislead the ignorant masses.


Many people are Alhamdulillah against the MMB due to the kufr laws stated in the Bill. With uucsa being friends of the court in the case of the gender equality mob who are fighting for the recognition of ‘Muslim’ marriages, many Muslims saw this as a means of promoting the Haraam Kufr Muslim Marriages Bill (MMB).

To pacify the masses, Uucsa released a pamphlet dated 25 July 2021. Uucsa’s point number 20 reads as follows: “20. It is a mistake to automatically assume that the MMB would form the basis of future legislation, recognizing and regulating Muslim marriages and their consequences.”  (An analysis of this will follow Insha Allah.)

However, in Uucsa’s HOA (Head’s Of Argument) submission dated 22 July 2021, the following statement proves that uucsa is contradicting itself: “14.6 The draft Muslim Marriages Bill grants the Court an overriding equitable discretion, in the absence of agreement, to order an equitable division of assets between the spouses so as to achieve justice. (Section 9 (7) (b).”

(An analysis of this appears further on. Section 9 (7) (b) is part of Uucsa’s amended MMB submission to the Department of Justice dated 30 May 2011!!!)

The contradiction is even more clearer in uucsa’s explainer dated 28 July 2021: “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. The dynamics have changed because of the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling. MPL is no longer an option.” (This was another stupid attempt to mislead the masses.)

On both 25th and 28th July, UUCSA has contradicted itself. If the hearing has nothing to do with the Muslim Marriages Bill, and if the MPL is no longer an option then why is the MMB mentioned in point 14.6 of its concourt written submission?

Since uucsa ‘claims’ that the dynamics have changed because of the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling, why did it even make mention of the draft MMB in their court submission? Who is uucsa trying to fool?


There are three different statements being analyzed in this article. All three are related to the MMB. To keep it chronological, let us analyse first the 22nd July HOA submission of UUCSA to the Concourt, then the 25th July article entitled ‘WOMEN’S LEGAL CENTRE TRUST APPLICATION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’ and then the 28th July article entitled ‘UUCSA Explainer | Why has UUCSA gone to the Constitutional Court?’

1. 22 July 2021 – UUCSA’s court submission point number 14.6. Its comment has already been quoted. The following is important to understand:

a) Without any remorse for such a Kufr provision, Uucsa shamelessly states: The draft MMB grants the Court an overriding equitable discretion…!!! Instead of stating the Law of the Shariah, the court is granted an overriding equitable discretion! Will the court rule according to the Shariah? Uucsa and every Muslim knows that what is regarded as ‘equitable’ and ‘just’ in terms of the law/constitution of the country, is not the same in terms of the Shariah. Yet, uucsa gives the court an “overriding equitable discretion!”

b) What does the Shariah say about the equitable division of assets between the spouses? What is uucsa implying when it says ‘to achieve justice’? The rights of women ordained by the Shariah are just and equitable. The Shariah’s equitability and justice cannot be superseded with western or any other secular concept of justice. What the Shariah has ordained for women is the Divine dispensation.

c) The court is given the right by MMB to divide the husband’s property between the husband and wife on dissolution of the marriage. The court is empowered to effect a division of the husband’s property in a manner which it deems equitable. But according to the Shariah it is haraam for the wife to claim anything of her ex-husband’s assets. She is entitled to only maintenance during the Iddat period. Thus, the husband’s wealth will be usurped – grabbed in haraam ways with the decree of the secular court.

d) No court has the right in terms of the Shariah to usurp, steal and dole out the assets of a man to those who Islamically are not the owners and do not qualify for the assets. The ‘equitable’ division which UUCSA has accepted and justified, is a kuffaar concept. It is not ‘equitable’ in Islam. It is usurpation of the assets of a person. In presenting justification for this capital haraam act of usurpation, UUCSA has flagrantly displayed its rejection of the Shariah. How can the affairs of the Deen ever be entrusted to such Robbers of Imaan and Destroyers of Islam? All the MMB provisions pertaining to division of assets are haraam and within the ambit of kufr.

2. 25 July 2021 – In an attempt to pull wool over the eyes of the masses, Uucsa stated: “20. It is a mistake to automatically assume that the MMB would form the basis of future legislation, recognizing and regulating Muslim marriages and their consequences.” 

i. There are no assumptions regarding the fact that uucsa is pushing the MMB for approval. It is a blatant lie for uucsa to imply that it does not want the MMB to be the basis of future legislation, recognition and regulation of Muslim marriages and the obvious Kufr consequences which follow.

ii. No one will be able to alter the Shariah no matter which Bill is brought into legislation. It is a fact that Uucsa’s MMB is for the legal recognition of Muslim Marriages and their consequences. This is clearly understood from its 2011 submission to the government which included its cosmetic amendments.

iii. Accordingly, in its submission dated 26 August 2019, uucsa stated: “5.5 This brings into focus one of the more vexing issues that fueled opposition to previous attempts at seeking legal recognition of Muslim marriages more commonly known as the Muslim Marriage Bill (MMB) i.e. The question of doctrinal entanglement.”

iv. It is so obvious that uucsa cannot oblige the secular court to render its decrees subservient to the Shariah. Yet, UUCSA supports the legal recognition of Muslim Marriages and their consequences. Is this not Deeni-treachery and being sell-outs?

3. 28 July 2021 – Uucsa stated: “The hearing is not about the MPL Bill; it is not about laws pertaining to nikaah and Talaq…. MPL is no longer an option.”

A – Legal recognition of Muslim marriages has a direct future impact on our Nikahs, Talaaq, maintenance, Faskh, inheritance, maintenance, alimony, Iddat, etc. etc. When Muslim Marriages are legally recognised, then which Legal system is going to be applicable to Muslim Marriages? Secular Law or Shariah? Does UUCSA think that the Muslim public is so stupid not to understand the kufr and satanism underlying the motive and objectives of legal recognition?

B – The very MMB was for legal recognition. UUCSA’s 2011 submission, 2019 submission and its rotten history proves how much importance it showed to the Kufr MMB. There are many more contradictions and lies to be exposed.  Insha Allah, in the next article other aspects will be tackled pertaining to UUCSA, WLC and the legal recognition which these Zindeeq-Munaafiqs are fighting for.

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah Radhiyallahu Anhu narrated that Rasoolullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Years of treachery (deception) will dawn upon people. The kaadhib (liar) will be regarded as honest. And the saadiq (truthful/honest person) will be regarded as a liar. The khaa-in (traitor) will be trusted. And the ameen (loyal/trustworthy person) will be regarded as treacherous. And the Ruwaibidah will do the talking.” It was asked: ‘Who are the Ruwaibidah?’ He (Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Vile men who control the affairs of the people.” [Sunan Ibn Majah]


You may also be interested in:

Part 2: https://jamiatnc.co.za/deviated-2/response-to-uucsa-explainer/