Part Four THE KNB (KUFR NIKAH BILL)
GANIEF HENDRICK’S DESPERATE CLUTCHING AT STRAWS
“Allah afflicts with RIJS (FILTH) those who lack brains.” (Surah Yoonus, Aayat 100)
It is also mentioned in the Hadith that Shaitaan urinates in their ears. This satanic urination deranges the brains, causing it to explode in cognitive incongruency
———-==========———-
INTRODUCTION
Recently, a lost soul from the Al Jahannam political party (formerly known as Al Jama-ah), stated in a stupid statement:
- “The Shariah is now part of South African Law.”
- “…..the consequences of such a Marriage are also in terms of the shariah.”
The Majlis criticized this absolutely baseless and false claim made by Mr.Ganief Hendricks of the Al Jahannam Party. The request of the Muslim community in general, and of the Ulama in particular, was and is, quite concise and simple: The question which Muslims have been asking, and for which hitherto, the lost soul has miserably failed to answer, is:
- Which Act and which sections of the Act state that the “Shariah is now part of South African Law”?
- Which Shariah consequences of the Nikah has the government/South African Law or the concourt accepted?
- Is Ganief Hendricks aware of the consequences of the Nikah which led him to claim: “the consequences of such a Marriage are also in terms of the shariah.”?
This is the ONLY issue of contention to which the chap was called on to respond. However, since his claims are palpably false, flapdoodle and rubbish, and since false and stupid pride us averse to acknowledgement and retraction of one’s errors and gaffs, Hendricks totally and cunningly by passed and ignored these questions and embarked on a discharge of effluvium, flotsam and jetsam which have absolutely no relationship with the issue of his false claims and our queries.
We have already published three installments of our response to the rubbish he has circulated in the hope of Muslims forgetting the actual issue. The fourth installment of our refutation follows hereunder.
Dodging Tactic
In his devious attempt to dodge the questions asked of him, Hendricks let loose the following red herring:
“The One Statute Marriage Bill is now before cabinet; and it must, however, accommodate the ConCourt judgement about a Shariah marriage. As an MP that leads AL JAMA-AH, I felt that it was my responsibility to be proactive and help implement the judgement before the deadline (that is, late 2024). I found it necessary for AL JAMA-AH to popularize the Concourt judgment and get Muslims to be vigilant when public comment is called with regards to the One Statute Marriage Registration Bill by August 2023. It, meanwhile, dawned on me during this post-judgement phase that the question of definitions as regard the respective concepts of Shariah and a Shariah marriage will have to be satisfactorily formulated.
Our questions do not pertain to the ‘one statute marriage bill, nor to the concourt’s judgement, nor to the chap’s hallucinated responsibility about being ‘proactive’, nor to public comment, nor to ‘definitions or the respective concepts of Shariah…’. These are separate issues which are not related to the questions which have been asked. Since Hendricks has absolutely no rational and no honest answer for his false claims, he deemed it as a defensive tactic to divert the focus from the one and primary issue, and that is the questions listed above. We are at this stage not concerned with the stupid claptrap Ganief Hendricks has presented in his abortive attempt to make a long, very long detour from the one and primary Issue, namely:
- Which Act and which section of the Act state that the “Shariah is now part of South African Law”?
- Which Shariah consequences of the Nikah has the government/South African Law or the concourt accepted?
- Is Ganief Hendricks aware of the consequences of the Nikah which led him to claim: “the consequences of such a Marriage are also in terms of the shariah.”?
A Baseless claim
Making another baseless claim, Hendricks says:
“Permit me to underline the point that the judiciary does not make laws and that it is the Legislature makes laws. So, Al Jama-ah has been hard at work to ensure that the legislative expression of that recognition does not contravene the Shariah. That being said, the courts have made applicable the Divorce Act, and specifically provisions which relate to matrimonial property protections, available to Muslim women – please note – as an interim measure. Such protections, exclusively, accord 100% with Shariah.”
Hendricks must provide the details of this alleged “100% accord with the Shariah”. He should also explain this ambiguous “ legislative expression of that recognition does not contravene the Shariah.” Does it contravene the Shariah or not? If it does not, he should explain how it does not.
Another diversion
“As a Party, we do not advocate a position that a Muslim marriage may be terminated (divorce [talaq]) by a divorce court; anyone, who suggests this, expresses a contrived and concocted view. For this reason, we have embarked on a process to – as already stated – propagate the judgment; we thus introduce a bill that in the interim protects Shari’ah’s core tenets in instances of divorce.”
The Issue of Dispute for which we are excoriating this fellow does not deal with Ganief’s ‘process’ to which he refers here. The Issue concerns the false claims he has made, and on which he is throttling himself by refusing to concede his gaff.
As a matter of interest, the fellow should explain how he has proposed to protect the “Shariah’s core tenets”.
His template
Continuing with his litany of diversionary nonsense, Hendricks states:
“It would do my learned theologian friend well to familiarize himself (and others) with this Bill. It is prefaced by a recognition of the current challenges from a Shariah law perspective, and introduces a template or framework to address these challenges: its essence is that a secular divorce court may not issue a talaq, but disputes concerning matrimonial property may be decided within such a forum. That is because we operate within a secular economic/financial system and the courts have the expertise to deal with such matters.”
We are not discussing the matter he has outlined above. The Issue of Contention is the false claims he has made, and for which answers are required. If he consumes pork, he may not argue that eating sheep mutton is halaal. Such a response would be a copro gimmick because sheep mutton has no relationship with pork. Just as a matter on interest for Muslims, we need to mention at this juncture, that Ganief Hendricks has no Shar’i qualifications to speak on any matter of Islamic Law (the Shariah), not even on the basic subject of Istinja. Thus his constant reference to the shariah issues is garbled garbage calculate for obfuscation and to convey Shar’i expertise whilst being palpably bankrupt in this sphere.
Once again we seek answers from him – succinct response to the Core Issue of this dispute:
- Which Act and which section of the Act state that the “Shariah is now part of South African Law”?
- Which Shariah consequences of the Nikah has the government/South African Law or the concourt accepted?
- Is Ganief Hendricks aware of the consequences of the Nikah which led him to claim: “the consequences of such a Marriage are also in terms of the shariah.”?
PARTICIPATION IN KUFFAAR POLITICS IS HARAAM. THE ONE WHO IS A PARTY TO KUFFAAR LAW-MAKING LOSES HIS IMAAN. HE IS DESTINED FOR JAHANNAM, THE ROUTE WHICH THE AL JAHANNAM PARTY HAS CHALKED OUT.
IT IS HARAAM TO VOTE FOR AL JAHANNAM PARTY
20 Jamaadith Thaani 1444 – 13 January 2023