Archive for the ‘Social’ Category

Religion and the State, the Case Against the Muslim Personal
Law Bill

Over the past decade, an intense debate has raged within the Muslim community on the
question of legislating Muslim Personal Law (MPL). At its core, the debate implicates can
one reach the “correct” interpretation of religion and who has the legitimacy to render that
interpretation. The rancor has occurred before any law has been passed or any decision
rendered by any court as to what MPL means. The government has now put forward a Bill
for comment.

Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It further permits the state to recognise
religious marriages. Under apartheid, Muslims did not enjoy the same degree of legal
acceptance, which resulted in great hardship to Muslims married under Islamic law. Any
attempt to redress this inequity is laudable. There is however a great difference between
redressing this inequity by recognizing Muslim marriages, versus what the MPL Bill
represents namely the state legislating on matters of religious doctrine, with the penalty of
sanctions for departure from the Bill.

The European Court of Human Rights in a number of cases has affirmed that state officials
have a duty to maintain strict neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis religious communities. For
example, in the Moldova case, it ruled that where there is a difference in belief, the role of
the state is not to choose one belief over another. The state cannot assess the legitimacy
of religious beliefs or the ways in which those beliefs are expressed. The court further ruled
that in democratic societies, state measures favoring particular leadership, beliefs, specific
organs of the divided religious community, or seeking to compel the community, or a part of
the community against its will to fall under a single belief, constitutes an infringement of the
freedom of religion even within the same denomination.

Our Constitutional Court has adopted the above position. In Minister of Home Affairs and
Another v Fourie, Sachs J held that “between and within religions there are vastly different
and at times highly disputed views” and “Judges would be placed in an intolerable situation
if they were called upon to construe religious texts and take sides on issues which have
caused deep schisms within religious bodies.”

In medieval times, serious penalties were imposed upon the clergy if they engaged in
any practice, or subscribed to any Canon in opposition to the Kings assent. Catholics
persecuted Protestants, Protestants persecuted Catholics, and within the sects, one sect
persecuted another sect. Each group tried to impose loyalty to whatever religious group
happened to be on top and in league with the government of the particular time and place.
Those who did not show loyalty were fined, cast in jail, tortured, and killed. A Muslim

can opt out of the Bill. On the other hand, the prospect of penalties for departure from
the provisions of the Bill loom ominously which push towards adherence to the Bill. For
example, the Bill mandates under penalty of sanctions that “Any person who facilitates
the conclusion of a Muslim marriage, irrespective of whether that person is a marriage
officer or not, must inform the prospective spouses that they have a choice whether or not
to be bound by the provisions of this Act.” This means, a Muslim cleric who performs a
marriage but believes the Bill is un-Islamic and fails to adhere to these and other provisions
could be penalised for practising their religion differently from the way the Bill prescribes.
Any person that prevents another from exercising rights under the Bill shall be guilty of
an offence and liable to a fine or imprisonment. A mother, who dissuades her son from
marrying under the Bill because she thinks it is un-Islamic, could face the prospect of one
year in jail.

The Bill takes us back to the medieval period of compulsion and coercion with the state
taking sides on religious doctrine. Under the definition and other sections of the Bill, the
state has chosen definitions of various religious terms on which religious scholars disagree.
If a Muslim practices his/her religion in a way he/she honestly feels obliged to practice it,
and if this practice departs from the provisions and definitions in the Bill, this individual is
treated differently from the one that accepts the state chosen definition of religion.

The English philosopher John Locke wrote in the 16th century that religion pertains to the
inward preservation of the mind and the soul, which couldn’t be prescribed by a judge or a
ruler. These ideas influenced the writings of Thomas Jefferson when the US Constitution
was drawn up giving rise to a core idea in western constitutionalism namely, the idea of
a secular state. Under this understanding, the US Supreme Court in a litany of cases has
declared that the government may not place its prestige, authority, and resources behind a
single religious belief. That conclusion was recognized by Justice Ngcobo (now our Chief
Justice) in Prince I where he stated the courts (and by extension the state) should not be
engaged in deciding what is part of a religion, or what is central to a religion.

The German Constitutional Court has repeatedly affirmed that religious organizations have
the right to organize and administer themselves in an independent manner and in terms off
their own understanding of their religion. To rule otherwise would mean that secular laws
would undermine the constitutionally guaranteed right of self-determination of religious
organizations. The German Constitutional Court has also proclaimed that churches have
the power to make binding rules with regard to the credibility of the church and of its
proclamation of what the Gospel requires, what are the essential principles of dogma and
ethics, and what is to be regarded as a violation.

Those that drew up the MPL Bill ignored this consensus in mainstream democracies.
They disregarded the unqualified achievement of the twentieth century that government
cannot dictate religious doctrines. If the Bill becomes law and per chance it is found to
be constitutional, the judges are unlikely to be the most revered of deities. Religious
doctrines brim with complexities, uncertainties and very different disciplining rules and
procedures, which their interpretive community follows. Judges usually do not have insight
into religions and are not schooled in the books such as Genesis, Leviticus or the Islamic
works of Bukhari or Abu Dawud. In interpreting any statute, our Constitutional Court has
told us repeatedly that all laws must be interpreted against the ethos and values of the
Constitution including equality and human dignity. Developing religious law against the

ethos and values of the Constitution is unlikely to resonate well among the religious group
affected and is bound to inflame sectarian differences as exemplified from the experiences
in India.

The rights under Islamic law given to different genders, for example with respect to
(divorce) must be evaluated against the equality and human dignity provisions in our
Bill of Rights. On its face, if a law gives different rights to males and females, this would
constitute unfair discrimination under the Constitution, which could be counteracted only
by reliance on the limitation clause of the Constitution — a burden that has so far proved
difficult to overcome.

There are failings in Muslim marriages, which need to be addressed. There is a perception
that men, for the benefit of men interpret the religion. Women as a group have been short
changed. Constitutionally, the state has the power to make laws of general application
to advance important social interests, which prevent the oppression of any group in
society. Based on concepts of equality (and not interpretation of Jewish law), a divided
United Kingdom Supreme Court (in a highly controversial decision) ruled Jewish law of
matrilineality violates the country’s anti-discrimination laws. The perception of unequal
treatment of women through the denial of a divorce decree “get” and “talaq” occurs in
Jewish and Muslim societies. Recently, the Canadian Supreme Court sought to address
this problem through contract law in the Bruker case, rather than through interpretation of
Jewish scriptures, which the court recognised as completely inappropriate. We need to be
clear. The MPL Bill is not a neutral law of general application to advance general societal
interests. Nor are we talking about contract law to better protect vulnerable women about
their rights. Instead, the Bill prescribes religious conduct and targets Muslims specifically
under penalty of sanctions.

The notion that through “clever” lawyering, and through a mysterious consensus of certain
lawyers and scholars zeitgeist, one can deduce a preferred interpretation of religious law to
socially engineer a group to conform to the twenty first century fundamentally misconstrues
the essence of freedom of religion. Validation of the Bill does not come from counting
heads as to whether a majority supports the Bill. Religion involves the most personal and
sensitive rights on which the state cannot take sides. The sentiments expressed by Sachs
J for a unanimous Court in the Fourie case where he stated it is one thing “to acknowledge
the important role that religion plays in our public life. It is quite another to use religious
doctrine as a source for interpreting the Constitution. It would be out of order to employ
the religious sentiments of some as a guide to the constitutional rights of others. Between
and within religions there are vastly different and at times highly disputed views on how
to respond…” Hopefully, our lawmakers will be mindful of the words of our Constitutional
Court and not embark on an unprecedented project, not found in the main stream of democratic practice.

Source: Professor Ziyad Motala, Professor of Law Howard University, U.S.A.

Advertisements

27 Zil Hajj 1431 – 6 December 2010
THE SALAFI CRUSADE
THE SAUDI CONSPIRACY TO ESTABLISH ITS HEGEMONY
The following is a verbatim reproduction of a letter which a concerned Muslim Sister sent to The Majlis.

“Assalamu alaikum
I hope this message finds Moulana in good health.
An Imaam from Saudi was hosted at the Jaami Masjid in Roshnee for Esha Salaah.
I was partially surprised to hear from my husband that Mohammed Wadee (employee of the Saudi embassy) was instrumental in bringing him over here despite it not being an arranged stop. Mohammed Wadee was described by Qari Naeem Choonara (he handles the events usually when a Saudi Imaam is involved at the Masjid) as a “dear friend”.
It seems the Saudi embassy is bringing these Imaams over to spread the message of ‘so-called’ unity. The advantage they have is that most, if not all, of our Masjid committees bow down to any of the embassy’s wishes. The message he propagated was “We call to the Qur’aan and the Sunnah only”; “We are one Ummah and should not let anything divide us”; “We should oppose anyone who tries to bring about divisions” etc.
I find this to be a trend as almost a dozen Saudi Imaams have been to Johannesburg in the past 12 to 14 months. Using the Imaams as a front, the embassy has managed to get into every single Masjid, Deobandi, Tableeghi etc. It seems the Saudis have now found a way to get their message into every single Masjid in the country. Mohammed Wadee was clearly described as a member of the religious attaché, hence it is clear that he has been tasked with the religious infiltration of South African Muslims.
This Saudi Imaam was hosted at the Newcastle Darul Uloom Jalsah where Mufti AK from CII was present and Moulana Shabbier Saloojee. Would this not signify tacit approval from some of South Africa’s leading Muftis as Mohammed Wadee and co. were “sub-guests” so to speak of the Mufti.
Whilst I am not implying the Imaam to be a salafi because I do not know anything about him, my husband heard these statements himself in the Masjid. His message had many Salafi tendencies and hidden Salafi messages.
I would really appreciate Moulana’s input on this situation as I feel this is leading to great problem. In Houghton, I have noticed that they are building a Masjid completely funded by the Saudis so I can only imagine to what end they are intent on building this large Saudi sentiment. Surely, there must be some devious plot to turn South African Muslims away from a protected Deobandi/true Islam mindset to a Salafi mindset.
Elsewhere, in Durban I had heard of Fatima Asmal and her plan to establish a Madressah for children to begin in the year 2011. The Madressah will be headed by Moulana Khalid Yacoob. The Madressah is aimed to digress from the “indoctrination” of the normal Madressah system and will teach children love instead of fear for Allah. According to Asmal, she says:
“The madrasah aims to be different in that:
* teachers will work towards instilling a love and consciousness of Allah into children as opposed to a fear of Jahannam
* teachers will work towards encouraging children to understand what Islam requires of them as citizens of South Africa – i.e. knowledge transmitted will be CONTEXT-BASED, and issues like respect for other race groups will be focused on
* teachers will teach children to respect differences of opinion and discourage them from becoming judgemental and self-righteous
* teachers will not insult secular education institutes, and will do their utmost to accommodate the schedules of children who attend such institutes wherein they are required to participate in extra-curricular activities”
The Madressah will be hosted around the corner from Jamiat KZN’s plush new offices. It is insulting that nobody is doing anything constructive to counter this issue. South Africa has such a large network of Aalims and Moulanas, most of whom are sleeping whilst these people are actively engaged in promoting their sadistic ideologies.”

OUR COMMENT
The un-Islamic Saudi regime, gasping in the throes of its impending demise, is desperately struggling to assert its hegemony over the global Muslim Ummah. The feverish activity of despatching PROs all over the world to whitewash the dark and sinister faces of the so-called custodians of the Holy Cities in a bid to garner support for its commissions of gross violations of the Shariah is doomed to failure, for the greater part of the Ummah is not blind to the fact that Saudi Arabia is a lackey and surrogate of the U.S.A. imperialist butcher.
It is American pressure which has constrained the Saudi regime to disfigure and mutilate its Founding Islamic Constitution with the objective of ultimate abrogation of the Shariah which until a couple of years ago was the Law of the country, albeit not correctly applied. The establishment of the kuffaar, immoral, co-ed university in Jiddah; the breaking down of the Gates of the Shariah to allow the women’s deluge into the public domain in emulation of the Ya’jooj and Ma’jooj who will break through the crumbling Barrier of Zul Qarnain (rahmatullah alayh); the clipping of the wings and the extraction of the teeth of the Department of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil Munkar; the surreptitious opening up the Haram zone for the kuffaar; the physical destruction of the mountains and Cities of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah; the destruction of the Holy Relics of Islam; the demolition of Auqaaf Musaajid; the transformation of the birthplaces of Islam into immoral holiday resorts which will soon vie with Paris and New York; the total commercialisation of the Hajj; in short the effacement of all signs of Divine Islam, are the stepping stones leading to the satanic objective of the evisceration of Islam of its Soul, and substituting original Islam with a docile, barren concept devoid of the teachings and spirit of the Islam which the Sahaabah had transmitted to the mankind from which had grown the true Ummah of Islam. The shaitaani conspiracy is to impose on the Ummah an American-spawned ‘islam’, – an illegitimate brainchild of the kufr interfaith movement of which Saudi Arabia has been placed in charge by its American master.
The fact that in the past 12 to 14 months about a dozen Saudi Imaams/Sheikhs had visited South Africa testifies for the Saudi agenda, namely, to establish its hegemony – to achieve the subservience of the Muslim community to Saudi dictates. Saudi Arabia is aware of the large scale dissatisfaction which the Muslims of the world in general harbour for the American sponsored Saudi regime. The regime is therefore despatching its ambassadors to all countries in the exercise of winning support for its tottering regime.
Dollars play an important role in this exercise. The dollars are securing the allegiance of even ulama and modernists. Payment and perks in different forms are the dangling baits which attract the Ulama-e-Soo’ who are prepared to betray Islam and the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
The Saudi exercise is not a pure Salafi crusade. Salafi’ism has split into two opposing camps. Those who adhere to the pure teachings of Islam despite subscribing to some corrupt beliefs, and the immoral, westernized, anti- Sunnah Saudis who are spearheading anti-Islamic movements such as the interfaith movement, the orientalist ‘Islamic’ studies departments of kuffaar universities and the anti-Jihad movements spawned by the U.S.A.
The Salafis of the Saudi regime are of the second group. They are thoroughly westernized and anti-Sunnah. They are anti-Math-hab in general and anti-Hanafi in particular. They are swiftly transforming the desert landscape into haunts of fisq and fujoor. However, political expediency and the realization of their impending doom have constrained them to adopt the Shiah doctrine of Taqiyah (Holy Hypocrisy). They now speak the tongue of the Shiahs. They call for ‘unity’, hypocritically asserting that ‘we are one Ummah’, yet they suppress and hate the non-Salafi Ummah. Today, tens of thousands of Saudis, including thousands of Ulama are languishing in the jails, dungeons and torture facilities of the Saudi regime. Their crime was only the proclamation of the Haqq of Islam. A member of a Muslim Human Rights organization states:
“Saudi Arabia proclaims that it is governed by the “Shariah”. It is estimated that currently Saudi Arabia has over 40,000 “security related” prisoners detained in their prisons. These are all Ulama and practicing Muslims imprisoned simply because they are perceived by the Kingdom as a “security threat.
Some of Saudi Arabia’s “security prisons” are also located within the boundaries of the Haramain. The detention facility in Madinah Al Munawwarah which holds approximately 1000 detainees is close enough from the Haram Sharif that the Adhan and Salah of Al Masjid Al Nabawi can be heard inside the prison. I have personally visited this facility.
I feel that it is important that Saudi Arabia’s imposturous use of the “Shariah” to disguise their un-Islamic actions is exposed. This is particularly so when their actions are in fact in sharp contrast with the Shariah by which they profess to govern.
The Ulama-e-Haq in the Arabian Peninsula who speak out are arrested, tortured and are imprisoned indefinitely or are disappeared forever. This has been happening for several decades and the Saudi rulers feel particularly secure due to the silence of our Ulama around the world. They are getting away with their crimes under the guise of being “Custodians of the Holy Mosques” and torch bearers of “Islam” and the “Shariah”.
I feel that until Scholars from outside Saudi Arabia condemn them for their injustices, these injustices in the name of Islam will continue to occur unabated. The innocent Ulama in Saudi jails will languish in prisons and more and more will be imprisoned. I feel that the silence of our Ulama against the injustices of Saudi Arabia is aiding the Saudi government to carry on with what they are doing and this is tantamount to complicity.”

The Ulama of South Africa, and in particular of the Madaaris, should hang their heads in shame for their disgusting conduct of flirtation with the Saudi regime. They have betrayed Allah, His Rasool, the Ummah and Islam. In the presence of Hajjaaj Bin Yusuf, the tyrant, Hadhrat Hasan Basri (rahmatullah alayh) declared:
“Verily, Allah has taken a pledge from the Ulama that most certainly they should declare the Haqq to the people, and not conceal it.”
All the Ulama who support the Saudi regime with their silence and flirtation are guilty of violating this sacred Pledge which is an integral constituent of the Office of Waraathat-e-Ambiya (the Office of being the Representatives of the Ambiya).
The Saudis should free all those Brothers who are being tortured in their dark , evil facilities. Only then will they have some justification to speak on the topic of unity. There can be no unity with American surrogates who execute the vile conspiracies of the evil kuffaar intent on destroying the Ummah or enslaving it in order to pirate away the natural resources of the lands of Islam.
The Madaaris in South Africa are rendering a terrible disservice to Islam and the Ummah by hosting and honouring the anti-Islam Saudis. It is indeed most disgusting for the Hanafi Madaaris to honour and host the modernist Saudi bid’atis despite being aware of the anti-Hanafi Math-hab stance of the Saudis. That Saudi Arabia is a surrogate of America is no secret. Every Muslim of intelligence is aware of this incontrovertible fact. Yet, the perks the Saudis offer have succeeded to secure the prostration of the Ulama of the Madaaris. These Ulama too have become active cogs in the evil conniving Saudi machinery of destroying true Islam.
Regarding the Sister’s comment, ‘the devious plot to turn South African Muslims away from a protected Deobandi/true Islam mindset’, the reality is that the new era Deobandi ulama themselves are diverting Muslims from the Sunnah which our Akaabir of Deoband had championed since the inception of Daarul Uloom Deoband. There remains extremely little of the original Deoband Mindset in the so-called Deobandi Madaaris of South Africa. They all have fallen prostrate in humiliation to lick the boots of westernism. The Saudis are merely providing additional impetus for this pernicious revolution initiated by the Ulama of the Madaaris.
The most disturbing aspect of this dismal scenario is the gross failure by the Madaaris Ulama of understanding the immense danger to the Deen of their obsequious flirtation with the ambassadors of the Saudi regime. The objective of the American inspired Saudis is to assign true and pristine Islam – the Islam of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – to museum archives, and to fabricate a new-look ‘islam’ which will be islam in only name, but bereft of the Soul and Sunnah of that Islam in which the Ummah has hitherto believed.
The new-look ‘madrasah’ being contemplated in Durban is another shaitaani ploy of the American-orientalist inspired modernist zindeeqs, munaafiqs and murtadds to dig up the foundations of Qur’aanic Islam. The name ‘madrasah’ for the proposed institution of kufr is a massive deception of the devil. The contemplated institution is never a Madrasah. It will be an appendage of Shaitaan-in-Chief – Iblees, Laeen. Muslims should beware. Those who still have true Islam at heart should refrain from casting their children into this satanic snare which will divest them of their Imaan. The indoctrination by the shaitaani institution camouflaged in the hues of a ‘Madrasah’ will paralyze and ultimately eliminate the Imaan of the children entrapped in the snare of the Devil.
It is the Waajib obligation of the Ulama in Natal to take cognizance of this poison to be injected into the Imaan of pupils.
We commend the Sister for her insight and her correct appraisal of the Saudi menace. May Allah Ta’ala increase her in Firaasat.

Sourced: www.themajlis.co.za

Salafism and modernism are quickly gaining momentum in and around the Islamic world. Whilst many may agree that the views held by either group would be in direct contrast with each other, I beg to differ. A new brand of Salafism has emerged, showing us that the generic off-shoot combining salafi core principles with a modern ‘Islamic’ mix may well be a force to be reckoned with.

This generic mutant force has slowly crept into the world of the orthodox Muslim and is threatening the existence of the soon-to-be-extinct traditionalist follower. How, or why you ask? Well, my thinking is that this mutant force knows that the goal is ultimately what matters. It is no easy task to break down 1400 years worth of solid Islamic grounding and so the mutant force is keen on increasing its numbers rather than a total traditionalist-madhab-following mutiny.

Salafis have always maintained that their way is that of the ‘salaf’ (i.e. the pious predecessors) but I have noticed a re-branding of sorts, a change in direction if you must, of a salafi-modernist group intent on breaking down every little piece of Islam in the name of Islam and unity. The concept is catchy, I’ll give them that. It’s something like this:

Firstly, we break down the traditionalist core. The focus is no longer on smaller, meaningless issues. Whatever is in your control is a ‘small issue’. This would include: Islamic dressing, apparel, the hijab, the beard, music etc. Whatever is not in your direct control is an issue. For example: saving the people of Palestine, Islamic unity, peace and prosperity, gender equality etc.

Secondly, we unite and conquer. It does not matter whether our belief structure differs, if you give me a platform to spread my beliefs, I will align myself with you.

Thirdly, destroy all structured forms of belief. If you can read it and understand it yourself, you do not need to follow anybody. Moulanas/Muftis/Molvis/Mullahs who force you to follow a Madhab are evil. Madressahs finding their roots via a Deobandi framework are evil. Scholars from India who cannot speak English are uneducated, dumb or silly; in fact, anything remotely Indian is backward and oppressive, misogynistic and cruel.

Some would say overactive imaginations, arrogance perhaps or maybe a severe inferiority complex resulting from the chance that perhaps someone out there knows a whole lot more than you do and of course since you know how to Google, read a couple of translated works on an Islamic Science, this naturally would qualify you to become a scholar in your own right.

In this lies the danger of a true blindness. The traditionalists have fallen asleep only to wake up in a world where Muslims enjoy the integration of halaal and haraam, where everything is subject to debate and opinion and where anything goes. Naturally, all Muslims should be worried, right? The answer is no. There are very few Muslims who find this to be a problem. In any event, why would they?

The modern salafis are serving them guilt-free Islam on silver platters; and it’s working. The effect of labeling and judging has worked in reverse and those who call for the preservation of a true Islam MUST be labeled extremists or fundamentalists, crazy and oppressive. This is the modernist-salafi core. So where does modernism fit in? This aspect is a bit tricky to explain but I do hope you’ll bear with me.

A modernist thrives on a ‘non-judgmental’ and unified approach. Confrontation is a total no-no and moderation is key. Salafis have been able to implement these aspects quite effectively into their strategies. Basically, a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim so as far as the Salafis are concerned, there is no place for sectarianism or the following of Madhaahib in Islam. We are all Muslim and a Muslim does not judge.

Now that’s all well and good up until you come to a point where the stark reality smacks you in the face: There can be no Islam without judgment. Muslims are in a constant state of judgment. That is the purpose of our test in this world. We have to constantly re-evaluate our actions, perfect what is required of us as living and practising Muslims in the hope that we will pass the most important test we spend our whole lives preparing for. In order to pass the test, how can there not exist judgment? The Qur’aan judges, Allah Ta’ala judges, Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam passed judgment, the Shari’ah passes judgment, the Sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum passed judgment and the most noble and illustrious Scholars, Qaadhis and Jurists passed judgments.

But the notion of not being able to judge is a perfect shield for those who do not want to be judged.

The modern salafis also combine the non-judgmental approach in other areas of modern issues affecting Muslim. An apt example which comes to mind is the issue of Islamic apparel. Most modern Salafis belief that items such as a thaub are purely cultural and some even contest the validity of hijab. Other examples include religious entertainment such as the permissibility of musical instruments or the hosting of concerts/events attended by both males and females. Again, the main objective is to spread their word. These aspects tie in to modern salafi principles such as practicing moderation, keeping the ultimate goal in sight and increasing alliances.

Are we on a path to a new modern Islam? The answer is yes. The mutant salafi force emerging to break down the pillars of Islamic belief are creeping in from all angles and are picking away at the very foundations of Islam. They are emerging in their numbers and by branding the true followers of Islam as extremist fundamentalists, they serve as nothing more than a crusade against the vestiges of traditional Islamic beliefs.

May Allah guide us and protect us all

The Say What? column featured on Muslimality is meant to inspire, teach, engage debate or simply make you laugh. This column revolves around a variety of issues relating to Muslims in South Africa and Muslims around the world.

Muslimality is pleased to announce that we will now be taking article submissions from anyone who has a passion for writing about true Islam. If you or anybody you know would like to submit an article for publication, kindly email muslimality@gmail.com or submit your piece via our Contact Form

Muslimality reserves the right to edit your submission. Should you not receive a response from us within 7 days of submission, please consider the submission rejected.

Part Three of a detailed analysis of the errors of Quraysha Ismail Sooliman (5 years studies at Darul Uloom Pretoria, Freelance Journalist and Political Science Honour’s Student, University of Pretoria)

The writer states the following hadith:

“The Prophet Muhammad SAW said:

‘Do not prevent your women from attending the mosque if they seek your permission to do so’ [Sahih Muslim]”

Our response:

This hadith is stated without authentic commentary provided by authoritative Muhadditheen who spent their entire lives,day and night in the pursuit and preservation of true knowledge.

We provide hereunder some of the statements of the true scholars regarding this Hadith and other Ahaadith which are related:

This hadith appears in Saheeh Muslim Page 183 [Qadeemi].

The chapter is called, “The chapter on women going out to the Masjid when there is no fitnah and she must go out without perfume”.

The commentary of Imaam An Nawawi rahimahullah on this hadith entails the following:

The Ulama have stipulated conditions which are taken from hadith. Amongst other conditions, the following conditions are necessary before a woman is allowed to attend the Masjid:

1.      A woman must not be perfumed.

2.      A woman must not be adorned with jewellery etc.

3.      A woman’s voice must not be heard.

4.      A woman must not wear showy or gaudy clothing.

5.      There should not be any mixing with men.

6.      The woman should not be young.

7.      There should be no fear on the road to and from the Masjid. There should be no fear of any harm, corruption or wrong being committed/ taking place.

[Footnotes of Saheeh Muslim Pg 183, Qadeemi]

The following ahadeeth are recorded in authentic books of hadith and pertain to the issue of women attending the Masjid.

Hadith no. 1: Ibn ‘Umar radhiAllahu anhu reported that Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from the mosques of Allah.” (Sunan Abi Dawud)

Hadith no. 2: Abu Hurairah radhiAllahu anhu reported that Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from visiting the mosques of Allah, however they ought to go out tafilaat*.” (Sunan Abi Dawud)

*We will explain “Tafilaat” shortly.

Imaam an Nawawi has mentioned that total safety and surety against fitnah is a precondition for the permissibility of women attending the masjid. (Saheeh Muslim Juz 1 Pg 183; Bazlul Majhood Juz 4 Pg 160)

In Laamiud Duraari, it is mentioned that the words “female servants of Allah” is indicative of the fact that permission is based upon the woman being a true slave of Allah (inwardly and outwardly) and not a slave to the world and to her desires. (Bazlul Majhood Vol 4 Pg 161)

Tafilaat is translated as “without perfume” or “without displaying any sort of adornment”. In Qamoos it is mentioned: “For example, a shoulder (of meat or of an animal) which has gone off and whose smell has changed is described as ‘tafil’. (Bazlul Majhood Vol 4 Pg 161)

Ibn Raslaan has mentioned the incident of Zubayr radhiAllahu anhu and his wife Aatika bint Zayd. He did not clearly prevent his wife from attending the masjid because of the hadith. So one day he sat on the road and when she passed him, he pulled her clothes. Thereupon, she stopped going to the masjid. Upon being questioned why, she replied, “We used to go out when people were people.” (Bazlul Majhood Juz 4 Pg 160)

Ibn Hajar has mentioned: “The essence of the speech of Imaam Nawawi and that of Zarkashi is that, if in their going out, there occurs mixing with men in the masjid or on the way or the fear of fitnah is great due to them adorning themselves and going out, IT IS HARAAM FOR THEM TO GO OUT and the right of permission rests with the husband; and it is waajib upon the Imaam or his deputy to stop them (from going to the Masjid). (Bazlul Majhood Vol 4 Pg 161)

Allaamah Baaji mentions: “In it (the hadith) is proof that the husband has the option of preventing his wife and that there is no going out except with his permission.” (Awjazul Masaalik Juz 4 Pg 207)

Hadith no. 3: Ibn ‘Umar radhiAllahu anhu reported that Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Do not prevent your women from visiting the mosques; but their houses are better for them (for praying).” (Sunan Abi Dawud)

This hadith is emphasizing the fact that salaah in their (women’s) homes is better for them than salaah in the masjid with Jama’ah because it is more concealing. The second part of this hadith encourages women to read their salaah at home because it is more virtuous, more rewarding and more pleasing to Allah Ta’ala.

We should now ask ourselves as to why would any sane, rational person want to leave something which is more virtuous, more rewarding and more pleasing to Allah Ta’ala for something which is less? If the true aim is the pleasure of Allah, why would anybody prefer to practise upon that act which is less pleasing to Allah? It is mentioned in Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah Juz 2 Pg 277: “A woman is to be concealed and the closest a woman is to Allah is when she is in the depths of her home…” Therefore what is the aim when a woman chooses to make salaah anywhere else besides her home?

Abu ‘Amr ash Shaibaani mentioned, ‘I saw ibn Mas’ood radhiAllahu anhu throwing stones at the women, chasing them from the Masjid on the day of Jumu’ah.’ (Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah Juz Pg 277)

Allaamah Aini has narrated from Imaam Maalik that this hadith (Hadith no. 3) is understood to refer to very very old women. (Awjazul Masaalik Juz 4 Pg 207)

Hadith no. 4: ‘Abdullah ibn Umar radhiAllahu anhu reported that Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Allow women to visit the mosque at night.” A son of his (Bilal) said: “I swear by Allah, we shall certainly not allow them because they will take it as “*daghl”. I swear by Allah, we shall not allow them. He (ibn Umar) spoke to him harshly and became angry at him and said: “I tell you that Nabi SallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said: “Allow them;” yet you say: We shall not allow them.”*Daghl will be explained shortly.

The first part of the hadith places emphasis on permission being granted for women to visit the masjid at night. The commentary of this hadith which is found in Bazlul Majhood states: “Because it is a time when the roads are empty and the time of darkness was the time when the causes of fitnah would decrease.”

Imaam an Nawawi has mentioned “Daghl” refers to corruption, deception and other forms of evil, meaning the women would use this permission to go out as a stepping stone towards great corruption and evil. (Bazlul Majhood Juz 4 Pg. 163).

In Al Kanzul Mutawari, the following explanation appears:

“Imaam Bukhari has named the chapter “Chapter No 556: Women going to the Masjid at night and in galas”

Note: The Muhadditheen went to great lengths explaining the wisdom behind Imaam Bukhaari’s choice of names for the chapters of Saheeh Al-Bukhaari. We reproduce hereunder the following explanation as mentioned in Al Kanzul Mutawaari Juz 5 Pg 448.

“In it (the name of the chapter) is an indication that the permission for women going out is linked to the absence of fitnah in any form at all. When the night and galas were times in which fitnah was non-existent, it was permissible for them to go out in these two times. But when they both become reasons for fitnah as we witness in our error, then even in these two times it is not permissible for women to be present in the Masjid.

Imaam Bukhaari, in restricting the naming of this chapter with the night and the galas in indicative of the fact that he is pointing to the permissibility of women leaving for the Masjid only under the existence of this condition (at night and galas). The vast majority of commentators have mentioned, ‘Imaam Bukhaari is indicating via his choice of naming this chapter that the Ahaadeeth narrated in the chapter are tied to the condition which he has mentioned in the name.’

The overwhelming majority of Fuqaaha have taken the stance that women are to be prevented from going out in this era (general prohibition) because of what we witness (all-encompassing fitnah). Ibn Daqeeq Al Eid has mentioned, ‘This hadeeth applies to all women(but it must be borne in mind) that the Fuqaaha have attached conditions to it (the permissibility of women attending the masjid): She must not be perfumed; She must be dressed shabbily. It must also be borne in mind that whatever fulfils the function of perfume will be in the same category of perfume. The reason for perfume being impermissible is because of it inciting passion so good clothes, jewellery and open adornment would fall into this category, likewise mixing with men.’” ( Al Kanzul Mutawari Juz 5 Pg 448)

“Ibn Al Arabi mentions in the commentary of Tirmidhi, after mentioning the narrations of the Chapter, ‘The original law of the Shari’ah is that it is permissible for women to go out for Salaah and there are many ahadeeth which testify to this and when she goes out, she is to go out shabbily dressed in an unattractive manner as mentioned by various narrations. The literal meaning of the word ‘tafil’ which is translated as ‘shabbily’ is used by the Arabs to denote such a woman whom nobody would be attracted to. And Aisha radhiAllahu anha and Ibn Mas’ood radhiAllahu anhu and other sahaabah radhiAllahu anhum have clearly indicated that women are to be prevented from the Masjid and that they should necessarily stick to the innermost recesses of their homes.

Imaam At Thauri has mentioned, “It is Makrooh for a woman to leave her home and Ibn Mas’ood has also made similar statements. This is the view of Imaam Abu Hanifah and Abdullah Ibn Mubaarak.’

Allaamah Aini has mentioned, ‘The author of Hidaayah mentions, ‘It is highly detestable for women to attend congregational salaah. The word ‘congregational’ encompasses Jumu’ah, Eid, Salaatul Khusoof.

In the emergence of women, there is fear of fitnah which is a platform for haraam and what leads to haraam is also haraam.

Therefore it must be understood that the statements of the Fuqaaha wherein the word ‘Yukraahoo’ (detestable) is mentioned, their intention is Haraam.

With regards to the hadith of Ibn Umar, ‘When your women seek permission from you…’ that is when there is no fear of fitnah affecting them or of them becoming sources of fitnah. That (permissibility) was in their era in contrast to our era as surely corruption in our era is widespread and the corrupted ones are many and the hadith of Aishah radhiAllahu anha substantiates this.

Imaam An-Nawawi has mentioned, ‘There is no place for a woman which is better than her house even if she is very, very old. Ibn Mas’ood has mentioned, ‘A woman is aurah (an object of concealment) and the closest that she can be to Allah is when she is in the depths of her home and when she exits her home, Shaitaan lies in wait for her and Ibn Umar RadhiAllahu anhu used to stand and throw pebbles on women on the day of Jumu’ah expelling them from the Masjid.’ ” (Kanzul Mutawari Juz 5 Pg 450)

In al Kanz ul Mutawaari it is noted that Abdullah bin Umar would stand outside the Masjid on Jumuah and throw pebbles at the women in order to chase them from the Masjid. (Juz 5 Pg.450)

In the same book it is mentioned that Hasan al Basri was asked regarding a woman who took an oath that if her husband is released from prison she would read 2 rak’aat of Salaah in every masjid in Basrah in which Salaah is read. The summary of his reply was “If Umar Radi Allahu anhu found out about her, he would have smashed her head” (Juz 5 Pg 451) (This is also recorded in Musannaf ibn Abi Shaibah Juz 2 Pg 277)

“Allaamah Aini mentions, ‘If Aisha radhiAllahu anha had to see what the women of this era are doing then she would have voiced even greater objection and her statement was not made very lon after the death of Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam. The reason for this greater objection of hers is that the women of her era did not even do one thousandth of what the women of this era are doing.’

That was in the era of Allaamah Aini who died in the year 855 hijri, what then is the condition in our era which is filled with evil and corruption? ” (Kanzul Mutawari Juz 5 Pg 454)

The following is recorded in al Fiqhul Islami Juz 2 Pg 1172

“Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Mohammed have mentioned (Al Kitaab Ma’al Lubaab Juz 1 Pg 83; Fathul Qadir Juz 1 Pg 529; Haashiya Ibn Aabideen Juz 1 Pg 429) , ‘It is highly detestable (Haraam) [we have explained the usage of the term ‘highly detestable’ by the Fuqahaa earlier] for young women to attend Jama’ah.’ Imaam Abu Hanifah has mentioned, ‘There is no problem with an Ajooz (shall be explained shortly) going out for Fajr, Maghrib and Esha due to the fact that Fussaaq (flagrant mischief makers) are sleeping at the time of Fajr and Esha salaah…Imaam Abu Yusuf and Imaam Mohammed have permitted an Ajooz to attend all salaat due to the fact that none would desire them.

The fatawa of the Hanafi Madhab is that it is not permissible for women to attend the Jama’ah even if for Jumu’ah, Eid or a lecture. This is a blanket ruling and applies to all, young and old, during the day and the night. The reason for this is due to the corruption that abounds as well as the mischief that is openly practiced.

The Maaliki view is that if there is any fear of fitnah whatsoever then going out for salaah is not permissible at all for any woman.

Ibn Rushd has mentioned, ‘An Ajooz is a woman who is so old that no man would feel any sexual desire towards her, so much so that she is treated like a man i.e. without any sexual desire whatsoever.’” (In South Africa in the year 2010, there have been numerous instances of elderly, sickly, grandmothers and even great-grandmothers being sexually molested, abused and raped. This bears testimony to the fact that society has become corrupt to such an extent that even extremely old women are seen as sources of sexual pleasure by some individuals and thus the ruling of general impermissibility on all types of women going out for salaah will be established.)

“According to the Shafi’i and Hambali scholars, it is Makrooh for young women, those of attractive appearance to attend the Masjid wherein the men will be assembling for Salaat due to the possibility of fitnah. And the woman will read in her home. It is permissible for the elderly women to leave ‘tafilah’ with the permission of her husband whilst bearing in mind that her house is still better for her.”

Umm Salmah has narrated that Nabi sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam said, ‘The best place for a woman to read salaah is the depth of her home.’ Narrated by Imaam Ahmad, recorded in Nailul Autaar Juz 3 Pg 131.”

The Shaafi’ authority, Shaikh Sulaiman Bujairmi (rahmatullah alayh) states:

“Women should not attend (the Musjid) whether they are young or old for Jamaat because of the appearance of corruption….. Today the Fatwa is on total prohibition in all Salaats.  This includes Jumuah, Eid, Istisqaa’, and gatherings of lectures, especially the lectures of the juhhaal (ignoramuses) who masquerade as Ulama while their motive is the gratification of lust and worldly acquisition.” – Tuhfatul Habeeb Ala Sharhil Khateeb

Which woman would intentionally shun that which the greatest of all creation (sallAllahu alaihi wa sallam) has mentioned to be the best?

This concludes Part Three of the detailed and academic response to ‘The Conclusion’ by Quraysha Ismail Sooliman

Read Part One, Part Two and Part Four of The True Conclusion:

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/the-true-conclusion-part-1/

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/the-true-conclusion-part-two/

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/the-true-conclusion-part-four/

A concerned individual has collated video and audio recordings regarding slaughter methods used at abattoirs worldwide.

Due to Rainbow and other poultry abattoirs refusing the general public access to their farms, the individual in question obtained confirmation from Rainbow to the effect that the methods used to slaughter chicken at Rainbow are exactly as those of leading abattoirs worldwide.

We reproduce hereunder SANHA’s supposed rebuttal to the expose regarding poultry slaughter methods.

Muslimality comment:

Muslimality is once again issuing an OPEN invitation and clear request to any individual, scholar or otherwise, not affiliated to SANHA or its affiliates to forward us a clear-cut, authoritative, valid fatwa based on solid, authentic and clear Shar’i juristic principles stating that Rainbow chickens and other battery and broiler chickens certified Halaal by SANHA and the MJC are HALAAL.

Please note that we are not interested in the so-called views presented by those working for SANHA and the MJC nor do we consider opinion-based verdicts as valid in the Shari’ah.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

SANHA’s comments appear within the quotation marks:

A reader forwarded a YouTube video clip on chicken slaughter from an unknown source styling themselves as the chicken truth.

Without forcing our views on any reader, we list our rebuttal and leave it to the discernments of enlightened minds to draw their own conclusion.

From our point of view we firmly believe that the information is fatally flawed and presented with malicious intent on the following basis:-

1. Of what use is the identity of the source? Does it matter who is ‘The Chicken Truth’? Why can you not simply answer the questions?

2. Enlightened minds are still awaiting your responses to the unanswered questions posed by brother Ahmed Laher. If, for some odd reason, SANHA cannot seem to find the questions, please click here.

3. Your failed attempt at inferring that it is only the enlightened who will blindly swallow the vomit spewed out by SANHA is indeed indicative of your lack of solid proof. Hence like so many who wish to just enforce their opinion on the public, you rush to play the emotion card.

4. Irrespective of whether the reader had acted with malicious intent or not, simply answer these questions and we are almost certain that the numerous smear campaigns SANHA constantly wails about, will come to an end.


1. THE WRONG PREMISE

This group’s stated stance is that the issuing of Halal certificates is “foreign to Islam and do not hold any weight”. They further expostulate that “From a Shari (Islamic) point of view, there is no such thing as a Halaal organization. Such organizations never existed in the time of Nabi Muhammed Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam nor in the time of the illustrious Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them. Neither did they exist for 1400 years. These groups probably sprouted up within the last 4 or 5 decades. Based upon Western concepts and frameworks…”

It is impossible for any argument, based on a wrong premise and naked prejudice from the outset, to arrive to the correct conclusion.

Whilst we are not affiliated to, nor are we interested in defending a the points of view of the reader who submitted the videos, we ask you to kindly explain why is it that you, SANHA, are now trying to fuddle the mind of your blind followers by merely stating some concocted principle being quoted out of context. Where, pray tell, are your juristic rebuttals to the FIQH questions posed to you by concerned members of the public?

We have in our possession clear-cut emails from SANHA telling questioners “We do not deem it necessary to offer you an academic response.”

We must also bring to your attention that the individual has not based his entire argument on the point that you mention above. Muslimality has found a solution to SANHA’s woes: SIMPLY RECORD A FULL DAY’S WORTH OF SLAUGHTER ON UNTAMPERED, UNCUT VIDEO AND ALLOW THE MUSLIM PUBLIC TO WITNESS FIRST-HAND WHETHER STUNNING, HOT-DIPPING ETC. IS TAKING PLACE OR NOT. This is what enlightened minds want.

2. Ulama are dimwits

Ulama are the inheritors of the knowledge of the Prophets (Peace be upon them) and have been giving leadership to the Ummah for centuries. They hold the Noble Quraan immutable, the Sunnah (Prophetic Traditions) sacrosanct and accept differences in opinion which are not opposed to or are in conflict with them. Their decisions and edicts are in the best interest of Islam for their respective communities. It is patronizing and ludicrous to the extreme to believe that thousands of Ulama have lost their wits and direction to “have unwittingly legalized these bodies.”

It is frightening to contemplate that hundreds of thousands of people from Halaal bodies to butchers, retailers and communities take direction from Ulama in these matters who according to the faceless Chicken Truth individual/group cannot discern right from wrong, yet they can.

Where and when has the individual stated that Ulama are dimwits? Why again do you wish to play the emotion card?

The usage of the word “unwittingly” does not imply the Ulama are dimwits.Do refrain from such blatant lies.

We also issue an open request to SANHA to please provide us with clear-cut academic proof provided by any authoritative Aalim/Mufti substantiating SANHA’s activities.

3. Anonymity

Whilst this group boldly criticizes and slanders Halaal bodies, the Ulama, producers and the public whilst sprouting Quraanic ayaat, it cowers behind a cloak of anonymity. Surely, if they truly wish to “save the muslims” then they ought to have the courage of their conviction and stand up for their beliefs and engage with all parties?

What can be the vested interest that prevents the writer/s from revealing their identity?

How again does the identity of the individual matter? Does SANHA need someone to sue? Please visit the reader’s website and see the contact us page.

Simply answer the unanswered questions and all these anonymous bodies will leave you alone.

It is strange that you speak of courage yet you run away from simple requests for academic proof!!!


Vested interests? Does the reader want everyone to start getting certified with his halaal certifying body?Must everyone buy chickens from the string of abattoirs he supposedly has waiting to start delivering chickens as soon as the public stop trusting SANHA?

DO NOT INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE!!!FORGET YOUR SORRY EMOTIONAL RANTS AND SIMPLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHICH THE MUSLIM PUBLIC WANTS ANSWERED.PROVIDE US WITH VIDEO FOOTAGE OF A FULL 24 HOUR SESSION OF CHICKEN SLAUGHTER.

4. Hearsay

The group has failed to attest the information into sworn statements and follow any process that gives the accused the right to call and cross examine witnesses, not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible e.g. hearsay, punishment for perjury, the right to exclude judges on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, the right of appeal etc.

The absence of this renders the information as hearsay and places their work in the realm of fitnah and rumour mongering.

The aforesaid is but another glaring example of the actions of extremists against mainstream Islam.

Please be assured that the processes used in Halaal certified commercial abattoirs are endorsed by mainstream Ulama and all chickens certified / approved by SANHA is undoubtedly Halaal..

We will not provide the Shar’i response to SANHA’s pathetic excuse of sworn statements etc. due to the fact that after contacting SANHA numerous times we have reached the conclusion that they are in fact quite scared of and possibly allergic to Shar’i proof.

Once again we plead with SANHA,forget the side-issues and simply answer the questions the public wants answered.

Extremists?

PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH CLEAR,AUTHENTIC FATWAS FROM THESE MAINSTREAM ULAMA BACKED UP WITH VALID SHAR’I PROOF.

Was Salaam

Yours sincerely
For South African National Halaal Authority

EBI Lockhat
Public Relations Officer

Tel: +27 (31) 207 5768
Fax: +27 (31) 207 5793
Website: http://www.sanha.org.za


Assalamu-Alaykum

Shaikh Yawar Baig Sahib wishes to know why there is a sudden need for a SA Muslim Charter.

The Charter is the first step towards a so-called unified body which will eventually seek to represent South African Muslims. Let’s discard the fluff and focus on hard issues. There are three worrying clauses in the Charter.

We will, Insha-Allah, analyse one of the clauses presently.

There is nothing wrong in having a unified body speaking for all Muslims of the country. The problem is that the body should be more concerned about the welfare of the Ummah than the need for lip-service unity.

The Charter has been drafted by a majority of liberal Molvies. This is a given fact. This statement is born out by the fact that 99 % of the present authors of the Charter are in favour of the MPL Bill. 99 % of the Ulama bodies involved in the drafting of the Charter are heavily involved in the lucrative “Halaal” industry. Not a single one of any of the signatories of the Charter, to the best of our knowledge, has protested publicly against SANHA’S “Halaalizing” of Israeli products. In fact, the Fordsburg Jamiatul-Ulama fully blesses the back-stabbing and treachery of our Palestinian brothers by SANHA. Even the Muslim Lawyers Association has, again to the best of our knowledge, remained strangely silent. Perhaps they do not wish to be seen as opposing the Ulama. Within the Shariah boundaries, any reasonable person will be suspicious of the underlying motives of the authors of the Charter.

What could the motive be? Perhaps the authors mean well. Allah knows best. Perhaps they wish to seek a mandate that they are the representatives of all South African Muslims. This is more plausible. At first there was an attempt to hijack the Ulama fraternity with the deceptive “Jamiatul-Ulama South Africa”. Posters were issues by the Fordsburg Jamiat fraudulently, illegally and criminally depicting them to be a registered entity. Public funds are now being used to go to court for a lie which the Jamiat had peddled. The Jamiat is a chief motivator of the Charter

When the JUSA TRICK failed, UCSAA was promoted PUBLICLY to be the official “all-inclusive” body representing the Muslims. This too has flopped as the vast majority of Muslims in KZN and the previous Transvaal do not want to be associated with grave-peer-worshippers from Natal and some of the MJC standing-and-urinating-non-Istainja-ing clique.

The same gang now has roped in some well-meaning sincere Muslim lawyers in order to give some oomph to their agenda. And so we have the proposed SA Charter, laced with candy floss, bankrupt with issues of Imaan, blind to the genuine welfare of the Muslims and the Ummah.

The South African Government has a problem in that the Muslim community does not have a single unified body with whom the Government can liaise. One can commiserate and sympathise with the Government. It indeed must be laborious to gather a hundred different organizations every time there is a need to sound out Muslim views.

The Government, for instance understands the need to consult with the Muslim community if they wish to send troops to Somalia. Common sense dictates that the Muslim Community will be unhappy with our troops being placed in harms way. The body bags returning will cause us Muslims to be the focus of a certain local backlash with unpredictable consequences. The Charter circumvents the need for effective serious consultation by Governement with us. Thus, it states:

Furthermore there is a need for greater co-operation among South Africa’s Muslims, and a desire for mutual recognition between the South African Muslim community and other South African communities and, in line with African Union’s ideals and values, between the South African Muslim community, the rest of Africa, the Muslim world and international community in general.

What need is there for us South African Muslims to have a desire to fall in line with the African Unions ideals and values? The Union has a short history which has proven that it is nothing but a vessel to impose American and Western values. No, brothers there is something very sinister about this Charter which seeks credibility by deceptively citing a Charter of Rasulullah Salallahu alayhu Wasallam out of context. The African Union has already decided to contribute troops to fight Amercia’s war against the Muslims of Somalia. If the Charter is adopted, there will be no need for Government to even consult with us. Muslims would have, after all, surrendered their rights by adopting the Government as their representative and their Guardian. “In line with Afirican Union’s ideals and values” is indeed where the Devil lies.

Similarly, the International community allows Israel to continue its oppressive policies against the Muslims of Palestine. Already we have the utterly deplorable situation wherein the Fordsburg Jamiatul-Ulama blesses SANHA’S dealings and “Halaalization” of Israeli products. Opposing this dastardly stance will be ultimately in vain as the Charter makes provision for greater co-operation with the international community in general. Even a blind man can see the midwife Shaytaaniyah in the delivery room where this Charter was conceived. In line with international communities ideals and values includes homosexuality, gender equality, lesbianism, powerful nations oppressing the poor, stealing the resources of poor nations, demanding subservience to puppets Governments, the so-called war on terror, wars that have killed millions of Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq without any accountability by the international community, renditions, brutal torture, the wholesale theft of Palestine, the destruction of Al-Aqsa- in short – the Charter wishes to very, very subtly, by accident or design promote the Deen of Dajjaal.

We , the Jamiatul-Ulama Gauteng are, Insha-Allah, not prepared to charter way our sense of humanity nor the soul of Islam nor the Imaan of our offspring.

To be continued, Insha-Allah.

Cc: ulama@thejamiat.co.za
Subject: Fwd: FW: comments: Draft SA Muslim Charter – Comments by Shaikh Yawar Baig Sahib

My dear Maulana

As salaamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

The main issue seems to me to first ask the question: Why do we need this charter?

South African Muslims have been living for generations, perfectly happily with people of other religious and ethnic groups. So why this sudden need of a charter?

Written documents have a life and identity of their own. They can and will be interpreted. They can and will be attacked and will have to be defended, thereby tying you up in even more knots. So one must ask, ‘Why do we need this charter? What is the goal we are aiming to reach by means of this charter? What is the benefit that the Muslims of South Africa (they are your primary constituents) will derive from this charter?’

Once these questions have been satisfactorily answered can we even begin to think about what should be in such a charter. Until then to talk about the charter is premature.

On another note, it may be a good question to ask (and look around to see) if any other community, ethnic or religious group in South Africa is writing charters to live by with respect to dealing with Muslims. If not, then one should ask why the Muslims feel this need?

We live in a world where the perpetrators of apartheid go scot free. Those committing mayhem and murder at will to the tune of numbers which have lost all semblance of meaning go unquestioned. The deaths of people in natural disasters make the headlines. But when ten times that number are murdered in the name of giving them freedom, it does not even merit two minutes silence.

If a charter must be written then let it be written for those who are committing such crimes to show them how to live in this world and to remind them that a day of reckoning will come for them when they will stand before their Creator and the one they murdered will ask for what crime he/she had been killed. Let them prepare to answer that question.

May Allah give us all the Tawfeeq to do what is pleasing to Him.

Was salaam

Yawar

Re: Comments on the Draft SA Muslim Charter

I have studied the proposed charter and submit herewith my comments. I am sending this to everyone listed on the website to ensure that it is duly received by all.

I do not believe that the objective that motivated it has been stated transparently, and if it has, it indicates extreme confusion in the minds of those who are behind this.

The Charter of Medina was a treaty, for want of a better word. It stated duties and responsibilities between independent communities (Muslim and Jewish primarily) living together. It laid down the code of conduct of different independent groups and implied in this is a termination of the agreement should either group violate its terms. It was done from a position of authority, a position of power which would ensure that the agreement could be enforced, and that violation of it would meet with severe consequences. It bound people.

This proposed charter does not qualify to be mentioned in the same breath as the Medina Charter. We are subjects of a state, and bound by its rulings. Everything we do or say is irrelevant because it must be sanctioned by those we are subject to. A charter, to be truly inspired by the Medina Charter, must reflect the intentions of free people and this we are not. Our first step must be to form a charter to achieve true freedom.

Of great concern is the fact that a charter such as this could be used in the future to misguide Muslims. Actions could be taken with claims that it was “sanctioned by the Charter” or “in keeping with the charter”. The charter could be used as a substitute for our real charter, the Quraan and Hadith, and in time, the Quraan and Hadith may be ignored completely.

The true Muslim already has the best possible charter, we do not need another. Anyone who wants to understand Islam or understand us with a view to interacting with us should look no further than the Quraan and the Hadith.

I shall go through some of my concerns.

“Foreward

This charter aims to outline the essential principles of Islam which will contribute to a better understanding of the Muslim community, as well as lay the foundation for its interaction with the broader South African society.”

So, what new does this Charter add? Is the purpose of this charter to teach others about Islam? This was not the purpose of the Medina Charter.

If the purpose is to propagate Islam, then that should be done and needs no “charter”. This Charter falls grossly short in explaining Islam so cannot be used for that purpose. It therefore misrepresents the essential principles of Islam since our first obligation is to free ourselves from subjugation to man. We cannot pick and choose what constitutes Islam or what constitute its essential principles. There are millions of books on the subject, and one could refer people to IPCI.

However, there are contradictions in this document that should make any descent Muslim extremely wary.

The starting point of every Muslim is the Quraan and Hadith. Should we make our own laws, and get others to follow us, we become no different from the Rabbis and monks that Allah SWT teaches us about in the Quraan. The Jews and Christians worshipped their rabbis and monks by following them, instead of following the true teachings of Allah.

Al Qur’aan Surat-at tauba, 9:31

They (i.e. Jews and Christians) have taken as lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah) their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah, Mary’s Son, when they were bidden to worship only One God (Allah). None has the right to be worshipped except Him. Be He glorified from all they ascribe as partners unto Him.

Should anyone attempt to do the same through a “charter”, the effect is no different and every Muslim should oppose this.

We may not make any ruling or guide that is contrary to Allah’s teaching.

“Foreward

“The Muslim presence in South Africa demands a framework of citizenship based on justice, equality of rights, and recognition of Muslims as a religious community in its own right.”

This is openly stating that Muslims ARE a separate group, and a distinct one at that, and that we plead (from a position of absolute weakness) to be recognized as such, and hence we will be treated differently in certain matters, such as our refusal to accept the Constitution as the supreme law while living within the territory. This is not compatible with a single status of citizenry. In fact, a completely common citizenship negates the possibility of a truly separate Muslim identity. We are only allowed that semblance of an identity which the SA law sanctions, an entity defined by man, not Allah.

If the objective of the Charter is to declare our independence, just as the Medina Charter was a manifestation of their autonomy, then good luck. No one will buy it. But I do not think this is at all its objective. On the contrary, it seems to be declaring out total capitulation and subjugation to the SA constitution. That is not Islam.

“Article 3 – Sanctity of Life

We uphold the sanctity of life irrespective of race, religion or ethnic orientation.”

This seems to parrot the SA Constitution. Allah does not uphold sanctity of life “irrespective”. The death penalty applies. Period. No charter that attempts to change this fact can be condoned by true Muslims.

There is something that needs to be understood. A Parliament that makes its own laws is forbidden in Islam. To obey its laws is shirk. A Muslim may only obey the law of Allah (SWT). If he is forced to live in dar-al harb, he complies with the minimum requirements of the laws under duress, and avoids them as far as possible, such as resolving disputes privately and not using the courts which apply man-made laws.

The constitution insists that it is the supreme law of the land

Chapter 1 part 2 Supremacy of the Constitution.

“This Constitutuion is the supreme law of the Republic”.

There is no exception!

This charter is making it a fard that a Muslim will obey the constitution (making him a proclaimed kafir) by declaring

“Article 13

We recognize the laws of the country in which we live …”

Does “recognize” mean “noting but not implementing”, or does it mean “formally accepting”. I suspect the latter as this parrots Isreal’s demand to be “recognized”.A Muslim cannot do this “…without compromising our religious principles.”

We cannot “recognize” the Constitution and

“Article 2

…worship no-one else except the Almighty Allah and demonstrate this consistently in all our daily actions”

at the same time. We either recognize and adopt the constitution and abandon tauhid or follow tauhid and reject the supremacy of the constitution. We cannot do both at the same time.

“Article 7

The Muslim is bound by the testimony that: “There is no deity but Allah alone and that Muhammad (s) is the final Messenger of Allah” and not by any geographic, national, ethnic or racial considerations.”

This sounds pure nonsense when read together with the title of “Draft SA Muslim Charter”, Inherent in this title is the identification and recognition of the division of the world into tiny Bantustans, with SA being one of them. The Muslim only recognizes Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, the third, the place of safety, in the modern era is pure fiction to justify our submission to non-Muslim forces. A Muslim is always the target of the anti-Islam forces, (Allah AWT has made this abundantly clear) the same forces that control the economies of the major part of the world and who are the driving forces behind the formation of a single world government. We can never be truly “in safety” unless we abandon Islam. We abandon Islam when we abandon Tauhid, ie recognizing and submitting to man made laws created by a Parliament.

There is no separate entity called the SA Muslim. This is a dangerous fabrication which serves to entrench division within the ummah, not unite us. There is only one Muslim ummah. We cannot have a “Draft SA Muslim Charter” and not be bound by “geographic consideration” at the same time.

Article 16

We shall reinforce the family as the key social unit of society and promote harmonious familial relations and values

How, may I ask, is this possible for Muslims in South Africa? There is no sanctity of the family under SA law. The State President (ie the government) is the upper guardian (read head) of every minor in terms of SA law. The child must obey the SA law above the guidance of the true head of the family (the father). A “family” as the building block of society is based on the values of that family being independent and inviolate. It is not a “physical entity” as much as a “value based entity”.

Making such proclamations suggest ignorance or intent to deceive, neither of which inspires any confidence in the reader.

How do we “reinforce” this? By disobeying the law and insisting on the father being the head of the family? Is this Charter a declaration of war against the law of this country? I do not think so. So this statement is meaningless and irrelevant at the least, but highly misleading as it cannot be put into practice. What is the point of making a big issue about “the family as the key social unit” if the law that applies within it is the man-made SA law, and this body of laws sanctions promiscuity, abortion, and facilitates divorces?

Article 19

We shall honour all covenants.

What covenants are we talking about and who is “we”? We are not competent under SA law to enter into any covenant that is contrary to the law or not sanctioned by the government. Under such restrictions, what is the point of making this claim, unless the objective is to try and bind signatories of this charter to obeying the tenets of SA law, which, if we did, would amount to a formal declaration of abandoning Islam by abandoning tauheed.

We, as a distinct community, are not competent to enter into any relevant international covenant. That is the sole prerogative of the government. The Muslim community is part of the citizenry of this country. We are not independent in any way or form.

All private agreements are private affairs. No one can make a pledge on behalf of the entire ummah. If anyone did, they are obliged to compensate every person who lodges a claim because of being disadvantaged by a Muslim failing to honour his private covenant. Who will bear this cost and responsibility? If this promise is not intended, that what is the point of this pledge?

We return to the relevant questions, who is “we”, what covenants are we talking about, what is meant by these being “honoured”, who will ensure that they are and who will pay compensation in the case of default.

Without clear answers to these questions, this statement is irrelevant. As subjects of the SA government, we are judged by its laws, and enforcement of contracts done on its terms and conditions. What we say is irrelevant. The charter cannot be used by anyone against anyone in a court of law. This claim is meaningless.

It only has merit if it is a claim made by free people, so that this claim may be held against them should the need arise.

Article 22

We acknowledge the necessity to reduce carbon foot print

Any scientist with half a functioning neuron will confirm that the solar system undergoes cycles of heating and cooling, and we are in a normal “warm going into a cool cycle”. It is the sun that dictates the planetary temperature, not the level of carbon in the atmosphere. All the planets in our solar system are experiencing a normal cyclical rise in temperature, not ours alone.

The carbon lie is bogus and the criminally lying “scientists” who falsified data to fabricate a case of global warming due to carbon levels in the atmosphere were exposed when their e-mails were accessed and disclosed publicly.

No informed person accepts carbon as a cause of the current transient rise in the temperature of the Earth. Volcanoes put out more carbon that all man made output many times over with no effect of planetary temperature.

The bogus carbon threat was created to justify new taxes. No, I do not “acknowledge the necessity to reduce carbon foot print” and the Muslim community must not proclaim its sheep-like slavery to western indoctrination by proclaiming itself a champion of this lie.

What purpose can this document really serve? May be the answer lay here

Introduction

“…and their integration into South African society,”

Muslims can never integrate into a non-Muslim society. Why? Because our Nabbi SAW told us not to … for reasons inspired by the Almighty.

Is this the nuts and bolts of this exercise; to clandestinely promote Muslims abandoning Islam and becoming one with a jahiliyya society, and this done through the “noble” objective of being truthful by keeping ones covenant with this document?

This project raises more questions than I care to think about. It does nothing constructive for Islam. It is misleading and contradictory in its stated objectives and stated principles.

It appears to abuse the Medina Charter by mentioning it together with this document. They are as different as chalk and cheese both in background and objective.

We as Muslims do not need something like this. I will go further and say we should oppose this with all our might and vigor.

Is this charter in response to the “war of terror” being waged against Muslims around the world? Is its objective to show that the Muslims of this geographical area are firmly behind those spearheading these wars and that we must not be seen as a threat in any way?

No Muslim would go down this path. We are at war with these enemies of Islam just as they are at war with us and this statement that I make is in keeping with that made in the Charter of Medina. We do not accept what is being done to our brothers and sisters and we do not abandon them for our temporal benefit.

Some things are best left unsaid until the time is right for them to be proclaimed. That a Muslim cannot accept the Constitution and still remain a Muslim must not be advertised and create unnecessary problems. We need not bring in the open our total support for our mujahideen around the world. Similarly, we must not follow those who deceive Muslims into formally adopting practices of shirk.

I get a strong feeling that those creating this document are what has become known as “modernist” whereby we abandon Allah’s teachings in favor of our own fanciful creations and within these “creations” we justify our “integration” with jahiliyya.

I do not support this document.

I do not believe its initiators are transparent in their objective.

I find it offensive to the true teachings of Islam.

Dr Nassim Kamdar.

Issued by: Jamiatul Ulama Gauteng



THE  JAMIATUL ULAMA GAUTENG HAS ISSUED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

On Thursday, the 25th November 2010, a Muslim sister interviewed a non-Muslim man on the so-called Radio “islam”. We feel embarrassed to quote in verbatim parts of the shameless discussion on Aids which was forwarded by many outraged Muslims to us. We do so with the greatest of reluctance. Nothing is quoted out of context. The entire recording could be obtained from the Radio station. Hereby follows some snippets of the conversation:

Non-Muslim: “And anal sex, anal sex, you also get it, and oral sex you can also get it. So under sexual intercourse, there are three types: It’s vaginal, it’s anal and it’s oral.”

Radio Shaytaan Muslim sister: “O.K.”

Non-Muslim: “But in actual fact we should be issuing condoms after we have demonstrated but sometimes we just  assume that people they now know how to use condoms. We have got some equipment that look like the man male organ and we demonstrate how to use condoms. You need to expel the air completely. If there is air the condom will make a bubble in front in the tip of the penis, and eventually the condom will burst so I am not saying the condoms are not safe. The condoms are 100% safe but depending on how you use them…”

Radio Shaytaan Muslim sister: “What do you do if in case this happens if you if you realize that the condom must have torn or something, what is immediate what must the person do immediately?”

Non-Muslim man: “You need to, both of you, woman and the man, need to go to the clinic or the hospital and explain to the doctor that the condom burst.”

 

Nabi Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam said that shame is half of Imaan. Every Muslim will be shocked and disgusted at the above shameless discussion which a Muslim sister conducted on air under the guise of educating the Muslims about AIDS.

Radio “islam” claims that they are the only truly Islamic Radio in the World. Ask yourself: “Is the above shameless conversation consistent with the Haya and modesty which true Islam teaches?”

There was a time where the Ulama of the same Radio station promised that they would never allow women to broadcast their voices. Today, they encourage our sisters to discuss shameless topics with non-Muslim men. They could not find a single male to conduct this shameless interview. No wonder the Ulama are losing all respect. Shaytaan has truly misled them. “And Shaytaan instructs you to be shameless.” (Surah Baqarah. V.268). It is only at the time of Maut that they will realize how Shaytaan duped them and how they displeased Allah Ta’ala.

Radio “islam” wins prizes from the Americans and non-Muslim companies. They are congratulated by Jews such as Rothschild. Why? Because the Non-Muslims know that the harm of the shameless Radio is much more than any true Islamic benefits.

The Jamiat-ul-Ulama based in Fordsburg fully blesses the operations of the Radio Station. They must take full responsibility for this evil and revolting interview which is not an isolated case.

We call upon all the sincere Ulama, especially those who conduct programs on Radio Shaytaan to open their eyes and to publicly distance themselves from this evil Station. Their presence is misleading the Ummah who feel that since Moulana so and so comes on air, everything must be fine. What answer will these Ulama give if Nabi Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam asks them on the Day of Qiyamah why they remained silent when such shameless programs were aired?

IT IS HARAAM TO WORK, SUPPORT, ADVERTISE OR TO LISTEN TO THIS EVIL RADIO STATION – RADIO SHAYTAAN.

COMMENT BY MUJLISUL ULAMA OF S.A.

“Do not follow in the footsteps of Shaitaan. Verily, he is your

open enemy. Verily, he instructs you with evil and (filthy acts of)

immorality, and that you fabricate about Allah what you know not.”

(Qur’aan)

‘As-Soo’ (evil) andAl-Fahsha’ (filthy acts of immorality), are salient attributes of kufr and Satanism. When ‘Muslims’ have stooped to the sub-baboon level to put on  public exhibit a ‘Muslim’ woman to  discuss filthy acts of sex with a non-Muslim male, to be broadcast to all and sundry, then we know that the time is not distant for the materialization of Rasulullah’s prediction that  men and women will indulge in adultery and fornication like dogs and asses in public streets in full view of passing pedestrians, and no one will have the courage to even say: Do your deed around the corner out of public view.

When a ‘Muslim’ woman can in public have  the degree of shamelessness to interview a non-Muslim man on a topic which perhaps a modest, shameful wife of Taqwa will not venture to broach with her husband in the privacy of the bedroom, then the prevalence of kufr – real kufr – on a large-scale in the Muslim community is confirmed.

It is sickening and most disgusting to contemplate that this vile, kaafir Radio Porno-Shaitaan is the voice of the NNB Jamiat (NO NAME BRAND JAMIAT OF FORDSBURG), and these vile, miserable vermin masquerading as ‘ulama’ have allowed, in fact commanded, a ‘Muslim’ woman to participate in a porno-programme which puts Iblees Laeen to shame. The filth and immorality in which the ‘Muslim’ woman had indulged in her public exhibition is the immoral vomit of the NNB Jamiat which she spewed out on air, contaminating the pure air waves which Allah Ta’ala has created for the benefit of mankind.

These devil molvis of the NNB Jamiat, undoubtedly, are aware of the Islamic methodology when teaching sex masaa-il (haidh, nifaas, etc.) to girls. Despite it being Waajib for the girls to learn these issues, Hadhdrat Maulana Ashraf Ali (rahmatullah alayh) states in Beheshti Zewer:

“If the teacher happens to be a male, then he should not teach these masaa-ol (to the girls). He should either acquire the services of his wife to explain these issues, or (failing this), instruct the (female) pupils to study these masaa-il afterwards by themselves. If the pupils are young boys, then too, he (the teacher) should not teach them these masaa-il. He should only advise them to study these masaa-il at some time in the future.”

But, today we find the NNB Jamiat’s Radio Porno-Shaitaan putting ‘Muslim’ females on public exhibition to discuss filthy, zina acts with non-Muslim males. Every vestige of Imaani Haya has been jettisoned. A ‘Muslim’ woman who was able to muster up the audacity to publicly discuss explicit zina acts of the filthiest kind with a non-Muslim male, cannever be a Muslim. This woman had long ago destroyed her Imaan.  Her act of immoral shamelessness excreted out on the NNB’s Porno-Shaitaan Radio, was her act of self-exposure of her hidden kufr. She had by her abominable, unnatural, immoral zina talk so flagrantly spewed out over the holy airwaves of Allah Azza Wa Jal, simply advertised her hidden kufr in which the NNB Jamiatush Shayaateen had tutored her.

 

There was a time, some years, ago when these followers of Shaitaan were still a shadow of the  Old Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal, that Molvi Dhorat  emphatically asserted  their  Shar’i stance as follows:  “In order for Radio Islam to adhere to your (i.e. Yield’s) proposal, as outlined, namely presenting female hosts on Radio Islam, Radio Islam would of necessity be required to act in contravention of the Code of Conduct … This is so because Radio Islam would broadcast material in a manner which is offensive to the religious convictions and feelings of the overwhelming majority of Muslims who follow the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet (Peace be upon him.  …  Any suggestion to act contrary to the fundamental tenets of Islam will not be acceptable to Radio Islam. Radio Islam is not apologetic about its Islamic principles and will do everything in its power to uphold and further the interests of the overwhelming majority of the Muslim community.

In a pamphlet stating its intention of NOT allowing females to broadcast, the Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal, stated: “Moreover, modesty is the essence relating to the prohibition of intermingling of sexes and hijaab. The Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal has no authority to effect any variation to these decrees.”

But today, in the philosophy of the NNB Jamiat or Jamiatush Shayaateen, the concept of ‘modesty’ permits ‘Muslim women to publicly, over the air discuss lewd, immoral filthy, zina issues of satanic abomination with non-Muslim males. The elimination of Imaan follows in the wake of the elimination of Haya, for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Haya is a Branch of Imaan.”

The Qur’aan Majeed commands even the noble Wives of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to adopt harsh and abrupt tones when the need developed to explain Shar’i masaa-il to even the Sahaabah:  “Do not make alluring (your) speech, (for if you do so), then he in whose heart there is the disease (of carnal lust) will desire.” (Surah Ahzaab)

But today we find followers of Shaitaan masquerading as ‘molvis’ and proclaiming themselves to be Ulama, instructing  ‘Muslim’ women to excrete immoral filth from their mouths over the bounty of airwaves by discussing immoral rot with non-Muslim men.  Indeed, this entire progeny of Shaitaan will hang upside in Jahannum. They will be dragged naked on their faces and cast into the blazing pits of Hell to roast for having advertised immoral filth in the name of Islam. These shaitaani molvis who promote and condone the immoral filth, will have to circumambulate their entrails in Jahannum.

In the early stages when this Devil’s Porno-Radio had deceived the Muslim community by donning an Islamic façade, the NNB Jamiat’s, Molvi Dhorat stated:

“It is true that there are no female presenters that host any particular programme on Radio Islam. The reason for this is two-fold:

i) This is in accordance with Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the prophet (peace be upon him), as will be fully shown.

ii) It is in accordance with the role of woman from an Islamic perspective against intermingling of sexes in preserving the modesty of both men and women. ….. About the voice of a  woman the following is stated in the Quran:  “…and do not speak in soft alluring tones, for then, he in whose heart there is a disease, will lust.” (Surah Ahzaab, aayat 33).

Based on the above Quranic aayat as well as other clear indications of the Sunnah and the jurists of Islam, it is unanimous that the female voice is also subject to the laws of intermingling of sexes and to be concealed. The Jurists book Shaami which is one of the authoritative books of Islamic law states: ‘And, her voice is also satr (to be concealed) according to the most authentic view.”

What has happened to all these holy pronouncements of the NNB Jamiat? Now the voice of woman has become lawful for prostitution. The ‘ulama’-e-soo (vile, abominable molvis of the NNB Jamiat) have surpassed the ulama-e-soo’ of Bani Israeel. The Ulama-e-Soo of Bani Israeel did not stoop the level of the NNB Jamiat molvis who are scraping the very bottom of the barrel of  soo’ and fahsha’.  The Mujlisul Ulama’s book, Betrayal of IslamThe Debacle of Radio Shaitaan explains the haraam somersault of the NNB Jamiat’s molvis. This booklet is available. Write for a copy.

By instructing the ‘Muslim’ woman to perpetrate flagrant zina with the non-Muslim man with her voice, mind and heart, the NNB Jamiat molvis should understand that in the history of Islam they are the very first Shayaateenul Ins (Human Devils) who have opened the door wide for  the commission of actual zina in public. They will yet rue the day they were born on earth.  We register our complaint in the Divine Court.

 

Issued by: The Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa

 

Muslimality comment:

Muslimality has contacted Radio Islam and audio copies of this show are available at a cost of R40.00. Please note that Muslimality is not affiliated to any organisation, Mujlisul Ulama or otherwise. Should the supporters, board members or management of Radio Islam feel that this article is an unfair representation of the goings-on at Radio Islam, we cordially extend an open invitation to substantiate the radio’s conduct with valid, authentic Shar’i proof. We have also been informed on numerous occasions that ‘many senior muftis’ have given the fatwa that it is fine for women to be on Radio Islam, recording adverts and voice-overs, presenting shows, calling in and talking unnecessarily with Ulama etc. This article serves as an open request and invitation to the management of Radio Islam to kindly forward us the official fatawa of the aforementioned muftis substantiated with valid, authentic academic proof.

We also request all those who feel Radio Islam has been treated unfairly in this regard to kindly desist from vile and abusive comments and emails and simply provide us with simple, academic proof.

The Muslimality Team is still awaiting official responses from public Ulama bodies and institutions whose sole function is to serve the public such as the various Jamiat organisations, Islamic community radio stations, Halaal certification bodies etc. in South Africa.

It must be pointed out that we have no problem supporting any Islamic public organisation in particular, we do however have a great problem when supporters of these public organisations blindly assume and labour under the misconception that these institutions are not accountable to the South African Muslim public.

We have time and again openly requested official responses from the aforementioned organisations and have made numerous calls for simple, clear-cut, academic responses.

If any reader of Muslimality is able to source official answers to the questions posed from the respective organisations, we humbly request you to post these in the comment section to this or any other relevant post and you will be contacted accordingly Insha Allah.

N.B. : We are not looking for emotionally-charged responses nor responses which side-stepped the issues at hand. We have no interest in hearing from the aforementioned institutions unless their responses are of an academic nature substantiated by clear-cut, authenticated, authoritative Islamic Juristic Principles.

We urge every single Muslim who is living in South Africa and concerned with the situation of Islam in South Africa to merely copy and paste the questions we have provided in an email to the respective bodies and if you receive any response from them, please forward the response to us via the comments facility below.

Jamiat Fordsburg

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/who-will-guard-the-guards-part-1/

 

Jamiat KZN

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/who-will-guard-the-guards-part-2/

 

SANHA (South African National Halaal Authority)

https://muslimality.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/sanha-unanswered-questions/

OPEN REQUEST TO SANHA TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS BELOW (TO EACH QUESTION INDIVIDUALLY & DIRECTLY) RE THE POULTRY THAT SANHA CERTIFIES AS “HALAAL” AND TO RESPOND TO OTHER QUESTIONS RELATED TO SANHA’s BUSINESS

Submitted by Ahmed Laher

Date: 9TH December 2010

Re: Halaal certification granted by SANHA to large commercial poultry plants (and other Halaal related issues)

Since SANHA is (or “claims” to be) a NGO that is “representing the Muslim community of South Africa” and since “SANHA is the ONLY Halaal certifying organization that provides full accountability and transparency to the Consumer” (quotations direct from SANHA’s website representations) … This is an Open Request for SANHA to provide full accountability and to answer the following questions and educate the general public on SANHA’s stance on various issues that are very pertinent to the consumers of the poultry certified as Halaal by SANHA:

Background:
I have been monitoring the raging debate that has brewed over the past few years on the issue of SANHA (and other Halaal certification organizations) declaring the mass slaughtered commercial poultry (emanating from the likes of Rainbow, Early Bird etc) as Halaal.

I have read with interest both sides of the “story” and I am of the view that SANHA (amongst other certifying bodies) has a lot of questions to answer and owes especially the Muslim (and for that matter Non-Muslim) public a detailed explanation and direct and straightforward answers to the questions below that I have posed. This is especially so as it seems as though there are a number of irregularities that are condoned in the issuing of Halaal certificates that are in conflict with Islamic Shari’ah and that are in conflict with ordained Islamic Methods and that are in conflict with basic animal rights and that are in conflict with basic human rights and that are conflict with the way human beings must necessarily conduct themselves (humane methods, humane systems, dignity) in the treatment of any animal.

I also confirm that I am not aligned to nor affiliated with any organization or body and am asking these questions in my personal capacity. I also hasten to add that as I am exposed to a large spectrum of the Muslim community from all walks of life I have found that the questions that I have are at the very tip of many consumers’ tongues and that the public at large deserves a direct, specific and detailed public response from SANHA. (I state my non alignment to any organization or body as SANHA often automatically assumes that any perceived criticism of its systems and certifications stems from De Deur and/or The Majlis or that it stems from some sort of conspiracy theory).

I must add at this point that I have posed most of these questions previously (via email and via the Q&A section of SANHA’s website) to SANHA in the near past and SANHA in its responses has by and large “kicked the ball into touch”, or given superficial answers or in most cases completely neglected to even answer the questions that I posed that I am of the view are most pertinent to the Halaal certification of the poultry in question.

Admittedly, SANHA has invited me to meet with and discuss my questions with their Theological Director to avoid a “trial by correspondence” which I am happy to do but due to my schedule currently I am not in a position to schedule such meeting in the very near future. Nevertheless, I am also of the view that my questions are very basic, are straightforward and are very relevant and that SANHA should be in a position to give the public answers and proper explanations to the questions and not hide behind the guise of wanting to avoid a “trial by correspondence” (and to do this swiftly as the answers to my questions should be elementary to SANHA’s Theological department). The intelligence of the general public should not be underestimated, as if SANHA addresses my questions individually and sticks to answering the questions directly then the public will absorb the information and if a “trial by correspondence” arises due the public needing to be further enlightened then SANHA as a organization that ultimately derives its income from the pockets of the public should indulge the public and answer any further queries that the public has. I remind SANHA that, SANHA claims to be “representing the Muslim community of South Africa on all matters pertaining to the general application of the term Halaal with specific reference to Islamic dietary laws”  and that SANHA further preaches the following; “Pass on all information to as wide a circle as possible”. I urge SANHA to practice what it preaches and to actually live by the doctrine of its own utterances.

(I have also requested to SANHA that the questions that I posed to SANHA be loaded onto their website Q&A section as this is the forum that I first used in raising the majority of my queries.
However SANHA has chosen not to post any of my questions posed on their website to date for reasons best known to SANHA.
Perhaps the questions are too controversial and too probing for an organization that is supposed to “provide full accountability and transparency to the Consumer” and would get the public to think twice before consuming SANHA certified products??)
My Questions are as follows (listed in no particular order of importance or priority):
(I once again urge SANHA to individually answer each question below directly rather then to issue ambiguous and lengthy narrative on general issues)

Question 1
Re: The Islamic Shari’ah system of thabah

From my very basic and layman’s understanding the Islamic method of Thabah/Slaughter would entail the following (and these are not an all encompassing list but are some of the very basic and essential tenants):

Islamic Method
1.    Knife not to be sharpened in front of animal
2.    Birds must not see another being slaughtered
3.    Birds must face Qibla
4.    Tasmiyah to be verbally recited (audibly for each and every bird being slaughtered)
5.    Birds to be taken to death with dignity (appropriate restraining method etc)
6.    Birds to be treated humanely (no stunning etc)
7.    Birds to be slaughtered with ease & given water to drink before thabah
8.    Birds must necessarily be Healthy and disease free
9.    Good overall hygiene standards
10.    4 vessels to be cut (minimum 3)

UN-Islamic Method
1.    Knife sharpened in front of animal
2.    Birds slaughtered in full view of the other animals (to the extent that blood spurts from one slaughtered animal to others around it)
3.    Birds face any direction (total neglect in ensuring that birds face Qibla when slaughtered)
4.    Tasmiyah not prerequisite (on the basis that Tasmiyah is in all Muslims hearts or just being ignored or “forgotten” on a repeated basis!)
5.    Birds dragged & shackled up-side down on mega conveyor belts at high speed
6.    Poultry stunned / electrocuted
7.    Poultry slaughtered in motion at fast speed
8.    Birds from the time they are born to the time they are put to their unceremonious death are a product of cruelty that extends throughout their 36 day to 40 day lifespan (live their entire lives in very confined space, fed massive doses of antibiotics and growth stimulants, literally live in and eat their own filth and feaces, broken bones / bruises/ blisters are a norm, feet rotting from the exposure to feaces and the resulting ammonia burns, etc etc …. These are just the tip of the iceberg).
Can the birds actually be Healthy and disease free??
9.    Before removing any impurities from inside the stomach, poultry immersed into very hot filthy water to facilitate the feather peeling process.
10.    Less then 3 vessels being cut

(If any of the points listed above under both Islamic and Non-Islamic methods are incorrect then please excuse me as I write as a layman and not as an Aalim or a Mufti or a Theological Director and I will be happy if the relevant points are corrected)

Question 1.1
Is SANHA of the view that that the Islamic method of slaughter detailed above is a correct method?
(Are all ten points correct?)
Are there any other necessary or important points that may have been overlooked?)

Question 1.2
Does SANHA regard any of the points listed under Islamic Method (above) as menial or trivial or just not important?

Question 1.3
What is SANHA’s view of the UN-Islamic method of slaughter detailed above?

Question 1.4
The 10 points listed under Un-Islamic method … are they correctly stated as Un-Islamic practices?

Question 1.5
Are these (the UN-Islamic methods listed above) practices that go against the grain of Rasullulah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) teachings?

Question 1.6
Is SANHA of the view that Muslims must necessarily refrain from all the Un-Islamic method listed above?)

Question 1.7
In the large poultry plants that SANHA certifies Halaal (Rainbow, Earlybird etc), is the system of Thabah FULLY in keeping with the Islamic Method or in keeping with the UN-Islamic method (as detailed above) or is the system in keeping with a little of both (some aspects in line with the Islamic Method and some in line with the UN-Islamic Method)?

Question 1.8
In the event that the poultry certified as Halaal by SANHA is more in keeping with the UN-Islamic method above (or even if certain aspects are in keeping with the UN-Islamic method above) then what exactly is SANHA doing to ensure that the chicken plants conform to proper Shari’ah compliance so that the Halaal certification is actually worth the paper it is written on and that the poultry certified as Halaal are done so properly and entirely in line with Islamic methods?

Question 1.9
Or, is SANHA of the view that no more needs to be done for the plants to conform to proper Shari’ah compliance as SANHA’s system is perfect?

Question 1.10
If the answer to 1.5 above is that more needs to be done to conform to Shari’ah compliance then what exactly are the aspects that SANHA has in mind that SANHA is addressing? That SANHA needs to address? And how is SANHA addressing these?
(And why has SANHA not addressed these decades back already?)

Question 1.11
Which Mazhab does SANHA follow / prescribe to? (Hanafi? Shafi? Maliki? Hambali?)

Question 2
Re Facing Qibla when slaughtering

SANHA is on record to have recently stated (with regards to the poultry that it certifies):
“SANHA has not taken a survey to determine whether plants slaughter areas are Qibla facing or not and therefore cannot comment on this. However, whilst facing the Qibla is a desirable act, in terms of the Shari’ah inability/failure to do so does not render slaughtered animal/birds Haraam”
(The above was stated in an email to me by SANHA on the 21st October 2010 by SANHA’s EBI Lockhat)

The above begs the following comments and questions:

Question 2.1
It is rather obvious and can most definitely be inferred from SANHA’s official statement above that SANHA places either no importance or at best very little importance on the fact that animals (poultry especially) need to be facing the Qibla when slaughtered. The extent of SANHA’s nonchalance on this issue is summed up by SANHA’s statement that “SANHA has not taken a survey to determine whether plants slaughter areas are Qibla facing or not “ (this in SANHA’s own words).
By stating that “SANHA has not taken a survey…..” i think it is fair to assume that SANHA does not even know whether their Halaal certified poultry face Qibla when slaughtered and does not even take cognizance of this very important requirement. This is despite the fact that SANHA has been certifying these poultry for years now.
It actually boggles the mind to have been informed by SANHA that SANHA has not even bothered to determine whether the plants slaughter areas are Qibla facing or not, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of birds have “passed through SANHA’s hands” over the years and been certified Halaal!

For purposes of clarity I repeat SANHA’s EBI Lockhat’s narrative to me:
“SANHA has not taken a survey to determine whether plants slaughter areas are Qibla facing or not and therefore cannot comment on this. However, whilst facing the Qibla is a desirable act, in terms of the Shari’ah inability/failure to do so does not render slaughtered animal/birds Haraam”

My question is:
Why this senseless, cavalier and reckless neglect of this very important aspect of slaughtering?

Question 2.2
Now Ulema are of the view that in a plant/s where mass slaughter takes place and on a continuous basis, day after day, month after month and year after year, and where the issue of the slaughtered poultry facing the Qibla is totally ignored and totally dispensed with then such poultry will be Makrooh and that this is a highly detested act.

Is SANHA also of the view that continuous neglect and unnecessary failure of slaughtered animals facing the Qibla whilst being slaughtered on a mass scale throughout a lengthy period of time is a detested act and that the birds will be deemed Makrooh? Or is SANHA of the view that it is “ok”, “just one of those things”?
(PS. Some Ulema are even of the view that such an act renders the bird Haraam)

Question 2.3
SANHA states that “whilst facing the Qibla is a desirable act, in terms of the Shari’ah inability/failure to do so does not render slaughtered animal/birds Haraam”.

My question to SANHA is do you have an inability to ensure that your slaughterers have the birds face Qibla whilst slaughtering?
Or
Does SANHA simply fail (is there a failure) to take this necessary step of ensuring that the birds face the Qibla whilst being slaughtered?
(I am trying to ascertain if there is an “inability” here, and if so why? Or a “failure”, and if so why?)

Question 2.4
Does SANHA actually believe that all chicken that are slaughtered should be facing the Qibla when slaughtered?

Question 2.5
2.5 (a)
If yes (to 2.4 above),… what is SANHA’s understanding? Why and on what basis must the chicken be slaughtered whilst facing the Qibla?
2.5 (b)
If no (to 2.4),… again why and on what basis must poultry be slaughtered on a continuous basis in the millions year after year and not be facing the Qibla?

Question 2.6
What is SANHA’s view of the following comments (2.6-A &2.6- B)?

2.6-A) It is incumbent for all chickens to face the Qiblah when being
slaughtered. This is a Sunnatul Muqqadah requisite. It is not
permissible to abandon it (especially purposely).

2.6-B) In terms of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)
instruction, it is necessary to face the animals towards the Qiblah.
The fact that it is a command of Allah Ta’ala should be sufficient to
convince a Muslim of its imperative importance. Sahaabah would abstain
from eating the meat of an animal which had been slaughtered while
it was not facing the Qiblah.

Question 3
Re: Stunning

Almost all (or ALL) the commercially slaughtered chicken (that are certified Halaal by SANHA) are stunned prior to slaughter.
My research, purely from a layman’s perspective shows that Stunning (prior to slaughtering) is highly detested by respected Ulema around the globe (past and present) and by respected non Muslim Western Scientists as well and that Senior Ulema and Pious Predecessors have, across the board, ruled against this practice.
I have posed the question to SANHA in the recent past asking SANHA what alternatives are SANHA looking at (instead of stunning)?
SANHA’s response to this question was:-
“SANHA acknowledges the different viewpoints on the position of stunning but are of the view that controlled stunning in commercial abattoirs may be considered.
Senior Ulema and pious predecessors have laid down the rules for acceptance of commercial slaughter based on their interpretation of public need decades prior to the formation of SANHA.”

I had also recently asked SANHA if SANHA could guarantee that each and every stunned bird is still alive (after stunning) and prior to slaughtering?
SANHA’s response to this question was:-
“Where controlled stunning is applied, the stun is of a reversible nature and such bird will not die as a result thereof. If however, there are birds which may have died either pre or post stunning, such birds are removed from the line and disposed of accordingly.”
(SANHA’s above responses were emailed to me on the 21st October 2010 by SANHA’s EBI Lockhat)

Based on SANHA’s responses and stance on stunning I make the following comments and ask SANHA to respond to the following questions:

Question 3.1
SANHA’s comment above insinuates that Senior Ulema and Pious Predecessors have “condoned” or deemed acceptable the act of stunning (of poultry prior to slaughter) and SANHA says that Senior Ulema and Pious Predecessors have laid down their rules for acceptance of commercial slaughter decades back.

My question here to SANHA is to please enlighten the public on exactly which Senior Ulema and exactly which Pious Predecessors have deemed acceptable the act of stunning of poultry prior to slaughter (and please give some references in this regard so that we may review the Ulema’s and the Predecessors rulings 1st hand)?

To clarify my question further;
SANHA states that it is SANHA’s view that ”that controlled stunning in commercial abattoirs may be considered”.
On exactly which Senior Ulema’s and Pious Predecessors authority (or Fatwa, or advises) have SANHA subscribed to the view of accepting stunning?

Question 3.2
Can SANHA provide some Shari’ah evidence of SANHA’s contention of ‘acceptability” of stunning?
Or to be a little more clear, can SANHA provide some Shari’ah evidence that there is room for the fact that “controlled stunning in commercial abattoirs may be considered”?

Question 3.3
I further ask SANHA to enlighten the public on which Senior Ulema and which Pious Predecessors have and had laid down the rules for acceptance of commercial slaughter of poultry in the manner that SANHA certifies Halaal now or decades back (and please give some references in this regard so that we may review the Ulema’s and the Predecessors detailed rulings that ratify, or that “rubber stamp” exactly the systems and procedures of commercial chicken slaughter that SANHA certifies Halaal)?

Question 3.4
Can SANHA produce even one single Ulema who can categorically state that:
• It is permissible to slaughter without facing the direction of the Qiblah (the way SANHA does and condones).
• It is permissible to stun pre slaughter (the way SANHA does and condones)
• It is permissible to immerse the chickens in scalding water  (the way SANHA does and condones)
• It is permissible to hang the chickens upside down and slaughter in
motion on a tremendously fast-moving conveyor belt (the way SANHA does and condones)
• It is permissible to  plunge the slaughtered chickens into the
filthy, feaces and blood filled  scalding water (sometimes while there are still
signs of life in the chickens) (the way SANHA does and condones)

(I’d really be surprised to see even just one recognized senior Ulema comes forth and condones any of the above acts!- which SANHA obviously considers acceptable)

Question 3.5
I have researched (to the best of my ability the Fatwa’s of Senior Ulema and Pious predecessors on this stunning issue and I have found that ALL the Senior Ulema and Pious predecessors (whose Fatwa’s and comments I have access to) seem to be unanimous in ruling against stunning and (at best) detesting the stunning of animals (especially Poultry) prior to slaughtering.

(I am only in a position to research English medium Fatwa and commentary,…. Hence I will not know if any Senior Ulema or Pious Predecessors in Urdu or Arabic medium have accepted and ratified the stunning of poultry prior to slaughter. I do doubt that such ratification exists though.)
Essentially I am saying that (from my research) I have confirmed that current Pious and well respected Senior Ulema of today and of yester-year have very strongly ruled against the stunning process.

I quote below a recent Fatwa issued by Mufti Taqi Usmani on the stunning issue which in a nutshell spells out the evils of stunning (pre slaughter) and the obvious negative consequences:
– (for those who are not aware, Mufti Taqi is a very learned Aalim of international repute and standing)
Mufti Taqi Usmani concluded his Fatwa with the following ruling:
“Due to these reasons, it is not correct in terms of Shari’ah to render an animal unconscious before slaughter. “

His Fatwa (the full text) is as follows:-

The practice of rendering animals unconscious before slaughtering, which is carried out in different ways, consists of a number of undesirable and objectionable elements, for example:

a. If this act is such that it causes the animal to lose all its senses and consciousness completely, then there is a risk that it will have caused the animal’s death before slaughter, especially if the animal was weak or ill.

b. If this act is such that it does not cause the animal to lose all its senses and consciousness completely (such as a mild electrical shock that merely immobilizes the animal), then there is a strong possibility that the animal’s pain and suffering will have been unnecessarily increased, since the pain of slaughter remains due to its not being unconscious, and the pain and stress of the electrical shock will have been administered additionally without any need.

c. If this act makes the animal weak (compared to its normal and natural condition), and at the time of slaughter the animal is not at its full physical strength, then there is a risk that this will cause a reduction in the amount of blood that will flow from it at the time of slaughter, compared to what might have flowed in the case of the animal being fully conscious and In full possession of its senses and physical strength, and to undertake such a course of action deliberately is to oppose and counter a Shar’i requirement of slaughter (i.e. the discharge of flowing blood).

d. If the amount of blood discharged is reduced due to the animal’s weakness, then there is a risk that the remaining (non-discharged) blood will be absorbed into the meat of the animal, and this is an undesirable outcome both from a medical point of view and also according to Shari’ah.

e. If the person undertaking this way of slaughter believes it to be a less stressful and painful method than the prescribed Shar’i manner, then this is tantamount to believing an invented method to be superior to a revealed one, and it means that the person believes the revealed method of slaughter to be painful and cruel, which is ‘close to disbelief ‘.
(Ref: Imdadul-Fatawa, Vol. 3, P. 605-8 and Ahkamuz-zaba-ih, P. 55-6)

Due to these reasons, it is not correct in terms of Shari’ah to render an animal unconscious before slaughter.

(The above by Mufti Taqi Usmani, also ratified and endorsed by several senior Ulema at Darul Ifta Karachi).

I have found further (translated) quotes authentically attributed to Hakimul-Ummah Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (Rahmatullahi Alaih) who used the words ‘evil innovation, corruption of faith’ and ‘against Shari’ah’ to describe this practice (of stunning).
Also refer to Imdaadul Fataawa Page 406 Vol.3 for further proofs of Hakimul Ummah’s ruling of impermissibility of Stunning.

[SANHA seems to have a habit of calling for proof of a Fatwa or of quoted text from sources, hence below please find Mufti Taqi Usmani’s details from whom SANHA can personally verify his Fatwa and from whom SANHA can obtain countless other references to Senior Ulema and Pious Predecessors ruling against stunning in any form:
The above Fatwa of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is undoubted a brilliant Aalim of repute and standing, can be checked and confirmed with him. His contact details are:
Personal email: muhammad_taqi@cyber.net.pk This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Contact No’s for Mufti Taqi at Darul Uloom Karachi (best to call Mufti between 12h00 and 13h00):  011-9221-5043499, 011-9221-5042705, 011-9221-5040923)
Mufti Taqi will also comment on Hakimul-Ummah Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (Rahmatullahi Alaih)’s comments and point you to the written proofs of such comments. Mufti Taqi will also detail to you the views of his illustrious father Mufti Mohamed Shafi as well as other illustrious Aalims from whom he has 1st hand heard of their utter detest of this non Shari’ah act of stunning]

I have also read extensively some of Darul Uloom Deoband’s works and Darul Uloom Karachi’s works all of which concur with Mufti Taqi’s Fatwa and Hakimul-Ummah Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (Rahmatullahi Alaih)’s views and rulings that the act of stunning is against Shari’ah (refer to Fatwa’s issued by the Ifta departments of these Darul Ulooms).

In light of SANHA’s comment and I once again quote your EBI Lockhat;
“SANHA acknowledges the different viewpoints on the position of stunning but are of the view that controlled stunning in commercial abattoirs may be considered.
Senior Ulema and pious predecessors have laid down the rules for acceptance of commercial slaughter based on their interpretation of public need decades prior to the formation of SANHA.”

Now my question to SANHA is:
I am really keen on hearing from SANHA exactly whom (amongst today’s Senior Ulema as well as decades back) has refuted the Fatwa (and rulings) of the abovementioned great luminaries on the issue of Stunning? And what their reasoning and basis is for refuting and negating the abovementioned Fatwa of Mufti Taqi and the rulings of Maulana Ashraff Ali Thanwi (Rahmatullahi Alaih) and other giants of the Muslim world like Mufti Mohammed Shafi??

Question 3.6
With regards to the Fatwa quoted above (of Mufti Taqi Usmani) does SANHA even understand the learned Mufti’s ruling?
Can SANHA perhaps please comment (individually on each of points a,b,c,d,e of Mufti Taqi’s Fatwa above) and educate us on SANHA’s understanding of the Fatwa and on whether SANHA takes note of and accepts Mufti Taqi’s Fatwa….. (Or not?)
(SANHA in deeming stunning acceptable surely thinks that the learned Mufti Taqi has erred in his ruling’s?? and by default that Darul Uloom Ifta departments of Deoband and Karachi have erred as well… and have got it wrong???)

Question 3.7
In detail, what is SANHA’s exact reasons for accepting stunning? (Especially as SANHA always proclaims to lean on the side conservatism, e.g. on the gelatin issue etc where SANHA preaches a rather safe then sorry approach)

Question 3.8
SANHA’s following comment refers;
“Where controlled stunning is applied, the stun is of a reversible nature and such bird will not die as a result thereof. If however, there are birds which may have died either pre or post stunning, such birds are removed from the line and disposed of accordingly.”
(Above by EBI Lockhat in an email dated 21st October 2010)

It is now established from SANHA’s comment above that birds that die pre stunning or post stunning are “removed from the line”

Question 3.8.1
What are the quantum of birds that die pre stunning and are removed from the line?

Question 3.8.2
What are the quantum of birds that die post stunning and are removed from the line?

Question 3.8.3
What are, in general, are the causes of death of birds that die pre stunning? (Could these birds be unhealthy in the 1st place and hence just falling down dead? Could they be treated inhumanely and be dying as a result thereof??)

Question 3.8.4
What are, in general, the causes of death of birds that die post stunning? (Could these birds perhaps be dying as a direct result of the stunning??)

Question 3.9
Please explain how exactly birds that die post stunning are removed from the line pre slaughter?
[Removed by whom? When? At what point? Perhaps removed by the same slaughterers who are already tasked, and stressed, with slaughtering birds at extremely high speed?]

Question 3.10
How exactly is a (dead) bird that dies post stunning (pre slaughter) differentiated from a live but effectively unconscious / comatose bird (for purposes of removing the dead birds from the line?

Question 3.11
SANHA claims that:
“the stun is of a reversible nature and such bird will not die as a result thereof”

Is SANHA willing to subject itself to a “surprise” random and unannounced survey where at one of the plants that it certifies 1000 birds that have been stunned are all one after another removed from the line pre slaughter and then waited on to see in how many of the 1000 the stunning process is actually reversed (as SANHA claims “the stun is of a reversible nature”) and to check if we’re left with 1000 (out of a 1000) “healthy” birds??

Question 3.12
If the survey is done as per 3.11 above and a few birds actually die (or just one) then what would SANHA’s view be of the obvious contamination between (so called) Halaal birds and those that cannot be Halaal due to dying pre slaughtering as a result of the stunning?

Question 3.13
SANHA’s words above where SANHA says that:
“ ……….stunning in commercial abattoirs may be considered.”
are very ambiguous.

What exactly is SANHA saying / suggesting?
On whose authority?
Following exactly whose Fatwa’s and who’s rulings … (please give some references to these Fatwa’s and rulings)?

Question 3.14
During SANHA’s “pre-planned” site visits / inspections to one of the plants Mufti Elias asked the supervisor to immerse his hand into the “stunning water” where the tiny birds that consumers consume are stunned. The supervisor refused.

Why did he refuse?
(he, the supervisor, told Mufti Elias that it would “kick”  him or shock him)
(if the stunning would “kick” a 80kg’s+ mountain of a man then what would it do to a tiny 1kg bird??)

Question 3.15
SANHA states that;
“Senior Ulema and pious predecessors have laid down the rules for acceptance of commercial slaughter based on their interpretation of public need decades prior to the formation of SANHA.”

Question 3.15.1
What (or who) exactly is SANHA’s definition of Senior Ulema and especially of Pious predecessors?
[My understanding of the term “Pious Predecessors” is that when the term ‘Pious Predecessors’, i.e. Salf-e-Saaliheen, is mentioned, it refers to the Ulema, Sulaha, Fuqaha and Auliya of the three initial eras of Islam , which are known as Khairul Quroon (the Noblest Ages).] Is this correct??

Question 3.15.2
There is not a single personality from the Salf-e-Saaliheen who condones what Sanha is saying and doing (refer to 3.4 above).
Can SANHA cite the name of a single Faqeeh or Aalim from
among the Salf-e-Saaliheen who had contended the permissibility of
pre-slaughter injury (stunning)?

Question 3.15.3
Irrespective of SANHA’s understanding of who the Pious Predecessors are can SANHA cite tangible evidence that the Pious Predecessors have “laid down the rules” for acceptability of;
•    slaughter without the direction of the Qiblah,
•    stunning pre slaughter,
•    immersing the chickens in blood filled scalding water with its intestines and feaces still inside,
•    hanging the chickens upside down and slaughtering in motion on a tremendously fast-moving conveyor belt…..
•    etc etc etc?

Question 3.16
Could SANHA comment on each of the following points/comments/facts (3.16.1 to 3.16.6);

3.16.1
Commercially killed chickens are electrocuted – electrically stunned by dragging their heads through a trough of electrified water. This cruel infliction of injury prior to slaughter is Haraam. Every kind of pre-slaughter injury is Haraam. The Shari’ah is emphatic on this prohibition.

3.16.2
Many die as a direct consequence of the stunning. Here is abundant
evidence for this. Innumerable dead chickens are thus slaughtered. All these dead chickens are certified ‘Halaal’ by the halaalizing bodies.

3.16.3
Even if we had to assume that the stunning does not kill the chickens, but renders them motionless, then too, the act of pre-slaughter stunning is Haraam. It is in flagrant violation of the Shari’ah.
It is therefore not permissible to consume chickens which are killed/slaughtered in a system which has in entirety displaced the
divinely-instituted Islamic system of Thabah.

3.16.4
Regardless of the effects being ‘reversible’. The Shari’ah can never accept a system even if devised by Muslims, if such system displaces the system which was revealed to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from Allah Ta’ala. It is tantamount to kufr for Muslims to reject and displace the Waajib holy system of Islam and to substitute it with a system in which cruelty is practiced, and which system displaces Allah’s system.

3.16.5
Undoubtedly all true Ulema reject as Haraam pre-slaughter stunning, and every pre-slaughter infliction of injury to the animal.
Numerous non-Muslim experts in this field too reject stunning and point out its harms.
When Islam rejects every  act of injury before slaughter and when Allah Ta’ala has ordained a system of Thabah for the Ummah, then it is contumacy and flagrant transgression to aver that ‘controlled stunning’ or ‘controlled infliction of injury’ is  acceptable.
(Note that: A person’s personal view unsubstantiated by the evidence of the Shari’ah is devoid of substance in Islam.)

3.16.6
The laws of Islam are sacrosanct. These laws and systems are revealed. They came from Allah Azza Wa Jal to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is Haraam and tantamount to kufr to delete, change or displace these laws, ways and methods with systems invented, especially when the Shari’ah is explicit in prohibiting pre-slaughter injury.

Question 4
Re: Immersing into hot water for de feathering

A practice that is prevalent here at all the major slaughter plants is that the poultry, very shortly after being slaughtered, are immediately (before removing any impurities from inside the stomach) immersed into hot (either Very hot or Scolding Hot or Boiling hot) water to facilitate the feather peeling process.

I recently asked SANHA the following question:
Are any birds that SANHA certifies Halaal subjected to de-feathering in boiling hot  (alternatively very hot) water whilst still alive (resulting in a possibility of such bird dying by drowning)?

And SANHA responded (with a very curt response as follows):
“No! And the allegation of  boiling water being used is a blatant untruth”
(above response by EBI Lockhat of SANHA on 21st October 2010)

As far as this is concerned my questions are as follows:

Question 4.1
Exactly how long after slaughter are the birds immersed into hot water in the various large plants that SANHA certifies (please give the shortest period and the longest period)?

Question 4.2
What is the water temperature normally set at in these water tanks wherein the birds are immersed to facilitate the feather peeling process?

Question 4.3
Irrespective of the temperature of the water, are the birds immersed into the hot water with all their impurities and insides still in the stomach and in the bird?

Question 4.4
How often is this water changed?

Question 4.5
Is there any chance whatsoever (even 1 iota of a chance?) that the birds are immersed into the water so quickly after slaughter that there may well be birds that are not yet totally dead when immersed,… resulting in these birds dying of drowning?

Question 4.6
Muslim scholars are of the view that when birds are immersed into hot water en mass with their impurities and insides still in the stomach and inside the bird that a very real possibility exists that the meat absorbs such impurities and such meat is rendered Nijis/Napaak.

Western scientists too carry the view that such a practice results in impurities being absorbed into the meat.

What is SANHA’s view?

Question 4.7
Darul Uloom Deoband has ruled as follows:
“(Fatwa: 190/31/TL=1431)
If chicken is put in hot water without taking out impurities inside its stomach to an extent that the impurities are absorbed in the meat, so the chicken turns impure (najis/napak). Therefore, the chicken should not be put in hot water without taking out the impurities.
Allah (Subhana Wa Ta’ala) Knows Best
Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband “

My understanding of the above is that the IFTA Department of Darul Uloom Deoband have definitely “considered” that the immersing of chicken into hot water with its impurities still inside the stomach could well result in such impurities being absorbed into the meat turning such meat impure (najis/napak).
We obviously are aware of the fact that any meat that is impure, that is najis/napak is Haraam meat (just like pork which is napaak and can never be Halaal).

What is SANHA’s view of the above?
(Could the considerations of the Ulema at Darul Ifta Deoband be nonsensical? Could the brilliant and pious minds at the IFTA department of Darul Uloom Deoband all be on the wrong track?)

Question 4.8
The very reputable IFTA department of Darul Uloom Deoband has ruled as follows:
“chicken should not be put in hot water without taking out the impurities.”

The above ruling has been endorsed by ALL the senior Ulema whose rulings I have access to.

My question is;
Based on whose rulings has SANHA considered this practice of immersing into hot water (just stunned/electrocuted and just slaughtered) birds with all impurities, intestines etc still inside the stomach, with Feaces still inside the bird as acceptable?
(Please furnish evidence of the rulings of acceptability of this practice from any senior Ulema)

Question 4.9
During the same site visit (referred to in 3.14 above) Mufti Elias asked the Rainbow supervisor to immerse his hand into the hot water tank (that birds are immersed into immediately after slaughter for de-feathering with their unclean insides etc still in the stomach) and the supervisor refused.

Why did he refuse?
(He said that the water will “burn his skin” and “take his skin out”)
(Is the above not an indication that the water is so hot that impurities from the inside of the bird contaminates the meat??)

Question 5
Re: Line Speed – Of slaughter

I recently asked SANHA the following questions:
“At the poultry plants supervised by SANHA and where chickens certified Halaal,…..
a)…how many chickens are slaughtered per slaughterer per day / or per shift? (on average, during high season, during low season)
b)…can the above be broken down per hour and per minute per slaughterer? (again… on average, during high season, during low season)
c)…simply put, in the “busy” abattoirs that SANHA supervises, what is the average line speed? (and the high season and low season line speeds) “

SANHA’s EBI Lockhat replied as follows (to a,b,c above):
“The number of birds slaughtered at “busy” abattoirs range from 25,000 to 150,000 per shift. The line speed would accordingly vary. However, the number of slaughterers on line are proportionately increased to facilitate higher line speeds which average at 135 – 140 birds per minute.”
(the above response by SANHA’s EBI Lockhat by email on the 21st October 2010)

Clearly it can be seen that SANHA evaded answering my questions (a,b,c above) directly and responded with a very superficial answer.
My questions are very simple and a person with elementary English knowledge should be able to grasp my questions and answer appropriately.

Nevertheless, I once again ask SANHA the following (very simply) and request proper and direct answers this time around:

Question 5.1.1
How many chickens are slaughtered per slaughterer per day / or per shift on average in the high volume plants that SANHA certifies?

Question 5.1.2
How many chickens are slaughtered per slaughterer per day / or per shift during high season (busy periods) in the high volume plants that SANHA certifies?

Question 5.1.3
How many chickens are slaughtered per slaughterer per day / or per shift during low season (quieter periods) in the high volume plants that SANHA certifies?

Question 5.2
SANHA states as follows:
“However, the number of slaughterers on line are proportionately increased to facilitate higher line speeds which average at 135 – 140 birds per minute.”

Question 5.2.1
If the line speeds average 135 – 140 birds per minute, then what are the top end (high end) line speeds during really busy periods? (perhaps 180 birds per minute??, perhaps 160 birds per minute???)

Question 5.2.2
Now that we have established what the line speeds are,… how many slaughterers are there (max. no? and min no.?) active on the line at any one time? And how many birds per minute is each slaughterer slaughtering (during high speed busy time?)?

Question 5.2.3
Briefly, giving key points, what is each slaughterer’s job description? (What exactly are their responsibilities?)
And
What does each slaughterer (on average) earn per month? And who pays their salaries?

Question 5.3
Do slaughterers slaughter at the rate of around 40 birds per minute? (And this; whilst checking for dead birds, whilst reciting the Tasmiyah for each and every bird, whilst severing the minimum number of vessels required by Shari’ah, whilst “taking a breather”, whilst cleaning their goggles, whilst sharpening their knives, whilst checking for dead birds…. etc etc ….???) (If not 40, then how many? 35? 33? 30? 45? 50?)

Question 5.4
Is Tasmiyah recited by every slaughterer for each and every bird that they slaughter? (even in busy periods when the line speed is at its fastest)

Question 5.5
Is SANHA of the view that Tasmiyah is in the heart of every Muslim, hence no need to read the Tasmiyah for each and every bird slaughtered at high speed?

Question 5.6
Do slaughterers continue slaughtering whilst it is the time for Juma Salaah?

Question 6
RE: Contamination

What if some of the chickens slaughtered at commercial plants are indeed Halaal and others not (that is they are Haraam) for various reasons …. (skipped Tasmiyah, or all vessels not severed, or died as a result of stunning etc…) …. And these chickens are all together (resulting in possible contamination)? What would be SANHA’s view be on the fact that one now has a “mixture” of (so called) Halaal and (definitely) Haraam?

Question 7
Re: Financial Matters

After much external pressure SANHA have recently posted their Financial Statements on SANHA’s website.
However, only an ABRIDGED version of the Financial Statements appears on the website. In essence only superficial information about a NGO (which SANHA is, or claims to be) can be gleaned from abridged Financials. No real meaningful information can be extracted. (it is very much like hosting a Miss Universe contest, televising it across the globe, but having all the contestants don Parda!)

I also understand that the millions of rands in Fee Income that SANHA derives ultimately comes out of the pockets of the consumers, Muslim consumers and Non-Muslim consumers alike (in fact more so, due to population dynamics, a materially greater portion from the pockets of Non-Muslim consumers). The point here is that it is the consumer, the man in the street, out of whose pocket SANHA derives its fees.

Question 7.1
My question to SANHA is:
What was SANHA’s rationale for posting only ABRIDGED Financials on SANHA’s website? (Knowing full well that Abridged financials only disclose “on the surface” numbers, and are very much like a summary of a summary of summary)

(I’d rather that SANHA don’t sing a song about how much more transparent they believe they are compared to other organisations, but rather address the issue of why only disclose ABRIDGED financials rather then FULL Audited Financial Statements?? to the very consumers who fill SANHA’s coffers)

Question 7.2
Who exactly are the ABRIDGED financials targeted toward and what real insight is this target market expected to derive from viewing only ABRIDGED financials?

Question 7.3
I quote below an introductory excerpt from SANHA’s website;


“The South African National Halaal Authority (SANHA) is a national, non-profit-making organization, representing the Muslim community of South Africa on all matters pertaining to the general application of the term Halaal with specific reference to Islamic dietary laws.

SANHA’s membership comprises of leading Muslim Theological Bodies and reputable, professional Muslim organizations of South Africa.

SANHA has been established as a representative authority which promotes professionalism and excellence in the certification of Halaal products.

To nurture professionalism, perfection and excellence in the process of certification, monitoring and promoting Halaal products in accordance with the dictates of the Shari’ah (Islamic Law).

Since its establishment in 1996, SANHA has received overwhelming support from both the consumer and the broader industry role players who longed for a cohesive, uniformed approach in the certification of Halaal products.

In a short span of time, SANHA has accredited more than a thousand establishments.

In a survey conducted by a major corporate company in over 50 companies, 92% of surveyed business voted in favour of SANHA. We strive to promote SANHA in the Halaal industry thereby providing an excellent and professional service to the industry and a guaranteed assurance in preserving the right of the Halaal-conscious consumer.

To develop and implement effective control and monitoring systems thereby guaranteeing to the highest possible standards that products labeled “Halaal” are truly Halaal compliant. “

SANHA also claims on its website as follows and I once again quote:
“SANHA is the ONLY Halaal certifying organization that provides full accountability and transparency to the Consumer”

Question 7.3.1
Does the disclosure of only ABRIDGED financials (rather then detailed audited financials) not amount to “SELECTED ACCOUNTABILITY”? (Rather then the “FULL ACOUNTABILITY” that SANHA claims it provides to the consumer)

Question 7.3.2
In light of the fact that SANHA represents “the Muslim community of South Africa” and in light of the fact that SANHA “provides full accountability and transparency to the Consumer” (quotations in SANHA’s own words) and in light of the fact that SANHA fills its coffers from the pockets of Muslim and Non-Muslim consumers (from the man in the street who acquires the products that SANHA certifies) my question to SANHA is:

Will SANHA publish (in a national medium) Full and Comprehensive Audited Financial Statements (for the last 3 Financial years) to the Muslim community that it claims to represent? To the Non Muslim community it derives its fees from? And in so doing will SANHA start to provide the “full accountability and transparency” it claims to provide?

(YES or a NO? ….. as the public are intelligent enough to deduce from a YES or a NO answer the modus operandi of SANHA)

Question 7.3.3
I have recently asked SANHA to disclose the monthly salaries (total cost to SANHA) of their top 6 employees.

SANHA’s EBI Lockhat responded (by email on the 13th October 2010) that SANHA “believes that it exceeds the bounds of transparency and infringes on the privacy of the persons concerned”.

I remind SANHA that SANHA runs a NGO (and NOT a trading entity for profit), that SANHA’s fees and the earnings of all its employees comes out of the pockets of Joe Public, and that when senior officials accept “a seat” at a organisation like SANHA and are in a public position representing consumers at large and deriving their income from the pockets of the public then such officials cannot enjoy the privileges of privacy that are availed to private entrepreneurs.

Hence, I once again ask SANHA to disclose the full detailed packages of all its senior employees (not just the top 6) so that there is indeed the “full accountability and transparency” (that SANHA claims, and not just selected accountability).

Will SANHA be accountable to the consumers who fill their coffers and disclose? or not?

Question 7.3.4
When pressed on the issue (of why SANHA should disclose it’s full financials, and the earnings of it senior employees and when SANHA were questioned and asked some very basic information based on their abridged financials) and reminded that SANHA is a NGO and not a private trading entity, SANHA’s EBI Lockhat (by email on the 4th November) responded that “ It is a liberated and democratic South Africa, people have the freedom to live and trade wherever they choose, unlike the situation that prevailed in the apartheid era”.

My question (and at the same time comment to SANHA is):
Please analyse your EBI Lockhat’s response above to being asked some simple questions and once and for all to come clean and tell the public whether SANHA sees itself as a “Trading” entity for gain (of its senior employees and decision makers) or as an NGO (that represents the consumers that it derives its income from)?

Question 7.3.5
What % of SANHA’s total income (of R8million+ last financial year) is derived from certifying as “Halaal” poultry in South Africa at slaughtering plants?

Question 7.3.6
Jacob Zuma recently commented that “Transparency is a critical part of increasing the public’s understanding of the role of NGO’s and their work”

What is SANHA’s understanding of the above as far as financial accountability is concerned?

Question 7.4
Does SANHA (or any of its executives or senior employees) receive any income / fees / royalties / license fees etc from any source (related to the Halaal certification SANHA issues) that are not  clearly reflected (as Income) in the Income in the Income section of its Income Statement (of its audited Annual Financial Statements)?

Question 7.5
Does SANHA accept that ultimately SANHA’s fees and income are paid out of the pockets of the man in the street, out of the pockets of consumers (Muslim and Non Muslim consumers alike)?
(I am saying here that every entity that sells SANHA certified products would factor in the price of certification and would build such price into its product cost of sales structure and would ultimately recover such costs in its selling price,…. Sometimes even marking up such costs even further to the end consumer)

Question 8
Who does SANHA represent?
I recently asked SANHA whether representatives of the general public (not persons or organisations cherry picked by SANHA) would be given the opportunity to inspect the plants SANHA certifies….

SANHA’s EBI Lockhat replied by email (on the 21st October 2010) that SANHA “make no claim to represent every single Muslim in South Africa or habour such desire…..”

Whilst SANHA on its website states:
“The South African National Halaal Authority (SANHA) is a national, non-profit-making organization, representing the Muslim community of South Africa ….. “

The contradiction above is very clear.

The question is:
Who exactly does SANHA represent? (and under which mandate does SANHA represent those it claims to represent?)

Question 9
Re: Maulana Navlakhi
I understand that Maulana Navlakhi is the Theological Director of SANHA (this was said to me by email by EBI Lockhat on the 13th October: “we extend an invitation for you to sit down with our Theological Director, Maulana MS Navlakhi and pose the question directly to him ……..”).

My understanding is that the position of Theological Director of SANHA is a very demanding position and one that surely requires an immense level of knowledge on Islamic Shari’ah issues across the board.

What exactly are Maulana Navlakhi’s qualifications (qualified Aalim? Mufti?), and at which institutions has he obtained the qualifications that he is accredited with?)

Question 10
Re: SANHA Certified HAM Cheese

I have viewed SANHA’s response (posted on SANHA’s website and published in the Lenasia Sun) on this issue….
SANHA always seems to find a 3rd party to blame for its shortcomings and its mistakes.

Question 10.1
Where was SANHA’s supervision? (Whilst 10’s of thousands of SANHA certified HAM cheese was flying out of the doors of a SANHA certified and SANHA “supervised” plant?)

(Surely SANHA should be manning all dispatch points of the plants SANHA certifies very vigorously!!!???)

What was SANHA’s supervisor at dispatch doing whilst 10’s of 1000’s of mistakes were flying past him? (was he sleeping?, was he neglecting his supervisory responsibilities), or was there no supervision at the despatch at all???)

Question 10.2
Why is this product still on supermarket shelves (at 8th December 2010), weeks (and now well over a month) after it was brought to SANHA’s attention?

Question 10.3
Does the party that “erroneously” labeled the product not have enough respect for SANHA to have caused it to recall all the containers in question post haste?, especially as Lancewood is in breach of contract??

Question 10.4
Of what use is SANHA’s contract if companies like Lancewood (even if they have made a genuine error) flagrantly disregard such contracts and do not recall products off the shelves of national retailers when surely SANHA would have called for this a long time back??
(Leading me to ask,… of what benefit is SANHA really to the Muslim community if SANHA’s paying clients whom SANHA certifies have no respect for their contracts with SANHA?)

Question 10 .5
Does SANHA sometimes make mistakes?
Is SANHA sometimes responsible for irregularities that take place?
OR,…
Is it always the fault of a third party?

If SANHA does make mistakes and is subject to certain internal irregularities please give us some recent (and some older) examples of these…..
(Or is SANHA perfect? As SANHA has previously gone on record to say: “NO
MISTAKES OCCUR AT SANHA”  (to Mufti Boda))

Question 10.6
SANHA claims that in its history only 7 “errors” have been made…

Question 10.6.1
Who identified these errors? (SANHA officials or 3rd parties??)

Question 10.6.2
Where was SANHA’s supervision?

Question 10.6.2
7 instances were discovered.
How many Undiscovered?

Question 11
Re: Mufti Elias
Mufti Elias has gone on record and stated on his website that SANHA’s Theological Director Maulana Navlakhi (uninvited) at Mufti Elias’s home verbally abused Mufti Elias, used choice expletives directed at him by Maulana Navlakhi etc etc…. (This was after Mufti had visited one of the SANHA certified plants and raised some concerns which Mufti had published his website, http://www.alislam.co.za ). Maulana Navlakhi further declared various Ulema (who are undoubtedly Pious and of substance and standing and are learned — this is my view and I am sure that of many others too) as Kaffirs.
SANHA obviously denies this (I refer SANHA to SANHA’s website where SANHA penned an article “Mufti Elias Sympathy Card Gets Trumped By An Ace”) and further claims that SANHA has a recording of the conversation in question…..

Question 11.1
Is Mufti Elias a liar? (And Mufti Elias’s family as well? who heard the fracas created at Mufti’s home by Maulana Navlakhi)

Question 11.2
If Yes (to 11.1 above), what in SANHA’s view has inspired Mufti Elias to dream up the fairy tales (that he has concocted)? And how would Mufti Elias benefit by this?

Question 11.3
If yes to 11.1 above and if Mufti Elias is indeed lying then his comments obviously call for SANHA to take swift and high level legal action against Mufti Elias (civil and criminal) and for SANHA to submit their original recording to the relevant authorities (so that it can be forensically tested by experts).

Surely SANHA would want to clear its good name and do so by whatever means possible and in the strongest terms.

So, will SANHA lay a charge and will SANHA proceed with civil and criminal action against Mufti Elias?
And
Will SANHA subject its original recording to forensic analysis?

Question 11.4
If the answer to 11.3 above is Yes then my comment is that this is the right thing to do… and I wait in anticipation…..

If the answer is No then at a bare minimum is SANHA willing to post the recording on its website in its entirety (unedited)? And then hand in the original recording to a recognized forensics lab for analysis?

(After all, SANHA on its website has an open invitation to the public to come and listen to the tape,… so why not just load it onto the SANHA website and make it available to all and sundry to listen to? And take it a step further and have the original recording forensically analyzed?)

Question 12
Re: The (now very Public) SANHA / MJC 233 Page Report
(The report can be downloaded from the SA Muslims Website)

In a nutshell, SANHA had found some very serious problems at MJC certified establishments to the extent the Halaal status of numerous items was not only in doubt or question but rather these items were found to be Haraam by SANHA!
The SANHA report included / recorded the following (among many other irregularities):
a) Well documented evidence was presented of severing just one vein rendering the chickens totally HARAAM according to all Mazhabs.
b) Products containing pork fat, blood plasma, white wine flavour, bacon flavour, blood powder, etc. were marketed with the MJC Halaal label.
c) Confirmed slaughtering by non-Muslim slaughterers.
d) Non-Muslim inspector and staff.
e) Contamination in fridges of Haraam and Halaal items.
f) Non-Muslim wholesaler with no Muslim staff, supplying MJC certified Halaal meat.
g) Haraam or absolutely doubtful imports from Brazil, China, etc., certified Halaal and the list goes on.

My questions are:
Why did SANHA not (post haste) issue a public blitz to the Muslim public informing them that they were consuming Haraam items (though certified as Halaal) at the very moment that SANHA discovered the irregularities? (And thus in the process SANHA became a “co conspirator” and in my view is equally and totally responsible for allowing the Muslim public to consume Haraam)
Did SANHA widely announce to the Muslim public that the products in question were HARAAM as it (SANHA) had conclusively established, and which is confirmed by SANHA’s “Secret, now Not So Secret” Document?
(I am in effect saying that from the contents of the 233 page report it seems as though SANHA knowingly condoned and allowed Muslim consumers to consume Haraam MJC certified products that was discovered by SANHA! What is SANHA’s response??)

Question 13
Re: Revenue generated from certifying large volume commercial poultry Halaal

What would the financial impact be to SANHA’s “bottom-line” if SANHA does not certify any commercial poultry Halaal and if SANHA loses all the revenue / royalties / certificate fees etc it derives from the commercial poultry plants (the likes of Rainbow, Earlybird etc…)?

Would SANHA be in a “net income” situation or a “net loss” situation from a financial point of view?

Question 14
Re: Maulana Moosa Olga Affidavit
(Refer SA Muslims website — article 34 — for a copy of the Affidavit)

The Affidavit issued by Maulana Moosa Olga (consisting of 11 points) is self explanatory:-

Could SANHA please respond to each of the points 4 to 11 individually and let the public know whether Maulana Olga is a liar or not?? (Rather then refer to the very general and superficial “rebuttal” that SANHA has posted on Maulana Olga’s affidavit, my request is that SANHA address each of the points below individually and respond directly by point to Maulana Olga’s statements)

For your benefit I reproduce below points 4 to 11 from the affidavit:-

4. In the year 2004 at one of our Jamiatul Ulema KZN weekly meetings it was mentioned by the then administrator, Maulana Ahmed Kahthrada that slaughterers from the Rainbow chicken plant at Hammarsdale had complained that they could not recite the Tasmiyah on all the chickens due to the excessive line speed and time duration.
5. It was resolved at that meeting that there was a need for us to make a spot check at Rainbow chicken plant without the knowledge of SANHA. Mufti Zubair Bhayat who was the then secretary-general of Jamiatul Ulama KZN arranged with Yusuf Desai of Stanger to organize access for us to the Rainbow plant as he (Yusuf Desai) was a big buyer of Rainbow chickens. Accordingly, he arranged for us to undertake an inspection. At that time our Council, the Jamiatul Ulama KZN was an executive member of SANHA (South African National Halaal Authority).
6. On the appointed date of the inspection, our delegation included Mufti Bashir Amod of Stanger, Mufti Ebrahim Desai of Darul Ifta Camperdown and myself.
The specific purpose of the inspection was to establish whether the Tasmiyah was being recited on every chicken or not. Our inspection established that:
(a) The line speed was excessive. The speed of the line on which the chickens were shackled upside down was 135 birds per minute.
(b) Three slaughterers were slaughtering. This means that each slaughterer had to slaughter 45 birds per minute.
(c) The slaughterers did not/could not recite Tasmiyah on every bird.
7. Thereafter two ex-slaughterers came to our office, who had resigned due to their conscience troubling them, to lodge the same grievance of their inability to recite the Tasmiyah on every chicken. We wrote down all the details and their testimonies.
8. Moulana Haroon Abbasomar, our then Ameer (President) of Jamiatul Ulama KZN then contacted the Jamiatul Ulama Fordsburg to arrange a meeting with them to sort out the Rainbow chicken issue as the Ummah (Muslim community) was consuming Haraam (non-halaal).
9. Mufti Zubair Bhayat and I then met with the Jamiatul Ulama Fordsburg, including Moulana Navlakhi of SANHA. At this meeting I stated that Rainbow chickens are Haraam (not halaal) on the basis of the testimonies of past and present slaughterers. Moulana Navlakhi was displeased because we did not consult with SANHA, but went as ‘businessmen’ to make the inspection. However, it was resolved at this meeting that there be a follow-up meeting with SANHA.
10. A meeting was then held at O.R.Tambo Airport in the Jamaat Khana (Prayer Room). Jamiatul Ulama KZN was represented by Mufti Ebrahim Desai and myself. The Jamiatul Ulama Fordsburg members were Moulana Ebrahim Bham, Mufti Minty and Moulana M.S.Navlakhi.
11. At this meeting I was immediately asked by SANHA’s Moulana:
“Moulana, do you still declare Rainbow Haraam?”
Before I could answer, Mufti Ebrahim Desai said to Mufti Minty that when a Muslim bears testimony regarding an issue of this nature, a doubt is immediately introduced. Mufti Ebrahim Desai also mentioned that he had personally questioned the slaughterers who had testified in the presence of our other members that they were unable to recite Tasmiyah on every bird.
It was decided at this meeting that a joint visit of Jamiatul Ulama KZN and SANHA be conducted of the Rainbow chicken plant. Sadly, on two occasions the date and time were confirmed with SANHA, but they cancelled the visit.

Question 15
Birds must necessarily be Healthy and disease free to be considered fit for Halaal consumption.

What exactly does SANHA do to establish and to ensure that the birds that are brought to the slaughter plants for slaughtering are indeed Healthy and disease free?

Question 16
Re Competitors
SANHA has an established special committee headed by its Molvi Yusuf Patel, to keep track of its competitors in the Halaal certification trade, viz., MJC, NIHT, ICSA and the Natal Jamiat.

Why the need for such a committee to keep track of SANHA’s competitors, (even to the extent that SANHA may be covertly spying on its competitors)?

Question 17
Coming back to the commercially slaughtered poultry certified as Halaal by SANHA…
The question is:
If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had been alive today and had he inspected the processes in the poultry industry (i.e. the processes from the birth of the chickens, their living conditions during their short lifespan, their being fed steroids, the injuries they sustain prior to slaughter, the way they are gathered and taken for slaughter, the transportation, the hanging upside down on high speed conveyor belts, the electrocuting / stunning, the immersion with all the filth into scalding hot water etc etc etc etc ….)…
Would he in his infinite wisdom definitely and without any iota of doubt have signed off and ratified SANHA’s Halaal certification of poultry to the likes of Rainbow, Earlybird?

Question 18
Re UNbiased / UNplanned inspections
Why does SANHA not let each Darul Uloom in South Africa select a senior Mufti (just one each), let each recognized regional Jamiat select a senior Mufti/Ulema (just one each), allow the Board of Mufti’s of South Africa select one single Mufti and allow the above persons unfettered access (4 times a year, i.e. quarterly) to inspect the Rainbow / Earlybird plants without SANHA officials escorting them and preparing in advance for such visits?
These inspections can take place at random dates and times.
The independent Ulema can then carry out proper unbiased inspections without any SANHA influence.

Question 19
Re Fees / Charges / Royalties etc…
What is SANHA’s fee structure for issuing “Halaal” certificates?
(Surely SANHA has a “price list”)
Please furnish the standard fees SANHA levies to; Restaurants, Café’s, Butcheries, Food Product Manufacturers, Abattoirs and Slaughter Plants (per bird, per sheep, per goat, per Ox…etc).

Question 20
Re Board Members and Decision Making
Question 20.1
Who are the current board members? (And how long have each of them been in their respective positions?)

Question 20.2
Who elects the board members? (And by what process?)

Question 20.3
Are board members remunerated? (If so, by whom?)

Question 20.4
Can SANHA please comment on 20.4.1 and 20.4.2 below:

20.4.1
“Director at SANHA, S. Mahomedy in a published article on the opinion of the Natal MEC in charge of local government after a special commission of investigation recommended amongst others in a very stern letter, that Mr Solly Mahomedy is” not fit to run any public office for the next 10 years “…! ( Sunday Tribune Herald 2/5/94)”

20.4.2
“Chairperson of SANHA, Sheik Abrahim Essop was labelled a paedophile by the state psychologist in court papers as reported in published articles of Weekend Post & Herald, and is not allowed ‘near children without adult supervision except his own’ and the criminal vile child molesting case  (12 & 15 / 7 / 2000 )”

PS. The relevance of asking SANHA to comment on the above is rather obvious! As the integrity (moral, ethical etc) of the “Seniors” at SANHA for obvious reasons has necessarily got to be beyond reproach (past, present and future) as these persons share the responsibility of Public Halaal!

Question 20.5
Who forms part of the decision making body at SANHA and who are the Ulema whose rulings SANHA follow especially on the certification of poultry?
(Certainly as far as the certification of poultry is concerned SANHA are obviously not following the rulings of any recognised Senior Ulema, nor of any Pious Predecessor, nor are SANHA following strictly Shari’ah, nor are SANHA following ordained, recognised, accepted Islamic method of Slaughter as detailed in Question 1 above. So who’s rulings / Fatwa’s, who’s Shari’ah, who’s methods are SANHA really subscribing to??)

Submitted 9th December 2010
By email
Ahmed Laher
ahmedlaher@myconnection.co.za

 

Source:

 

http://www.phoenixpipe.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=416:open-request-for-sanha-to-respond-to-questions-on-halaal-by-ahmed-laher&catid=34:newsletter-articles&Itemid=29

Questions to the Jamiat Kwa-Zulu Natal

1. Are the Jamiat KZN and Jamiat Fordsburg in agreement on issues of Fiqh or are their major disagreements? If so, what are the various issues?

2. Who are the Muftis of Jamiat KZN? Does the Jamiat KZN have a fatawa council? If so, what is the link between the fatawa council and other branches of the Jamiat KZN?

3. Official response on ILM SA,  Tariq Ramadan and other individuals instrumental in the promotion of salafi, modernist and feminist ideologies?

4. Official response to the Family Eid Gah which takes place around the Durban area.

5. Is the Jamiat KZN in any way affiliated to the UUCSA? If so, what does this position entail?

6. What is the stance of the Jamiat KZN on the MPL and MMB? Is there any official response to the fatawa regarding those who subscribe to the MPL penned by Mufti Salejee and which was discussed out of context on CII?

7. Is Jamiat aware of salafi/modernist madressahs for children? What is the Jamiat doing to counteract this?

Just a note: I am in no way affiliated with The Majlis organisation or anybody else. Please leave the inferiority complexes out of this and merely provide simple, academic responses to the questions outlined.