Posted by: TheMajlis

The abomination and moral filth of these unnatural acts perpetrated by a sub-human specimen of mankind need no exposition. Every Muslim who enjoys a healthy Imaan and who possesses an intelligence unadulterated by un-Islamic mundane considerations knows and understands that the Qur’aan and Sunnah do not entertain the slightest mitigation in the divine condemnation of these crimes which brought about the horrendous destruction of the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, where dwelled the nation of sodomists, homosexuals, gays and lesbians.

Summing up the abhorrence of these unnatural misdeeds which revolts the conscience and hearts of people whom lust has not driven to insanity, the Qur’aan Majeed says: “(And remember) Loot when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit such immorality which no one of the worlds had ever committed?

You approach males for lustful (gratification) besides females. Undoubtedly, you are a nation of flagrant transgressors.’ ”
(Surah A’raaf, 80 and 81)

Many Qur’aanic verses and Ahaadith repeat the castigation of these verses. As far as the evil, unnatural filth and prohibition of these revolting misdeeds are concerned, there is absolute consensus of the Ummah. The denier of the prohibition of homosexuality and lesbianism is undoubtedly a renegade (murtadd). One who believes in the permissibility or acceptability of homosexuality and lesbianism cannot be a Muslim. There is no room in Islam for a person who subscribes to such corruption even if he believes in its rectitude for non-Muslims.

Thus, if a Muslim believes that homosexuality, sodomy, lesbianism and gayism are permissible for non-Muslims, he forthwith abdicates his Imaan.

INTRODUCTION
This introduction brings us to the views which a constitutional court judge, one Mr. Mohammed Zakaria Yaqub aired over a so-called ‘Islamic’ radio on 6th December 2005. In the interview conducted by the radio, the judge, justifying his condonation of gay/lesbian sexual association which is baselessly termed ‘marriage’, laboured on the rationale of his ‘job’ as a judge in the constitutional court. In vindication of homosexuals and lesbians, the judge said: “…my job in the constitutional court, and let me repeat that, I can’t do my job in the constitutional court on the basis that Islam is the only way in this country. I have to do my job according to our constitution which says there are many other ways and it is the other ways that must also be respected and protected. If you say, that gay and lesbian people are minorities and therefore they can be disregarded, therefore their needs must not be taken into account, it is problematic for me.”

A Muslim understands that his very first and fundamental allegiance is to Allah, our Creator and the Creator of the universe. The Judge claims to be a Muslim, yet his views confirm that his first allegiance is to the secular constitution of the country, hence he is constrained to approach all issues from the constitutional perspective, and not in the light of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. If a Muslim sets aside the Qur’aan and executes his ‘job’ on the basis of a cult or man-made law which is in diametric conflict or refutation of the Divine Law of Allah Ta’ala, then he should understand that he comes within the full glare of the following Qur’aanic pronouncement declaring the alienation of his Imaan:

“Those who do not decide (do their jobs) according to (the Law) revealed by Allah, verily, they are the kaafiroon.”

The Qur’aan Majeed further declares: “It is not lawful for a believing man nor for a believing woman when Allah and His Rasool have decreed a matter that he/she has any choice in any of their affairs.”

IMAAN
In the interests of his Imaan, it is essential that the judge understands that notwithstanding his position as a judge in the constitutional court, he has neither right nor permission to endorse a decision which legalizes the unnatural sexual vices of sodomists and lesbians.

RATIONAL
He is under Qur’aanic obligation to cast a dissenting opinion, clearly pronouncing the illegality of these unnatural acts of sins. He is under Shar’i obligation to oppose the haraam immorality even if it costs him his job at the constitutional court. Any Muslim, in fact any non-Muslim who has some conception of a Creator and human morality, can furnish ample rational arguments for the evil and villainy of gayism, and base his opinion rationally on such evidence. Thus, despite Mr. Yaqub being a constitutional court judge, he could or should be able to argue legally and constitutionally the impropriety of the unnatural misdeeds of the despicable breed of humanity described as gays, homosexuals, sodomists and lesbians. And there is no need to present the Qur’aan and Hadith to bolster rational and constitutional arguments presented in derogation of the unnatural immorality to which all religions unanimously subscribe.

NOT BOUND
The judge is not bound by the constitution to concur with the other judges on all and every issue. Dissent is a legal and valid right which every judge in every court possesses. But it appears that the judge is in entirety bereft of Qur’aanic influence. He therefore has the temerity of divesting his mind and heart from an allegiance which he had inherited when he was born into a Muslim home, reared and nurtured by an august personality such as his marhoom father, Hadhrat Munshi Saheb of Inanda.

STRANGE
Introducing judge Yaqub, the radio presenter mentioned the judge’s year of marriage and that he has two adult children. Strangely, the radio presenter deemed it prudent to omit mention of the noble father of the judge. Hadhrat Munshi Saheb of Inanda was a Khalifah of Hadhrat Maulana Muhammad Masihullah Khaan (rahmatullah alayh). However, the judge has adopted a path in sharp deviation from the orthodox School of Sunnah which his noble father followed.

NASEEHAT
In addition to our criticism of the repugnant view of the judge on the gay ‘marriage’ issue, we offer naseehat to him. He should ruminate and reflect on his humble beginnings in the small Natal village of Inanda. He should not lose sight of the Nisbat of his noble father. At the time of Maut, in Barzakh and in Qiyaamah, the constitution of this country will not succour him.

The judge should understand that it is not his job in the constitutional court which will benefit him when the breath of man breaks at the juncture of departure from this ephemeral abode. The journey ahead into Barzakh and Qiyaamah is long and arduous. If the holy Nisbat is honoured as the Shariah commands, it will come as an aid in all the stations beyond this material world. Neither the constitution nor his colleagues in the constitutional court will avail the judge sahib when he makes his exist from this dunya, all alone—lost and forlorn.

DIGRESSION
We deem this digression was necessary. Perchance a responsive chord is struck in the heart of the judge to induce in him the understanding which Imaan demands that, as a Muslim, if he believes himself to be one, he cannot unfetter himself and extricate himself from the divinely fitted straitjacket within the narrow confines of which the Qur’aan and Sunnah command every Mu’min to operate. May Allah Ta’ala assist the judge to understand his folly—the folly of speaking in defence of the worst type of human beings—sodomists, gays, homosexuals and lesbians. One act of sodomy / homosexuality / lesbianism is worse than a thousand acts of fornication.

THE BASIS
The judge claims: “I can’t do my job in the constitutional court on the basis that Islam is the only way in this country.” Not even a child believes that ‘Islam is the only way in this country’. Muslims have never ventured this preposterous claim. Everyone is aware that we are living in Daarul Kufr as a minority community, and that we should find our way through the labyrinth of a constitution inimical to our way of life notwithstanding the superficial constitutional claim of freedom of religion.

FREEDOM?
The judge is in stark error for claiming: “It’s a constitution which says that there must be complete freedom of religion…” The judge’s comment is presumptuous and devoid of reality. We dare say that judge Yaqub lacks in the sphere of Islamic Knowledge, hence he has ventured this baseless supposition. The scope of this article precludes an elaborate discussion on this question. It will, however, suffice to say that the judge’s claim in this regard is baseless. There is no such thing as ‘complete freedom of religion’ in a secular state.

CONSTITUTIONAL
To make a constitutional stand against the evil of gayism, there is no need to cite the basis as being Islam and on the false premises of ‘Islam being the only way in this country’. A Mu’min who sits in the secular court should in the first place not be there. But since he has chosen that post in conflict with Islam, the minimum requirement for the safety of his Imaan is to formulate a case against homosexuality on rational and constitutional grounds.

It is absolutely unacceptable for a Muslim to argue in favour of homosexuals and gays on the basis that they as a minority have constitutional rights. The judge has descended into a quagmire of absurdity for presenting this puerile basis which he has conjectured in his ardour to fight the cause of the sodomists, gays, lesbians and homosexuals. If the judge researches the country’s constitution with deeper insight, he will discern adequate latitude for manoeuvring against the rot and the filth of sodomy and lesbianism—acts which are the very antithesis of humanity. There will be constitutional grounds for lodging a valid and a rational dissent.

Assuming that due to a deficiency in his research of the constitution and constriction in intellectual grasp, the judge is unable to discover constitutional arguments to reject the immorality of gayism, then as a Muslim, he has no option other than to resign his post. How can it be tolerable for a Mu’min to sit in a forum which legalizes a host of immoralities which the Qur’aan and Sunnah have unequivocally branded haraam? If, you are unable to ‘do your job according to the constitution’ which, it appears you have elevated above the Qur’aan, the way out is to say goodbye to the constitutional court and to safeguard your Imaan. In a clash of allegiances, a Muslim is supposed to know his option.

BASELESS
In defence of his pro-gayism stance, judge Yaqub presents the following baseless argument: “And it is this caring attitude by the constitution which results in the fact that we Muslim people are comfortable in this country, well looked after in this country and we are not discriminated against in this country. But you see, as a Muslim again it is the same constitution which says we will not discriminate against anyone else either. We will not discriminate against gay and lesbian people too. We can’t as Muslim people on the one hand say we must not be discriminated against as a minority, we must be treated properly as human beings and in a next breath say under the South African constitution we have trouble if gay and lesbian people are respected.”

Here the judge makes some comments which detract from the issue which Muslims and Islam are concerned about in this country where there is no government by the Shariah. In the aforementioned citation, the judge states:

* That according to the constitution, Muslims should not discriminate against gays and lesbians. In response to this averment, we say that the destiny of gays and lesbians is not in the control of the Muslim community of this country. What does the judge precisely mean by Muslims discriminating against gays and lesbians? He has not explained himself. He merely makes an averment which is completely out of the context of the criticism which Muslims direct to him for his un-Islamic and haraam views on this issue.

The discussion is unrelated to the issue of discrimination. Although the radio presenter had made a feeble attempt to tender discrimination as a basis for the criticism, he (the radio presenter) was actually talking gibberish. Is the Muslim’s attitude and ideology on this issue, the ‘discrimination’ which the judge refers to? If yes, then we have to say that he has overlooked the constitution which grants all citizens of this country freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom of religion. If Muslims believe that gays and lesbians are scum and destined for everlasting damnation in hell-fire, how can such a belief and a thought be constitutionally discriminatory when the constitution allows freedom of thought and religion? Are Muslims not entitled to believe that sodomy is immoral and filth of the worst kind? If not, then what is the meaning of the constitution’s freedom of thought and freedom of religion principles? How does Muslim ideology constrain Muslims to discriminate against gays and lesbians? It is entirely a different matter if in Daarul Islam the Qaadhi orders the homosexual to be thrown to his death from a clifftop. But in South Africa this situation does not arise. Muslims do not make the laws.

DISCRIMINATION
The issue is not Muslim discrimination against lesbians and gays in this country because there is no such discrimination. The issue is merely the views of a judge who professes to be a Muslim. Muslims are not clamouring for the obligatory discrimination which the Shariah commands against gays and lesbians. Such a clamour is futile in a secular state which follows the law produced by man’s lust and his deficient intellectual vision. Muslims are only saying that a Muslim judge is not supposed to support lesbianism and throw in his lot with the homosexuals.

To be continued in next issue Insha’Allah