3 Days To Reject The Divorce Bill

Who to email:

Send your objection to:

What to include?

MP Ganief Hendricks being bereft of Islamic qualifications has no right to speak on issues of Shar’i purport.

This entire amendment is unacceptable. It is in conflict with the Shariah as well as it is unconstitutional in that it singles out the Muslim community which is discrimination based on religion.

All amendments proposed by Mr. Hendricks fall foul of the Shariah and are rejected by the Muslim community!

Due Date: 8th September 2023 (3 days left)

For More Information Read The Article of the Majlis:


Our attention has very recently been drawn to another insidious, kufr bill fabricated by the Zindeeq MP Ganief Hendricks. Despite this character being bereft of Islamic qualifications for speaking on issues of Shar’i purport, he deems it appropriate to acquit himself as if he is a ‘mujtahid’ capable of
prescribing laws for the Muslim Ummah. In the process if his shaitaaniyat, he mangles and mutilates the Ahkaam of the Shariah beyond recognition to excrete pure kufr.

The closing date for lodging objections and comments is 8 September 2023 – just 3 days more. We have requested an extension. Hopefully it will be

Meanwhile we have lodged our objections which we reproduce here for the benefit of the Muslim community.

Muslims are urged to immediately lodge objections along similar lines, or object briefly by stating that the amendments to the Divorce Bill are in conflict with the Shariah and unacceptable to Muslims.


The amendments to the abovementioned Bill is the fabrication of Mr.M.G.E. Hendricks, MP. It is necessary for all those concerned with this Bill to understand that Mr.Hendricks does not represent any segment of the Muslim
community. He has no mandate to speak on behalf of the Muslim community. Nevertheless, he is at pains to convey the impression that he has some standing in the Muslim community whereas such an impression is baseless and false. Mr.Hendricks has absolutely no Islamic qualification to speak on any aspect
of the Law of Islam, namely, the Shariah. As such the amendments which he has proposed are in conflict with the Shariah and unacceptable to the Muslim community. Mr.Hendricks is a secular politician who is no different from all the other non-Muslim politicians and members of parliament. He has committed a grave injustice to the Muslim community by having introduced the
Amendment Bill. It is unwanted by the Muslim community, and it is in conflict with the Shariah, hence unacceptable to Muslims.
Furthermore, Mr.Hendricks by furnishing a list of bodies and persons he claims to have consulted seeks to convey the deceptive notion that the Muslim community is agreeable to the amendments he has fabricated. Also, most of those whom he has consulted are Islamically unqualified to present opinions on the Shariah.

His party, dubbed Al Jama-ah is not an Islamic party. The name he has adopted for his party is deceptive in that it creates the impression of being an Islamic party. This is a despicable tactic of a politician who is bereft of Islamic religious bearings.

Besides the Bill being in total conflict with the Shariah, it is likewise unconstitutional. All the suggested amendments of Mr.Hendricks affect only the Muslim community. Why does this secular bill target only the Muslim

Why have other religious communities, e.g. the Jewish, Hindu, Christian,
etc., communities not been introduced in this Bill? This is a clear sample of
discrimination on the basis of relgion which is unconstitutional.
Just as Mr. Hendricks has no mandate to speak on behalf of other religious
communities so too does he have no mandate to speak on behalf of the
Muslim community, and to labour for enacting into law such provisions which are repugnant to the Muslim community and in conflict with the Shariah.
Solely on the grounds of the Bill being discriminatory and unconstitutional
should it be scrapped. It is indeed ludicrous for the State to prescribe for Muslims laws in the name of the Shariah. It is gross discrimination and unconstitutional for the State to have a separate set of laws for Muslims, especially when the community
itself regards this discrimination to be abhorrent. The very entertainment by Parliament of this insidious Bill of Mr.Hendricks makes a laughing stock of Parliament. The constitution which is the god of parliament, prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. But here parliament considers a measure which it is asked to prescribe for one specific religious community which is averse to all the amendments. It is only expected of the Portfolio Committee to scrap this insidious, stupid, discriminatory Bill in the same way as the previous MPL and MMB were

(1) Section 6 of the principal Act (b)
The amendments proposed by Mr.Hendricks pertain to custody and
guardianship of minor Muslim children, and to decrees of divorce.

Our Comment
This is unacceptable. A non-Muslim court may not grant a decree of divorce
(Talaaq) to terminate Muslim marriages. Such a decree of a secular court will
not be valid in terms of the Shariah. As such, the Nikah (Islamic Marriage)
will remain intact, and the couple will understand that they remain husband
and wife despite the secular court’s decree.
The maintenance order stated in this section is also invalid according to the

In the first paragraph, No.1, Mr.Hendricks states:
“Muslim marriage” means a marriage concluded in accordance with
Islamic Law that is, Shariah, which regulates all public and private
behaviour as derived from the Sunnah…….”

Obviously, the decree of the secular court regarding maintenance and all other behaviour and affairs pertaining to the married life of Muslims have to be determined in terms of the Shariah and Sunnah. But the secular court has no qualification for issuing such decrees. The maintenance for children is
also regulated by the Shariah. While Mr. Hendricks, himself states, in the above definition of a Muslim Marriage that the “…..Shariah, which regulates all public and private behaviour as derived from the Sunnah….”, he suggests such provisions
which are in conflict with the Shariah. According to the definition which he
has proffered, the Nikah (Muslim Marriage), embraces all facets of married life and the consequences flowing from the Nikah, yet he portrays ignorance regarding the actual consequences in terms of the Shariah. And this portrayal of ignorance is further confirmation for Mr.Hendricks being wholly
unqualified to speak on matters of Shariah purport.

Furthermore, the secular court’s decree pertaining to guardianship awarded to
any parent or person in conflict with the Shariah as envisaged in the amendment is loathsome for Muslims. The Shariah has its own rules of custody and guardianship.
What may be in the good interests of the child according to the secular court may be impermissible and unacceptable to the Shariah, and what may be good and best for the child may be unacceptable to the secular court.
In view of conflict between secular law and the Shariah being a fact of certitude, the amendments suggested by Mr.Hendricks are a recipe for dissatisfaction, discontent and a confrontation between the un-Islamic laws
and the Shariah. The amendments only exasperate whatever problem andcdeficiencies may be understood in the current Divorce Act. The suggested
amendments provide absolutely no relief for Muslims. On the contrary, the amendments of Hendricks are anathema for Muslims in view of the blatant conflict with the Shariah.

(2) Amendment of section 7 of Act of 1979
“3. Section 7……
(a) A court granting a decree of divorce in respect of a Muslim marriage
entered into after 14 December 2014 may…………
This entire amendment is unacceptable. It is in conflict with the Shariah as well as it is unconstitutional in that it singles out the Muslim community which is discrimination based on religion. In terms of the Shariah, whatever decree this provision envisages is in conflict with the Shariah.

(3) All amendments proposed by Mr. Hendricks fall foul of the Shariah and
are rejected by the Muslim community.
The claim of the state is that the laws which are enacted have equal application to all the citizens of the country. However, the amendments fabricated by Mr.Hendricks, makes nonsense of the constitutional imperative of equality. It is indeed ridiculous to have laws which single out the Muslim
community from all the other religious communities.

It is indeed surprising, to say the least, that the discriminatory Bill proposed by Mr.Hendricks could even be considered for discussion with the view of enacting it as law. Both constitutionally and religiously, it is an insidious Bill which must be scrapped.


Check Also

The End of Nikah as we know it in South Africa- Mufti Emraan Vawda

On 7 July 2023, the Minister of Home Affairs published a draft Marriages Bill, which …

Open chat