Tuesday, 2 August 2011

Amina Wadud a.k.a. Amina Mardud.

Al Salamu 'Alaykum.
The following is an article on the Prophetess of Kufr, Amina Mardud in which the Majlis has taken her and her beliefs apart:
"Some years ago a woman envoy of the kuffaar from America had darkened the shores of South Africa. On her mission of kufr propagation she had revealed her true colours which left no Muslim in any doubt regarding her affiliations. We had at that time written a criticism of the abomination she was gorging out. We reproduce our article which had appeared in a past issue of The Majlis, for the benefit of Muslims.
Amina Wadud, the U.S. missionary of kufr, clearly displays the slave mentality which she has inherited from her colonial masters and which she has been unable to shed off. It is the profound mental and moral derangement which her slavery-roots have inflicted on her brains and heart that has constrained her to exhibit her lament of self-pity. She thus felt compelled to justify her kufr views with the justification of her colour and the type of hair which Allah Ta’ala in His infinite wisdom had chosen as best for her.
There is no need for any Black Muslim to feel awkward with his/her blackness and natural hair. In justification of her kufr views, she lamented as follows at one of her silly talks:
“Usually I wear the hijab, and when I am wearing it, most Muslims do not consider me African-American; I pass off as a South Asian,” she said. “But when they see me without a scarf, they can see my African locks and they know I am Black and suddenly their attitude changes. The fact is I am a nigger and you will just have to put up with my blackness.”
The puerility and absurdity of her statements of self-pity should be manifest to all and sundry. It simply reveals the inferiority complex from which she suffers. This is the type of defence a supposed intellectual puts up for her filthy ideas of kufr among which are the following specimens which are theories usually espoused by the league of lesbians and homosexuals:
• Correctness of same-sex ‘marriages’

• Concealment of her aversion for some of the verses of the Qur’aan is hypocrisy, hence she needs to propagate her kufr openly.

• One should say, “NO!” to any Qur’aanic verse with which one disagrees.

• She cannot spiritually and intellectually accept some things in the Qur’aan.

• She does not agree with the Qur’aanic command of cutting off the hands of thieves inspite of the explicitness of the Qur’aanic command.

• She rejects the Qur’aanic permission to beat the insolently disobedient wife.

• She rejects the superiority of men explicitly stated by the Qur’aan

• She does not accept Islam’s law which does not permit women to lead in Salaat a mixed congregation of men and women.

• And, she entertains many more views of kufr and ideas of satanism.

Her recent clown-act of a mock so-called ‘jumuah’ which she conducted in a Christian church for the enjoyment of some lesbians and homosexuals who usually grace such aberrations, is merely a practical demonstration of her inherent kufr. The views of this woman testify that she is not a murtaddah (renegade) in Ukhrawi terms (i.e. pertaining to the Law which will prevail in the Hereafter), inspite of the applicability of the irtidaad appellation in terms of the Zaahiri Shariah, i.e. the legal dimension of the Shariah. Her stark ideas and flagrant practices of kufr are abundant evidence for confidently making the claim that she was never a Muslim. We do not know her background. But even if she was born in a Muslim home to Muslim parents, then too, she was inherently a kaafirah. The Hadith which speaks about the Fitrah (natural state of Imaan) into which children are born, is not applicable to this woman, in the same way as it never was applicable to Iblees, and in the same way as it was never applicable to Abu Jahl, Namrud, Fir’oun and a myriad of other members of the League of Satanism.
If there was any validity to her monstrous claim of self-pity in which she tenders her natural hair-type and black colour as her defence, and as the reason for the Ummah’s rejection of her stercoraceous views of Satanism, then these self-same Muslims would not have had the great and profound love, honour and respect for Sayyiduna Bilaal (radhiyallahu anhu)—for Hadhrat Luqmaan (alayhis salaam), and for countless other Black Sahaabah and Auliyaa whose hair was exactly as the hair of today’s Africans. Every Muslim, be he/she a modernist, a faasiq, a faajir, a king or a pauper, is prepared to lay his head at the feet of these illustrious Black Stars of Islam with short hair. Every Muslim of every age, provided he/she has not been confirmed as an inmate of Jahannum by Divine Decree, is prepared to offer his life in defence of the honour of the noble Black Guides of Islam—those with short hair— such as Sayyiduna Bilaal and others. For this missionary of kufr operating at the behest of the crusading kuffaar enemies of Islam, to therefore, claim that her filthy views of Satanism are rejected by the entire Ummah of Islam, without a single exception, on account of her hair-type and blackness, may dupe the apes of the jungle. Not even Mr. Bush will be impressed by this ridiculous argument of self-pity.
There are innumerable Black Muslims of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah in America. We are certain that if a poll is taken of their views on this woman, it will be found that their thinking is the thinking of the Ummah. No Muslim, no matter how morally corrupt he or she may be, will ever condone the Satanism propagated by this missionary of kufr. As proof, the following extract from the modernist ‘MUUU! MUSLIM WAKE UP’, will be adequate:
“Addressing Wadud, a woman with peroxide blonde hair and hip hugging jeans said, ‘Even though I am not a practicing Muslim, I believe you do not know proper Islam.”

We are constrained to congratulate this modernist sister. Perhaps this statement which sprang from the innermost recess of the modern lady’s heart will be the basis of her Najaat (eternal salvation) in the Aakhirah. She spoke in defence of Islam.
The likes of this woman spring up only to disappear in the dirt bins of history. While it is acknowledged that every devil also gains supporters, since this world is the arena for the struggle between Haqq and Baatil –Kufr and Imaan, the kind of puny dajjaal and concept of Dajjaaliyat which she espouses can attract only lesbians and sodomites. May Allah Ta’ala save Muslims from the kufr fallacies of Satanism which she likes to propagate.
Wa Salamu 'Alaykum.


  1. Very poor article. The authors spend most of their energies in calling her names instead to countering her arguments well.

  2. I agree with "ahmad"...bad form indeed. Besides, there is no da'wah in Abu-Tamim's presentation, no effort to propagate civility. Hate, ridicule, pointless name-calling. WHAT'S THE POINT ?

  3. Brother Abu Tamim,
    I once met some senior Tableeg brothers, some of whom were subject to cheap taunts from street rowdies. Asked how they managed to ignore such behaviour and remain unprovoked, they replied "Ye to hamari imaan ka parvarish hai" (this is just nourishment for our faith !). To be able to bear with forbearance, with patience...
    Why bother about the Amina Waduds. The world is full of them, promoted by the west.
    We should remain secure in our knowledge about Allah , His Last Prophet (SAW), His Book and the inevitability of the last day....Wasallam

  4. At all the brothers who have commented, Jazakallah. Please see the link: http://abdurrahman.org/innovation/thesalfposition.pdf

  5. What a pitiful effort to "prove someone wrong." I'm personally not a fan of her, but that's not gonan stop me from admitting to her intelligence and intellectual capability to make an argument and then support it quite well with Qur'anic verses and logic and reason and common sense.

    You, however, my dear brother in Islam, you give us no intellectual arguments or support for your claim that she is what you accuse her of. You need to study Islamic law and the larger debates on virtually everything you accuse her of propagating. Did you know, for example, that the Qur'anic ayah on cutting the hands of thieves is actually a popularly disputed guideline in classical Islamic law? (They ask, for instance, what the "hand" includes and what is consider theft. And did you know that theft does NOT include your stealing something from a friend when you're at that friend's house? Yeah, shocking, I know. But it should show you and the rest of us that every single word of the Qur'an has been and continues to be up for debate.)

    It is therefore ignorance on our part to assume that we can just read a Qur'anic verse and understand exactly what God meant. That's why we have different sects in Islam and, on top of that, different sub-sects and, even further, different schools of law. And, no, not all of the differences in these schools of law are "small" and "minute": many of them make a huuuuge difference. For example, the Hanafi School says that a woman does not need a walee (male guardian) in order to get married; the Shafi School makes such a marriage invalid -- or haraam, you can say! Now, suppose you do your marriage the Hanafi way: according to Shafi law, then, your children are illegitimate. Does this mean nothing to you?

    So, my humble advice: don't make assumptions and conclusions without actually understanding the larger issue. Oh, and most importantly, WHICH Qur'anic verse "explicitly" states that men are superior to women? (I'm lawling right now, sorry. That's funny.) And then find at least three Muslim scholars who will agree with your claim - because, as far as I know, none of them believe that verse 4:34, if that's what you're hinting at, says or suggests that men are superior to women or that women are inferior to men.


    And, so, that's why scholars spend and have historically spent long, tiring decades in their humble efforts to understand the Qur'an as much as they can -- and even then, they don't fail to admit that they *may* be wrong because it's humanly impossible to know what God's intentions are/were with particular verses.

  6. Oh, sorry about the disorganization of the comment. I didn't realize that the "And, so, ..." was at the bottom! That should be somewhere a little earlier.