Shia Strength: Muslim Unite Sunni and Shia KHUTBAH : SAUDI ARABIA AND WAHHABISM PART 1

THE STREET MIMBAR

JUM'AH KHUTBAH (16 March 2012)

webpage: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=182501078290&ref=ts

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_street_mimbar/

PLEASE e-mail Suggestions & Criticisms to khutbahs@yahoo.com

It is in such a manner that We make plain Our signs so that the course of the

Criminals may become clear.

Bismillah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem.

Alhumdulillah. Peace and blessings on Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam), his Noble Companions and Family.

Brothers and sisters …

Assalaamualaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuh

Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/videos/videos/show/11847483-imam-muhammad-al-asi-on-saudi-arabia-wahhabism-04-11-2009 (04-11-2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw0EPp2kiD4

SAUDI ARABIA AND WAHHABISM PART 1

I would like to begin by thanking the organizers of this program. Nothing happens without an effort so those who put in the effort to make this afternoon possible have my gratitude. I also would like to thank everyone who is present here this afternoon because you took time off from what you would normally be doing and made the effort to be here so may Allah give you (and) compensate you for your motivation and your presence.

The subject that we are going to cover is under the title "Wahhabism" and Wahhabism is a word that has been used quite frequently after 9/1. Before that time only selected Muslims would care to speak about Wahhabis or Wahhabism. Along with that word Wahhabism is another word, Salafism. So we have Wahhabis and we have Salafis. Sometimes, (in fact many times), I've had Muslims come up to me and ask "what's the difference between a Wahhabi and a Salafi?" So these two words sometimes get confused and, (I'm going to try), if you can bear with me to clear the air concerning these two words at least to a great extent. We can't exhaust this because everything has it's exceptions and sometimes there are what is called "moderates" and "extremists" in these two definitions; barring that, the word Salafi simply means a person who refers to the ancestors (or) those who preceded. Salaf means preceded, they came in times past. So the word Salafi has been used to refer to the first and second and third generations that followed after the Prophet; these are called in Islamic wording As Sahaba (radi Allahu anhum), At Tabi'een and Tabi'ee At Tabi'een. So people who call themselves Salafis, generally speaking, are people who would refer an Islamic judgment or an Islamic decision or an Islamic legal opinion or an Islamic fiqh understanding to those first generations of Muslims; that is why they are called Salafis. This type of reference has, (very quickly), some basis to it. The first basis is, of course, that the Qur'anic text was present in those years of Islam and they obviously refer themselves to the Qur'anic text. Then after that they would refer themselves to the opinions of the Sahaba and then after that if they find that there is a difference between what one Sahabi would say and what another Sahabi would say, they would try to, (in their own mind), find the Sahabis opinion that is closer to the Book of Allah and give it more credibility. If they cannot find a Sahabi's statement that is more credible than the other, they would simply state both or all the statements come who the Sahaba. They also prefer, (please make a note of this), a hadith that is da'eef, meaning a hadith that has not much credibility to it to rational judgment. Obviously, they would prefer a da'eef hadith to what is called al qiyas in Islamic jurisprudence. They, (the Salafis- remember, we're still speaking about Salafis here), consider the first person to have improvised these basis of Salafism to be Ahmed ibn Hanbal. He is known in his works and in his writings to have it (that) if there is two contradictory or two incompatible statements from the Sahaba to place those side-by-side and not be judgmental about them. He calls, in his literature which you can consider to be the founding literature of the Salafis, the word Imam, (which is used), to be Al Kitab. So Al Imam in his understanding of things in the Qur'an; that's the Imam. It is also reported that Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who is considered to be the founder of Salafism, (so to speak), said, (and I quote, which means) a weak hadith or an unsubstantiated hadith is more preferable to me than an opinion about a legal matter; meaning man's rational input is less important than a hadith that has no basis. The Salafis, therefore, in their understanding of things make to room for ijtihad, for ra'yi (and) we're not speaking about ra'yi that is improvised thought; we are speaking here about ra'yi that means rational thought because in the history of Islam the word ra'yi has a positive connotation and it has a negative connotation. When we use the word ra'yi in the Salafi context it is rejection of the Salafis of the word ra'yi with its positive connotation. So they have no ijtihad, no qiyas, no ra'yi, no ta'weel- none of this figures into their school of thought, (so to speak), if we can call it that. At Ta'weel is/means, (for those of you who are familiar with the Arabic text or with Arabic wording), that you take a word that tolerates a certain meaning and you give the particular word that tolerated meaning. The Salafis say that this is not something that they agree with. To some of you this may sound very scholastic and academic and all of this so let us bring you down to a little historical ingredient.

At the time we are speaking about- we are speaking about the second century of Islam- and during the second century of Islam the Muslims of Arabia had come into contact with what may be called the outside world and the outside world had philosophies, theologies, science, (in those days, relatively speaking); something that the Arabian Peninsular did not have. So what developed in the Muslim context was a rational school of thought which is referred to as the Mu'tazilis and a literalist scriptural school of thought which is referred to as the Salafis. Here we have the Muslims finding themselves on a base-to-base, day-to-day contact with the philosophies of India and Persia and Greece and the Byzantines and the Egyptians. They were not in contact with this before. This is the first time they come in contact with people who have opinions about matters. So inside the Muslim body there was a rational response to that contact, (as we said), that is represented by the Mu'tazilis and then there was the literalist response that was represented by the Salafis who say the only ones who understands what Islam is was those first generations of Muslims; so if someone comes to us with, (let's say), an argument about whether Allah has a hand or doesn't have a hand, the only way we're going to understand this is to go back to those first three generations of Muslims and understand how they understood this and when we understand what their answer to that question is, it becomes our answer. So that's why you have them, when they come and say there's an ayah in the Qur'an that says, (literally translating this ayah, it literally means),

Allah's hand is above their hand… (Surah Al Fath verse 10)

So, you ask these Salafis, (these types of people): OK- what do you understand from this? They say "well- Allah has a hand." You ask them: did I hear you right? Did you say Allah has a hand? (He'll say), "Yeh- Allah has a hand." (You say): this is a hand- do you mean to say Allah has a hand like this? They say, "Yeh." Well- here you're giving Allah a figure; are you not?! They will say "Well- he has a figure, we just don't understand how that figure is." If you want to go a step further and say

… And the face of your Sustainer will endure forever… (Surah Ar Rahman verse 27)

What do you understand from that? Allah has a face? (He'll say), "Yes, Allah has a face." (You say): excuse me, (I mean), this is a face. There's eyes, there's ears, there's a nose. Do you mean to say Allah has those types of features? (He'll say), "Yes." You say: "how do you know this?" He'll say "this is the way the first three generations, (that we spoke about), the Sahaba, Tabi'een and Tabi'ee At Tabi'een, understood it and that's the way we understand it. Of course, the rest of the Muslims, except these Salafis, didn't understand it like this. They understood it to have, what is called an allegorical meaning. It's not a literal meaning. When we say Allah's hand, we're not speaking about a physical hand, we're speaking about the power of Allah. They couldn't understand it like that. We're trying to clarify the difference between a Salafi and a Wahhabi.

When we take this understanding that reacted- this is a reaction- to the development of human thought that was represented at that time by civilizations that were outside Arabia, much of these arguments were fermenting in Iraq. This reaction could be understood in different ways. There's the negative understanding of it which is the literalist, (that's what we were speaking about- the Salafi literalist); they take the words in their literal meaning, that's the way they understand it; but then, there's the rational understanding of it that don't understand these words literally, they understand it in a more extended sense that doesn't conflict with the tolerance of the Qur'anic language. These dealt with the recurring mental challenges in a philosophical way and they served Islam very well at the time. Unfortunately, they in the course of history, (and we don't have time to outline the clash that took place between what is called the Ash'aris and the Mu'tazilah. Back in the time of the Abbasi Dynasty there was a big polarization in the Muslim world that almost resulted in a civil war that would have torn apart the Muslim social fabric. Suffice it to say here that if we take a leap from that time up until our present time, we have Salafis who are not negative Salafis. We have them in a very positive way. Salafis like Jamaludin Asad Abadi or Jamaludin Afghani. He's considered to be a Salafi- not in the negative sense. He wasn't a literalist Salafi. He was a Salafi in the positive sense. The Muslim world in the time of Jamaludin Asad Abadi was facing almost the same challenge that we are talking about in the Abbasi time. The Muslim world now is waking up to European civilization, Western civilization, the Chinese, the Indians- all of these who have a more developed or scientific accomplish in life just like they were coming into contact with the same type of progressive human thoughts or scientific accomplishments. So Jamaludin Asad Abadi or his student Muhammad Abdu or his student Muhammad Rashid Rida' or Abdul Hamid ibn Badis in Algeria or Abdur Rahman Al Kawakibi in Syria- these are considered to be Salafis. But you have to be careful; many Muslims are not. These are not Salafis in the literalist sense of the word. If you come and ask them did Allah have a hand? (Then), they're going to tell you "yeh- he had a hand." (Then if you ask): could you tell us how that hand was? "It's a hand just like… do I have to explain to you what a hand is?!" They weren't that type. They were the rationalist types who were referring to the understanding of the Qur'an in the first generations of Muslims as an open understanding, not a closed and literalist understanding.

Some of this has to do with the Wahhabis. Right now we're going to shift to Wahhabis. We don't want to startle you with Wahhabis out of nowhere because this has a relationship to who the Wahhabis are. Who are the Wahhabis?

In the year 1702 a person was born in Arabia in Najd, in the area of Unaynah or Huraymalah. These are two not far away villages in that remote, deserted, forsaken area of Arabia. His name was Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. At the time when he was to go to school (and) grew up, his father was a scholar, (whatever that may have meant in those times). He went to school and then when he had to go for, (what we call today), higher education, he went to Al Madinah and he went to school there. He began to realize in his own mind "wait a minute- something is wrong here." This is his observations of society at that time. He began to see that there are Sufis who are going to certain Awliya', (this is something some people would say is equivalent to saints), and saying du'a at their graves or bringing some food to those graves and eating there or lighting some candles at some of these graves and he began to say "what is this?!" In his mind he reached the conclusion that this is not a limited occurrence in one isolated area that he came across. This was all over. It was in Hejaz, it was in Al Madinah, it was in Al Basrah in Iraq, (because he also went to Al Basrah and Iraq later on); it was all over. Remember, at that time that area was governed by the Ottoman state and the Ottoman state at that time had encouraged Tasawwuf and Sufism for its own purposes. So when he saw this he made up his mind that this represents what he called Shirk. These people are placing between them and Allah others who don't belong there. He considered this status that these people have towards these other saints, scholars, Sufis, Imams, whatever to be a form of Shirk; if not the worst form of Shirk because it is related in some of he statements that he said "the Shirk of his time i.e. what he is seeing of Shirk is much worse than the Shirk the Prophet himself had to face up to." So now he wanted to do something about it. He had this notion of Al Amr bi Al Ma'ruf and An Nahi An Al Munkar that now he has to take action against this Shirk. So he goes to the ruler in that part of Najd and he convinces him that "we're going to have to use force against this expression of the violation of Allah's Divinity and Allah's Deity." So he convinced the Emir of that area and then they began going to these places and using force to destroy the two tombs or the structures that were set up for devotion or for trying to express a form of tawassul to Allah. No one was deifying these as far as we could tell from our reading of this. No one was deifying these Awliya' or these A'immah or these scholars. There was no deification here but in the mind of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab that's what he thought they were doing. That's not to say (it completely wasn't happening). There may have been some ignorant people who actually got confused in this. But anyways, when he convinced the Emir of this area and they began going out and using force to destroy the structures that were there that were revered by certain people he got away with it in that limited area in Najd. Then, he goes to Al Madinah and there is a place for Zayd ibn Al Khattab in which they used to revere him. No one is worshipping Zayd ibn Al Khattab but in Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab's mind these people are wrong. They're worshipping the wrong god. So he had to do something about that and he began to destroy this place and there was a backlash from the people at this time. There was a semi-uprising against Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and they threatened the Emir there. They said "if you're going to continue this relationship with this person, we're going to go to war against you." So this person realized his under so much pressure he said "no-no, I can't deal with it. I'm giving up on this alliance. I don't want to go along with this any longer." So Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab at this time looks around. He needs some tribe or some power base in Arabia that would help him out in this pursuit of what he called "the Mushrikin and the Kuffaar." These are Muslims, ignorant Muslims by no doubt but these are Muslims, they're not Kuffaar and Mushrikin. So he comes across the Emir Muhammad ibn Ahl Saud and he opens up his mind on this subject and they enter into an alliance. This is the nucleus of today's Saudi Arabia. At this point, we have in history the building blocks of today's Saudi Arabia. This alliance between Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and they begin right now this multiplier of what was previously a more limited force. Now. It's a much bigger force and they began going all around Arabia purging Arabia of this "Shirk" as they called it. At this point they see that they've made ways in Najd, in Hejaz, in Tihama, in Southern Arabia- they're on a winning streak here so they went to Karbala' and there attacked Masjid Al Imam Al Husayn and there was a war. I mean, two-thousand Karbala'is were killed and the destruction that they did to it- at that time the Masjid had a decoration of precious metals to it- there was gold, there was gem stones, there was these things and to Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab in his own mind "look how far they have gone in idolizing Al Imam Al Husayn!" So the Ottoman state that was ruling in that part of the world realized that this person has really gone too far so what they do is they told a ruler- his name was Muhammad Ali Pasha- in Egypt to "you know- go and take care of this guy." So he sends in an army (along with) his son Ibrahim Pasha and there was a war between these two sides and the combination of the Saudi-Wahhabi forces lost in this war. They didn't lose in the sense that they gave up. They lost the battle but they made a comeback in the future. So Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab passes on but the idea of war against Muslims still remains- it's beneath the sands, (so to speak). Later on, before the first World War, at the end of the nineteenth century ibn Saud and Ahl Ash Shaykh- these are the two, (you can say), power factions in Arabia came together again to revive Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab's was against what he called "Shirk"; actually it's a war against Muslims. They consolidated themselves and they put together the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Remember, I can't cover every year, year-by-year, but during this time British Colonialism had made its presence substantial in the Persian Gulf, in Egypt, in Iraq, in India- it was all around the place and the British felt very comfortable with someone who had an "Islamic argument" who can initiate war against other Muslims there-by causing Muslims to fight amongst themselves so that the British can carry on with their colonialist business of robbing the Muslims of their own resources. Remember, this was also at the time when petroleum was first discovered in that part of the world. So it obviously serves British colonial interests and thereafter American Imperialist interests to have a regime in Arabia that will justify internal Islamic wars that can keep the Muslims bleeding and therefore off the Imperialist and Colonial back. This is what the Wahhabi dhalalah represents to the Muslims. I may also want to add that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab's own father was against him and his brother Sulayman ibn Abdul Wahhab was against him. His own brother, Sulayman ibn Abdul Wahhab, even wrote a book to expose his own brother, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab's, mis-guidance, deviation and fallacies.

This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on 11 April 2009 on the sidewalk of Embassy Row in Washington D.C. The Imam previously led the daily and Jum'ah prayers inside the Masjid. His speeches were revolutionary and thought provoking, and irritated and threatened the Middle-East Ambassadors who control the Masjid. Finally, the Imam, his family, and other Muslims faithful to the course of Islam were forced out, into the streets. This khutbah originates from the sidewalk across the street from the Islamic Center, currently under seige.

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity: