Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Muslim Unite Sunni and Shia KHUTBAH : THE RITUALISTIC MISUNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM PART 6

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (30 March 2012)
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, committed Muslims …
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPghqbPhQHI
 
THE RITUALISTIC MISUNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM PART 6
We are guided by Allah and the meanings that have been expressed to us by him. Allah says
Certainly Masajid are Allah's therefore you, (the committed Muslims), do not evoke anyone besides Him. (Surah Al Jinn verse 18)
This point we tried to clarify in the past. There's another ayah in Surah Al Anfal- the ayah thirty-four- in which Allah describes those who are in control of Al Masjid Al Haram at that time and if the conditions repeat themselves, at this time.
And they, (meaning the Mushrik managers of Al Masjid Al Haram), repel from it, deter from it and they are not to be considered the Awliya' of this Masjid, (either in the proprietors of this Masjid or the people chosen for maintaining this Masjid or the protectors of this Masjid). (Surah Al Anfal verse 34)
In this realm of meanings, these Mushriks don't belong here. Now we had a class of rulers in Arabia to whom this ayah is speaking and exposing. They shouldn't be the maintainers and the custodians and the protectors of this Holy sanctuary. So what is Allah telling us to concentrate our attention on? The first part of this ayah
And they cause people to deflect from Al Masjid Al Haram or they detract people from Al Masjid Al Haram... (Surah Al Anfal verse 34)
But how is this? This ayah was revealed in a human condition in which people flocked to Al Masjid Al Haram, (in which there were) people who were going to Al Masjid Al Haram in droves during the time of the Hajj each year, during the Umrah in the other months of the year. So there is a meaning to be probed here. These Mushriks were not detracting or distracting from Al Masjid Al Haram if we were looking at this in the physical meaning of the word. The ritual and ceremonial rites of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhi as salaam) were still there and people were coming to Al Masjid Al Haram. So what is it? How does this ayah gain its practical, lively and pertinent meaning? The way the Mushriks of antiquity and the Mushriks of today distract and deter and deflect and bar from Al Masjid Al Haram is not in the physical sense per se even though that is, in today's world, part of this meaning. They can issue visas and permissions to whomever they want and they can withhold it from whomever they want; but the meaning here is much more significant than what first meets the eye. They used to repel people from the livelihood of the message that is meant to radiate from Al Masjid Al Haram. That's how this ayah exposes them and condemns them. Al Masjid Al Haram and Makkah itself have been at that time and continue to be today under ritualistic siege- that's how the deterrence is. In order for us to understand this, we would have to go back to the common information that we have and look at it with probing minds. We live in a world (where-in) what is imposed on Makkah is by extension imposed on the rest of the Muslims everywhere. Not only is Makkah under ritualistic siege but Muslims everywhere are under ritualistic siege!
 
Listen- brothers and sisters- with the taqwa that we are conscious of at this hour- we, (meaning) the average Muslim, understand that the rituals of Islam were revealed during the Makkan era. The fact of the matter is- if we were to be disciplined enough and not swayed by money and not softened up by the status quo, just us and our Allah-given heart and mind together- if we were to look at the facts on the ground that teach us from the time of Allah's Prophet, we would find that most of the rituals that we cling to today religiously and fervently are attributed to the Madinian era, not the Makkan era.  We want this fact to settle into your heart of hearts. Also, the mannerisms of Muslims (and) the morals of Muslims, (i.e.) what became the religious culture of Muslims was a by-product- unlike what many think of Makkah- but a by-product of Madinah when Muslims had power, when Muslims had economics, when Muslims began to have control of their own social life. Let us begin to break this religious siege...
 
The regulation of as Salah itself, (you're at salah al jum'ah and you perform your five salawaat everyday), the current definitions that we have of as salah were revealed to Allah's Prophet ten years after the first word from heaven. Ten years after Iqra' we began to acquire the details of our salah- during the last months or the last couple of years of the Prophet's presence in Makkah. So what was as salah before that? Muslims were praying. You read in the books of history and seerah that Muslims were praying. What were they praying? What were they doing? They were praying two rak'aat at the beginning of the day and two rak'aat at the end of the day- that's how they were praying. Then, as the months went by, these two rak'aat were extended from the beginning of the day and it's and then we had in addition to that Dhuhr time and Asr time, but it was still only two rak'aat. We don't have the details pertaining to Maghrib salah that were three rak'aat; but this was part of the Prophet's sunnah. Now we want to ask you: did the Prophet's sunnah begin in Al Madinah because we follow Allah's Prophet, but do we follow him when he was in a struggle with the status quo power structure of Arabia when he was in Makkah. Obviously he was, but why are we less capable of understanding that he also stands for a sunnah when he was in Makkah? If the conditions re-arrange themselves in our time to be similar if not carbon copy conditions to when the Prophet was in Makkah, then doesn't the Prophet's sunnah when he was in Makkah apply to us? This is a serious question that has to be answered with knowledge, not with traditions (and) not with money.
 
Today- Masha'Allah- Muslims build Masjids left and right regardless of the conditions. No one is looking at having a Masjid or not having a Masjid as it should be defined in the conditions and the context that we are in. No one is doing that. "Oh- we have some money (and) Muslims become generous. They want to build Masjids- let's go collect money and build a Masjid somewhere." That's how it's done. No one is looking at a Masjid in a social context. That wasn't the case with Allah's Prophet. When Allah's Prophet was in Makkah he did not build one Masjid. Thirteen years (and) he didn't build one Masjid. You tell us- isn't this the sunnah of Allah's Prophet, (i.e.) not to build a Masjid? Not to build a Masjid was the sunnah of Allah's Prophet! You come and tell that to the average Muslim around who's under this ritualistic trance or within this ritualistic siege (and he'll say) "the sunnah of Allah's Prophet is not to build a Masjid?! What are you talking about?" Yes- that was his sunnah for thirteen years. In Makkah he didn't build a Masjid. And, when a Masjid was built for ulterior purposes reasons when a Masjid- Masjid Ad Dirar- was built to deter from Allah, the Prophet ordered that Masjid to be destroyed. At one time his sunnah was don't build Masajid and at another time a Masjid goes up to destroy the leadership of Allah's Prophet and Allah's Prophet words were to bring that Masjid down. So the first Masjid that was built-Masjid Quba'- was built in Al Madinah, not Makkah. This is Allah's sunnah meaning His social law and the Prophet's sunnah meaning the application in a systemic way and in a social way of Allah's law.
 
The qiblah that we pray towards was finalized when the Prophet was in Al Madinah. According to some history books, eighteen months after the Prophet was in Al Madinah he finalized our qiblah towards Al Masjid Al Haram in Makkah. Before that (and) during all of these years where did the Prophet and the committed Muslims pray towards? What was the direction? It was Al Quds, Jerusalem; to Al Masjid Al Aqsa.
 
Even the instructions about al adhan- these are things we take for granted, we never think about it- and al wudhu we find in Surah Al Maa'idah. Surah Al Maa'idah is a surah that was revealed in Al Madinah and one of the last surahs to be revealed in Al Madinah. In the same surah we will find information pertaining to al ghusl and at tayamm'mum. Some Muslims who are in this religious trance think all of these things were clarified and settled in Makkah. No, they weren't. The Mushriks used to know al ghusl. Al ghusl wasn't a new concept. The Mushriks, because they were in their own ways and in their own minds followers of Ibrahim and Isma'eel (alayhima as salaam) still had the concept of al ghusl, the full bath that we are required to take on certain occasions. We find this in the Makkan Mushrik society. One of the Mushriks said after their defeat at Badr he will not take al ghusl until he extracts his revenge against the Muslims. Fatimah (radi Allahu anha), the sister of Umar ibn Al Khattab (radi Allahu anhu) told him when he wanted to read the Qur'an you go and take a ghusl before you open and read this book. So the concept of ghusl was there; the rituals were there in Makkah just like they are today- Makkah has its rituals. So we find the details of these, what we call ritualistic issues, in Surah An Nisa' and in Surah Al Maa'idah which were revealed overwhelmingly in Al Madinah. The same thing can be said about abbreviating as salah- instead of praying four rak'aat, you pray two rak'aat in the case of travelling. The same thing is said about the salah of fear, salah al khawf.
 
Then, there was no salah al jum'ah in Makkah. This was the sunnah of Allah's Prophet. Why was there no salah al jum'ah in Makkah? Does it have to do with society or not? If Makkah was an Islamic society, there would have been salah al jum'ah in Makkah. It wasn't an Islamic society, it was an anti-Islamic order and therefore there's no salah al jum'ah. Some ritualistic Muslims just follow traditions. Some of them go to jum'ah because of the trance that they are in- every jum'ah they automatically go to jum'ah regardless of what society and the power structure around is! Other Muslims at the other end of the spectrum don't go to salah al jum'ah at all even if they have an Islamic state. They say "no- it's not our obligation to go to salah al jum'ah ." Both of these are not right. They're not looking at the social dynamics that are around and they're not learning from the Prophet.
 
Salah Al Eidayn- when did the two salahs that we pray, eid al fitr and eid al adha, come into existence? In an Islamic society (and) in an Islamic system (and) in an Islamic state- that's when we had them. Before that they didn't exist and you want to tell us that Allah's Prophet did not know how to arrange these affairs?!
 
We come to the fasting of Ramadhan. In all of the Makkan era the Muslims didn't fast as we understand fasting to be today. There was no Ramadhan. They may have fasted with the remnants of the information they had from the time of Ibrahim and Isma'eel. You know, when you get to Islamic issues there's someone who disputes this and says that… but when it comes to this issue there is no dispute; when it comes to the issue of fasting Ramadhan, sahar time, iftar time, the information we have about fasting- it is a consensual issue that the ayaat that were revealed about fasting that we quote every Ramadhan were revealed in Al Madinah.
O you who are secure in your commitment to Allah, siyam, fasting has been assigned to you as it was to those who preceded you for the purpose of taqwa, so that you may gain or so that you may ingrain in you this component of taqwa. (Surah Al Baqarah verse 183)
  Also, explaining voluntary fasting, siyam at tataw'wu',was also done in Al Madinah.
 
Az zakah itself was mentioned in the ayaat revealed in Makkah eleven times and in the ayaat revealed in Al Madinah it was mentioned twenty times. The details of the quantity of zakah and the channels of zakah were not mentioned in Makkah; they were mentioned when the Muslims became a social and a structural power reality in Al Madinah. Then, just spending, al infaq, was mentioned only seven times in the ayaat revealed in Makkah but it was mentioned forty-four times in the ayaat revealed in Al Madinah. Not once was the word sadaqah mentioned in the ayaat revealed in Makkah; it was mentioned twenty-two times in the ayaat revealed in Al Madinah. The details about zakah are mentioned in surah At Tawbah and surah At Tawbah was revealed in Al Madinah. The same Madani ayaat revealed in surah Al An'aam. There was no such thing as zakah al fitr in Makkah until the Muslims became who they were in Al Madinah.
 
Then, the first and the last time all the manasik of the hajj were outlined to the Muslims was during hajjat al wada', not before that. There was umrah al qada', (that we spoke about previously), in the two to three years before the Prophet passed on and there were some details pertaining to the umrah. The same thing can be said about salah ad adha. There was salah al adha when the Prophet was in Al Madinah and he had no access to Al Masjid Al Haram in Makkah; but yet every year he was sacrificing. Being denied access to Makkah doesn't mean you deny yourself the rewards of the sacrifices.
 
What do we mean by all of this? is does this humble speaker of yours trying to say to you at this time? We're trying to say that many times, (and this is borne out by experience), the problem is our enemies understand us better than we understand ourselves. We don't like to say this; it's hard for us to say this but it's the truth. Our enemies understand us more than we understand ourselves. Our enemies (i.e.) those who are in-charge of our affairs, we're not talking about the average Joe Smou around! We're talking about people who are making decisions, people who are thinking out policies and people who are strategizing- they understand Allah and His Prophet better than we understand Allah and His Prophet. This is a shame! We never looked at our history, we never looked at our seerah with critical minds (and) with critical minds so that we can break out of traditions that are wrong on the right and wrong on the left. Can't we just mature enough to listen to Allah and His Prophet in context relevant to the world that we are responsible for? Can't we at least do that?
 
Dear Brothers, dear sisters, dear committed Muslims…
 What we have just said is relevant to what we are just going to say. Outlining and understanding Allah and His Prophet is more urgent today than at any other time. Today, in this world, there is now a fad (and) a political and social wave that seeks to apply- this is what we hear and this is what we understand (from) the Islamic types who now are riding a popular wave tell us what is all of this about if a person who is curious and approaches them and presents them with a question seeking a sincere answer. The Islamic side is not giving a diplomatic answer (and) it is not giving a press conference answer; it is giving a sincere answer. What is all this Islamic parties, Islamic uprising, Islamic awakening, Islamic movement about? Can you put it in a nut-shell? What is all this about? They say "yes." In the majority of cases the answer is going to be "it's about the application of the shari'ah." That answer has burled itself in Western society. Right now, they're trying to scare people saying "look- the Muslims want shari'ah law. Muslims are worked up now because they want to bring us their laws and enforce it upon us." Of course, we know this is boulder-dash. There's no such thing. Muslims don't want to impose laws on anyone- not on themselves and not on anyone else. Laws are an outgrowth of the moral character of individual and society together. Those are laws. We don't come and impose laws on Muslims who don't want it or on non-Muslims who don't want it. This is not in the character of Islamic history, Prophetic history, scriptural history- it's not there. We have to clear the air on this. So you ask this average Muslim, (especially the ones that come out of Islamic Centers like this), "you say you want the application of shari'ah" or someone would tell you "the shar'a of Allah. That's what you want- OK." We tell them in this world there are three nation states who clamor and boast about their application of shariah: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Sudan; and someone else may argue Afghanistan or argue Malaysia or argue Turkey. All of these say "they are applying shari'ah." You take a look at these societies. (A sub-note here is the Islamic Republic doesn't make a central point of applying the shari'ah. It's concerned with Islamic laws but it's not over-playing it, especially in a way that gives opportunities to the enemies to use this as they are doing now in our time and in our context. (When) you look at these societies, especially Saudi Arabia, has the shari'ah there eliminated poverty? We ask you- they have all of this wealth and they say "they apply shari'ah law"; have they eliminated hunger? Just the other week in this country there was a Saudi member who was asking for handouts to be able to send one member of his family to hospital. Is this shari'ah? Is there a scientific advancement in that country, that should come obviously from going by Allah's laws? Is there social justice in Arabia where they claim "they have shari'ah law"? Is there equality? Of course, the answer is no. Anyone with an average mind and a minimum amount of information, (you don't need a library to get an answer here), so what's the application of shari'ah law? What does it mean? A person will come and say "shari'ah law is one thing and those who are applying it is something else." OK- we can see that point. That's true. They are mis-applying the laws of Islam (and) getting away with the partial application of it and getting away with the partial absence of it. Besides our geographical look at things, let's take now a historical look at things. We ask you, this shari'ah law aspect- that these Islamic parties and movements are trumping up- was it not applied during the time of the Umawis, during the time of the Abbasis, during the time of the Mamluks, during the time of the Safawis, during the time of the Ottomans? Didn't you have shari'ah law applied? What happed on the watch of shari'ah law? One of the most tragic events of Islamic history happened when shari'ah law was being applied. The tragedy of Karbala' happened when there was shari'ah law in the land! So is this a panacea? Is just the application of shari'ah law without a spirit (and) without a heart a panacea for the Islamic or the human condition? Shari'ah law was applied when the Umawis used the catapult to destroy the Ka'bah, when they crucified sahaba in Makkah, when they raped Muslim women in Arabia! Shari'ah law was the canonical order of the day! Is that what we want? Is that what the Muslims want? We, the Muslims in the world, had shari'ah law all the way up until about one-hundred years ago (but) why does it live in our popular memory that we only have five or six Khulafa'- even though the others used (or) monopolized that title for themselves but in the public memory of the Muslims there's Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Al Imam Al Hassan and Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (radi Allahu anhum)? Where's the rest? Who are those? They were responsible for shari'ah law- why don't you call them khulafa' Rasulillah?! The problem is we haven't taken a look at our own selves! You want to apply shari'ah law- who do you want to apply it to? The poor man?! A person who steals because he wants to support his family?! Is that who? That's what's being done in Arabia. Every once and then you come across a news item (where) a Bangladeshi or an Indian or a Pakistani or a Nigerian or a Sudanese or an Ethiopian Muslim had their head chopped off in the public square after jum'ah prayers. That's shari'ah law!? How about these people- the kings, the princes, the emirs, the muluk- who are stealing budgets and treasuries and the resources of the earth? Doesn't shari'ah law apply to them? A person, Haatib ibn Abi Balta'a (radi Allahu anhu), in the time of Allah's Prophet had some workers for him, (some history books say slaves), and they stole a camel and they slaughtered it. What applies to them? What do you do with thieves who steal a good amount of money (the) Islamic law is well known.
A male or a female person who steals, you amputate… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 38)
OK- that's what's there in the book. So these people stole in a time when Muslims still had the character and the heart and the meaning of Islam in them and so the Khalifah at the time, Umar, called them, OK, come here Haatib ibn Abi Balta'a- I want to talk to you. He says to him- after getting the information about what happened, i.e. these people needed the money, they needed to eat and they needed to feed their families in an Islamic society, (before this religious and traditional trance took over (and) before we became captivated to our own rituals and ceremonial rites), you use them and you have them suffer hunger; I'm going to lay a penalty on you that's going to hurt you. Then he told these thieves you're free. Now, we have a world information system that tells us "these people in Arabia are the custodians of the two Harams. These rulers in Arabia are the champions of Islam." That's what they tell us and if we continue to be brainwashed by their Masajid and their clergymen, (and many of us believe them), this is what is happening today. These Islamic parties want to apply shari'ah law over there and by that they want to qualify as Islamic leaders and Islamic rulers. Where is the heart of Islam? Where is the justice of Islam? Where is the equality of Islam? Where is the dignity of Islam? Don't let the Zionists and the Imperialists pick up on our weakness and utilize some of us against the others to the extent of having Muslims kill other Muslims in pursuit of what they call "tatbeeq ash shari'ah or the application of the shari'ah."
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on 9 March 2012 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.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Support Jammu and Kashmir Women who are victim of all victims.
http://jammukashmir.khidmat.org

Donate by Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4GHHMZSYJ7GKQ

Visit http://khidmat.org
.

__,_._,___

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Muslim Unite Sunni and Shia Holy Graves Restoration in Saudi Arabia

 

Holy Graves Restoration in Saudi Arabia


During the first quarter of 20th century, the British authorities made the leader of nomadic tribe, Abudl Aziz ibn Saud the king and altered Arabia to Saudi Arabia. Since that time the country is autocratically ruled under the nomadic ways and Wahhabi ideas. 
By nature nomads do not settle at any location in the desert, so the graves are merely inconsequential disposing points for their dead. 

 http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/holy-graves-restoration.html 

In absolute contrast to such nomadic norms, Muslims unreservedly respect all graves regardless. Above all, the Holy grave of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is held in extreme honour and immense spiritual reverence. The graves of immediate family members of Prophet Mohammed, his relations, companions and other prominent personalities of Islam, buried in Jannat-ul-Al-Baqi in Madina and Jannat-ul-Maaula, in Makkah are as well duly revered by all followers of Islamic faith. 

On 27 April 1925 the regime of Saudi Arabia conducted certain sacrilegious acts, in that, hundreds of Muslim inhabitants of Medina, for not being Wahhabi, were punished and killed, many revered historical shrines of Islamic heritage were demolished, the extraordinarily sacred graveyards of Al-Baqi and Al-Maulla were desecrated and levelled to ground. Serious attempts were also made to demolish the Green Dom of Masjid-al-Nabawi. Whereas practical attempts to demolish the grave of Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the graves of his two companions, was somehow stopped by the personal intervention of King Abul Aziz ibn Saud. 

These sacrilegious acts of desecrations attest unreasonable and unacceptable imposition of Wahhabi ideology upon Muslims. These violations have inflicted serious emotional, cultural and historical damages upon a vast majority of Islamic community and its upsetting affects have not diminished in the least; these were than strenuously detested by the Muslims all over the world and as at present are equally despised 

These Holy Graveyards are Islamic heritage of immeasurable historical and spiritual importance and symbols of respect and homage to the family of Holy Prophet (PBUH) as well as other prominently revered personalities of Islam like the Daughter of the Holy Prophet Fatima Zahra (S.A.). Being sacrosanct to all Muslims of the world, it has become imperative that these Holy Graveyards should forthwith, fully and dignifiedly restored by virtues of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 – Declaration on Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief – General Assembly Resolution 35/55 of 25 November 1981 and other Human Rights Conventions.


__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Support Jammu and Kashmir Women who are victim of all victims.
http://jammukashmir.khidmat.org

Donate by Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4GHHMZSYJ7GKQ

Visit http://khidmat.org
.

__,_._,___

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Muslim Unite Sunni and Shia KHUTBAH : SAUDI ARABIA AND WAHHABISM PART 2

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (23 March 2012)
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
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw0EPp2kiD4
 
SAUDI ARABIA AND WAHHABISM PART 2
So here we have Wahhabism that never- they have a history now that dates back from the eighteenth century. By the way, this guy, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, lived a long life. He didn't die until about 1792 or 1793. So he lived around ninety years. That's a long life. He didn't live up until the time when Bonaparte came and invaded Egypt and Colonialism now was a more significant source but the people who came after him obviously lived during the years of British and French Colonialism in the area but never have the Wahhabis fought against foreign occupiers since they came into existence. So you can right now understand the comfortable relationship that the Imperialists have right now with the government of Saudi Arabia that says that "it is the heir to Wahhabism." It sits very well. (Take a) look at this from Washington DC, London and Paris- there's a Saudi Arabian government that has a religious establishment that looks at other Muslims and considers other Muslims to be Kafirs. What better than that or what else can you call for?! What else do you want in, of all geographies of the world, in the country of the Haramayn? They consider all others who are not Wahhabis and Salafis to be Kafirs, not only Shi'as. Some people are under the false impression that these people consider Shi'ites to be Kafirs- no-no-no! Relax. They consider all other Muslims who are not Salafis and Wahhabis to be Kafirs. This is very unfortunate that we have a regime like this. We just had a few months ago an attack that was on Ghazzah. All the world saw this. There were some Muslim scholars who went to Saudi Arabia who said "look- don't you think this is the time to come to support your Muslim brothers?" They said "no, we're not going to support them." You can understand the rationale. If, in their internal minds, these are not Muslims, then they can easily say "we're not going to support them." To pin them down even more, they said "why don't you give some of money to Muslims who are in need right now? To HAMAS?" Because they have a lot of finances lodged everywhere around the world. HAMAS is the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. They've been elected by the people in Ghazzah and these elections were supervised by international personnel (and) supervisors who went there to see that this is a free and fair election and so HAMAS comes to power. So what did this king, the same king that is in Arabia right now say to these Islamic scholars who spoke to him about this? He said "we will give our money to the Palestinian Authority" which is Mahmoud Abbas and his capitulationists. We will give it to them but we won't give it to HAMAS." To an average Muslim this may not make sense, but the more you understand the Wahhabi psychology, the more you will understand why they will withhold this support from those who are "more Muslim" and they are more liberal at giving this support to those who are "less Muslim" in the real sense of the word. The Wahhabis can easily say that they find no affinity with other Muslims but they can find affinity with Christians. In their internal thoughts and mind this is perfectly Islamic because these people who say that they are Muslims are not Muslims because they are guilty of Shirk. (You) see, to begin with, they don't validate schools of thought. They say there's no such thing as Hanafi school of thought, there's no such thing as Shafi'i school of thought, there's no such thing as Maliki school of thought." The Hanbalis they have a problem with; they argue this back-and-forth because that's "there man" and he has had, historically a school of thought so the argument around him becomes murky but when it come to al madaris al fiqhiyyah i.e. the Islamic schools of thought, they invalidate them and there's no such thing. So, therefore, another Muslim who says "I consider myself belonging to the Shafi'i school of thought", they come and say "we're sorry. If that's your case we really don't consider you to be a Muslim." OK- but when it comes to a Christian and a Jew, they say "well these are Ahl Al Kitab." With all that they do?! OK- a Muslim is not a Muslim in their opinion because. Let's say, he follows a certain school of thought or he has some Sashays' tendencies or some Tasawwuf tendencies so in their eye he's not a Muslim, but these people who have their cross and icons in their Churches and all of these bid'ahs and Shirkiyaat and everything they talk about, they are Ahl Al Kitab?!?! I mean, can't they see?! The problem is that when you're speaking to these types of people, there's no mind to speak to. They've done away with rationality a long time ago, so how are you going to make sense with them if they don't employ their own minds? So that explains to you why, for example, during the Lebanese civil war - remember in the 1980's there was a very serious war going on in Lebanon and it turned into one that is basically Christian on one side and Muslims on the other side- and guess who the Saudis were supporting? They were sending their money to the Christians because they said "the Christians are Ahl Al Kitab and these Muslims in Lebanon are guilty of Shirk and Kufr. Why should we be supporting them?"
 
You may not know this, but there's a news item just a few days ago that the king- king Abdullah- invited a Jewish doctor from California. (By the way, I'm curious- did anyone hear this news item?) You see- it doesn't make it around. The mainstream media is even protecting them very well. This is what happened. In the past few weeks there's a doctor who lives in California. I think it's in the Los Angeles area. He gets a note saying "you have been nominated to receive a scholarly or scientific award from Saudi Arabia." This guy was surprised on this. He was there. He checked. This was for real. This was no fake. This was the real thing. So he takes his passport to the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles and his passport is an American passport but it has Israeli visas on it. He's gone to Israel multiple times and the Saudi Arabian government didn't have any problem issuing him the visa. They give his a visa right next to the Israeli visa on an American passport! This is a country and a government that says "we are against Israel" and all of this stuff. So he flies over with his wife. His wife was born in Tel Aviv. She's Israeli by birth. He has three children. I don't know if he took all three of them but he took part of his family with him and he is received by the king of Saudi Arabia. It wasn't like they had some scientific committee to meet him. No. He was received like a hero of some sort. Red carpet reception; the whole honorary protocol that they receive official guests with and they took him to the king with the translators and all. He said he was treated like royalty. Of course, they gave him the cash prize. It was a cash prize, no cheque- $200,000 "for your contribution to medicine." I don't know what he contributed to medicine! I'm sure we have probably scores of Muslim doctors who have contributed the same thing but in this Wahhabi mind what we call a Muslim doctor is a Mushrik doctor so "we're not going to give any money to him! We'll give it to someone, you know, who's Ahl Al Kitab." Some person who is Israeli and Zionist and they get away with all of this.
 
You've heard- Muslims in Ghazzah wanted to go to Hajj and they were not given the visas by the Saudi government to go to Hajj. This was before the massacre, before this Israeli war on Ghazzah. They said "no, you can't come" and they didn't go. It also took Isma'eel Haniyah who is the elected Head of Ghazzah who personally contacted the Defense Minister and the king himself; he said: we have around three-thousand or so Muslims who want to go for Hajj. Please issue them the visa." This is what they told him, "you will not be disappointed. Things will be alright. They'll be worked out." So Isma'eel Haniyah was under the impression they're going to issue the visas. When someone tells you "we're not going to disappoint you; we're going to work this thing out; things will be alright" he was under the impression they're going to issue the visas so he turns to his people and tells them "Insha'Allah it's just a matter of a few days and everything will be alright. The visas are going to be issued and you'll be on your way to Hajj." It never happened. You can understand right now, if we are guilty of these "shirkiyat" as they call it i.e. shirk crimes. If we Muslims are in their judgment and in their perspective that type of people, then it's no big deal not going to Hajj (and) massacring Muslims around the Ka'bah.
 
You remember 1987 and the Makkah massacre. They killed four-hundred people around the Ka'bah and it's no big deal. Even their own types, Salafis, who took issue with this Saudi-Wahhabi political crime and you remember 1979 when the Haram was taken over. What did the Saudis do? These are their own students and they did something like that and they had no problems calling on "Ahl Al Kitab." They called on the Germans and the French military to come into the Ka'bah to cleanse these "Mushriks" out of the Ka'bah. These are their own students but the French and the Germans are "Ahl Al Kitab."
 
Not many people know that managing much of the finances and money flow in and out of that country is done by Lebanese Christians. Why? They are Ahl Al Kitab."  In this warped Wahhabi understanding of things they can trust Ahl Al Kitab- Zionist and Imperialist Ahl Al Kitab; but Muslims who are trying to be Muslims, whichever way they can, "it's alright to treat them the way we're treating them. Bring them to chop-chop square that they have there."  After Jum'ah prayers, their execution is in one of the lots outside the main Masjid in Riyadh or in some other place. They bring Pakistanis, they bring Africans, they bring Bangladeshis, people from South Asia and people from all across the African continent if they steal something. They don't know why they stole it; maybe they're in need or something. You stole something that qualifies you to have your hand cut, so we're going to take you there and chop your hand off and they do it The same thing is done for sexual offences. If someone is caught having illicit sex, then they go and they execute the person if he happens to be "a Muslim"; but if he happens to be "Ahl Al Kitab" then, "oh no- send them back." When was the last time you heard someone… They found some people who in a court of law could have been found guilty of these serious crimes but the British government interfered or the American government interfered or any one of these "Ahl Al Kitab" governments interfered and these people (who) may have been behind bars for some time, in jail or in prison but they were set free or released. Nothing was done against them. This once again goes back to this very serious misunderstanding of Islam out of which came this accusation of takfir.
 
The issue of takfir now is an issue that is disturbing Islamic societies. In Pakistan you have groups of people who look at other Muslims and say "you're a Kafir." This accusation of kufr called takfir becomes very serious to the extent that Muslims now can justify going to war against each other because someone is saying "you're a Kafir." When we trace all of this back, it goes to a person like Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and those who think along the same lines.
 
With the Israeli occupation of Palestine and with the Muslim world now witnessing the first chapters of its renewal (and) of its resumption of its Islamic responsibilities and future they need this type of takfiri theological brainwashing inside Islamic populations to destabilize these populations; therefore we've heard in Iraq, the issue of takfir that is being used. In India and Pakistan now the same thing is going on over there. We have it moving in parts of North Africa and when you take a close look, where is all of this coming from? You inevitably wind up realizing that it has come from this Wahhabi distortion of Islam. They never take a look at the political and the military forces that are in the world. That never comes under their observation. Ask they, "so what do you think about the Zionists who are occupying Palestine?" Where do you put them in your Islamic vocabulary? What type of words? Do you have the word takfir that you can use against the Zionists? Or the word takfir that you can use against an Imperialist?" What happened? Why is this word absent when we're speaking about Zionism and we're speaking about Imperialism? What do they say about them? They have nothing to say because they're empty-minded! That's why, (let's take an example), when it comes to the issue of Hajj and the bara'ah from the Mushrikin, they say "this is a bid'ah and it comes from people who are not Muslims so we can't have a bara'ah from the Mushrikin in the Hajj." Why? Didn't the Prophet have the bara'ah from the Mushrikin in the Hajj? The Mushrikun have gone away?! There's no longer any Mushriks in the world?! And if there are Mushriks in the world, it's the Muslims?! If you press them on the issue, then who's the Mushriks in the world, they're going to dig into their literature and in their books and say "we found out that the Mushriks in the world are the Muslims" because that's exactly what exists in their books?! So tell us, is this not a god-send to the Imperialists and to the Zionists to have to have a theological internal Islamic school of thought that turns Muslims into Mushriks and turns the Imperialists and Zionists into Ahl Al Kitab? You can't ask for anything better from a Zionist-Imperialist perspective. That's a god-send! That's why, with all of this that's going on in the world, they preserve and they protect and they don't want to say what's going on in Saudi Arabia. You see the Zionists and Imperialists picking on Iran. For example, when it comes to the issue of who needs liberation they say "there should be women's liberation in Iran" but they don't say there should be women's liberation in Saudi Arabia! When you take a look at the status of women in Saudi Arabia under this Wahhabi regime and you take a look at the status of women in Iran- if you're talking about women as students, they're the majority of students in the Universities, (they'll tell you). If you're looking at women pursuing their careers, they're out there driving, they're in the bazaar. No one is telling them you can't do whatever you have to do as a responsibility because you're a woman! No one says that! So where are these human rights organizations and the media and all of this when in Saudi Arabia a woman cannot drive a car?! A woman has to be chauffeured. Imagine if a wife or a mother wants to go to the supermarket; she needs a chauffeur to take her in her own car to the supermarket. So what happened here? How conflicting can you be? The chauffeur is a man and she's a woman and they're in the same car! She can't drive her own car?! But when you get into this mind, these are the types of conflicting interpretations that they have. They feel comfortable with someone else driving the car with their own wives or whoever but for her to drive? No. And here you see the Western press not saying anything about this. As if this is normal! It doesn't bother them; just like the press doesn't say anything about, (not to get off the subject), the outcasts or the untouchables who are about two-hundred-million people in India. They can speak about Muslim women in India and Pakistan and how they are "oppressed" but in India you have as a matter of history and as a matter of culture and as a matter of social norm the permissibility of an upper cast person picking some of these girls who have to offer them their bodies for the sexual gratification of the upper cast person- this is normal and it's done probably in the tens of thousands as an everyday activity. No one's around to report on this. It's the same way they're protecting Saudi Arabia. All of this is to tray and assault the true Muslims who can identify the enemies of the Muslims and take them on. The Wahhabis in their brief history of violent wars killed Muslims who were unarmed (and) innocent. They tried to put together a military that fought against the Ottoman state. They have no compunctions about Muslims being massacred anywhere by other forces without them showing any interest in these other Muslims and they seem to be getting away with that simply because they have the money to allocate to different organizations- Islamic organizations, (we're not talking about other seculars and all of this that they pay also), but we're talking about Islamic organizations so that Muslims keep silent about the crimes that this Saudi regime is getting away with. Some people developed a mode of silence towards Saudi Arabia. We don't know why; we can't understand it. There may be some political trade-offs that are going on, (i.e.) remain silent about the Saudis during these times and all of this. A munkar is a munkar and Saudi Arabia and it's distortion of Islam is a munkar that has to be exposed and it has to be exposed on the basis of Allah and His Prophet anytime anywhere. Some people sort of want to speak in an emotional sense against the Wahhabis; we think emotions should be excluded from this area and they should be presented with the record and with the facts and with the truth. No one here is trying to exaggerate anything or malign anything; we're trying to stick with the facts and with the truth. They are condemned by what they said and what they say and they are condemned by what they did and by what they are doing today. All of that is enough to condemn them. We don't see any excuse for anyone remaining silent about this type of regime.
 
In the past couple of weeks the Saudi regime has been deporting Egyptians back to Egypt and when you ask them why are they deporting these Egyptians back to Egypt they say "they are here illegally." How can you be in Hejaz illegally? Has anyone just taken a moment to think about this? How can a Muslim be in Al Hejaz or in Makkah or in Al Madinah illegally? Who said that? Where did that come from? What basis? They are the ones who say "we are Salafis, we go back to the text, to the Book of Allah, to the Sahaba, to the Tabi'een, to the Tabi'ee At Tabi'een." Where did any of them say it is illegal for a Muslim to be here? Where did they come up with that? But no one is taking a stand. With all of these crimes against the Muslims and all of these crimes against humanity that they have their hand in not many people want to expose them. We still don't understand why. There should be an uproar against these Saudi types.
 
Recently, also in the past week, they passed a law in Saudi Arabia.
And don't spy upon each other (Surah Al Hujurat verse 12)
They want to put cameras in internet cafes. This is an area in which you may be on your file just like you are in your home. This is a privacy. They want to watch a person in his privacy and they want to get away with that? It's not enough that they put these cameras in the Haram (and) in the Masajid that they think are going to go radical. They have their cameras there and now they're bringing it into the internet café?! Where are they going to put them next time around? In people's homes? Where are they going with this? They get away with all of this! This should be public knowledge (and) public information. All Muslims should be speaking about the violation of the sanctity of this coming history and geography of the Muslims. Unfortunately not many people are doing this and because of that the Saudi-Wahhabi regime is getting away, literally, with genocide against innocent people. Of course, inside the Saudi-Wahhabi structure there are forces that are somehow amenable to some type of understanding and there are others who are actually the fanatical types and they don't want to hear anything from anyone. There answer to anything is just to use force, especially when it comes to Muslims. They will hit, they will kill, they will do whatever is necessary when it comes to Muslims but when it comes to anyone else we haven't seen any action on their behalf.
 
We hope, somehow, in a sense we've relayed to you what this aberration of Islam is in Arabia is.
 
We pray and we ask and we plead with Allah to cleanse Al Hejaz from these corrupt rulers and to relieve the Muslims of these evil decision makers and to erase them and their regime from the face of the earth. When that day comes, it shall be a day of celebration for the Muslims and for the rest of humanity.
 
Wa Salaamualaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuh
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on 11 April 2009. 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.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Support Jammu and Kashmir Women who are victim of all victims.
http://jammukashmir.khidmat.org

Donate by Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4GHHMZSYJ7GKQ

Visit http://khidmat.org
.

__,_._,___

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Muslim Unite Sunni and Shia [Must Listen Lectures] Tafseer of the (WILL) Wasiyat-e-Imam Ali AS - H.I. Ali Murtaza Zaidi

 
__,_._,___

Thursday, March 15, 2012

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

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (16 March 2012)
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
 
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.
 

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Support Jammu and Kashmir Women who are victim of all victims.
http://jammukashmir.khidmat.org

Donate by Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4GHHMZSYJ7GKQ

Visit http://khidmat.org
.

__,_._,___

Blog Archive