| THE STREET MMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (6 September 2013) 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.
Dear committed Muslim brothers and dear committed Muslim sisters…
TRANSITIONING TO UTHMAN'S ERA
The khutbah today as it is in other jum'ahs as it is in other times is mid-distance between the Wahy (or) the book (or) the scripture that has come to us from Allah and the developments, the affairs and the issues that are of our own making here and now.
… this is a Qur'an that has been, (in a sense), allocated to you, people, so that you may in your human span of time assimilate its meaning (or) so that it becomes your behavior, your character, conduct as one person or one humanity… (Surah Al Isra' verse 106)
So even though we have been trying in the past few months to unravel the basic elements that have been inherited after fourteen hundred years and more by we, the Muslims of today, to make it possible for some of us to become fanatics and for some others to translate that fanaticism into bloodshed and yet for some others, who are not even Muslims, to come into this fray and then exacerbate the ignorance we have of each other. We have been trying to deal with the basic information some of which has been and is taken out of proportion and the other is twisted to fit into certain agendas (and) we're trying to clear the air so that it is going to become very difficult for trouble makers- whether they have an Islamic feature to them or whether they don't- (and) to make it almost impossible for them to come to this territory and convert it into the killing fields of Muslims.
So we reached in our journey of pertinent knowledge the point where Uthman (radi Allahu anhu), the third successor to Allah's Prophet, now assumed the ultimate decision making position in the Ummah. We spoke throughout these khutbahs of an element as important as and critical and defining as it (that) is almost absent from the language and the discourse and the presentations of khutaba' and Ulema' and fusaha' and that issue is the issue of asabiyah. We said, (to try to make this concept a little more familiar as the word asabiyah is not an English word obviously but to make the meaning of this word more familiar to non-Arabic speakers), asabiyah is in a sense something like a social ego. We all know what our personal ego is but then we have something larger than that that brings people together because they belong to something common among them- that is the only rationale that they have among them. They have something in common (and) that something in common becomes a social selfishness. On another occasion we gave it a definition of a clannish togetherness. When Uthman assumed the position of Khalifah to the Prophet a new element of asabiyah began to appear i.e. within the Arabian asabiyaat that were out there- remember, (just as a reminder), racism can be an asabiyah, ethnicism can be asabiyah, tribalism can be asabiyah, regionalism can be asabiyah, classism can be asabiyah, your own persuasion whatever that is (i.e.) if you look at yourself as a follower of a particular school of thought or even if you consider yourself Muslim that can also become an asabiyah- when Uthman became the leader there's two asabiyahs that were thought of as one. There was the asabiyah of the Arabians and now the new asabiyah of Quraysh. These are two different things (or) two different asabiyaat that from here on are going be begin to confront each other.
Let us begin to detect (and) to focus on this asabiyah now that is breaking out into the public. We said and we repeat here, (we said it before many times and we're going to repeat it here again), this asabiyah during the time of Allah's Prophet and even up to these days that we are speaking about during Uthman's reign was submerged. There was an Islamic character, an Islamic momentum and Islamic standard that managed to sink this asabiyah deep down in the psychology of these peoples who just came out of their own asabiyaat. The jahiliyah had its different strains of asabiyah. We can't interrupt the train of thought after every paragraph and try to have you think of today's world where we have these different strains of asabiyah still alive and kicking and killing! So just to take some examples; this is a history (so) we can't go through the fine print and the fine details of this but to give some examples to demonstrate how this asabiyah expresses itself.
There was a Wali (or) a governor of Al Kufa named Sa'eed ibn Al Aas in the time of Uthman and what used to happen in his residence during certain nights people from hither and yon would come and assemble, meet and discuss, open up. They just express themselves. In that "liberal atmosphere" this same ruler Sa'eed ibn Al Aas said the following… This is there in all the history books. Don't think we're trying to be selective about taking a sentence from here and a sentence from there- these are from the mainstream presentations of this history. He said this sawaad is an orchard of Quraysh. As sawaad was a word that literally means any element, any material, anything that is overwhelmingly black. So he said the Arabians who left the deserts of Al Hejaz and Najd and Tihama and these places were used to the ground being sandy. The colour of sand is what you know- it's not black; but when you come to fertile lands (or) fertile agricultural producing territories they called that as sawaad. So now they're at Kufa in Southern Iraq and they have a vast area of very productive and very fertile land that tends to be dark in colour. So when Sa'eed ibn Al Aas in front of the many who were there with him that evening said this is an orchid belonging to Quraysh there were people there from Quraysh and there were people who were not from Quraysh. There were people there who were originally from Iraq and others who were originally from Arabia- they were from all over the place. So when they heard that they sensed this person just spoke a sentence that is discriminatory against us. Now, we want to back track a little and we want to tell you or ask you: al asabiyah has no meaning to be concerned with if there's no power behind it. Look at racial asabiyah. (In) the world that we live in (or) the society that we are in, the most overwhelming asabiyah in it is the racist asabiyah. OK- let's assume for a moment whoever is expressing their racist asabiyah don't have any power; who would care? They can't harm you, they can't pinch you, they can't affect you in any way. It would be just a statement that blows with the wind (and) you won't even register what was said but when people have power and they express these types of asabiy statements then everyone's antennas go up. Now you take notice of what is being said. This Sa'eed ibn Al Aas- the governor of Kufa, which means he had power, he has influence, he has wealth- just expressed a statement that is giving preference to Quraysh over the rest of the others who are supposed to be Muslims now and equal Muslims. All of you came for Adam (alaihis salaam), and Adam himself comes from dirt, the soil of this earth. So, there is no preference for an Arab versus a non-Arab or the opposite and there's no preference for a white over a black or the opposite, except for the element of taqwa and doing the right thing- that's the Prophet's statement. They all heard it, they all memorised it (and) they all know what it means so why is this guy (or) this person (or) this governor Sa'eed ibn Al Aas saying this fertile land or this Iraqi territory is tantamount to an orchid that belongs to Quraysh? So they took issue with him. You see- we are speaking about the benefits of the Prophetic era. The Prophet didn't tell people you have to shut up! They spoke their conscience. They said what are you saying? Don't you realise what you just said? So an argument began. So this ruler realises that he has opposition. There are Muslims far better than him in rank who are taking issue with him so he consults Uthman in Al Madinah- what am I going to do? There are some people here who disagree with me and they can probably become instigators against the stability of Southern Iraq ? What do I do with these people? Uthman says to him send them to Muawiyah. When some of these individuals arrived in the presence of Muawiyah the same type of issue becomes a back and forth between the Qurayshi asabiyah and those now who even though they maintain an Islamic standard are themselves being threatened because their own asabiyah may flare up. We are all human beings and even though we have a modicum of Islamic appearance and behaviour and history and sacrifices but when someone begins to push you with his asabiyah as a matter of response to that you maintain your Islamic position for a while knowing that if you can do it as an individual those who are with you who belong to this pre-Islamic asabiyah begin to fortify themselves within their own asabiyah. So Muawiyah says to them if it wasn't for Quraysh you would have been a sorry bunch of people. He didn't say if it wasn't for Allah and His Prophet and the committed Muslims, he said if it wasn't for Quraysh. The Prophet is from Quraysh so there is a sense of truth in that but the sugar coating of it seals the poison of asabiyah in it. Then he goes on to say Quraysh never reached the position of pride except by Allah. So he once again sugar-coats the asabiyah with words that seem to be acceptable but they sensed in him this guy is not speaking out of a conviction, he doesn't have the history of Islamic sacrifices, he's a taleeq and all of these other things that go with him so they took issue with him. Just like the way they took issue with the governor of Kufa now they're taking issue with the governor in Damascus
… I'm better than Adam… (Surah Al A'raf verse 12)
and he gave his reasoning for that. He never took issue that "I deny Allah's Wahdaniyyah or Tawheed." Can you find any ayah in the Qur'an that says "Ash Shaytaan took issue with Allah's authority and power?" If you follow the ayaat closely you will find that he confessed to Allah's authority and power but he had a big problem and that problem is the ego that is in him. Oh- he's better than the others and the way this plays out in political life and in social life is the asabiyah. This asabiyah is the element of Shaytaan in us! So right now with the ascension of Uthman to this position we had the asabiyah of Quraysh now in contra-distinction of the asabiyah to the rest of the Arabians and especially towards those from Al Yemen and towards Al Ansar (radi Allahu anhum) in Al Madinah. We know who Al Ansar were and Al Ansar maintained their strong position of support for the Hashimis and we covered this. We said the Hashimis did not display any of this asabiyah. Now Uthman in his position received some flack, (so to speak). It wasn't like this person was in a very comfortable position and that is why there's so much controversy about him. The controversy has to do with basically a question- everyone understands what was done during Uthman's period, especially the last six years, (he ruled for twelve years), were very, very controversial in the sense that some people recognise them as faults of commission (or) intentional faults and others said no it wasn't Uthman himself who was responsible for these faults it was actually the people around him; but as we will see, by Uthman's admission, the people around him were brought there by he, himself. But even when we identify these facts- brothers and sisters these are facts. Allah says concerning people who have preceded us in time and this applies to all whether they preceded the Prophet's time or whether they precede us in time
.. in their narrative there is a moral lesson… (Surah Yusuf verse 111)
Another ayah concerning how we should be learning from the experiences of distant lands, Allah's says
… travel through the world… (Surah Al An'aam verse 11)
Another meaning of this is
… why don't you travel through the lands of this world then you can see you (or) can witness what the outcome (or) what the result of those who are contrarians to Allah… (Surah Al An'aam verse 11)
So here we visit one of these moments in which Uthman finds himself in a hard position. Uthman says to the governor of Egypt at that time, (brothers and sisters, we're going to interfere here for a moment and say to you one of the reasons why we are covering this territory and one of the reasons why what is happening in Egypt today is happening is because we are ignorant! Let us confess! Let us come sit down with our own selves and concede that we are ignorant and we're not supposed to be. We had plenty of time to think and rethink and triple think all of these issues. A thousand four hundred years is not enough?! Let's come out here and be above surface on this- when a Shi'i comes and he tries to be fair in presenting the reign of Umar (radi Allahu anhu) he's accused. There are fingers of accusation that goes against him. And when you dig (and) when you're calm and you bring all the information in front of you and you look at this thing the reason why these fingers of accusations are there is because there's ignorance. The same thing happens with a Sunni. If a Sunni comes and wants to be factual about what happened during Uthman's time then from the same quarters of asabiyah albeit this time in a Sunni context these same hands and fingers begin pointing. Because of what? Because of ignorance! Why have we institutionalised this ignorance for over a millennium? What are people saying in these Masajid? Right now people are out there in the streets (and) there's militaries killing innocent people out there- it has become the number one subject in the world! And it's all attributed to our ignorance! What do you do with a ruler who has some discrepancies, faults, misguidance? If we learnt our history we would be behaving in a different manner today. There wouldn't have been people out there but because we haven't learnt from our history here we are condemned almost all over again. The difference is only in the names of individuals not in their behaviours and that is one of our problems- we begin to define people by their names and not by their behaviour). So here Uthman says to Amr the governor of Egypt, (of all places where what is happening in Egypt today), if I were to hold you to the same standards that Umar held you to you would have been a straight man but I was soft with you (or) I was easy going with you so now you take advantage of me. Uthman is speaking to Amr by Allah if we go back to jahili times I am of a higher status than you are and I've always been better even before I came to the position of authority that I am in. Then Amr's response to him was do away with this. Let's thank Allah that He has honoured us with Muhammad and guided us with him for I have seen Asi ibn Wa'il (which is his father) and I've seen your father Affan in times prior to the Prophet and prior to Islam (and) by Allah Al Aas was more honourable than your father. Listen to this brothers and sisters- this is talk that doesn't belong in an Islamic behaviour or in an Islamic mind. They're trying to compare and show off their fathers (and) who was better but then common sense catches up with Uthman and he humbles himself and he says why are we getting involved with issues (or) with words pertaining to al jahiliyyah? Remember Abu Bakr and Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) were Qurayshis and Uthman is also a Qurayshi but what we detect is the concentration of this asabiyah factor is in Bani Umayyah- the same genealogy, (so to speak), that Uthman belongs to. The concentration of this type of social centeredness was in Bani Umayyah. What you should also know here is that before the Prophet and before the Qur'an and before Islam in that pre-Islamic time Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim are two main strains of Quraysh but Banu Umayyah were more socially and financially influential then Bani Hashim and in those twenty three years of the Prophet's struggle were not enough to place an end for once and for all to the bubbling of this asabiyah beneath the surface. But by way of comparison- during the time of Umar there was nine governorates or nine regions or states that belonged to the Islamic domain. When we study the governors of these domains or states during Umar's time- out of the nine there were only three from Quraysh (but) when we come to Uthman's time there's only one who is not from Quraysh. That's a radical shift. So now the asabiyaat that came from the Bani Umayyah strain of things has become officially preponderant. Let us say for the record because as we said people who do cover this territory or want to cover this territory do so with their own asabiyah and nothing is accomplished! Why do you think there has been an argument of the deaf that has been going on for one thousand and four hundred years? Because everyone is speaking with their own asabiya! You may be saying the right thing but if you're saying it with asabiyah it doesn't go anywhere. When Abu Bakr and Umar ruled- they were from Quraysh obviously but they didn't bring anyone from their own family to become governors or rulers or decision makers or officials- none. There's a statement here, (we'll just skip over it). It is a very important one that Umar says when he appoints his own governors.
During the first two years of Uthman's reign, Muawiyah who was the governor of Damascus added to his jurisdiction Hims, Bin Nasreen and Falasteen- these are three other areas in the Levant . He did that without much of any supervision from anywhere and then we begin to find this asabiyah at work when Uthman relieves Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhu) from being the governor in Al Kufa and he replaced him with Waleed ibn Uqba who is Uthman's half brother from his mother. This was the first serious popular objection. People felt something right now is seriously wrong. Then the governorate of Kufa went from Al Waleed ibn Al Uqbah to Saeed ibn Al Aas. Saeed ibn Al Aas grew up with Uthman in the same chambers but when Waleed ibn Uqbah was relieved of his responsibility he was relieved of it because he was drinking- not drinking water, he was intoxicants. Tell us something is not wrong here? Something is wrong. There are serious mistakes that are going on. How do you deal with that? You bring in the army? You take people to court? You have public opinion express itself as it is supposed to have the freedom to do so? These are questions that we still haven't answered yet! We're sorry that we're so behind. Uthman also relieved Amr ibn Al Aas of his governorship of Egypt
Then, to add more problems to the already exacerbated problems Uthman appoints- remember these are done by Uthman; Uthman takes the first step and when things begin to go wrong he wants to say, (for those who are apologetic for him), he had nothing to do with it. We don't know and we don't think we're required to know exactly what happened because this information is going to be buried in two sides of history but the question is- if we are responsible for our time our life, when things like these begin to happen how do we have recourse to these mistakes? Do we say Uthman ibn Affan appointed his cousin Marwan ibn Hakam to be like the mayor, (it's not exactly the mayor but in those days these positions were not very well defined but a very influential person in the municipality of Al Madinah) and this same person begins to bring all of his relatives to occupy all of these important positions. There were so many other mistakes that Uthman did and there are so many other statements that he said to try to rationalise his position. Unfortunately we have to make do with what we have right here and we'll end this with Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu's) encounter with Uthman in these circumstances. All of this is going on and Ali comes to Uthman to advice him because of all of his relatives right now who are running the affairs of the state. Obviously one of the sore points at that time was that Muawiyah has become or it appears that he is becoming a very influential person. So the way Uthman responds to Ali, (these are his words), don't you know that Umar placed Muawiyah in that position during all of Umar's life? Then I assumed this position after Umar and Muawiyah stays there, meaning why are you blaming me alone? If there's blame, blame should go around. Ali answers him and says to Uthman do you know that Muawiyah used to fear Umar more than a lad who used to be in Umar's house called Yarfa'? Umar was a person who instilled fear- that's his character; so this person who was living with Umar was less fearful of Umar than Muawiyah who was living a thousand or so miles away. Then Uthman says of course I'm aware of that. Then Ali said but Muawiyah is making decisions in exclusion to you and you are aware of it. Muawiyah used to tell people well this is the way Uthman wants it. Ali is still speaking to Uthman this news reaches you, you know what's happening but you don't take issue with Muawiyah. Uthman feels to a certain extent that he is being compared with Umar and anyone who is familiar with these issues knows that there's no comparison. When some people come to him and begin to express themselves and they are expressing the way they feel, (many of them are very sincere); remember Uthman was in Al Madinah, he wasn't in Makkah… This is another counter argument for those who say that there was a deliberate attempt to feed the asabiyah by some of these individuals, Uthman included. If there was a deliberate attempt he could have easily moved to Makkah (and) he would have found a nest (or) a support base for his asabiyah- he didn't do that. So this is not an easy issue. Uthman is now speaking to public opinion he said OK- some of you are finding fault with me. Some of you are blaming me for certain things but it seems like when Umar was doing these certain things that you are scoring against me you were alright with it? Uthman is saying but the problem is Umar was stepping on you with his foot and he was striking you with his hand and he was muffling you with his tongue so you yielded to him in things that you liked and in things that you disliked; as for me, (there's an expression here that says), I caused my shoulder to be beneath you meaning that I was humble to you. Uthman is speaking here, I wasn't behaving in the same way as Umar was. My hand, my tongue (and) all of me did not engage you in any conflict. I wasn't brutal with you, he's telling them, and so because I'm this nice person now everyone is trying to take advantage of me? Now everyone is turning against me? Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (radi Allahu anhu) came to Uthman. Remember Abdur Rahman ibn Awf? He was the balancer in the six of those shura members after Umar was stabbed to death and he was the one who had to make the decision at the end because ibn Awf sensed that there is almost an equal division between those who wanted Uthman to be the leader and those who wanted Ali to be the leader. After all of these years seeing what had happened ibn Awf says to Uthman I pushed you ahead meaning ahead of Ali under the condition that you follow in the footsteps (and) in the character of Abi Bakr and Umar but you turned out to be on the other side of what they were and you gave preference to your own family, (it's like saying), you walked over the necks of the Muslim populace. Then Uthman said Umar put a distance between him and his family for Allah's sake and I narrowed the distance between me and my family for Allah's sake. The problem is some people think he was saying this and lying about it- we're talking about Muslims here; other people think that he was saying that because that was actually who he was. Then Abdur Rahman ibn Awf said to Uthman I will never speak to you after today and for the rest of his life Abdur Rahman ibn Awf never spoke to Uthman not even one word even when ibn Awf was dying. When he was on his death bed Uthman came to visit him (and) ibn Awf turned his face away from Uthman and looked at the wall. He would not even look at him.
There were others who took issue with Uthman especially with Uthman's financial policies like Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (radi Allahu anhu) and was subjected to a beating in which some of his ribs were broken. The story of Abu Dharr (radi Allahu anhu) and him taking issue with Uthman's policies are well known. We've covered that territory before and there's others who took issue with Uthman.
There's one more issue that is there that feeds into some type of asabiyah and that is Abdullah ibn Saba'. There's a personality that some people think "is one of the most damaging individuals that caused division and strife among Muslims" and there are other Muslims who say "this individual doesn't exist to begin with." There we have it! We're not here to try to develop an argument for or against the presence of this person. The question here is in an atmosphere like this- you know the tension and the coming apart because when Uthman was under siege for around forty days and then assassinated the Muslims from there on went their separate ways. Some of them blaming Uthman for the tragedy and some of them blaming his killers for the tragedy. During these times do you believe- just put your mind to rest and put it in high gear and think- in conditions like this do we not have trouble makers in society- whether it's a society hundred of years ago or today? We don't have people who fish in troubled waters? That is only a question for those who want to say "no, there was actually no third parties who were working on dividing the Muslims?" That's like telling today's Muslims there's no other people out there who are working on dividing you, you have your own problems. We know we have our own problems- we are confessing we are ignorant. What more do you want us to say? We are ignorant of our own selves but we want you to know also even if we are ignorant of our own selves we are not as ignorant as to say that there are no trouble makers who are coming to create wars out of this ignorance.
Oh you who are securely committed to Allah guard against Allah as is due to Him in the full measurement of this guard and do not die except in a state of submission to Him. And hold firm to Allah's binding matter all of you- no exceptions- and be not divided; and bare in mind Allah's provision, favour and privilege upon you when you (who are now Committed Muslims), were once enemies of each other and then He reconciled your hearts and familiarized and acquainted you with each other and then, due to this provision, favour and privilege you became brethren of each other; you were on the edge of a pit of fire and Allah saved you from it; it is with this is mind and with understanding these dynamics and factors that Allah is going to guide us. (Surah Aal Imran verse 102-103)
Dear committed Muslims…
Allah says
… so that the course of action of criminals should become manifestly clear to you. (Surah Al An'aam verse 55)
What do you expect us to say on a Friday like this when there is a master plan to set committed Muslims back for generations? We are referring to what is happening today and what has happened in the previous days and weeks in Egypt
The first one is that some Muslims seem to have double standards. They are for legitimacy in Egypt but it seems like they can't stand for that same legitimacy in other places, particularly here in Washington DC Cairo and they are against elections in the Islamic Centre in Washington DC
The other observation to this is even though we have brothers who try to ignore us we in the strongest of words and in the strongest of terms assail, we repudiate and we condemn the Egyptian military. One of the sincere brothers in Egypt Egypt Washington DC against elections, against democracy (and) against the free will of the Muslims we are opposed to it everywhere and anywhere in the world, Egypt Guantanamo
… they think every loud voice is against them; they are the enemies as they should be… (Surah Al Munafiqun verse 4)
Some Muslims want diplomacy, they want a political atmosphere between them and these officials over here so they go and they break their fast and they break their bread and they break their vows in the White House. What did they get out of this? Ask them! The White House no longer has the courage to tell us who they are! Have you ever come across their names? Who are they? We want to know! They used to tell us several years ago. If things are going hunky dory between them on both sides the least they can do is tell us who were the attendees who attended. Besides the officials, the ambassadors and those who represent majoritarian Islamic countries who are the people from the Washington DC
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 16 August 2013 on the sidewalk of Embassy Row in Washington D.C.
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (2) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment