Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Muslim Unite Sunni and Shia KHUTBAH : SUNNIS AND SHI’AHS- NOT WHO THEY THINK THEY ARE

 

THE STREET MMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (27 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 Muslims, brothers and sisters


SUNNIS AND SHI'AHS- NOT WHO THEY THINK THEY ARE
As you all know, we're sure especially you who are here and most of those who tune in- some of you might not know but there's about fifty other individuals who tune in on a daily basis after this Jum'ah so in the course of this week there is about three hundred to four hundred other individuals who listen to this khutbah), some of them are listening because they are sincere (and) some of them are listening because they are trouble makers- you understand what is taking place in the real world around us. We have exerted our mental and our physical capacity at trying to expose the stratagem (and) the master plan of these Shayateen and towards that end we will continue with Allah's help and with His guidance. We mentioned earlier, many times, that asabiyah (or) this self centeredness- whether it's a tribal self centeredness or whether it's a nationalistic self centeredness or whether it's a racist self centeredness, it comes in many forms; whatever it is- its an enemy to the committed Muslims because it plays itself out in warfare just like we are seeing in the real world. You can place these khutbahs in the context of the killings that are going on, explosions, pass by shootings, throwing hand grenades, opening fire randomly in certain areas just because they belong to Sunnis or Shi'is or whatever. All of this is meant to resuscitate this asabiyah that we have been exposing so at least we don't fall prey to their plans. So we're going back to the formative years that are cited by today's asabi people. That's what they cite. They go back and they say "this is what Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu) did or said and this is what Muawiyah did or said and that's what Aa'ishah (radi Allahu anha) did or said." So they go back there to try to fuel their own social egos- another word for asabiyah. In the course of these Jum'ahs with the taqwa of Allah our number one concern- we're not here to play politics! Some of these Masajid want to play politics; some of these Masajid just want numbers; some of these Masajid are just this status quo- live and let live; some of these Masajid are the mercenary types and goes on and on. We thank Allah that we don't fall into that category and we think we attest to the fact, just by being here, that we have broken loose from these asabiyaat. We, Sunnis and Shi'is, are here; black and white- we are here; males and females- we are here; rich and poor… In any which way you want to look at it we've broken through these asabiyah barriers. The major asabiyah in this country is the racist asabiyah- that's the major one. The sectarian asabiyah is a new comer and it's not as prevalent as the racist asabiyah is here. So we're going to go back and deconstruct this sectarian asabiyah. We've been and we continue to be in the process of deconstructing it.

Most Muslims agree and other objective thinkers agree that much of today's sectarian polarisation (and) the sectarian misunderstandings can be traced to the time when Muawiyah- at that time he wasn't king, he was a governor in Ash Shaam- spread the notion that he and his clan and those who agree with him are the only ones who qualify to address the assassination of Uthman (radi Allahu anhu). So they were seeking revenge for the assassination of Uthman outside of law and order. There's supposed to be law and order; there's supposed to be a leader; there's supposed to be a type of authority; there's supposed to be a type of organised civic society, (as today's words would have it), but he broke with all of that and this is what happened. If all the Muslims gave bai'ah to Ali so why didn't this person in that context agree with all of the Muslims and place this responsibility in the hands of the central government in Al Madinah? He didn't do that. Had he done that we probably would not be struggling with the history that we have but that's what happened. This is a fact. We're stating something that actually happened. So when he did that he forced Ali to take the position of bringing into the context of law and order this breakaway Muawiyah; because it was at this point that Muawiyah was the one who broke away from Al Jama'ah. There are some either ignorant or some mercenary Sunnis who give the impression later on and it lives up until today that Shi'is broke away from Al Jama'ah. This is absolutely wrong! It was Muawiyah who broke away from Al Jama'ah. He broke away from the Imamah (or) the leadership of Ali ibn Abi Talib and thus he broke away from the rest of the Muslim's bai'ah to Ali. He took this province of Ash Shaam, the Levant, under his firm control and from there he began to say he is the one who is going to level this issue of killing Uthman off. So we, the Muslims, had two now opposite positions. This belongs to us. We don't care how you look at this or how you read this or how you explain it- this overall history belongs to all of us. It is very unfortunate that in today's world we have those who are the majority of Muslims who have inherited the description of Sunnis- they don't even know what it means?! The reason why we say they don't know what it means is because we know a lot of people who scrutinise almost every word that's being said on this Mimbar (or) from this Mimbar but when we say they don't know what it means we mean by that, that they don't know what it means in the political context. Of course, any Sunni would know what it means to be a Sunni as far as offering his prayers, his rituals, etc. but when it comes to this political context that we are trying to throw light on they don't know what it means! If they did know what it means they would not be today fuelling their own asabiyah by saying "the Shi'is are a breakaway sect from Islam." If we understood our own history no one would say that, but that's the mainstream information about this subject. So as these positions hardened there was Al Jamal, Siffin and An Nahrawaan- the three major political military battles that took place. There are some people who may be in the right camp or who may be on the wrong side but in themselves they are sincere. It's like in this Masjid here- they're in the wrong camp but some individuals who go in this Masjid in themselves may be sincere at times. Our position, we think, is a position of righteousness but it doesn't mean that we don't have individuals who come here, sit down and listen (but) who have other things on their minds- they're up to no good. So this happened at those initial times. So there's a person by the name of Shabath ibn Rab'i who comes up to Ali when he see that this is becoming a very serious military division that's going to have the potential of splitting the Muslims probably forever- it's a life and death issue- and says to Ali, out of his sincerity, O Emir Al Mu'minin, would you not win over Muawiyah by giving him some type of authority and also give him some type of status so that he can appreciate what you do for him after doing, meaning raise the person, give him some status. He is already the governor of Ash Shaam. OK- everyone knows that but right now he is in a renegade position. This person, Shabath, is trying to say to Ali try to contain this guy, give him something, add a little more to what he has and have everyone know that you're not in a position to fight him but you're in a position to contain him. Of course, Ali knew Muawiyah much better than this person of maybe goodwill he knew him so he didn't give him anything. Once again what is at work here is asabiyah. Banu Umayyah had this asabiyah and from there this asabiyah has transformed itself to a political party which has nothing to do with the words that we do nowadays. People exchange these words Sunnis and Shi'is (but) what we're looking at here has nothing to do with today's average person's understanding of those calling themselves Sunnis and those calling themselves Shi'is. So Ali addressed this asabiyah. Before we quote Ali, let us remind some of you of the asabiyah that is mentioned in the Qur'an. The children of Ya'qub (alayhi as salaam) who is a Prophet- this is a family. Ya'qub had ten or twelve or so many children. Yaqub's children expressed an asabiyah. The reason they could not get along with their brother Yusuf (alayhi as salaam)- this is their brother and his brother- was because of asabiyah. They said in the ayah- you can review these ayaat at the beginning of Surah Yusuf
… we see that our father is inclined more towards our brother Yusuf and in his inclination to our brother Yusuf he is sidelining us being that we are an usbah i.e. among ourselves put together we are the members of an asabiyyah… (Surah Yusuf verse 8)
From there on they are called Bani Isra'eel (and) because of their asabiyah they become the Israelis and today they have explained their racist, discriminatory, militarist, murderous nation state on the basis of this asabiyah. Then they said
… certainly our father… (Surah Yusuf verse 8)
Who's their father? Ya'qub
… is in a manifest obscurity (or) he is in a manifest deviation of direction. (Surah Yusuf verse 8)
When this asabiyah presented itself during his time the Prophet said part with it because it has a foul odour to it- just a little remember from the Qur'an and from the Sunnah. Now we come to Ali- what did he say about this asabiyah that is now roaring? The asabiyah before was sort of managed in a concealed manner- Oh, it's in the family of Ya'qub (and) there is no propaganda about it. The asabiyah was about to breakout in the time of Allah's Prophet between the Muhajarin and the Ansar (radi Allahu anhum) (in) one incident and it was smothered because of the Prophet's strict wording. Now this asabiyah has taken on a military proportion- it has the thunder and the roar of militaries so Ali said the following in this context extinguish what has been concealed in your hearts of the combustion of asabiyah- see, it was there- put out the bad feelings of jahiliyyah because this asabiyah could be traced all the way to the pre-Islamic times, when this asabiyah which is akin to fire in the belly happens within a Muslim it is because of the influence of Ash Shaytaan (or) it is because of the instigation of Ash Shaytaan (or) it's because of the stirring of Ash Shaytaan. Now you can read this asabiyah in history, we're giving you the historical context but you can also read this in today's world- if asabiyah flares up. You go to a certain Masjid and you begin to sense there's a sectarian asabiyah in this Masjid or you begin to sense there's a racist asabiyah in this Masjid or you begin to sense there's a nationalist asabiyah in that Masjid- it's all asabiyah. Al asabiyah was so pronounced but Islam was there in the time we are speaking about- remember, this was the first century of Islam. During that time there were tribes. One tribe was split. Some of that tribe was with the Umawis and some of that tribe were with the Alawis and you can put together a bunch of these tribes and you'll find some of them on this side and some of them on the other side. We're taking right now a statement taken from a particular person who expressed the way he felt about this. He saw he was on one side with some of his tribe fighting against some of his tribe who belonged to the opposite side. They're fighting- this is a war. He comes from the tribe of Azd and part of that Azdi tribe was in Iraq and part of it was in Ash Shaam. This person's name was Mihnath ibn Salim and here he is expressing how he feels about of this because now Islam, meaning the commitment to Allah absent the asabiyah, has forced the Muslims to be divided- some of these Muslims with their asabiyah and some of them without. He says one of the most serious and damaging problem is that we have been forced to face off against our own people. He's speaking about his own people coming from the Azdi tribe. By Allah what we are doing is we are cutting off our hands with our own hands and now we are clipping our own wings using our own swords- that's how. Let us be more down to the point here- you see part of your family on the other side of the firing line and you're shooting and they're shooting; both of you are shooting each other. This is how a person who still has an asabiyah in him will think about this quote. He expressed himself and this is just one expression of many others that come to us or should come to us and inform us of today so that we are not put in the same position to think of these affairs within an asabi mind.

When Ali made up his mind to go to Siffin, one of the individuals around him in his camp came to him protesting. He said do you want to take us to our brothers from the people of Ash Shaam so that we kill them the same way you took us to fight against the people of Basra, i.e. the ones we took on in warfare? (This is) another expression of how this thing, meaning this military encounter between two sides, was not an easy thing (or) was not an easy decision that was implemented by all who were involved.

There's a person by the name of Shimirithn Abd Al Khath'amee. Don't confuse one Shimir with another Shimir. This Shimir was from the people of Ash Shaam. He attacked another person whose name is Abu Ka'b. Abu Ka'b was the leader of the Khath'am asabiyyah in Al Kufa. History books will tell you Khath'am tribe or Khath'am clan or Khath'am descendants, etc. We're skipping these words because we want you to go to the heart of the issue- the heart of the issue is this asabiyah confrontation. So he strikes him and he kills him. They belong to the same extended family and because of the asabiyah that was fuelled by Muawiyah this is what happened. So he turns around, he walks away and he is crying. He did this not only to any individual from his extended family, this was a noble person (or) a chieftain of his own Khath'am tribe and he says may Allah have mercy on you- Abu Ka'b. Remember, the killer comes from Ash Shaam- meaning that he's in Muawiyah's camp and he killed another one of his extended family in Ali's camp and he felt very sad, remorseful (or) very bad that all of this had happened. Then he said may Allah have mercy on you. I killed you to obey people and you are more dear to me than these people. Who is the people he's referring to? He's referring to Muawiyah's camp. The killer is saying but I don't know what to say. The only thing that I can see is Ash Shaytaan has managed to place this sedition between us and among us and I could only see Quraysh now is playing with us. Remember Quraysh is that argument that Muawiyah had to justify his political position in taking revenge for the assassination of Uthman. A person like this saw through what he was doing- the asabiyah.

Amr ibn Al Aas who counsels Muawiyah in the battle of Siffin tells him the following: we raise the mus'hafs on our swords and we say whatever is in these masahif is to judge our differences (i.e.) the differences we have between each other or these masahifs serve to adjudicate the disputes that we have. This was a move (or) this was a ploy to instigate within the camp of Ali another form of asabiyah- the holier than thou phenomenon. So when this happened in the camp that was in the right side of the issue because of a self-centredness among certain elements in that camp we had a new asabiyah that Ali would deal with later on in the battle of An Nahrawaan.

Now, we're going to stop here for a moment and ask you- you've been listening to all of this, can anyone of you, (with the decades of your lifetime with you), churn out this asabiyah today that has Muslims killing Muslims? You've heard the narrative. We ask you, what makes today a Muslim able to kill another Muslim citing the history that we are covering? Obviously it is a wrong reading of this history; otherwise if you're just reading this like facts (and) trying to cover this territory like they're facts… Gravity is a law of physics. When someone speaks about gravity does anyone feel an asabiyah? (Does) anyone feel a charge against someone else? No, because it's a fact. If we can revisit these events as facts minus this asabiyah we will clear this charged atmosphere that right now is fuelling civil wars. So when this new ploy was used (i.e.) raise these masahif some people thought that there is goodwill on the other side (i.e.) right now they want to arbitrate these differences using the Qur'an (or) Allah's words themselves (or) the ayaat and the suwar of the Qur'an. What more do you want? So when Ali realised that some people right now are beginning to form a new asabiyah for themselves he said to them woe to you! They don't raise it for the purposes that you see. They are not even versed on its own meanings, meaning the meanings of masahif they are raising. What would cause anyone to feel an asabiyah when anyone mentions this unless there's some type of person who's covering this history that himself is emitting asabiyah and is not able to present these issues as facts! So what he does is he talks through the subject matter verbally but non-verbally his gestures (and) his movements emit this poisonous asabiyah! Here we go- that's another fuel that's high octane for this civil strife and these civil wars that these Shayateen are planning. Ali goes on and says the only reason why they have raised this for you is to fool you, to out manoeuvre you and to trap you. Some of his followers, (we'll just mention a few names), Al Ash'af ibn Qais, Mis'ar ibn Fadaqi, Tamimi and Zayd ibn Hissin said to him those folks are calling us to Allah's book and you are calling us to the sword. They are saying to Ali you will recall Al Ashtar, who's like the military commander in one of the battles, and withhold him from killing other Muslims or else we're going to do to you what was done to Uthman. What do you do when you are put in a position like this? Ali knew right now we have a new asabiyah. Now this asabiyah has come to his own camp. How are you going to deal with this? He had to deal with it in the best possible way. Right now it's not enough to have one civil war, you're going to have another internal (or) insider civil war?! We can't have that happen. So he had to acquiesced; not because he didn't know the truth (or) not because he was weak and not because he was playing politics. He was doing this to as much as possible shrink (and) collapse the asabiyah right now that has shown its face in his own camp. Then there's a person- a go between. Now both sides have accepted the arbitration, at tahkeem. Now there's a person who is going between both sides. The person who is going between both sides is Al Ash'ath. We notice that one of the decisions that was a very major difference between him and Ali… Remember both of them are in the same camp. Ali wanted Abdullah ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) to represent his side in this arbitration and this Ash'ath did not want that to happen because of the asabiyah. Abdullah ibn Abbas is the cousin of Ali. So even though they may make the wrong decision, Al Ash'ath preferred Abu Musa Al Asha'ri and Abu Musa Al Asha'ri eventually filled in that role but the way the decision was made was to avoid the complicating asabiyah not to feed this asabiyah anymore. From here on we knew how history developed. There was this class of people called Al Qurra' in Iraq. They were the first ones who disagreed with Ali (saying) he should go to this tahkeem. When they saw the gimmicks and the shenanigans by the other side, in other words, when they wouldn't listen to Ali when he was advising them they had to suffer (and) meet the other side and realise that they were fooled (and) that they were tricked. Then they turned to an extreme that manifested an asabiyah known as Al Khawarij and they hid under that word
… there is no governance except that which belongs to Allah. (Surah Al An'aam verse 57)
Ali said in another narrative they're saying there shouldn't be any type of governorship but there has to be some type of governorship whether it is in the right direction or in the wrong direction or else we'd rather be living in a jungle. When you don't have an Amarah go to a jungle and live there- there's no Amarah there but if you have civil society, that civil society needs decision makers and whether those decision makers are making their decisions in a way that is in the virtue of Allah or whether they are making it in a way that is in the vice of Ash Shaytaan, society requires it. We dealt with asabiyah when it was beneath the surface and we dealt with asabiyah when it was in transition (and) from here on (i.e.) from Siffin onwards this asabiyah became what we call in today's world political parties and when we speak about political parties we mean political parties that had as their engine and as their fuel and as their transmission this asabiyah.

To try to give this a finishing touch… Because we've inherited fourteen centuries of asabiyah, in today's world when the average person says or uses the word Shi'ah then automatically what comes to mind is, in one way or the other (and) in one degree or the other by whatever explanation or the other, they are followers of Ali. There's so many versions (and) there are so many interpretations of this that goes beyond numbers but anyone who says the word Shi'ah today he automatically think "OK- these are the followers of Ali." This understanding today is a result of an accumulation of these asabiyaat because the word Shi'ah doesn't mean that in the linguistic depth of the word and it doesn't mean that in the political definition of the word in the Qur'an and in the Sunnah. We're going to tell you what we mean by this.

First of all let us quote for you the takheem. When both sides, the side of Ali and the side of king Muawiyah, decided that they are going to arbitrate the whole affair the following was written. OK- this is what both agreed to adjudicate Ali ibn Abi Talib and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, Ali on behalf of the people of Iraq and whoever is included in their partisanship- because this is a new political development, it has become a political position- inclusive of Al Mu'mineen and Al Muslimeen. OK- up until here you say this proves not what you're saying, it proves that the Shi'ah of Ali are the people of Iraq, but it doesn't stop here. The following sentence says the adjudication of Muawiyah on behalf of the people of Ash Shaam and whoever of Muawiyah's Shi'ah… Muawiyah had his Shi'ah in the wording of the tahkeem that was agreed upon by both sides. (It's) the same wording for the two different political and ideological positions. Ali and his Shi'ah and Muawiyah and his Shi'ah and no one said there's something wrong with this wording- omit that (and) say Muawiyah and his supporters or Muawiyah and his companions. No one said that! This is the way the wording of the takheem was put together by both sides. When you review the word ash Shi'ah in the Qur'an, it doesn't have the meaning that was gained throughout these fourteen centuries of a growing asabiyah. We know we're going to be maybe a little too harsh for some people- it doesn't matter bare with us. There's something called tough love! Because of the asabiyaat that we have, the people around the Prophet are called sahaba- that's also looking at the word sahaba just like looking at the word Shi'ah. It doesn't mean something peculiar to Sunnis. It doesn't mean that linguistically (and) it doesn't mean that when you follow it in the Qur'an and even in the hadiths. So if Shi'ah doesn't mean what it means to us today and Sahaba doesn't mean what it means to us today- if we can liberate ourselves, go back to the origin and the source linguistically and Qur'anically- who of you will feel comfortable? This is going to strike your own personal asabiyah! Who of you is going to feel comfortable- even though the Qur'an and the Sunnah validates what we're going to say- to say Shiat Rasulillah instead of saying As'haab Rasulillah? (If) you say Shi'atu Rasulillah that throws a monkey wrench in the asabi way of thinking! Instead of saying Shi'atu Ali you say As'haab Ali that also throws a monkey wrench in the asabi mind because you've grown conditioned and accustomed and engineered to say certain things in certain ways without even thinking through what you said! You just inherit that! You hear a scholar you have confidence in or any person you have confidence in and you take it for granted. Rethink! These issues have to be rethought so that we're not out there killing ourselves.

Dearest committed Muslims and Muslimaat…
The asabiyah that we have been talking about is playing itself out in today's world. Unfortunately, because we don't think for ourselves- what happens when we don't think for ourselves (is) the world of thoughts doesn't tolerate a vacuum- so when we don't think for ourselves there are others who come and fill in the void. They begin to do the thinking for us. So when we don't know who we are (and) when we can't liberate ourselves from this asabiyah… we want to remind some of you because some of you have lived here in the Washington DC area for the past thirty years and those of you who haven't lived here but have experienced what we have experienced for the past thirty years have heard about it- let us go back (and) take your minds back to the time the Islamic Center was confiscated. We're parting from the subject of asabiyah when they, by force, placed us, the elected Muslims, out of the Islamic Center in "the country of democracy (and) the land of the brave and the land of the free" or whatever that is they did it with knowledge of asabiyah. Remember the people they brought in? To satisfy the issue of the Palestinian asabiyah they brought in a Palestinian Imam. He has passed away (and) he has gone on to his maker. To satisfy the Iranian asabiyah they had an Irani person along with that gang. To satisfy the Shi'i asabiyah they brought in a Shi'i from Southern Lebanon. To satisfy the African asabiyah or black asabiyah, (we know different people have different terminologies out there- we don't mean to get on anyone's nerves by using one or two of these words; we're trying to communicate), they brought in the security force (or) the vigilante team. That was African-American. So what they did was they chose! We're not thinking for ourselves. Among ourselves we had problems. We had some of us beginning to show symptoms of asabiyah rivalry. Sunni and Shi'i rivalry among us! Just like you had among Ali's camp this asabiyah that began to show itself we had among us asabiyah that began to show itself. These people who are out there listening and watching and studying said "OK- now is the right time to move in" and they moved in. It wasn't that all of this was done in the absence of understanding the history of asabiyah and the current reality of asabiyah. Some of us fell for this and even after thirty years and the information that has come your way only a handful of individuals- and this is being optimistic- can look back at thirty years and think through the elements of asabiyah that continue to work up until this very day. And one asabiyah feeds the other! We've seen this interplay in these thirty years. You're going to up the Sunni asabiyah, someone else is going to up the Shi'i asabiyah. You're going to play on the racist asabiyah- they brought in a person who went to the Mimbar who is appealing to African-Americans because he has African-American features. Asabiyah here! They played the asabiyah card. Behind this whole scenario, the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia there, behind the scenes, is pulling all of these asabiyah strings- African-American strings, Arabian strings, Sunni strings. You name the strings and the Shi'is who come along with it- he was pulling all of these strings. And where were you? Where were we? Who was thinking through this process? Isn't it about time that we're not fooled for more than thirty years and we see through all of this? We remember, (we don't want to be mentioning the word I in the khutbah), there were some African-American brothers who we knew for a long time who also got caught up in this asabiyah drift of things. Where are they?

This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 6 September 2013 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 eventually irritated and threatened the Middle-East Ambassadors who control the Masjid. Finally, the Imam, his family, and other Muslims faithful to the course of Islam were forced out, into the streets. This khutbah originates from the sidewalk across the street from the Islamic Center, currently under seige.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Muslim Unite Sunni and Shia KHUTBAH : IN A WORLD OF POST ISLAMIC ASABIYAH- ALI HAD NONE

 

THE STREET MMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (20 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 brothers and sisters, Muslims of a lifelong commitment
IN A WORLD OF POST ISLAMIC ASABIYAH- ALI HAD NONE
As you all know, the atmospherics are charged nowadays almost in a global fashion and the centre of attention happens to be the geographical area called Syria and each block of interest approaches the issue from its own selfish interpretation of that developing civil war. We have tried our best in the past months to chip away at the basic ingredients that have been mixed together to give us the misunderstandings, the ignorance, the tension and from that the bad feelings and the hostilities and the wars that are currently costing innocent people their lives- innocent people regardless of their geographical areas and regardless of their religious persuasions. They're innocent! So we will continue, (even though yours in faith here tried to see whether we should continue), with this approach of going to the elementary elements in what has become a sectarian polarisation among the Muslims that has given itself out to those who are trying to use this division for their own expansionist, occupationist, capitalist and other purposes. So we will continue to focus on those elements that they, meaning the information masters out there who are in control of the mainstream media, are trying to play up so that we begin to take opposite sides of each other. We'll continue to go into those historical facts and try to be as objective as is humanly possible to present them so that to take away the gunpowder from those who are trying to ignite these differences into bloodshed and warfare.
It goes without saying that we have repeated many times the very fundamental issue of the Muslims being a fraternity. We've quoted many hadiths and we've quoted many ayaat to this end and to this affect. Just as a reminder we will quote an ayah and a hadith from the many ayaat and ahadith. Allah says
And hold firm to Allah's binding matter all of you- no exceptions- and be not divided… (Surah Aal Imran verse 103)
This is an order from Allah that we hold firm to the extension of Allah to us and be not divided. The Prophet of Allah says the Muslims in their mutual affection for each other (or) in their reciprocal concern for each other (or) in their exchange of grace amongst each other as one integral body. If Allah is telling us this and the Prophet is explaining it to us in his words look at the Muslims today- what is happening? It's as if someone took the ayah and the ahadith understood exactly what it is saying and then reversed it so that we appear to be antagonistic towards each other (and) we appear to be divided amongst each other. Look at what Allah and His Prophet are saying and look at what we are doing- two different things! That's why we think it behoves us to go back to those formative years where Muslim people begin whichever side these people are on begin to quote a certain incident or refer to a certain historical development and say "look- I'm on the right side" and so the other Muslim has to be on the wrong side or he has to be at fault automatically- just like that, with that simplicity. So in our tracing of this whole issue we emphasize almost repetitiously that the key element in all of this is what is referred to as al asabiyah. When this character of asabiyah presented itself in the community of Al Madinah the Prophet of Allah said do away with it because it has a fowl odour to it (or) do away with this asabiyah (or) part with this asabiyah (or) kick away this asabiyah because, (and here's another word that everyone understands), it stinks. This is the asabiyah that is at the roots of what the imperialists and the Zionists are trying to work on so that they can plunge that whole geography there that holds the promise of breaking away from their imperialist and Zionist control into decades if not centuries of civil wars rotating from one country to another- that' why its so important to go back to those citations that some fanatical Sunnis use and some fanatical Shi'is use. When they use them, they use them with the attitude and the character of this unwanted asabiyah.
So to carry on where we left off, (in these many weeks that have preceded this week), we reached the time period, (and please don't think about this as historical lessons, we're not here for the purpose of a historical narrative; we are here to focus our hearts and our minds on the issues that are playing out today so that they don't play out in this bloody manner), where the operational centre of the Muslims moved from Madinah to Al Kufa. This was in the immediate aftermath of Ma'rakat Al Jamal, the conflict or the battle of Al Jamal- that is when we had two asabiyahs that became political party asabiyaat. They were no longer the social asabiyah that was known in the Arabian Peninsula, now they became something like what we have in today's world (i.e.) political parties that disagree on issues. (We have to say this and probably have to repeat it many times because what some people do is they listen to one khutbah and they say "look (or) listen to what he said." One khutbah has to be placed in the context of all the other khutbahs! Don't listen to this khutbah or one khutbah by itself, listen to all of them. Put all of the pieces of the puzzle together and then after that express yourself). So here we are in this period of time to which both Sunnis and Shi'is refer to try to make or to give some type of credibility to their position. It's not the fact that they refer to this- that's fine; anyone can refer to it. The issue is when they refer to it they refer to it with asabiyah. This is the problem. This has been the problem all along and this is the one particular issue that only a few of us can get a very good grip on. So ask yourself- if you can free yourself from centuries of inherited asabiyah- why did the centre of Islamic operational decision making move from Al Madinah to Al Kufa? You'd expect (that) if there's going to be any move from Al Madinah to anywhere it would be from Al Madinah to Makkah- that wasn't the case! Anyone who is trying to understand this history (and) if they're trying to read it and they are not aware of the asabiyaat that were interplaying at the time because you had a jahiliyah that was overcome by Islam in the Prophet's years but when the Prophet passed away all of those pre-Islamic power centres, (as it were), tried to recede back into their pre-Islamic peculiarity which was their own particular asabiyah. So the reason why, (just to give it to you in a sentence), why Al Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu) moved the centre of operations from Al Madinah to Al Kufa was because of this asabiyah that was now making a strong comeback throughout the Arabian Peninsula. At this time, because of the movement of this Islam away from Al Hejaz (and) away from the Arabian Peninsula, those areas that became new Islamic areas began to have a considerable rate in this growing and in this flourishing Islamic expansion and here is where we noticed that what was previously an asabiyah in the social sense has become an asabiyah in the political sense. Let us say, (before we begin quoting some individuals here), that Ali had to fight three wars because of this asabiyah. Remember we said in his camp there was no asabiyah. Banu Hashim did not have an asabiyah and all the rest were trying to plan their political future around their own specific asabiyah and Ali had to deal with these on three occasions (or) on three warfronts (viz.) Al Jamal and then Siffin and then An Nahrawaan and in all of these positions Ali had the truth on his side. We think this is the consensus of the Muslims. Even those who have not thought through it will agree with us. No one is going to come and say "Ali was wrong in Al Jamal or Ali was wrong in As Siffin or An Nahrawaan." What they will say is "we don't want to judge this whole affair." They're not going to say he was wrong and there are exceptions to this rule but the exceptions remain exceptions. S when Ali moved his centre of power in his last years from Al Madinah to Al Kufa he did that with a type of citizenry (or) with a type of population that he described. We're going to take his own words, he said what are we to do with a people who possess us and we don't possess them? This is the literal translation of it, they own us and we don't own them meaning they have more influence over us than we have influence over them. Your desert Arabians have rushed to them and they, this crowd that appears to be in possession of the public affair are all around, they are in you, they are with you, they are beside you and they are doing whatever they want to do. This being the case, do you see any area (or) any possibility of we being able to do what has to be done? This is a description of a social fabric that has a tendencies of coming apart. We know and we mentioned this earlier that when this political polarisation took place Al Basrah in Southern Iraq took the side of A'aishah, Talha and Az Zubayr (radi Allahu anhum) and Al Kufa took the side of Ali. If these sides were without asabiyah we probably would not have the legacies of Sunnis and Shi'is i.e. this divisive tradition that worked itself into our Masajid, into our programs, into our curricular, etc. etc. that we have today. If there was no asabiyah at that time we would have just been left with the facts and when you deal with the facts it's easy. When someone says one and one is two, (we're parting here for a minute), that's a fact. It means no asabiyah. No one says it with a type of selfishness or clannishness or self-centredness in politics (or) in society or whatever. (Does) anyone sense any asabiyah there? One and one is two! (Does) anyone feel any asabiyah there by somebody quoting that? No! Because it's a fact. Facts don't need asabiyah but here when we are recalling our own history instead of recalling it just like that (i.e.) as if it is a mathematical formula (and) needs no asabiyah (and) it's a factual thing and this is what happened; but we don't do that! Sunnis don't do that and Shi'is don't do that therefore we are stuck with this asabiyah! This Sunnism that some have inherited or this Shi'ism that some have inherited is stuck with this element of asabiyah in which there's no place! It doesn't fit (and) it's not condoned by Allah and His Prophet; actually it's condemned by Allah and His Prophet! So realising what was the task in front of him, Ali sends a person by the name of Jarir ibn Abdillah Al Bajali (radi Allahu anhu) to the one area that refused to give the bai'ah to Ali and that was Ash Shaam. All the other areas acknowledged and placed their bai'ah to the Ali, only Ash Shaam didn't because Muawiyah was there and here is where we encounter this asabiyah going into high political gear because Muawiyah, unlike Egypt (and) unlike Iraq, Ash Shaam now had Arabians who were indigenous to Ash Shaam. The Arabians who went to Egypt or who went to Iraq left the Arabian Peninsula and settled in Al Basrah. Yemeni tribes, Hadramawti tribes, Hejazi tribes, Najdi tribes left and they settled in these areas and they settled in Egypt but that wasn't the case in Ash Shaam. There was a sizeable community or society of indigenous native Arabians who were living there so it was easy to stir a nationalistic trend in them using a political statement. Muawiyah was using something political (and) hiding behind it. We'll quote to you how this was expressed by some of the Sahaba (radi Allahu anhum) because Muawiyah was telling the Muslim public concerning Uthman (radi Allahu anhu) your leader was illegitimately and oppressively killed. So he used that political statement beneath which he was stirring a nationalistic pot beneath which he was fulfilling his own asabiyah- the asabiyah of Bani Umayyah. So here is where the asabiyah of Bani Umayyah under this nationalistic rubric- all of that under the statement that appears to be a neutral statement- a leader has been killed without due course. Uthman wasn't taken to a court of law. He wasn't given the opportunity to defend himself. He was attacked and killed so something has to be done about this. There's the issue of diya'. The ayah in the Qur'an
… and whoever was killed as a madhloom then their next of king have an authority to get even with those who perpetrated that crime… (Surah Al Isra' verse 33)
(It's) as if Muawiyah stopped there. He didn't realise that the ayah keeps on going
… if you are given this authority because you are the next of kin… (Surah Al Isra' verse 33)
OK- Muawiyah, you're the next of kin as far as Uthman is concerned you are all Umawis but the ayah goes on
… there shouldn't be any excessive killing, any excessive warfare, any excessive bloodshed… (Surah Al Isra' verse 33)
But Muawiyah brought about Siffin with all the excesses and the bloodshed and the tens and thousands of Muslims who were killed in that battle because of this asabiyah.
Now we're going to take a statement from Ammaar ibn Yasir (radi Allahu anhu) a very well know Sahabi. No one- Sunni or Shi'i- doubts his credentials (and) his prominent position here. Ammaar is describing Muawiyah's objectives. He is speaking to people (and) Ammaar ibn Yasir says the following, (we're going to quote it and we'll translate it also), Oh people, come let's go towards those people who are mourning because of Uthman's blood being shed (or) because ibn Affan's, (that's Uthman obviously), blood was shed. These people who are now in mourning for Uthman claim- we're not talking about the second day after Uthman was killed, this was years and years after Uthman was killed (and) when Muawiyah was claiming he is the legitimate person to take revenge for Uthman's untimely assassination- that Uthman was killed as a madhloom. By Allah they are not requesting to get equal because of his blood, rather these people have had a taste of the materialistic world and they felt satisfied with that (or) they felt nurtured with that. They know that if they were to abide by al haqq, truth and justice, that is going to be a barrier between them and their love for this world. These people have no Islamic precedence, in other words they don't belong to the pioneering class of those Muslims who were with the Prophet in those years of jihad and struggle; many of them just became Muslims yesterday. They just jumped on the bandwagon. They're just in it for the benefits of it so people's obedience to them is not due. They can't come and say that people should follow them as decision makers. Remember Ammaar ibn Yasir is still speaking. (Does) anyone have any problems with Ammaar ibn Yasir? No Sunni (and) no Shi'i has any problems with Ammaar ibn Yasir. They fooled their followers- Muawiyah and his clique fooled their followers as they said our leader was killed without any right. So these people- Muawiyah and his crowd- want to become something like dictators and authoritarians, taking the law into their own hand. The asabiyah (and) the selfishness once again appears on Muawiyah's side. We're trying to state this like we're stating one and one is two. If you're stating this with some type of asabiyah- whether you're a Sunni or a Shi'i- the other Muslim- whether he is a Sunni or a Shi'i- just like a small child will sense your asabiyah. Ali suggested to Muawiyah- to avoid the bloodshed of potentially thousands and thousands of innocent Muslims he challenged him into an encounter. This was another type of warfare. There were two armies, both of them on opposite sides. One way of settling the issue that they are fighting for or against would be that each side picks one individual to fight- not the whole army- and whoever wins between these two individuals means that that army has won, meaning that the whole army didn't go to war. So in order for Ali to spare the Muslims the bloodshed and all that comes with it challenged Muawiyah to what is call al mubaraza where only both of them come and only the two of them will fight each other and the two armies are standing there on the side. So when Amr ibn Al Aas heard this type of challenge he turned to Muawiyah and he said go for it. Remember they were on the same side of the issue. When Muawiyah heard him say that he said oh you're greedy too. You want to have this after I die.


On another occasion Muawiyah says to Qais ibn Sa'd, this is the ruler of Egypt at the time, in a way to try to win him over, (and we quote), follow us in our affair in this war that we have with Ali ibn Abi Taalib- come to our side and you will be rewarded for that by the two Iraqs this means the whole area of Iraq whether it's the north or the south or the east or the west provided of course that I win. Muawiyah is telling Sa'd the governor in Egypt and provided that I'm still alive. Then Muawiyah adds to that and for anyone you choose from your family, they can have authority on parts of the Hejaz as long as I am able to deputise that authority to you so that you can give it to them meaning if I win the war this is what you're going to get. So there was this back and forth between Ali and Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. In one of these exchanges Muawiyah was expressing how proud he is that he is from Bani Abdi Manaf. Abdu Manaf is one of the common grandfathers of Ali and Muawiyah because as you know they come from Quraysh. So Ali is responding to him, (we want you to listen to this closely because it indicates these elements of pre-Islamic asabiyah), Ali says to Muawiyah you, Muawiyah, are saying "we are the descendants of Abdi Manaf", we are also the descendants of Abdi Manaf but you can't say Ummayah is the same as Hashim; you can't say Harb is the equivalent of Abdul Mutt'talib; and you can't say Abu Sufyan is on par with Abi Talib. These are the cousins of each other so Ali is coming to say Muawiyah you're taking pride in these ancestors of yours so you can't say this great grandfather of yours who is the cousin of my great grandfather, (and he names them down the line), are the same. There's some other things he said and we'll skip over, then Ali says to Muawiyah from us there was a Prophet and from you there was a contrarian who accused the Prophet of lying, from us there is the person known as the lion of Allah and from you there is known the lion of the confederates, (we'll explain these later), and from us there are the two prominent masters of the people of jannah and from you there are the children of the fire (or) the rascals of the fire and from us is the best of the women of the world and from you there is the bearer or the carrier of lumber or wood. So when Ali was saying from us there was a Prophet obviously that's the Prophet and from you there was a contrarian who accused the Prophet of lying that's Abu Sufyan he said from us there is the person known as the lion of Allah that Asadullah was Hamza (radi Allahu anhu) the Prophet's uncle and from you there is known the lion of the confederates, that was Utbah ibn Abi Rabi'ah. We've covered some of his history previously. When he said and from us there are the two prominent masters of the people of jannah the two prominent figures in al jannah are Hassan and Al Hussein and from you there are the children of the fire (or) the rascals of the fire he meant the children of Marwan ibn Al Hakam. When he said and from us is the best of the women of the world is meant obviously Fatima the Prophet's daughter (alayha as salaam), and from you there is the bearer or the carrier of lumber or wood, you should be familiar with that because it is in the small surah of the Qur'an, Abu Lahab's wife's name was Umm Jameel bint Harb. So when Ali was saying this- of course if you read this you will say what is this? Is this a competition of asabiyaat here, (i.e.) the asabiyah of Bani Umayyah and Bani Hashim? It wasn't a competition or a rivalry of asabiyaat. It is using the language of Muawiyah to underscore (and) to undermine the argument of Muawiyah. When Ali said or did whatever he did, he didn't do it with asabiyah. Whatever many of the followers of Ali, (excuse us brothers and sisters, we want to be frank as you know us to be frank), say or whatever they do, they do it with asabiyah. If they didn't do it with asabiyah they wouldn't have been isolated! They'd be among all people. Was Ali ever isolated? Did he ever think of himself (or) "I'm only speaking to my followers" or is he speaking to the rest of the Muslims and for that matter for the rest of the people? But how come those who say that they are his followers congregate in their own Masjid? How come they have their own program? Why? What's wrong? You can't communicate with the other people (and) with the other Muslims? If you can't, why? When you're in a moment of peace with yourself you'll understand (it's) because there is this asabiyah interference. Al Asabiyah compensates for ignorance when people don't have their facts together (and) when they can't present themselves right then they want to fill in the void with asabiyah and that's what they do.


Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
Believe it or not- the misunderstanding of this information that we are covering or the lack of it is contributing to the fighting that has been going on now in which there's a world out there that wants Muslims to begin a century long civil war. Some of their officials said "this war can continue for over a hundred years." Of course they were speaking about their imperial Zionist war with the Muslims but one of their strategies within that war is to have Muslims go to war with themselves. Some of you are not familiar with our presentations throughout the past thirty odd years- we've said, (and this is a good time to remind you), that there are ruling classes in this world who are themselves a fraternity and they should not be discriminated against because of their religious affiliations. Some of them say they are Jews, some of them say they are Christians and some of them say they are Muslims and they go about honouring their religious rituals. They go to their Synagogues, they go to their Churches and they go to their Masjids and because we have been conditioned to classify people because of their rituals we were not able to detect the larger picture- the larger picture is they are all of one feather (or) they are all of one kind regardless of their rituals. Don't let that obstruct your thoughts. Now you can see the rulers of Arabia. We the Muslims, (we begin with us), should have enough courage to expose those rulers in Arabia- who are utilising our ignorance and then instigating our asabiyaat and then financing the weaponry that is involved and then indoctrinating those who come under their influence- like A'aishah said about Uthman, (we are not better than A'aishah and the ruler in Arabia, Abdullah ibn Saud is not better than Uthman). kill the male hyena (or) kill the crazy old man as he has obviously became or is guilty of kufr. Do we have courageous Muslims in this world who can repeat the sentence of A'aishah at this time as it applies to the current ruler of Arabia? We didn't live in the time of Uthman, we live today- there's a ruler today and justice has to be done. The first step towards that justice is to expose the lies and the fallacy and the shenanigans and the hypocrisy and the stratagem of those who are ruling in Arabia. We the Muslims have to do that. We don't expect the Jews or Christians to do that. If we take a further closer look we find that those who call themselves Christians and Jews who are officials of theirs in government want to cover up (and) they want to protect these rulers in Arabia! Why? Because these rulers in Arabia don't belong to us, they belong to them. That's in regards to we the Muslims. When it comes to those who are Christians, they should also be as courageous as Muslims and just like Saudi Arabia in the Muslim hemisphere is the number one trouble maker the United States government in the Christian hemisphere is the number one trouble maker and Christians should find enough courage in themselves to point out the fallacies, the faults, the flaws, the hypocrisy, the lies, the strategies (and) the stratagem that emanates here in Washington DC and do that with the confidence that comes to them from understanding their Lord and their Creator. Just as we expect Muslims to act, we expect Christians to act and we also expect Jews to act. The number one trouble maker in the Jewish hemisphere is the Zionist state of Israel and Jews should have enough courage to come out- especially now. Watch what is happening in the world- the ganging up of officialdom in occupied Palestine with officialdom in occupied America with officialdom in occupied Arabia- all of them are ganging up and where are those Jews who say that they are obsessed with justice? Where are they? Can't they come out and say Zionist Israel is a travesty of justice?! Can't they do that? What's wrong? What's wrong with the Muslims? What's wrong with the Christians? What's wrong with the Jews? No one has a moral compass anymore?! You can't identify a mega criminal (or) a criminal of universal proportion? You can't identify a criminal like that and you want to use God's scripture to pick on the petty criminal who steals because they want to feed their families? Those are the real criminals? You can't detect the criminals who are stealing from populations and from continents? You can't identify them? Something is wrong with the way you read the Qur'an or the way you read the Injeel or the way you read the Torah when you can't see this Behemoth (and) this gargantuan criminals as they lock hands to shed innocent blood in the Holy Land and they've been shedding that innocent blood since 1947 (and) 1948.

This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 30 August 2013 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 eventually irritated and threatened the Middle-East Ambassadors who control the Masjid. Finally, the Imam, his family, and other Muslims faithful to the course of Islam were forced out, into the streets. This khutbah originates from the sidewalk across the street from the Islamic Center, currently under seige.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Muslim Unite Sunni and Shia In Praise of Imam Ali – From Qur’an and Hadeeth (14)

 

In Praise of Imam Ali – From Qur'an and Hadeeth  (14)

(Collected from a number of books and websites, presented by Syed-Mohsin Naquvi)
 
After discussing Imam Ali's Fazael from Qur'anic verses and Tafseer, and taking notes for Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim, we want to reflect on the varied reaction that we have seen in this group of writers. Some have welcomed the series of article, others  have actually derided not only the text presented but also have thrown abuse at the writer – a totally irrational act. We will address that general antipathy towards such writings and the writers – the root cause of which is a hatred towards Imam Ali, which has been built into certain Muslim minds over the centuries.
 
 
 
THE FORCES OF HATRED
Let us pick up the events during the time when Imam Ali had been publicly accepted as the legitimate Khaleefa of Muslims in Madina, in the 36th year of Hijra.
          Everyone accepted that open election in the Muslim Empire except Mucawiyyah, the governor of Syria at Damascus[1]. The Battle of Siffeen took place two years later and it ended up in a confused stalemate. It was at that point that Mucawiyyah began his anti-Ali propaganda in earnest. It then became an official Umayyad policy, which lasted to the last days of that dynasty.
The Umayyad machinery worked two ways. On the one side they put all their efforts in suppressing the FADHA'EL of Imam Ali. On the other hand they fabricated FADHA'EL for his opponents - this was easy; every story which told anything good about Imam Ali was retold officially with Ali's name replaced by others'. Truth was mixed so much with falsehood that later historians were absolutely baffled and many times couldn't decide what to accept and what to reject. 
Here is an interesting comment by the Egyptian scholar Muhammad Haykal. This is an extract from the preface to his book on the Life of the Prophet of Islam.
When the Banu Umayya firmly established themselves in power, their protagonists among the hadeeth narrators deprecated the Prophetic traditions reported by the party of Ali bin Abi Talib (the Shica), and the latter defended those traditions and propagated them with all the means at their disposal. Undoubtedly they also deprecated the traditions reported by cA'isha, Mother of the Faithful. A humorous piece of reportage was given us by Ibn Asakir who wrote: "Abu Scad Ismaceel bin Muthanna al-Istarabadi was giving a sermon one day in Damascus when a man stood up and asked him (as to) what he thought of the hadeeth of the Prophet: 'I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.' Abu Scad pondered the question for a while and then replied: 'Indeed! No one knows this hadeeth of the Prophet except those who lived in the first century of Islam. What the Prophet had said, he continued, was rather, 'I am the city of knowledge; Abu Bakr is its foundation; Umar is its walls; Uthman its ceiling; and Ali its gate.'  The audience was quite pleased with his reply and asked him to furnish them with its chain of narrators. Abu Scad could not furnish any chain and was terribly embarrassed[2]." 
 
What Haykal is trying to show is that the question was asked in an open assembly in the city of Damascus -- the hometown of Umayyad power. Abu Scad  either knew the original hadeeth but was afraid to confirm it for fear of retaliation from the crowd, or, he just fabricated a new hadeeth out of the blue to please the crowd. However, he was taken to task by the crowd on the matter of isnad, which he could not produce. Haykal's point is: scholars, or the so-called scholars had become so daring in fabricating hadeeth for political purpose that they did not even think and foresee the consequences of their fabrications. The reason for all this was mainly political pressure and the fear of reprisal from an overwhelming anti-Ali and anti-Ahlul Bayt populace . The stupidity of this fabrication is apparent by the fact that even though one can think of a foundation and walls for a city, there is no ceiling on a city.
We will now present here the story of Imam Nasa'i to elaborate upon that situation.
Imam Nasa'i was born in Khurasan in 215 A.H. His full name is Abu Abdur-Rahman Ahmad bin Shucayb. His most famous work is his Sunan, which is a member of the Sahah Sitta (the six correct ones). Towards the end of his life he produced his book titled Khasa'is Ali bin Abi Talib. His contemporaries asked him about it – basically the question was: why did he ignore the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) and go ahead with a book about Imam Ali (who happened to be the fourth Khaleefa of Islam)? He replied that when he went to Damascus, he found an abundance of people who hated Imam Ali and used bad words for him. So he decided to write this book in the hope and expectation that those people would be guided by his writing. Imam Nasa'i is a younger contemporary of both Bukhari and Muslim Nayshapuri. He is considered to be one of the best scholars of hadeeth. His contemporaries had a lot of respect for his knowledge, erudition and most of all, his memory which was essential for learning the science of hadeeth. He lived in Egypt and his knowledge and learning came to be known to the larger Muslim world from Egypt.
          Imam Nasa'i came to Damascus and saw that the place was overflowing with the enemies of Imam Ali. One Friday he mounted the pulpit and began reading the text of his book. The crowd sat there quietly and listened to his discourse. When he had finished, some from the crowd asked him: 'That was all right, but what do you say about the glory of Mucawiyyah?'  Imam Nasa'i replied: 'I do not know anything about that except that the Prophet (peace be unto him) had said – 'May Allah never satiate his hunger.'  Obviously, this was the heart of the Umayyad country where hatred of Imam Ali and the love and respect for Mucawiyya were fed to the population day and night and generations were raised on those two ingredients. People could not take that kind of truth. They grabbed the Imam by his legs, pulled him down from the pulpit and beat him to a pulp. He was left for dead. When the crowd had left, some of his sympathisers came in and took him home and tried to nurse his injuries. He was eventually taken to Makkah where he died of those wounds in 303 A.H. He was buried between the mounts of Safa and Marwa[3].
            Imam Darqutni has considered this a trial for Imam Nasa'i and has treated his death at the hands of the Damascene mob as martyrdom.
          It is very clear that during the period of the 3rd and 4th centuries, narrating the Fadha'el of Imam Ali was a crime. A person like Imam Nasa'i, whose book is a member of the Sahah Sitta, was killed for that crime. One can imagine the life the devotees of Imam Ali had to endure in that time. This phenomenon, as we stated earlier, had begun with Mucawiyyah. Not even members of his own family were spared from that kind of hateful behaviour and persecution if they displayed any sympathy for Imam Ali bin Abi Talib. The prime example of that is how Yazeed's son, also known as Mucawiyyah, came to the throne at Damascus. Mucawiyyah bin Abu Sufyan died in 60 A.H., after which Yazeed took over. The tragedy of Karbala happened soon after. Yazeed was also responsible for the massacre of the inhabitants of Madinah at Harra. He commanded Muslim bin CUqba to attack Makkah. While Makkah was under siege, Yazeed died at the age of 39 in 64 A.H. Then his son Mucawiyyah was placed on the throne by the Umayyad oligarchy. Allama Dimyari writes in his Hayat-ul-Haywaan as follows[4]:
People of knowledge have written that Mucawiyyah bin Yazeed stayed in power for forty days, some have said five months. He then decided to abdicate. When he made that decision he went up to the pulpit and sat there (quietly) for a long time. He then praised Allah and sent salawat unto the Prophet and then said as follows.
"O people, I do not covet power and control (over people), because this is an important responsibility and you people are not happy with me. We have tried each other many times, but what is destined must happen. My grandfather, Mucawiyyah, transgressed in this matter of Khilafat and he created trouble asking as to who was most deserving of this position. And with whom did he quarrel? The one who was the closest to the Prophet of Islam, who was the earliest in Islam, the most honoured among the great Muhajiroon, the most chivalrous and courageous, a man of knowledge and great fadheelat, first cousin of the Prophet and his son-in-law. The Prophet had chosen him for his younger daughter, Fatima. He was the best among the young men of this Ummah and he was the father of Hasan and Husayn, the two leaders of the youth of paradise.
As you all know very well, my grandfather, Mucawiyyah, fought with that kind of person and you people supported him in that, until he took over everything. However, when his time came, death overtook him and he ended up as a pawn to his own deeds. He went to his grave alone and he received the reward for what he had been doing in his life. Khilafat, then, came to my father, Yazeed. His own debauchery, wasteful behaviour and his temptations overwhelmed him. (This was) All that, which was not befitting the position of Khilafat. He indulged (openly) in sinful living. He became daring in disobedience to Allah. Anyone who showed respect and love for the Ahlul-Bayt was persecuted by him. Finally his time too came. He lived a short life. His influence vanished with him. He went to the other world with his own deeds and ended up in his own grave. He was surrounded by misdeeds and was buried under the weight of his own actions. He too received the reward for all that he had done. He then became remorseful. But alas, the time of repentance was already past by then – we too became part of his remorse, sorrow and grief. O what a loss! Whatever he did and he said, is still talk of the town. I don't know whether he was rewarded or punished for what he did – all this is my imagination, it is my assumption. Finally his own remorse suffocated him."
Mucawiyya then wept and the audience wept with him. He then continued:
"Now I am your third ruler – a majority (of you) are angry with me. I cannot carry your load (the responsibility). Nor does Allah consider me deserving of your Khilafat. The trust of your Khilafat is important – protect it, and give it to anyone you consider more deserving. I have taken this necklace off my neck – I am abdicating. All praise is for Allah alone."
Mucawiyyah bin Yazeed came down from the pulpit. He was still weeping. People surrounded him and they turned to his teacher named Umar al-Maqsoos. They said to him that it was his teachings, which had taken the young prince to that state of mind and it was his teachings that brought the love of Ali and his family to his heart. The teacher protested and claimed his complete innocence from the accusation. But the people were overwhelmed with frustration and anger. They grabbed the teacher, beat him and then buried him alive against all his protestations. After a few days, Mucawiyyah the son of Yazeed too died.
 
Allama Dimyari has not elaborated upon it but other historians have claimed that the prince was actually poisoned to death by his own people, which is very likely.
                        These two stories related above are sufficient evidence to show how the hatred of Imam Ali had become the norm in the Umayyad society of Damascus and how it was being forced on people. At the same time, the love of Ali and his family was a crime and how brutally people suspected of it were punished, be they Muhaddith, a royal teacher or even an Umayyad prince himself.
 
              Even though these forces had become weaker after the Abbasid revolt, their after effects continued for centuries to come. It now becomes crystal clear that Bukhari and others like him were writing in that environment.  By the time Bukhari sat down and began collecting his SAHEEH, it was the beginning of the third century of Hijra.  Bukhari collected 600,000 hadeeth reports. Out of those, he selected 7,052; which are included in his three volumes. In all these, there are ONLY FOUR REPORTS IN PRAISE OF IMAM ALI.
          This distorted reporting of hadeeth about Imam Ali continued for another hundred years. It was not until people like Hakim Nayshapoori emerged (d. 405 A.H.), who tried to correct that situation. Hakim named his book AL-MUSTADRAK or, the CORRECTOR. We will discuss this subject in detail later on in this book.
            However, the ill effects of that propaganda are still lasting. To-days' western author is greatly influenced by all that. Two examples will suffice:
1.    In 1873 an American author named John William Draper published a book titled:  History of the Conflict Between religion and Science. The book was edited and re-published with notes and corrections in 1927 from London. In that book Draper argued that religious learning and teaching had hampered the scientific progress and the intellectual development of the human race. His thesis is basically argued against the Christian religion. He has brought evidence to show that while Christianity had worked against scientific development, the Muslims had worked to develop various sciences and arts. In that process he discusses Islam and the early history of Islam. In his own words:
A clear conception of its (Christianity) incompatibility with science caused it to suppress forcibly the Schools of Alexandria. It was constrained to this by the political necessities of its position. The parties to the conflict thus placed, I next relate the story of their first open struggle; it is the first or Southern Reformation. The point in dispute had respect to the nature of God. It involved the rise of Mohammedanism. Its result was that much of Asia and Africa, with the historic cities Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Carthage, were wrenched from Christendom, and the doctrine of the Unity of God was established in the larger portion of what had been the Roman Empire. This political event was followed by the restoration of science, colleges, schools, libraries, throughout the dominions of the Arabians[5].
 
            Draper has mentioned Imam Ali and his thinking at many places. In fact, he is complimentary in his remarks, as follows:
At first the Koran was an obstacle to literature and science. Mohammad had extolled it as the grandest of all compositions, and had adduced its unapproachable excellence as a proof of his divine mission. But, in little more than twenty years after his death, the experience that had been acquired in Syria, Persia, Asia Minor, Egypt, had produced a striking effect, and Ali, the Khalif reigning at that time, avowedly encouraged all kinds of literary pursuits[6].
            However, Imam Ali's name does not appear in the index, even though those of Abu Bakr (spelled as Abubeker), Umar (spelled as Omar) and Mucawiyyah (spelled as Moawyah) are listed.
In Draper's opinion: Who would want to look up Ali?
 
2.    The New Encyclopedia of Islam published by Brille, has an article on Imam Ali. The author of the article is Prof. Veccia Vaglieri of the University of Milan.  We quote from that article:
 
"The personality of Ali is difficult to define, since the historian finds no sure guide either in his actions or his discourses, or in the data supplied by the sources....................................... ....................................
.......................................................................................
Neither Lammens nor Caetani has brought out the religiosity of Ali and its reflections in his policies.[7]"
 
                Ali the son of Abu Talib, the grandson of Abdul Muttalib, the great-grandson of Hashim, who was raised by the Prophet of Islam like his own son, who was the first Muslim and never relented in any service to Islam – Ms. Vaglieri  finds no evidence in his acts and sayings to decide about his religiosity!  Ali, who was born inside the Kcaba and was mortally wounded inside a mosque in the middle of a prayer, if he was not religious then who else could be termed religious?

…………………-----------------------------------------------
 
Sincerely,
 
Syed-Mohsin Naquvi
=============================================
 
 
 


[1] In fact, there were three major rebellions against Imam Ali, as we will explain in time.
[2] Haykal/Faruqi, Life of Muhammad, American Trust Publications (June 1, 2005), pp.lxxxiii-lxxxiv (first published in 1976)
[3] The story of Imam Nasa'i going to Damascus, reading his book from the pulpit and the mob lynching him, has been described in the introduction to his book, which has been published from Kuwait.
[4] Kamal-ud-Deen Muhammad Abul Baqa bin Moosa bin Eesa Dimyari, was born in Egypt in 750 A.H. He died in 808 A.H. His book titled Hayat-ul-Haywaan is a treatise on animals. However, as he tells stories about various animals he digresses into Islamic history of the early period. In the chapter of ALIF, he lists many things. When he comes to iwazzah, which is the word for duck, he goes into the story of the martyrdom of Imam Ali, how a domestic water-foul tried to stop Imam Ali as he was leaving home in the middle of the night before the fatal attack on him. He then gives a short biography of the Prophet of Islam and goes on to describe the events leading to the Umayyad period. That is where this story is found.
[5] Draper, History of the Conflict, Preface
[6] ibid, p.93
[7] Vaglieri, Veccia, Article:Ali bin Abi Talib, in The New Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill, 1986

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

Blog Archive