| THE STREET MMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (17 January 2014) 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 brothers and sisters on as sirat al mustaqim…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWOxNKvsYlY
TAKFIR PART 4
(We have to cut to the chase because of the conditions of the whether here). We have a problem. There's nothing wrong with saying, number one, that we have a problem and, number two, with identifying that problem; or else how are we going to solve the issues that we have if we don't begin to speak about them? We don't want to continue to live like ostriches burying our heads in the sand and making believe that there are no significant issues that are bleeding us to death. One of these issues is- this issue has been on steroids in the past couple of years, even though it pops up every once and then in Islamic history but this time it has come out with vengeance- is the issue referred to as at takfir (and) the inability of a Muslim to recognise the difference in the other Muslim (and) to acknowledge the difference. What we mean over here is not physical differences. There's no question about the fact that Allah has created us with different features, with different colours, with different ethnic origins, etc. etc.
One of the illustrations of Allah's power and authority is the differences of your colours and of your languages… (Surah Ar Rum verse 22)
No one has an issue with that. The issue here becomes a problematic issue when we cannot afford or we cannot exchange mutual recognition with each other; at this point we certainly have an issue and it is complicated when that inability to exchange recognition with the other turns into accusing or claiming that the other is not a Muslim. We say to you that this issue does not arise from our good human nature. Anyone who has lived and interacted with Muslims will tell you that they are open hearted and open minded so where did this come from, i.e. one Muslim accusing the other Muslim come from. May be we will have some extended time in better weather to speak about this with some saturation but at this point we will generally express it this way. We don't like to go into the domains of others but we think the problem is not generated with Muslim peoples as peoples. As peoples they have no problem with co-existing, living with each other, sharing mutual acceptance and history proves this; but the problem is (that) we have other societies in the world who cannot live with each other. We think many of us have a feeling of this after 9/11 (and) how hate crimes went up, how Muslims were harassed, new laws have been enacted to target Muslims just because Muslims are Muslims not because there's legal ground for these laws to come to existence. This phobia or this xenophobia has resulted in, (and this is the tricky part here), in this attitude (that) manifests itself in western society outside the context of religion as racism. Racism is the inability to live with the other who Allah has featured with another colour- that exists. It's a fact of life, it is preponderant but what is more subtle than that, but more deadly, is this issue that has become sectarianism. Sectarianism now just in the past few years has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims but our observation of the phobia outside of our house, (so to speak), is very weak and we'll bring an example of this. In the year 2000 pope John Paul the second went to the Sinai. There's a monastery there, a church called Saint Catherine's and this is run and belongs to Christians who are of the eastern orthodox persuasion, Roman orthodox. He wanted to pray in that church and would you know it they did not allow him to pray in that church. Of course this went under the radar. Not many people paid any attention to this and if it was mentioned it was mentioned in such a way that the mind doesn't dwell in the significance of what had happened. Of course later on there was some literature coming out from different churches saying "they are the only true church" and this type of in house quibbling that followed or accompanied this event. This tells us beyond the facade of the liberal imagery that we have "oh this is a liberal country. Everyone is free to practise their religion and express their conscience and their mind" and all of this, (that's there for public consumption), but the fact of the matter stands that propaganda on its head. They are not like that but because, (we hate to say this because we've said this so many times), we just don't think! We don't have the assertiveness to take our mind into areas that they want to be off limits to us. So we can't diagnose xenophobia when it has a system and when it has militaries that exist outside of our Islamic territories. When it comes to our internal affairs this external xenophobia makes its way via its agents into our lives. Who are the agents? What are the catalysts that has brought about (or) that has transferred this xenophobia from the racists and the sectarians on the outside to the racists and the sectarians on the inside? To say a word of truth on this day of taqwa that many other speakers are not willing to do- it is the instrument of the Saudi regime that makes that possible. That is where takfir is breeded; that is where accusations of Kufr are made. They fabricate these things and then they throw it against other Muslims.
If we go back to the time of Allah's Prophet, (we haven't mentioned this before because it is not preponderant. You will not find it everywhere in the books of Islamic history), but when the Christians of Najran came to Al Madinah the Prophet didn't say "you can't come to Al Madinah." If the Prophet was in Makkah would he say "observant Christians (and) Christian clergymen cannot come to Makkah" as is the case in today's world because of the Saudi regime? But there is mention by some Islamic writers, (few as the are), that these Christians from Najran prayed their Easter in Al Masjid An Nabawi. Now do we have a phobia? Are we xenophobic? Are we racists? Are we exclusivists when something like that dwells in our history? Something is wrong! The attitude and the behaviour during the time of Allah's Prophet was one of an open mind and an open heart and then today we have what you can see all over the place?! Not only are those are running the affairs of the Arabian Peninsula, i.e. Saudi Arabia, unwilling to contemplate the existence of observant Christians in Arabia they are also not willing to countenance the presence of Muslims who see things differently than they see it so they come out with all of these statements of Kufr and takfir.
We're going to take just a few more minutes of our time and we're going to bring some statements from Islamic scholars who come from the context of Ahl As Sunnah wa al Jama'ah and what they had to say about this attitude of accusing other Muslims of Kufr. Muhammad Abdou- a scholar who passed away about a hundred years ago is well known in Islamic circles. (A) prolific writer, a Shaykh from Al Azhar, a graduate of Al Azhar who has written extensively and studied extensively. A Scholar in his own right. What did he say on this area of takfir? He says the following, these are his words: "a statement that in a hundred ways can be interpreted to disclose meanings of Kufr but in one way can disclose a meaning of iman- if that is the case it is not permissible to pronounce Kufr against the person who said that statement." Abu Haamid Al Ghazzali the Islamic scholar and philosopher and theologian of hundreds of years in the past said this and we quote, (we address our self here to people today who are accusing other Muslims of being Kafirs), "you should be very careful (or) caution should be the order when it comes to takfir as long as a person finds a way out of this accusation of takfir then no one should hasten to express it." (These are our words, we want to add it parenthetically so that you understand.) When a Muslim says "another Muslim is a Kafir" the Muslim who was saying this follows this up by shedding the person's blood and repossessing the Muslim's possessions. The person who is accused of Kufr loses his life and loses his valuables so Al Ghazzali is saying "this permission to shed Muslim blood and to repossess Muslim wealth from those who pray towards Al Qiblah and those who express the kalmia (or) the shahada Laa illaha illa Allah Muhammad Rasulullah then that is a mistake." He says "a mistake that results in an amnesty of a hundred Kafirs is less than a mistake in shedding a thumbnail of Muslim blood (or) a small amount of Muslim blood." Muhammad Abdou, Abu Haamid Al Ghazzali; what did Al Imam An Nawawi say about this issue of takfir? "You, the average Muslim out there, are expected to judge by obvious deeds and whatever the tongue expresses. As for the heart you have no access to what is inside a person's heart"- that was Al Imam An Nawawi. You hear that you takfiris, you Wahabis, you agents of the Saudi instruments of divide and conquer and sectarianism that now has claimed now hundreds of thousands of lives of innocent children women and men? There is a type of consensus among all the scholars and we ask (and) we plead with these out there who are dolling out these accusations of Kufr left and right (and) we tell them if anything we are saying is incorrect then we stand to be corrected. Come forth! Let us hear what you have to say? So there is a general consensus among the Muslim scholars "when the statement of Kufr is expressed- let's say a certain person says something is Kafir- that goes to what a certain person said not to the person himself." This is an important distinction. If someone expresses a sentence or a paragraph that seems to leak with meanings of Kufr and this has to do with matters pertaining to faith and belief- it has nothing to do with matters that are more complicated than that, that become policies and then become instruments of war- "so when there is a statement of Kufr out there then that statement has to be scrutinised for its meaning." In scrutinising the statement the person who expressed that statement has to explain what is meant by it. So to begin with, hurling the accusation of Kufr is done initially against a particular statement (and) a particular doctrine and then after that the person is brought forward (or) is summoned, "come explain to us what you mean by that." When that is done (with) a person explaining himself that explanation itself may have certain ways of understanding it- it's called ta'wil. It may have a priority meaning to it (or) it may have shades of meaning to it. These shades of meanings would exclude the person who pronounced a statement that could be understood by some people as meaning Kufr but the fact that a statement has multiple meanings is what is called in Islamic legality is called shub'hah i.e. that's a question mark. The Prophet of Allah says you sideline the penalty because of the presence of a question mark about a certain issue- whatever the issue is. So even though some statements that are said by some individuals that may tolerate meanings that indicate this issue of Kufr, (but) if there is a shub'hah (or) a question mark then that is enough- even though the person may be Kafir- not to apply the death penalty as these people are doing. Everyday almost a hundred or two hundred people are killed because of this sectarianism that comes back to this issue of Kufr and we just stated (and) we just quoted some of the words of scholars and some of the consensus and agreements amongst scholars when it comes to this issue and we find out that it is contrary to the attitude and to the frame of mind and to the policies and to the killing machine that is out there that has nothing to do with our Islam, our iman, our Qur'an, our Prophet and our relationship with Allah. Allah says
… recall Allah's blessings to you (or) Allah's bounty to you as you were before time enemies and then He reconciled your hearts together and then you became brethren of each other… (Surah Aal Imran verse 103)
What a distance there is between the meanings of this ayah and where we are today.
Dear committed brothers and sisters guided by Allah and eventually on a course to meeting Allah…
In today's world definitions have been turned upside down and a lot of confusion has set into the Muslim public mind. The Prophet of Allah says, (and we're trying to pre-empt these trouble makers who don't take their time and their fervent relationship they have with Allah, (if they have any), to understand what's being said to them by Allah and His Prophet and what they rely upon). They come to you and say the Arabian Peninsula by orders of the Prophet should not have two religions in it. That's not what the Prophet said! So what did the Prophet say? We quote in the Arabian Peninsula there should not be the combination of two Deens. Deen here is not understood here through the remnants of the Judaeo-Christian mind (and) through oriental definitions- that's not how we understand what Deen means. The Prophet of Allah welcomed the two Deens that were there in the Arabian Peninsula to begin with- Al Yahud and An Nasara. He entered into an agreement with Al Yahud in Al Madinah. He entered into an agreement with the Nasara from Najran. These are two Deens. He didn't say "you don't belong here. Get out of here!" What happened though- our teachings, our instructions, our guidance tell us to honour the belief and the convictions of others. We Muslims guarantee freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of belief to everyone. Atheists are guaranteed freedom belief. Everyone is! So no one is telling anyone "you can't live in the Arabian Peninsula because of your belief or your creed or your persuasion." That's not the case. What happened was some of these scripturalists began to act out- they began to take actual material, combatant, hostile positions towards the Prophet and the committed Muslims. That's another issue. They have to be dealt with. when Banu Quraydah committed high treason in Al Madinah they had to leave- not because of their belief, not because of their creed, not because of their religion. No! But because of the acts of aggression and undermining or their attempt to undermine the foundations and the validity of Islamic self determination in the Arabian Peninsula . Because of that "bye-bye" not because they have crosses or they have synagogues or they have churches; but in today's world all of this issue has been turned topsy-turvy and so clergymen belonging to these religions are told "you are not welcome in the Arabian Peninsula" but those who have fire power, military bases, the military- "Oh you can come. You can live here. You can have bonuses, freedoms, al fawahish and al munkar. You can have all of that." It will take some time for we, the Muslims, to draw the line and to understand our principled position. We should welcome people of faith and conscience and morality and we should say no to people of aggression and invasions and occupations. That day is certainly coming.
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 3 January 2014 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 (1) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment