| THE STREET MMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (18 April 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 …
Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/339503 (04-04-2014)
POLITICAL OPPOSITION, ISLAMIC OBLIGATION
Allah says in (the) ayah in Surah Aal Imran that follows the couple of ayaat that precede it that speak about togetherness, Islamic unity (as it were)
Let there be from among you an Ummah i.e. a consolidated effort that calls all and sundry to prosperity (and) a consolidated effort that authorizes and enforces what is good in a self evident way and delegitimizes and dis-establishes al munkar which is whatever is bad and destructive in a self evident way and they are the successful. (Surah Aal Imran verse 104)
If this effort is undertaken by a consolidated effort of people then these people are truly successful. We begin this khutbah with this ayah simply as an introduction to one of these issues on a matter that has been deliberately taken away from our thoughts and our conscience. This matter pertains to political opposition. We know some people think "this is a touchy issue" and other people think "this is an off limits issue" and yet others say "this should only be discussed within closed circles and only among the elites and scholars and all of this." This is a Qur'anic ayah (and) this is a Qur'anic issue; it is an issue in which the Prophet demonstrated his character and his behavior. So how do you make this a special issue or a private issue or a selective issue? How does this happen? Where did this come from? The Book of Allah and the Prophet of Allah are accessible and they beg our attention and our thoughts. This political opposition is a matter of relocating ourselves in the materialistic and secular society that we are in- this is a fact of life. We live in a non Islamic social order. They began to speak about human rights back in the eighteenth century at the beginning with the French revolution and the ideas of John Jack Rousseau and Jefferson here in the United States
Number one- we begin by taking the day the Prophet passed away. There was an assembly in saqifah Bani Sa'ida, the canopy of Bani Sa'ida. This means that there was a roof over them so to speak; not like today's structures but something over their heads. They met there and they began to discuss who is going to be the decision maker now that the Prophet has passed away and most of the attention in that saqifah with those who were present in the saqifah, (because some were not present in the saqifah), was concentrated on Sa'd ibn Ubadah (radi Allahu anhu). Sa'd ibn Ubadah was the headman of Al Khazraj. Of the two blocks that make up the Ansar (radi Allahu anhum)- Al Aws and Al Khazraj- Sa'd ibn Ubadah was the head of the Khazraj in those two blocks. So most of the attention began to drift towards him and there was some type of validity for that. We, (in detail), went through these historical particulars but we can explain the drift of attention towards Sa'd ibn Ubadah because he was the head of this substantial block of Al Ansar called Al Khazraj- that's number one.
Number two- the Ansar of Al Madinah were the major support base of the Prophet. The land was their land; it was their geographical territorial state. The Prophet was the leader, the Prophet was the Imam, the Prophet was the ultimate decision maker, the Prophet was the Prophet but he was located in Al Madinah in a population of Al Ansar so they were his founding support base. Sa'd ibn Ubadah was also one of the twelve who gave the bai'ah to the Prophet before the Prophet moved or was forced out of Makkah on to Al Madinah. Sa'd ibn Ubadah attended all the battles and the military sacrifices that the Prophet himself attended. So there was an understanding of why people would say "well we think he might be a good leader." That was there. When this drift towards Sa'd ibn Ubadah occurred Umar (radi Allahu anhu) realized that the leadership of the Muslims may turn into the leadership by the Ansar. We don't want to cover this territory once again because we spent many khutbahs and many jum'ahs covering this territory. Everyone needed an argument for themselves- the Muhajirun (radi Allahu anhum) made an argument for themselves, the Ansar made an argument for themselves, Al Hashimiyun made an argument for themselves- we covered this in previous khutbahs. So when Umar sensed that there's good possibility that Sa'd ibn Ubadah may become the leader, the Khalifah of Rasulillah, he with Abu Ubayda (radi Allahu anhu) went to Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) and sort of, (in a sense), imposed the leadership of the Muslims on those who were present there. This was not done by force, it was not done by intimidations, it was not done by threats. This has a background to it. There are people (and) there are tendencies- there are Munafiqin in the Islamic society, there are internal enemies, there are external enemies and then you have that most destructive of all elements (i.e.) the asabiyah which we also cleared in previous weeks and khutbahs. So Umar, Abu Ubaydah and Abu Bakr along with other Muhajirin who were there in the saqifah made the case for Al Muhajirin- number one and then from among the Muhajirin (viz.), that those who were from Quraysh were the first and foremost to carry this responsibility of Islam, that they were the closest to the Prophet and the longest with him, that they are from Quraysh. As these dynamics were taking place there were some of the Muhajirin who would favor Uthman (radi Allahu anhu)- those who were from Bani Umayah; there were some from the Muhajirin who would favor Abdur Rahman ibn Awf or Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhuma)- those are from Bani Zuhra. It wasn't like all the Muhajirin had one mind or one conspiracy as some tend to cast this whole issue. This was not a conspiracy. This was an attempt to hold the house of Islam together when there were so many forces trying to pull it apart. What we want to say in this context with these delicate issues and this sensitive juncture in history (is) there were some committed Muslims Muhajirin who favored Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu) in this same context. They were not there en mass under the saqifah- some of them were and some of them were with Ali when he was doing the final funeral rites of Allah's Prophet. So when word got around that there was a bai'ah for Abi Bakr they refused. They said we are not going to authenticate or we are not going to endorse his leadership and first and foremost among them was Ali. This is a historical fact. Now you have different history books telling you but eventually he gave his bai'ah and we think that is a matter that only the most rabid muta'asibin (i.e.) those who are most fanatical in their point of view would take issue with it otherwise a rationale, a clam and objective person would know Ali gave his bai'ah to the three predecessors who preceded him but the fact of the matter was he expressed political opposition, (this was the initial idea). He expressed political opposition. Sa'd ibn Ubadah expressed political opposition when Abu Bakr finally became the first Khalifah (or) the first successor to Allah's Prophet he didn't say "I'm going to force you to give me a bai'ah." We challenge anyone out there to give any credible information that says the Khalifah forced the Imam to give a bai'ah. We challenge you. It never happened! Umar said to Ali the following, (and it means something like this), we are not going to leave you alone until you give your bai'ah; that doesn't mean they were forcing him to give the bai'ah. It means they were anxious for him to give his bai'ah. There was no bad blood between Umar and Ali. There was no bad blood between Abu Bakr and Ali. Where did this come from. Abu Bakr said to Ali if you don't give your bai'ah' I'm not going to force you to do so. So Ali continued to resist. This is political opposition. This is not war. This is not hate. This is not fanaticism. This is not sectarianism. This is political opposition. He continued, (we don't know- some historians (and) we don't want to get into this historical back and forth), whether it was six days or six months that he refused to give his bai'ah. Whatever it was, it was a demonstration of political opposition that did not cause hostilities and animosities. There was no hate here. You listen to today's hatred preachers around- Sunnis and Shi'is and you go back to this history and you say "where did this hate come from?" There's hate out there; where did it come from? It certainly did not come from these figures, from these leaders (and) from these characters. So after Fatima (alayha as salaam) passed away Ali- within other conditions (and) within other circumstances; there were wars now, breakaway wars. We covered hurub ar ridda (i.e.) these factions in Arabia who wanted to economically breakaway from the Islamic treasury and the Islamic state in Al Madinah. They said we don't want anything to do with you. Give you our money?! We're not going to give you anything. These were Muslims. They prayed, they fasted, they prayed the nights (i.e.) tahajjud. They did all of this. They only didn't want to do one thing (i.e.) they didn't want to be financially responsible towards the central Islamic authority in Al Madinah- that's all they didn't want to do. This was going to tear the Muslims apart. In these conditions Ali went to preserve, (number one), the consolidation of the Muslims, (number two) the sovereignty of the Islamic state, (number three), the brotherhood of committed Muslims. So after the Ansar, (like we said), heard these arguments (and) the give and take between both sides (i.e.) Al Ansar and Al Muhajirin… Remember, there was a pre-Islamic rivalry between the Aws and the Khazraj and when the Aws- these are committed Muslims, brothers and sisters. These are the ones who would go to the battlefields to give their lives. When this happened they did not want Sa'd ibn Ubadah to be the leader. They had Sa'd ibn Mu'adh (radi Allahu anhu) who is their leader so they said let's go and give our bai'ah to Abi Bakr and finally it ended with the overwhelming majority of Khazraj the people of Sa'd ibn Ubadah giving the bai'ah to Abi Bakr but Sa'd remained an opponent. He remained in his political opposition. Ali gave the bai'ah; Sa'd ibn Ubadah never gave the bai'ah. What did he do? Did he say "let's carry arms and fight the ruler and fight the Muslims and fight the state?" Did he do such a thing? Never! So as long as Abu Bakr was the Khalifah there was political opposition but there was no armed opposition except for hurub ar ridda- these were wars. These were not from within Al Muhajirin and Al Ansar.
Then when Umar became the leader Sa'd ibn Ubadah still refused to give his bai'ah. Sa'd ibn Ubadah died in the fourteenth year of the hijrah, meaning two years into Umar's reign he passed on. During all this time he refused to give the bai'ah. This, brothers and sisters, is political opposition and no one told him "hey- wait a minute. What you are doing is wrong." To the extent that during the time of hajj there was an Emir (i.e.) a person who is deputized to lead the hujjaj (and) Sa'd ibn Ubadah would not follow. He would be by himself. There was no hatred. There was no animosity (and) hostility. There was a difference of opinion and that difference of opinion was honored. Let us give you an exchange that happened between Sa'd ibn Ubadah the political opponent of Abi Bakr and Umar. Luckily it doesn't fit into this Sunni-Shi'i sectarian stuff that you hear nowadays. Sunnis don't speak much about him and Shi'is don't speak much about him. So what is this exchange that happened one day (when) Sa'd was on a horse and Umar was on a lesser animal than a horse. They met each other and its like both of them are preparing themselves for a verbal exchange. Sa'd said to Umar from a political opposition position, by Allah there's no one that I dislike their proximity more than I dislike your proximity to me (or) I dislike you being near me. This indicates there's a serious political difference between the two individuals (or) between the two Sahabis but it didn't mean there was hatred! It didn't mean one had one religion and the other had another religion! You never could extract this meaning from it. Then Umar said to him whoever dislikes the closeness or the proximity of a man moves on, gets away (or) distances himself. Then Sa'd says I anticipate to vacate my position from you to a position of nearness to He who is more beloved to me than you and your companions. You feel, here, the serious political difference between the two but you don't sense that there is a hostility that verges on hatred and could go to war like the sectarians are trying to do today. They try to pick on these issues to have us go to war. This is one of the most intense and the most polarized encounters that we come across and there is no hate here. From what we read and from what we have in these books there is nothing that indicates that Umar threatened the person- something like today's rulers would do. They would say "who do you think you're talking to? You think I'm going to let you get away with that? Send in the guards! Throw him behind bars" and these types of things that take place today. None of that happened. Both of them expressed themselves honestly and parted. So today we ask: are we allowed political opposition? Can we be political opponents in this civilized way, with this character? Can we be like that or we have to hate? When you oppose someone you have to hate?! Where did that come from? The Prophet of Allah had his encounters with his enemies- and these were enemies who were expressing hatred towards him- he disagreed with them all the way to the warfront. Ali disagreed with these Mushrikin and the Kafirin all the way to the warfront. Was there hate? In the well demonstrated encounter with Ali and one of these Mushriks. The Mushrik wanted to save his soul and his life so he exposed his private parts. You can be assured if there was hatred in Ali he would have finished him off -private parts or not. There was no hatred. They were in control of themselves. This was a civilized, advanced character and personality unlike the sectarians of today. We go back to the ayah
Let there be from among you an Ummah i.e. a consolidated effort that calls all and sundry to prosperity (and) a consolidated effort that authorizes and enforces what is good in a self evident way and delegitimizes and dis-establishes al munkar which is whatever is bad and destructive in a self evident way and they are the successful. (Surah Aal Imran verse 104)
Then we go to the Prophet's hadith you will in all certainty authorize and enforce what is good in a self evident way and you will delegitimize and disestablish what is bad in a self evident way… Al Ma'ruf and al munkar are terms belonging to humanity. Al Ma'ruf is something that is self evident to humanity (and) al munkar is something that is self evident to humanity. … and you are going to take adh dhaalim by his hands and you are going to frame him within the circumference of al haqq or else Allah is going to cause your hearts to clash with each other (or) to conflict with each other and then at that time you make du'a to Allah- Oh Allah, I want this, I ask you for this, I plead with you for that, I beseech you for that- there's not going to be a response from Allah to you. You foreclose of Allah's response. Then, especially for these scholars who don't report to Allah and His Prophet they report to the king and the president, the Prophet's hadith the best form of jihad is expressing the word of truth or the facts in the face of a tyrannical ruler or oppressive governor. Some people will say "ok- you spoke about Sa'd ibn Ubadah, you spoke about Ali, you can speak about other Mujahidin and other Muttaqin and other Sahaba and other individuals from Ahl Al Bayt, you can speak about an array about those who opposed wayward rulers but how about an organized effort? Can we have an organized opposition?" Yes, we can have an organized opposition.
Let there be from among you an Ummah… (Surah Aal Imran verse 104)
An Ummah ranges from an individual
Indeed Ibrahim was an Ummah of one… (Surah An Nahl verse 120)
And then it all the way goes to become a nation or a social combined collective effort.
For sure this Ummah of yours is one Ummah and I am your sustainer so conform to Me. (Surah Al Anbiya' verse 92)
So the ayah itself says yes, by all means you can be organized but it has to be civilized and it has to be a measured and it has to be a disciplined and a responsible organization. Right now because we don't have organized Islamic political opposition we have freelancers jumping into the fray so anyone now can put together an outfit and call themselves Islamic opposition and they are being financed and they are being weaponized by the Mushrikin and the Kuffaar. This is what happens when we ourselves cannot step up to the plate and act in a responsible way. Some people are afraid of the word hizb. You might not know this but some very limited minds out there in the Islamic sphere of things take Surah Al Ahzaab- ahzaab is the plural of hizb. It has a negative connotation to it- these are the confederates that came to fight the Islamic state in Al Madinah. "Why would we want to have a hizb? Why do we want to be of these ahzaab?" Another thing they take from the du'a during the Eid time …and He by Himself defeated Al Ahzaab… Then they add to that, in their cobweb minds, the so called hadith that the Muslims are going to be divided into seventy three factions so why should we become a faction? They put all that together and they say "you can't have an Islamic opposition." Nonsense! You can have an Islamic opposition. The word hizb in the Qur'an has a negative and it has a positive connotation. In Surah Al Fatir ayah number six
Ash Shaytaan invites his own hizb, his own faction, so they become the occupants of the flaming fire. (Surah Al Fatir verse 6)
Hizb here has a bad connotation to it- that's hizb Ash Shaytaan. Then you come to another ayah (in) Surah Al Maa'idah ayah fifty six
And whoever has Allah and His Messenger and the committed Muslims as their primary allies then this hizb of Allah are the ones who are going to be triumphant. (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 56)
This hizb is going to be triumphant. There is a positive connotation and in this case we can have a collective organized, social, political, opposition. Another ayah (in) Surah Al Mujaadalah, ayah twenty two
Allah is satisfied with them, they are satisfied with Allah; they are the Hizb of Allah- indeed the Hizb of Allah are the successful ones. (Surah Al Mujaadalah verse 22)
So who is there to come and say you can't have organized political Islamic opposition? We'll end with the Prophet's hadith that says whoever sees a munkar (i.e.) something that all humanity knows is wrong something that is atrociously unacceptable to human nature should change it with their ability (or) with their hands if they can, and if they can't then they should change it with their communication, with their language (or) with their speech and if they can't the least they can do is change it in their psychology and in their heart and that latter one is the least expression of commitment to Allah.
Dear committed Muslims…
Taking this idea- here in the secular western world they talk about human rights- if we take a look at our Islamic sources what is called human rights in the west in the Islamic sphere are called obligations. One of these obligations- it's not only a right, in addition to it being a right it's an obligation- is to oppose those who are illegitimately in power. We think after many years of studying and reflection that this opposition should be concentrated on those who are in control of Makkah and Al Madinah- that's where this opposition belongs and every Muslim who has a pulsating heart and a thinking mind should concentrate this opposition on those who have usurped the land of Al Haramayn. They get away with everything. They have a class of scholars who are dumbed down. They can't speak truth to power! They can't speak truth to wealth! They are silent. He who remains silent when it comes to expressing the truth is a dumbfounded Shaytaan. This applies to anyone and everyone who is incapable to exposing those who are illegitimate in Al Hijaz and in the Arabian Peninsula. We don't do this as anarchists. We don't say this as anarchists or terrorists or subversives in the negative sense of the word. No! We say this with knowledge and with yaqin, we say this because we are enlightened by Allah and His Prophet. A king comes and says "this is going to be my crown prince and his crown prince is going to be so and so" Where did this come from? Where did they get this from? They said "they had a bai'ah." They brought in a council of thirty four members that they themselves hand picked and these of course automatically gave their bai'ah and the Muslim world remained silent! There is no Sa'd ibn Ubadah in the Muslim world, there is no Ali in the Muslim world, there are no Mujahidin in the Muslim world- none of this! You have to deal with "oh brother, you know you can't rock the boat. You can't speak these types of words. You can't. So where did this come from? Who said? Is this what Allah is saying? Show me your proof. Quote me the ayaat and the ahadith that support your position." But they are not out there. Like we said in the beginning they do not report to Allah and His Prophet. They report to military power structures and they report to financial wealth structures- that's what they report to and exclude us from their company- Oh Allah.
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 4 April 2014 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) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment