Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Friday, September 26, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : SUNNI-SHI’I : TWO EYES, ONE BODY PART 2

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (26 September 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 Muslims…
 
 
SUNNI-SHI'I : TWO EYES, ONE BODY PART 2
We are going to continue this journey of breaking down the psychological barriers and defeating the propagandistic assaults against we, the Muslims. Obviously, sectarianism right now is the most serious game that they are playing, a dangerous one that is costing us much life and limb. The ayah that we quoted previously, and obviously the Prophet of Allah and the Prophets of Allah (alayhim as salaam) before him encountered.
People responded by saying: We have found that our ancestors and our forefathers were pursuing a social pattern and we are following suit. (Surah Az Zukhruf verse 22)
This is actually, (if you give it more of your thought), applicable to many of us. We are born in a certain family, we are born in a certain culture, we are born within certain traditions, we are born in a madh'hab, we are even born in "religion" so because of that we automatically walk that path so the ayah, (if you give it more thought), is actually an ayah of self critique, meaning that you can't say just because your great grand fathers and you can't say just because of the inherited ways of doing things that becomes the standard. No! This applies even to you. This type of answer that is this ayah itself cannot apply to those who were thousands of years ago nor those who are current (and) with us right now. It doesn't hold. You are required to think who you are (and) what you do. So if we take it into the sectarian world of today, no one can come and present his credentials because he says "he is a Sunni." So what? What does that mean? Or someone else comes and says "he is a Shi'i." Once again, so what? What does that mean? If your understanding, (i.e.) the person coming with this type of mentality, is that you are right because you were born in a Sunni or Shi'i tradition or culture or society that doesn't hold any water (and) that doesn't mean anything. If that's the way you think about yourself then read this one ayah. So we go back to the beginning of all of this or we go back to where today's people think the beginning of all of this was and we find that the scholars, the Fuqaha', the Imams, the leaders way back then were people of ijtihad. That we think everyone agrees to even though some of those who agree to it still live within their traditional cocoon which is implicit within this ayah. Nevertheless, the agreement across the board is (that) Abu Hanifah, Ash Shafi'i, Al Baqir, As Sadiq, Malik, ibn Hambal, Zayd, Al Awza'i, An Nafs Az Zakiyah and on and on were Mujtahids. There's no disagreement on this. So let us begin from something that everyone agrees upon. But what is an ijtihad? This is something that the average Muslim is not privy to because those who have the information about this circulate it only within their circles and that is everyone of these Mujtahids had the perception my ijtihad, my reasoning, my judgment and my conclusion- all of these are part of ijtihad- is correct but it may tolerate being wrong and the ijtihad of someone else besides me is wrong but it could be right. (Do) you see the room here? Even at the summit (and) at the very top level of scholarship represented by these scholars their outlook (and) their psychology was not like today's sectarians! Today's sectarians- Sunnis and Shi'is doesn't matter- come up to you and say "I'm right and absolutely everyone else is wrong." And it goes to the extent whereby they quote the hadith that 72 factions and sects and divisions of Muslims are all going to Jahannam and this particular person and his types are the correct ones and they're the only ones going to Al Jannah. That's how miserable they have become! That's how detached they are even from the scholars that they attribute themselves to. Once again, the person, the Faqih, the Imam- whoever came out with a reasoning and a judgment was so confident of himself that he said what I am presenting you with as an ijtihad but there's always that possibility that it may be wrong and the ijtihad of that other scholar, whoever that is, is wrong on this particular matter if he disagrees with my ijtihad but it could be right. At this kevel of things this excludes the fanaticism, the bigotry and the bias that you recognize in the sectarians that now are being financed and are being armed all the way to the killing fields. What did one of the individuals, a scholar in his own right, ibn Al Qayyim, (they know exactly who ibn Al Qayyim is), who is quoted by the particular sectarians emanating from the Arabian Peninsula and spreading their hatred and their hostilities all around the Muslim territories and beyond- we have a share of it here simply because there's money involved; when you have money you have mobility- say about fanatics and people who are prejudiced within their own religious traditional, culturalized explanations? We'll quote him, he said "after those first generations of Muslims, (i.e.), the Sahaba and the Tabi'in came followers, (i.e.) people who followed them in time." What did they do? "They rendered fanaticism to their own madh'hab and that fanaticism has become their religion." Exactly what is happening to the followers of this person today! You can see it. Do we have to say the words of these individuals right now who are in the headlines? Their initials- the IS, the ISIS, the ISIL and their counterparts in other areas in Africa and Asia- the people who he is speaking about. This is ibn Al Qayyim speaking- its not me (and) it's not someone who takes issue with these types of individuals or organizations- "they have made this fanaticism their capital by which they transact their commercial deeds." Capital here means their wealth. It's as if he is looking at what is happening today, (i.e.), the monies, the budgets (and) the treasuries that are invested in this fanaticism. Ibn Al Qayyim is speaking. Once again we remind you this is not someone who's outside the fold. It's not an Orientalist, it's not a Sufi, it's not a Shi'i, it's not an Ash'ari- it's not any of this. It's one of them, (so to speak).
 
Ok- the sources of ijtihad, without getting distracted into much detail, some would say "the Qur'an and Sunnah. Stop here. These are the sources of ijtihad." Then others would add to that the faculty of reasoning, thinking. Then here you go into other details. You have al qiyas, al istihsan, al masalih al mursalah, al istis'hab, etc. Regardless of these other details what all Muslims agree about is the reference of ijtihad is Allah and His Prophet, (in simple words). You are permitted to go look at the Fuqaha' (or) those scholars who gave us the opinions way back then, (a thousand and a few hundred years ago or so), that we refer to right now! Let's say you are convinced that a certain scholar has the best judgment, assessment and conclusion on most of the issues- OK. That is due to you- fine. There's no disagreement here; but you can't come and say "just because of that you can't or you won't consider what other scholars said?!" What do you want to do? (Do) you want to fanaticise what Allah has given you? This is an enrichment process. Besides, if you think a particular scholar belongs to you and you belong to him in exclusion to the others you're becoming selfish! You're turning something that is halal and permissible and fine and good and dandy into something that is becoming possessive, (i.e.), something that you own and then you want to allow people into it and out of it and you consider yourself above others and superior. You begin to open up the doors of prejudice and discrimination. Just like we have the racist problem over here we begin to have the religious problem in here! As was said previously, there's no ayah (and) there's no hadith that imposes a persons ijtihad upon any Muslim- none! We know this is a bold statement but it's the trust!  People want to avoid the variety of ijtihadat, the variety of legitimate opinions. It's just like medicine. Think about it like this- this will open your horizons a little- if you have some pain in your body somewhere (and) someone comes up to you somewhere and says "take some Aspirin for your pain. I think Aspirin will work." Someone else comes up to you and says "no, no. I think Tylenol is better or Acetaminophen. I think these are better for the pain you have." These are doctors telling you this. Then someone else, a third one comes up to you and says "forget about the other two. I think Ibuprofen is better for what you have." Then someone else comes to you and says "your pain is so profound that you need something that is way beyond this category. It's called Codeine." Now all of these are used for pain. And just to take this analogy from medicine and place it in the realm of Fuqaha'- this is what Fuqaha' produce and obviously some of this is going to work for some pain and other types are going to work for other types of pain. Then you have to calibrate how much are you going to take. Are you as an individual, let's say in your prime, 35 years old, the athletic type going to take the same dose of the same medication as someone else who's frail and who's ailed in his body is going to take? Then, is it going to be administered or given in the same way? S it going to be given orally, (i.e.), you're going to swallow it, or is it going to be given as a form of injection or is it going to be administered in another way? Because the area of medicine doesn't have the religious stigma to it anyone in his right mind would say "wait a minute here- all of these are valid applications. Whether it is Aspirin, whether it's Tylenol, whether it's Ibuprofen or whether it is Codine or whether it is some other form of medicine." In the world of medicine you know you don't become fanatic about this! But if someone were to come to you and say "when you are performing your wudhu with washing your feet" and some other Mujtahid comes to you and says "you may perform your wudhu by wiping your feet" then all of a sudden Muslims become divided! "You have to do it this way" or "you have to do it that way." Why do you become divided and why does your antenna goes up and you go on alert and you are prejudiced against the other?! Allah is giving both of this to you! Both of these are Qur'anic and we can explain this but its going to take time and we just simply don't have time for that. We said that many of these schools of thought when we put all of these ijtihads together and when we combine them we call of them a school of thought. How many of you are aware of the similarities of the schools of thought? Almost every time someone wants to speak about these they begin to speak about what is different- and there's nothing wrong with that if it doesn't cause division but they speak about what is different precisely to cause divisions and there comes a time where the trouble makers of the world begin to harvest these division by the wars and the invasions and occupations that we have in our body today. It all begins with simple issues but then it builds up and it builds up and the distance increases between and among Muslims and then we have these wars.
 
Al Azhar university that is considered to be one of the prominent universities in the Islamic world- prominent in the sense that it is a Sunni university; (and) not many people know it but in formulating answers to issues that have to do with divorce in particular Al Azhar has given more weight to the Shi'i answers to the issue of divorce than to the Sunni answers. OK- something like this they don't want you to learn about (and) they don't want you to listen to because it doesn't serve the purposes of divide and kill or divide and conquer. (The) same thing you have in the Islamic Republic in Iran which is the most prominent in the Shi'i world. You have a university or a college that teaches the Sunni fiqh, (we use these words because these are the words that are being used. We don't necessarily abide by their connotations), but they use the curriculums of teaching the fiqh of Abi Hanifah and Shafi'i and Maliki and ibn Hambal there. Well why don't we listen (and) why don't we hear about this?! Why isn't this presented to the Muslim public? We'll go a step further. If you come from a Sunni background, are you aware that Al Azhar has taken a position of teaching the fiqh of Imam Ja'far and Imam Zayd in their universities and its other outreach extensions because Al Azhar is not only a university in Egypt, in Cairo. It also has other branches in other parts of Egypt and in other parts of the Muslim world. We want you to listen to this carefully- then if you are a Shi'i why isn't it made known to you clearly that in Iran there is the teaching of other madha'hib on an equal par, not at all universities obviously and obviously in some areas or in some particular circles there this is frowned upon- they don't favour this type of thing happening, but its happening. Right here, thousands of miles away from both of these places why doesn't this become common knowledge? Ask yourself so that you can liberate your mind and your conscience from   
… We have found that our ancestors and our forefathers were pursuing a social pattern and we are following suit. (Surah Az Zukhruf verse 22)
 
Now, there are things that all of the Mujtahids have agreed upon. All of the Mujtahids have agreed on the number of rak'aat in the salah. The fajr is two, the dhuhr is four, etc. All of them agreed on that. That is called a hujuh qa'tiah. There can be no ijtihad when all these Mujtahids agreed on this, among many other issues. They all agreed on it. There can't be any thing else that comes and says "all of this is wrong." But whatever they disagreed upon is rahmah wa'si'ah. Whatever they agreed upon is hujuh qa'tiah whatever they may have disagreed upon is rahmah wa'si'ah, (i.e.), its an accommodating blessing; but they way we are engineered to think and feel is that we don't have to look at this as an accommodating blessing, we look at this as reason to pull the trigger. This is how deteriorating we have become.
 
Then, you know, some people will tell you "the point of division or difference between As Sunnah and Ash Shi'ah." It's a shame that someone would say something like that because like we said previously both of these are like two eyes in a body. Some people just want to look at this with one eye. What are you going to say to a person that just wants to see with one eye? "I'm a Sunni, I'm just going to look with one eye!" Or "I'm a Shi'i, I'm just going to look with one eye!" That's how you're behaving whether you know it or not! Both of these eyes belong to you. See through them. Don't say (there's) a difference. What's the difference between one eye and the next? Is there a real difference between them? But that's what's happening! Next time you listen to these people who speak on these issues and they say "the issue of difference between As Sunnah and Ash Shi'ah" say what is this?!
 
Another one of these scholars, ibn Taymiyah- who hasn't heard of ibn Taymiyah? This what you may call their, (i.e.) the sectarians who are going around killing left and right, lead scholar because of this takfir mentality that they have. What did ibn Taymiyah say about Imam As Sadiq. These are his words. Anyone listening to this should transmit these words to those fanatics(and) these killers. Ibn Taymiyah is saying about Imam As Sadiq "he had of knowledge and of deen something which Allah made distinct about him vis-a-vis and his father and his grandfather were from the prominent Imams as far as knowledge and as far as deen are concerned." This is ibn Taymiyah speaking about Imam Sadiq. Now we shift a little to the political sphere.
 
It's been something like an unwritten agreement among all Muslims that something drastically happened, a paradigm shift happened, after Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu) ruled the Muslims. However you want to word it this is the internal agreement among all Muslims. Something happened- OK. The way that new development was dealt with was with the use of force. Imam Hussayn, Zayd, An Nafs Az Zakiyyah (radi Allahu anhum) dealt with that deviation by the application of force. Others dealt with it in different manners (or) ways, (i.e.) to encourage the use of force. They themselves were not involved on the use of force but they encouraged it or in acts of, (what is called today), civil disobedience or in just speaking truth to power. We know, (and we say this as a brother and a servant), that many times there are people (who are) scholars, learned individuals, academicians, lecturers, etc. who come and speak about a certain part of Islamic history. Brothers and sisters, listen to us- our Islamic history if we take a holistic look at it has basically two components. Obviously we're simplifying a lot of this history but to make a point- it has two components. There is a danger threatening the Muslims coming from the outside and there's a danger threatening the Muslims generated from the inside. An internal threat and an external threat- this is generally the way you should be perceiving our history. Now when you have speakers come to you and they begin speaking about how victorious the Muslims were and they'll quote you the battle of Yarmouk, and they'll quote you the liberation of Al Quds- this is way back 1,300 and 1,400 years ago. How the Muslims reached Al Andalus and how they reached towards the Indian sub-continent. They will go on and on and on and when they are speaking they omit the internal dynamics of the Muslims. They're not speaking about what's happening inside the Muslim body. Notice this whenever next time you tune into these types of speakers who they leave the internal dynamics of the Muslims away from the public eye. Now, on the other hand you will have Muslims (who are) academicians, scholars, lecturers, learned individuals, etc. (we're avoiding a couple of words), come to you and they will speak to you about the internal challenges the Muslims were facing. They will speak about Al Jamal, they will speak about Siffin, they will speak about Karbala' but when they are speaking about this notice they leave the external threat outside of their presentation they don't speak about it. Both of these are incorrect because they don't take a holistic look at the combined threats that the Muslims were facing internally and externally. Keep this in mind the next time you listen to these types of people- whichever Masajid you go to, whichever lecturers you listen to.  
 
Now, we want to ask you: take today's world and what's happening now. We have the same type of dynamics but on steroids now- internally and externally. The same things are happening. Now you know today's world. Look at what's happening in Syria and Iraq just as an example. This is a sample. You think that right now the powers of the world have nothing to do with what's happening in Syria and Iraq right now? They're not involved in what's happening there? They don't have a hand in it? Take the answer to this question (or) take that conclusion 1,300 or 1,400 years ago (to) what happened in Al Jamal, what happened in Siffin, what happened in Karbala', the coup of the Abbasis against the Umawis and we can go on and on- (do) you think world powers at that time were absent? They had nothing to do with this?! But this is the way we present our own selves with the information about our own history!
 
Another way of looking at this to extend your thoughts and to try to work with you on this problem- we had almost 1,400 years ago the tragedy of Karbala. That was a qualitative Karbala'. Today we have quantitative Karbala's! But if you're not going to open your political mind how are you going to understand this when they come to you and say "particular tafseer that's being written has too much politics in it"? How can it have too much politics in it when it's trying to stimulate the Muslim mind to the facts around when this information is absent from the Muslim mind? Ahmed ibn Hambal the person who is another one of these scholars (who is) considered a reference by these now who have become the pawns of external excursions and intrusions into our lives and into our societies said if a scholar was to remain silent because of fear or intimidation and the average person is silent because of ignorance then when is the truth going to surface? To fill some of the political blanks in the contemporary Muslim mind as a reminder), Imam Ash Shafi'i who is considered the foremost Mujtahid amongst hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world was going to be executed and probably 99per cent of those who follow his fiqh today don't understand why he was going to be executed. If it wasn't for the interference of another scholar, Abu Yusuf, one of the students of Abu Hanifah, Ash Shafi'i would have been executed. So why was he to be executed? Because of his political character. He was supportive of one of the grandsons of Imam Al Hassan (radi Allahu anhu). You tell us- there was antagonism between Sunnis and Shi'is here? One of them is considered a Shi'i the other a Sunni. Abu Hanifah who also has hundreds of millions of Muslims who abide by his ijtihads and his school of thought was also tainted for supporting Imam Zayd and giving financial assistance to the revolt of Zayd. Now you ask 99% of those who consider themselves pure Hanafis do they know (and) are they aware (and) are they informed of the political character and deeds of Imam Abi Hanifah. Imam Malik was also tainted because he was a supporter of An Nafs Az Zakiyyah who's also a descendant of Hassan. They broke into Ahmed ibn Hambal's home and they arrested him and then they had him chained and burdened with weights and then he had to go the distance from Baghdad to Tarsus. Tarsus is on the Mediterranean, then back through Ar Raqqa. Ar Raqqa today is one of these cities in Syria that is controlled by these takfiris. Then, once he walked back to Baghdad they threw him in a public prison for 30 months. What was he? Was he an agent of the government? But this is the way our history is presented to us. Some of you Muslims have to be absent minded. You can't know some of these facts (as for) the other Muslims, "Ah- you have to just dismiss them. These are some kind of intruders on true Islam." Both of these are inaccurate and incorrect. None of you are correct when you think about our history and these people the way you do. 
 
We know (that) one of the questions that's going to come is where did you get this information from? We're going to tell you where we get this information from. This information is in these books: Tarikh Baghdad by ibn Al Athir, Al Kash'shaaf by Zamakhshari, Aqd Al Farid by ibn Abdir Rabbah, Dhuhr Al Islam by Ahmed Amin, Al Manaqib by Al Makki, Al Kamil by ibn Athir and Al A'lam by Al Zarqali. Now all of you who are just a little familiar with Islamic history know these are mainstream books. If they are mainstream books why is this not common information and common sense?
 
Abu Hanifah was told by the ruler of the time "you are going to become, (in today's world it's like), the Attorney General." He refused. He didn't want to belong to an administration that he knows has no legitimacy. This is a small back and forth between Abu Ja'far Al Mansur and Abu Hanifah. Abu Ja'far Al Mansur was the ruler of the Abbasi dynasty at the time. He says "many times we've sent you money and you refused to accept it." Then Abu Hanifah replies and says if it was your money I would have accepted it but this is the money of the Muslims and I have no right to take any of it. I am not a Muslim soldier and I am not a Muslim in need. Malik said to the same ruler, Abu Ja'far Al Mansur, the pollution that's in the water here began at its source, meaning you're the source of the polluted politics of this Ummah. What is he? An agent of the state? The state knew it had to look the other way concerning certain scholars so it more or less accommodated these four "Sunni" schools of thought or else if it's going to take issue with all of them it's going to expose itself. It had to be accomodationist towards all of them.
 
When Idris Al Awwal, one of the great grandsons of Hassan, went to what is today Morocco all the people accepted him as their ruler. If there was a Sunni-Shi'i issue in the sectarian way it is understood today that would have never happened.
 
Let us try to conclude, (we know we're probably taken a little more time), by a statement of Zayd. He said the Ummah deputized Aba Bakr, the first Khalifah of Rasulillah as a matter of ijtihad. It wasn't a matter of stubbornness. He was obviously speaking to the psychology and the sociology of his time. The Sahabah intended for the truth of the matter but they were wrong in their ijtihad, which didn't create any bad feelings, which didn't bring them to the sectarianism that we have among us today. They didn't intend that. The translators license here is the Ummah gave preference to the consensual person over the nominated person, meaning gave preference to Abu Bakr over Imam Ali. It wasn't done with malfeasance, it wasn't done with a type of asabiyah of prejudice. It was done with an ijtihad which we hope after all of these years can rectify with our reference to Allah and His Prophet.
 
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters… 
You are very well aware of the trouble-making, the mischief making, the schemes, the intrigue (and) the conspiracies. Yes, we say this word (and) no one should shy away from it because after all we are dying by the hundreds everyday because of warfare, not because of natural causes; because of imposed wars and battles upon us. They want us to hate the other and they give a broad definition of the other almost to hate everyone except yourself and the few people around you and you go from hating them to killing them. Where did all of this hatred and this killing come from? We've spoken about this before. There are issues of jihad, there are issues of qital but also with that there are issues of principle and issues of discipline that are absent now from the craziness that we see and we read about. Where did all of this come from? It came from that kingdom of evil. We know some people will consider these words inappropriate for a khutbah but they are appropriate for a khutbah because we are poor. Listen- we are poor. We are poverty stricken! We don't mean in the financial sense. We are very rich and wealthy in the financial sense. Allah has blessed our geography in the world with resources so much so that everyone invades us and occupies us because of our resources. So materially speaking we are not poor. We are poverty stricken and we are poor in our minds! We don't generate ideas- that's why we are poor! A recent crunching of some figures came out and it found that that nation state called Saudi Arabia is ranked number 10 in the world when it comes to counting the billionaires in it. It has almost 60 billionaires in it! Of course, the US comes number one but look at the difference in population base between the US and that kingdom of Shaytaan called Saudi Arabia and we turn out, even though Allah has given us the blessings of resources look at the allocation of the resources. The neighbors of these billionaires live in abject poverty! Cross over to Africa, west of Arabia, or cross into India, East of Arabia, or go North to Central Asia and see how some of us are dying because we have no food. Some of us are dying in the cradle and others are dying a slow death of many years. The worst type of death is when they kill us in our minds. We are no longer able to think for ourselves and this sectarianism is a symptom of our inability to think for ourselves.
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 19 September 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.
 

__._,_.___
Posted by: stop evil <stop_evil123@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic ()

.

__,_._,___
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : REACTIONARY MUSLIMS PERPETUATE THE STATUS QUO

 


THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (19 September 2014)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_street_mimbar/
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheStreetMimbar/videos
PLEASE e-mail Suggestions & Criticisms to khutbahs@yahoo.com
It is in such a manner that We make plain Our signs so that the course of the
Criminals may become clear.
Bismillah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem.
Alhumdulillah. Peace and blessings on Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam), his Noble Companions and Family.
Brothers and sisters, committed Muslims…
 
 
REACTIONARY MUSLIMS PERPETUATE THE STATUS QUO
Extolled and exalted is He who has taken His conforming subject on a night journey from Al Masjid Al Haram to Al Masjid Al Aqsa the environs of which we have blessed so that We may demonstrate some of Our ayaat to him for He, meaning Allah, is All Hearing and All Seeing (or) nothing escapes His attention nothing escapes His detection. (Surah Al Isra' verse 1)
This is the first ayah from Surah Al Isra' or Surah Bani Isra'eel. It describes the night journey of Allah's Messenger from Makkah to Al Quds and then from there to the heavenly company of Allah. ? This event is marked by Muslims at the end of the 7th Islamic month of Rajab and it will coincide with the first part of next week. This was a strategic journey. It was strategic because Allah's Messenger unified revelation and he unified history. He unified revelation in the sense that he is the eternal link between the past of scripture and the future of scripture. He came to confirm and to corroborate what was correct of previous scripture and to rectify what human beings had done to previous scripture to corrupt it and all of this confirmation, corroboration and rectification was captured in the permanent, the incontrovertible and the incorruptible message that is contained in the Qur'an. He also came to unify history. From the place of historic scripture which is Al Quds to the birth place of scripture which is Makkah. This unification took place because Allah's final Prophet was the seal of all the Messengers. We don't distinguish between any of them. The message that they all brought to humanity was consistent and it was unchanging from its first dispensation to Adam (alayhi as salaam) to its final dispensation to Muhammad. So we said that this journey was strategic. So what do we mean by strategic? What is the connection between leadership and power? How do Muslim leaders acquire power and what is it that connects power with the level of activities on the ground and leadership at the level of activities in the mind? In order to get our hands and our minds around these questions we turn to a slogan that has been making its rounds for the past several decades amongst Muslims who have the desire to be active (and) to be involved in what is happening to them and (in) what is happening in the world around them. This slogan as it applies to Muslims goes like this "act, don't react." But what does it mean to act? Certainly, because we, Muslims, have been cowed by oppression for the past two or three centuries we know what it means to react. Certainly our reaction is the response to an initiative taken by someone else. Reaction is based on the activities of another and we, Muslims, are very comfortable in existing in the domain of reactions. We are comfortable with it, we rely on it (and) we count on it. That domain is our comfort zone and when we are forcibly expelled from that domain we panic and we act in all sorts of desperate ways. A primary characteristic of those who exist in the domain of reaction is behavior on impulse, behavior on emotion, behavior on instinct rather than a thoughtful exercise of the mind to construct a cogent and a structured approach to the problems that we have to deal with and answer to the needs of our communities. We have become comfortable without thinking on our own. We have become comfortable without thinking to respond to our problems. Or to put it another way, we have become comfortable with relying on somebody else's thinking to respond to our problems and to our needs. This is very nice for the Taghuti power culture of the world. They want Muslims who exist but do not live! They want Muslims who see but do not think! For when you exist you are dormant and when you live you are growing and in order to grow you have to think. So our enemies are very comfortable with the posture where we Muslims do not think especially where we do not think with the medium of the Qur'an and the example of Allah's Prophet. For it just goes to show you that when we become robots for Islam we are the foot soldiers for the expansion of the Taghuti territories and for the normalization of Taghut in our minds and in our consciences. Brothers and sisters- Muslim leaders can ill afford to reside in the domain of reaction, in fact they can't even be called Muslim and they definitely cannot be called leaders if they reside in the domain of reaction. So how should Muslim leaders behave? In a word- a Muslim leader is strategic. Here we go back to that word once more. Strategy is the counter position (and) the counter posture to reaction. Strategy is the set of key decisions (and) core decisions you make which shape all of your future and lesser decisions. Brothers and sisters, (this is something to keep in mind), Strategy answers the question of what we want to do, is it not concerned exclusively with what the enemy is doing? It addresses what we want to do, how we want to achieve it and what it looks like in the very end. A fundamental function of leaders, especially Muslim leaders, is to conceptualize and to develop and implement strategy. To implement the fact that we can look at our surroundings, make a set of core decisions that help our people shape all of their other decisions. It is leaders who implement strategy and their followers who implement tactics. It is strategy that gives shape to your tactical considerations and this is why we say it is leaders who have the capacity to shape the behavior of their followers or of their flock. To this end Umar ibn Al Khattab (radi Allahu anhu), the second successor to Allah's Messenger, said when the leaders are immoderate then the people quickly follow suit. So the leaders have the greatest impact on their followers, on their flock, on their people  (and) on their societies. In the talks of times passed we indicated that important function of leaders (or) the primary function of leaders is to set a directional course and that setting a directional course is composed of creating a sense of urgency, identifying the important constituencies and more importantly identifying their needs and then lastly to help these constituencies to understand what their struggle and their effort is going to lead to (and what) its going to look like in the end, basically a vision. So an important part of direction setting is to create a vision that the people (and) the constituencies can aspire to. But how do we go from where we are to where we have to be? How do we achieve our vision? This is where strategy comes in. It defines a program and a process to help you understand how you're going to go from where you are to where you have to be. So this means that the strategic exercise of power is more valuable than the reactionary exercise of power for when you are in the domain of reaction you have to count by definition (and) by necessity on the vision and direction of somebody else. When you put yourself on somebody else's direction and when you are trying to achieve somebody else's direction then that is what is shaping your behavior and you end up accomplishing the goals of somebody else's vision and somebody else's direction. Then with regard to your own problems and your own needs you find yourself back at square one after committing all of that effort. What gets lost in all academic discussions and theoretical ones, (such as this one is beginning but not in a way that this discussion is going to end), is that strategy is a deliberative activity. It requires the participation of important constituencies who are going to be assigned the task of achieving a vision and thus their ownership or whatever this strategy or process is going to look like to help you get from where you are to where you have to be is important. Within Islamic terminology we call this kind of a process where we discuss what our strategy is going to look like a shura and to the extent that we continuously engage in this kind of a process- this deliberate engagement to come up with the best strategy- is what becomes an institutional shura. When we talk about strategy shura ought to be a matter of fact (and) it ought not to be something new. Part of the reason that strategy is a deliberative effort is because leadership itself is a social activity. Leaders are assigned the task of managing human relationships to the end of achieving a common goal. Leaders also have the task or the mission to manage the relationship between a constituencies commitments and the discharge of those responsibilities. So the stakeholders who participate in developing a strategy and coming up with a vision have to understand that they own the problem from which they are producing a strategy and a vision. When they say to themselves "we own this problem" what they are saying is that we are going to rely on our own thinking (and) our own creativity to solve this problem- that is ownership of a problem. When you own the problem you own the solution and when you own the problem and the solution you own everything in-between which is the process and the strategy. Leadership is the glue that holds all of this together. So there is a relationship between leadership, strategy and power. So what does all this have to do with power? If we want to make changes on the ground we have to have power. There's no way around this. If you want to change your current situation its fine to have a strategy, its fine to have leaders, its fine to have a vision but if you don't have any power you can't make any changes; but critical to acquiring any power is the necessity of leadership and strategy. You can't have independent power without having leadership and without having a strategy that tells you how to get from where you are to where you ought to be. So for Muslim leaders the key to the acquisition of political power is the implementation of strategy. Notice, brothers and sisters, we're not talking about any kind of power. There're many kinds of power. There's economic power, there's commercial power, there's military power, there's emotional power, there's inspirational power, motivational power (and) all kinds of power but in this instance we're talking about political power. Economic power for instance is the ability to leverage markets, resources, services (and) labor in order to acquire an advantage. We all understand what military power is but political power, brothers and sisters, is more fundamental. Political power is the ability to leverage the force of ideas, to excite tendencies inside the human being for achievement, to do something that other people have never done, to do things for which the reward is delayed satisfaction, to do things that are greater than oneself or one's community and this is why political power is more fundamental. Political power requires no material fuel for activation. It doesn't require resources, it doesn't require markets, it doesn't require resources and militaries; all it requires is the activation of the human mind to understand what is right and what is wrong, between what is better and what is not so good. In order to have political power you have to think and it is common knowledge that in the Muslim world one of the greatest problems that we have is the lack of stable political institutions but you can't have political institutions without political power! And you can't have political power unless you think! And that is the reason that we don't have political power and there-by political institutions and that is because we have ceded the ability to think and the desire to solve our problems to somebody else's philosophical approaches.
 
Again, in times past on this forum we have talked about the power equation of Muslims, (i.e.) that it is legitimacy that confers authority that leads to power. But legitimacy is not simply espousing what is right. Legitimacy is about showing the oppressed how what is right works in their favor (and) showing those who have no representation how the right things work in their favor is the same as making a key set of decisions that enable the oppressed to make a subsequent set of decisions that enable their liberation. Liberation activities are related to a strategic exercise of power not to a reactionary exercise of political power. OK- what does this all mean in practicality?
 
We've gone through a theoretical academic development of power, leadership and strategy but what does this mean on the ground. In order to understand that let us look at certain aspects of the Sunnah of Allah's Prophet. When he was forced to flee to Al Madinah his immediate strategic gals and his future strategic goals did not change. His immediate strategic goal was the liberation of Makkah and there-by the strategic liberation of the rest of humanity. The more transcendental goal, which again did not change, was to leave behind a set of demonstrable principles that any oppressed people any where in the world at any time (and)at any place can utilize for their self-liberation. So in order to accomplish these goals he did not employ a strategy that he had to borrow. There were many other power cultures around at the time. There was an indigenous power culture in Makkah, there was a power culture in Persia (and) there was a power culture in Rome but did he borrow or appropriate a strategy that they employed and foist it upon his own people? In fact what was so groundbreaking and so pace setting about the strategy that he employed was that he tailored his strategy for the achievement of his goals to the characteristics, the qualities and the needs of the constituencies that bound themselves to him in Al Madinah. He did not take his people lightly, he did not think that his people were lightweights; in fact they were human beings just like other human beings who had power, and who had intellect, and who had academia and who had knowledge but they had their unique qualities and he used these unique qualities and characteristics to tailor make a strategy that was executable by these people. So his strategy was to secure the new Islamic base of operations in Al Madinah by binding the power constituencies of Al Madinah into a contract that laid out their rights and responsibilities and we know this contract to be called The Document of Al Madinah or The Constitution of Al Madinah. But let's just back up for a second… Today what binds people to their contracts is their signature on the bottom line but if we go back fourteen hundred years even though this was a written document when you sign on the bottom line it doesn't men that you're going to fulfill the obligation of your contract. That happens everyday here in the world we live in! Just because you sign doesn't obligate you from a moral point of view or from a practical point of view to follow through on your obligations. Contracts are violated all the time. Contracts are violated on purpose. Treaties are broken on purpose. Treaties to buy time and we know that at the time 1,400 years ago these people in Arabia were considered the most savage people on earth (and) the most uncultured people on Earth. So what kind of qualities did they have that would bind them to this contract? What kind of qualities did they have that Allah's Prophet could use and that he could be confident of that they would discharge their obligations to this contract? There was a characteristic that was known about these people, a characteristic that was known beyond the Peninsula, a characteristic that was known in their history to Byzantine historians and to Persian historians that these people are bound to their oaths. This was something that was known the Arabian (or) the Arab, (i.e.) that when he takes an oath he will go to the death before breaking his oath. This is not true of the Arabians today but it was true of the Arabians at the time of Allah's Messenger. So he used this quality in order to accomplish the Islamic mission. So while going for armed combat in Makkah it presented not even a challenge in Al Madinah. They didn't have a problem going to war. Yes, they didn't have the equipment, they didn't have the armaments but the idea to go to war to defend the city wasn't a problem for them because they already committed their lives in the contract. So to go to war in Badr (and) to go to war in Uhud (was) a matter of fact. They didn't have an argument with the Prophet about it. They didn't have an argument with each other about it. They knew they had to go to war to defend the city. When it came to the expulsion of the Jewish tribes that was also a fait accompli. The decision made itself. Everyone knew that they backed out of their obligation to the agreement. Everyone knew that they violated the contract. The Prophet knew, the Muslims around him knew and even the treacherous Yahudis knew that they violated the contract and even the escalating punishments from the first tribe to the last tribe was not in question. These Yahudis knew and expected every kind of punishment that came to them. Brothers and sisters, the point that we are making here is that this is the value of being strategic, this is the value of making a key set of decisions that shapes and informs all of your decisions. Your easy decisions ought to be easy. You ought not to go through a constitutional deliberation for each easy decision but in our world today our easy decisions are not easy because we don't spend the time to think about the difficult decisions. So now let's bring this into the contemporary world.
 
We know how Allah's Messenger bound together his leadership with the acquisition of power through strategy. But how does this apply in our contemporary world? Let us take a look at the Islamic Republic in Iran. Their foreign policy is strategic. They made a decision early on "the overwhelming goal of our foreign policy is the liberation of Palestine and every other foreign policy decision is going to be subsumed to this objective." But at the same time in the vast majority of the Muslim world the Muslims have a hard time understanding the relationship between the government of the Islamic Republic in Iran and the people of the Islamic Republic in Iran with the government of Syria. Yeah- they have a hard time understanding "how is it possible for a principled Islamic government to back an unelected government, a hereditary government, an unprincipled government, a utilitarian and opportunistic government?! How's it possible?!" So we go back to the domain that we are comfortable in. We're comfortable in the domain of reaction- we said that earlier. If you're comfortable in the domain of reaction then this is how you appraise the situation, (i.e.), the relationship between the government in Iran and the government in Syria but if you put yourself in the strategic domain and you notice that the Islamic Republic's foreign policy is a strategic foreign policy and everything in its foreign policy is subsumed to the goal of the liberation of Palestine then you can understand the relationship between the Islamic government in Iran and the government of Syria because this is a strategic relationship, not a reactive one. But if you're used to somebody else doing your thinking for you, if you're used to the real-politick world (and) if you're used to seating the key decisions of your thinking to somebody else then you have a problem with the relationship between the Islamic government in Iran and the government of Syria.
 
Libya, at the time of Mu'ammar Qaddafi, right before he was butchered and murdered has a strategic monetary policy for Africa. If he had a reactive monetary policy like every other country "fine- you can continue your dictatorship." It's because he had a strategic monetary policy for all of Africa that threatened the reserve currency position of the US dollar, an escalating threat to the reserve position of the US dollar, that's why he had to be taken out. You're not going to see this in future history books (and)you're not going to hear this in the analysis that you hear on CNN or CBS or any of these other channels. You're going to understand this if your thinking is strategic and if your thinking does not rely on the way that other people are thinking and if your thinking is grounded in the liberating elements of Allah's words and the example of His Prophet.
 
Finally we come to the example of the Ikhwan in Egypt. Keep in mind the context of our discussion is strategy and the way it connects leadership and power. Trying t understand the situation of the Ikhwan in Egypt is a little bit more complex. We have to back up a little bit and we have to think about it- this is the key issue, we have to think about it. Dealing with the enemy is a tactical issue not a strategic one. Brothers and sisters- we have to understand this. On the top of everybody's foreign policy considerations in so far as the Muslim world is concerned is how to deal with the enemy to such an extent that dealing with the enemy becomes a strategic issue and not where it belongs which is a tactical issue. It is strategy that informs tactics and not the other way around. Our enemies are ubiquitous. They're all around. It doesn't matter if we have power to mange our own destiny or if somebody else has power to force our destiny into a certain direction. Whether we have power (or) somebody else has power we're still going to have enemies and they're always going to be around and because they're always going to be around dealing with them is an issue of tactics not an issue of strategy. Whatever your enemy does not come up to the level of overriding, delaying or otherwise sidelining Allah's and command and counsel! It is Allah's command and counsel which acts as the foundation for our decisions not what the enemy is doing. The problem occurs for us when we take tactical issues and elevate them to the level of strategy. When we make our tactics our strategy and this exhibits itself as us trying to fool the enemy or trying to out-think the enemy or trying to build bridges with the enemy and in the extreme case to think that we don't even have an enemy. When we elevate our tactics 
To the level of strategy we are ceding our key decisions to somebody else whether that strategy is ours or somebody else's doesn't matter. Tactics are subsumed to strategy. A tactician follows the lead of a leader (or) an Imam. An Imam may listen to the counsel of a tactician but it is the leader that makes a set of key decisions that shapes the view of a tactician and so it is the Imam or leader that wields power not the tactician; but the fact of the matter is in the vast majority of the Muslim world today our leaders are glorified tacticians because the follow somebody else's orders (and) they obey somebody else's thinking. A case in point is the Ikhwan in Egypt. They allowed American Imperialism, Israeli Zionism and Saudi Anglo-Wahabism "to buy the groceries, to cook the meal, to set the table, to decide the time and the place for the party" and the Ikhwan just showed up at the table to break bread with these global Taghut. To add insult to injury it didn't allow Muslims of conscience and principle to appear with them at the table because they were more concerned with the exclusivity and the power of those who had already engorged themselves with a hundred other meals before they came to the table, (viz.), the Americans and the Israelis and the Saudis. When we're talking about strategy we're talking about a key set of decisions. What the Ikhwan should have done is to take a strategic approach instead of a tactical approach. This is a common mistake all over the oppressed part of the world where they think they have to cede their thinking to somebody else. They feel that on their route to power they have to imitate the process and the procedures that the corrupt took to get the power. But we already said that the power equation that applies to Muslims is that it is legitimacy that confers authority that delivers power. It's not the opposite. The Taghuti power equation is just the opposite! Its power that delivers authority that confers legitimacy?! If you have power anything you do is legitimate?! That's not the case for Muslims. We can't imitate somebody else's route to power. If the Ikhwan would have taken a strategic approach to handling their responsibilities of governance in Egypt they would have said "we could care less about what the enemies do. We're concerned more with what we need to do, what we have to do (and) what we're commanded to do as Muslims in power." Had they taken that approach they would have put as much distance between themselves and the Mushriks and the Kafirs and the Munafiqs in the world. For indeed Allah says
… whoever rejects At Taghut- the excessive concentration of excessive power, (that's the practical meaning of Taghut) is on firm grounds... Allah is the Wali of those who are committed to Him, He takes them out of darkness and into the light; and those who are in denial of Him, their Awliya' are these concentrated and disproportionate powers of Taghut- they take people out of light and throw them out in obscurity; and they will dwell in An Naar forever (Surah Al Baqarah verse 256-257)
 
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
We've been talking about the relationship between strategy and how it connects leadership and the acquisition of political power. Our enemies are working overtime in so far as this power equation is concerned. Strategy to them is second nature. It hasn't become second nature to us yet because you will find very few people (and) very few Imams who stand up and talk about these issues. Very few of them talk about why we should have power, how we ought to acquire power, why we need to acquire power and why the Muslims especially need to acquire power. We are confronted with the strategic execution of an evil vision and one view of that vision is what we see with regard to the "bring our girls back campaign"; (i.e.) the kidnapping of these young girls in Nigeria. This has become a major issue all across the world's media but brothers and sisters, once again we are required to think about what's going on. We're not just required to take in information and then parrot that information in the way it was presented to us. We are required to take information filter it through Allah's words and the activity of His Messenger and then regurgitate a response. The North East portion of Nigeria is the oil rich portion of that country. That is part of this equation. Don't think that oil and kidnapping don't have anything to do with each other! Don't think that an Islamic group that is labeled as a terrorist group and the acquisition of somebody else's oil don't have anything to do with each other. The major impediments to the US Command in Africa were Libya and Nigeria. We know what happened in Libya. By the way, the secular government in Libya was just overthrown by a coup just this week. You probably didn't hear about it because ever since Libya became a de facto American colony we don't know what's going on over there! Yeah- a coup just took place a couple of days ago and the person who organized the coup lived here in Washington. For 20 years he lived here in Washington five miles from Langley. All of a sudden he shows up in Libya and organizers a coup! The US African Command was given a shot in the arm by George W Bush and once again the major impediments to the US African Command were Libya and Nigeria. The desire with the kidnapping of these your girls is to start a religious war between the Christians and the Muslims in that country in order to rationalize intervention and the break up of that country into separate countries and then to continue to organize internecine and national warfare between emerging countries so that these countries have to sell their resources in order to buy security. And to buy security from whom? The one who organized the kidnappings, the break up of the country and the theft of the oil! If we had to look into the secret dealings of the kidnappings we would say that the kidnappings were organized right here in Washington, in the White House and their functionaries are just executing the commands overseas. But the chief issue here is the divide and conquer rule, (i.e.) divide them, steal their resources and have them fight into eternity. That's a strategy! It's an evil one but that's what's happening in our world right now. Do you have a question about why we Muslims need to have power?
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Afeef Khan on the occasion of Jum'ah on 9 May 2014 on the sidewalk of Embassy Row in Washington D.C.

__._,_.___
Posted by: stop evil <stop_evil123@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)
Improvements in Yahoo Groups Search
Searching for new groups to join is easier than ever. We've honed our algorithm to bring you better search results based on relevance and activity. Try it today!

.

__,_._,___
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : SUNNI-SHI’I : TWO EYES, ONE BODY

 


THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (12 September 2014)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_street_mimbar/
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheStreetMimbar/videos
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 dear committed sisters…
 
 
SUNNI-SHI'I : TWO EYES, ONE BODY
To continue this mental struggle against ignorance and against fanaticism, against traditions and against peculiar cultures we find solace in the ayah of Surah Az Zukhruf in which Allah says- and this ayah speaks about the mentality and the narrow mindedness that now has become the norm all over the place, (i.e.) these people who have ensconced themselves in their own phobic world of traditions and culture and customs. This ayah speaks about them. What did they say? They say then and today in many ways
They said: We have indeed found that our fathers, our grandfathers, our forefathers (and) our ancestral fathers were living according a social pattern … (Surah Az Zukhruf verse 22)
Now you may not have word the Ummah being translated as a social pattern. This may strike you as something new and it's simply because you and I are used to translations and wordings that are not thought through. People don't think. You want to express the word Ummah as a translation in this ayah as is customary, (i.e.) nation? It doesn't fit.  Are they saying "we found our fathers as a nation?" Well- that's in the history (and) in the nature of societies. So they're not expressing something that is natural, they're expressing something that is social.
They're saying: Certainly we found that our generations had a social pattern to them… (Surah Az Zukhruf verse 22)
That's an Ummah. Then they say
… and of a certainty we shall follow their traces (or) their footstep. (Surah Az Zukhruf verse 22)
OK- that's what we have today. This ayah is frank enough to tell us how the current cultural specific Muslims behave and when we say think, (we're giving them more credit that is due), but if they do attempt a little thought this is the way they think. Now this is easy (because) right now there's no specifics in this ayah. Thos ayah is a meaning (but) we didn't come down with this meaning to our own communities, societies and peoples. If you want to come down with this to the real world and discover who fits this definition you'll find those who say "I'm a Sunni. We have found our forefathers who are these Sunnis with this social pattern of theirs and so we are going to follow in their historical path. We're going to continue it." The same thing applies to those who say "We are Shi'is." They fit this definition simply because they refuse- even though the Shi'is have an advantage over the Sunnis because they have not closed their minds the way the Sunnis have but they are still caught up in a cultural cage that they are not liberated from. This requires some brave words and it requires some moral courage to think outside of these cultural boxes. To begin with, there's nothing wrong with the words Sunni and Shi'i- absolutely nothing. These are neutral words that have very significant meanings to them when they began, not today (or) not how they are used today and hopefully during the khutbah this is going to be explained.
 
One of the issues that has to be made clear is (that) these two descriptions, Sunni and Shi'i, are like two eyes. If you were to liberate yourself from traditions and from the accumulation of automatic actions, (i.e.), you just go through motions. This is Eid Al Adha (so) you come to the Masjid because you are driven by tradition (or) this is the occasion of Karbala' (so) you go to the Masjid because of the force of the tradition of the event (and) there's nothing in you that is on the level of these occasions. We see it demonstrated here every week. Look what happens here. You see it in front of your own eyes. You happen to be here in front of a Masjid that is run by those who claim that they represent Sunnis. This could happen on the other side if this was a Masjid that was run by those who claim to be Shi'is. Yes! The same thing could happen but the dynamics of history put those inside this Masjid who happen to be in control of Makkah and Al Madinah.
 
So we have this demonstrated in front of us every week. We don't want to into the other details of other Masajid in this area- both Sunnis and Shi'is. That will open us a can of worms. These are like two eyes. A Sunni is one eye and a Shi'i is another eye. Anyone who refuses to consider what the other eye is seeing insists that they want to see with one eye! What do you say to a person like that? If he is as ignorant to close one of his eyes you say "well, I feel sorry for you. (There's) nothing I can do if that's the way you want to look at the world (i.e.) with one eye then go ahead- look at the world with one eye." Allah has given us two eyes that complement each other, He's given us two hands and arms that complement each other, He's given us two ears that complement each other. You want to paralyze half of that and say "I want to look with one eye, I want to use one hand, I want to listen with one ear." This is how we have emerged from fourteen hundred years with these descriptions of divisiveness. We insist (and) we can't find in within ourselves to look at all of this history with its positives- it has positives and negatives in it- and you realize we have here a treasure (and) a bonanza of knowledge if we decide to incorporate all of it together but the traditions that we are caged within refuse to do that. If you're a Sunni you say "what do I have t do with that Shi'i stuff." If you're a Shi'i exactly the same, "what do I have to do with that Sunni stuff." People don't have the nerves to come out and express it as it is just as we expressed it to you. They don't! And they don't have to because their behavior speaks louder than their words. That's how they behave. A Sunni refuses to acknowledge a Shi'i and a Shi'i refuses to acknowledge a Sunni when there is positives in this Sunni and when there are positives in this Shi'i. They refuse! This goes all the way up. It begins with the average person who is driven by his traditions and customs and it goes all the way up to those who run these places (i.e.) these, (what are called), Islamic centers.
 
One of the positive aspects of At Tashayyu' is its opposition to rulers who have gone off course. That's positives. If we have kings who came into our history- of course, they're called Khulafa'. They have the nomenclature (of) Khalifah. During the time of Bani Umayyah and Al Abbas and Al Mamaleek and Bani Uthman they have the title (or) the nomenclature of Khalifah but are they? Do they live up to the successor of Allah's Prophet in their behavior, in their policies, in their decision making? That's a positive thing. Any Muslim who can liberate themselves from traditions will see (that) this is something good. If I happen to be a Sunni I can identify with Imam Al Hussein (radi Allahu anhu wa alayhi as salaam) I can identify with Imam Zayd (radi Allahu anhu wa alayhi as salaam), I can identify with An Nafs Az Zakiyyah (radi Allahu anhu wa alayhi as salaam)." All of these faced with their lives tyranny when it began to express itself in the highest office in the land. This is what's required in today's world if we know how to express ourselves; but alongside that we have internal deficiencies as Muslims. If a king rules over us and he has no legitimacy he has to go. We think all Muslims could agree to that. The issue is how do we understand this? How do we practice it? (In) just taking these three examples, Al Hussein, Zayd and An Nafs Az Zakiyyah, we understand that they stood against tyrants. Fine.
 
On the other hand, because inside our own House of Islam something went wrong (so) someone has to address this as the Prophet said whoever sees something wrong should change it… But on the other hand if we have an external enemy who is threatening us- and we had external enemies then and we have them now- and this external enemy puts us in war with him. You know- Muslims don't pick wars. Wars are picked against us so at that time when there was internal opposition to mis-rulers there was also an effort to deal with the external enemy, in particular with the Byzantines. Abdullah ibn Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) who is known for his companionship of the Prophet and Abu Ayyub Al Ansari (radi Allahu anhu) (who is) also known for his exceptional character in the company of the Prophet fought against the Byzantines when Muawiyah was the ruler of the Muslims. So we have mis-rulers who have to be dealt with and we have powers of occupation and invasion that have to be dealt with. Why is it that some Muslims under the argument that they are pro-Sahaba cannot see the validity of standing up against misrule and mis-rulers and why is it that some Shi'is cannot see the validity of standing up against foreign aggression and occupation when it is imposed on us? The circumstances are similar to some of the circumstances today in the Muslim world. Zayn Al Abidin, Ali As Asghar (radi Allahu anhu), in some of these references made du'a for the Muslim armies that are facing off against the Byzantines and he's the survivor of Karbala'. His opposition to misrule internally did not place him in a traditional cage in which he could not identify the threats from the outside and these threats and these internal vulnerabilities were present then (and) they are present today. So this has developed into some type of historical argument, (in need not be but it is present), in which Muslims began to argue "who is the legitimate ruler?" Is it he or is it he or is it he…" This argument began to get way out of bounds (it) left the parameters of the mind and it took on a type of emotionalism and then came a type of fanaticism in which we began to institutionalize our divisions. This argument about rulers has resulted in the virtual rulers being from here, (i.e.) Washington and Tel Aviv! "Who's the Khalifah? Who's the Imam? Who's the Imam? Who's the Khalifah?" The argument went back and forth for hundreds of years and the practical- let's call it Khalifah or Imam, (we know it takes some courage to refer to those who do not rule Muslims as Muslims as Khalifah or Imam)- but the language of the Qur'an and the language of the Prophet tolerate this. An Imam could be a positive leader and could be a negative leader. Al Khalifah could be a positive leader and could be a negative leader. There's nothing sacred about the word. Just saying there's nothing sacred about the word defies these traditions. We're not saying this to try to score a point of try to show a point or anything like that. We're saying this to try and draw your attention to the wording of it in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. We've mentioned this before, the ayah says
And out of them we had Imams that would lead to the fire… (Surah Al Ambiya' verse 92)
If Imam was a sacred word, as is the case in some traditional minds, Allah would not be using this word to refer to leaders who will cause people to go to Jahannam.
 
This little piece of information is absent from the public mind, In the time after Allah's Prophet when there were three issues that the Muslims of that time understood but the Muslims of today don't. These three issues are ijtihad, an nasikh and al mansukh of the ayaat of the Qur'an and ash shura. These were three issues that now (that) the Prophet is not there among the Muslims they had to come to terms with. How do you deal with decision making now that the Prophet is no longer in their presence. So there were different opinions on different issues. When there is shura and when there is the ayaat of the Qur'an still these Sahaba had different opinions about different issues. There was a statement that has dropped out of the history books and you have to look far and deep into our own history books- At Tabari, Al Mas'udi, Al Ya'qubi, ibn Jarir, ibn Hisham, ibn Sa'd and all of these- and you'll find that when these people (i.e.) the ma'iyah of Rasulillah
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those who are with him … (Surah Al Fath verse 28)
Remember last khutbah
It is He, meaning Allah, who has supported you, (Oh Prophet), with His victory and He has supported you with al Mu'minin; and He has reconciled the hearts of the Mu'minin… (Surah Al Anfal verse 63)
These were not enemies. They had different opinions (and) they had their own ijtihad- may Allah reward them for their best intentions. So when the Sahaba recognized that I have an opinion and this person has an opinion and our opinions, sort of, are not the same they would say I will part with what I have to say to what Ali has to say. Of course, some people who are born into traditions and raised within traditions and behave with traditional motivations think about this with one eye. Just like we said, they look at it with a tunnel vision, (so to speak). They say "OK- this proves the position and the superiority of Ali." When they see it they say "look- these are the Sahaba and when they couldn't agree on something they'd say I'm going to dismiss what I have to say about this and I'm going to refer it to Ali." That's what they used to say but if you just open up your mind and think about this, there's more to this than that. This is an acknowledgement of the good relations that was among them. If there was tension and if there was polarity (with) each one on different sides and if there was foul feelings in-between they wouldn't be saying something like this. (They'd say) "he's a person and I'm a person and he has his opinion and I have my opinion." They didn't say that. Just to take an example and give you, one of these issues was the warriors. (You) see, in the Qur'an there are these words that have been eclipsed by Sunni and Shi'i. Our heritage of this Sunni-Shi'i divide have eclipsed key words in the Qur'an when it pertains to that generation of the Prophet. These key words are As Sabiqun. These are individuals who lived with Allah's Prophet from the very beginning of his struggle and carried the load with him- beginning with the persecution and the struggle in Makkah. Then there is the Mujahidin.
Allah has out ranked (or) Allah has raised the rank of the Mujahidin over those who remain at home (and) are static by a magnitude of compensation… (Surah Al Anfal verse 63)
Remember, this ayah applies to those who were struggling with Allah's Prophet. Then there are those in which Allah describes as
It is He, Allah, who has supported you with His triumph and with the committed Muslims… (Surah Al Anfal verse 63)
The ayah that was dwelt on in the last khutbah. No one here was thinking Sunni and Shi'i. It didn't figure in. These ayaat have. The words that we use today- that we define as Sunni and Shi'i- don't fit into these ayaat that speak about As Sabiqin, about Al Muhajirin, about Al Ansar, about Al Mu'minin, about Al Mujahidin. None of this is present. So when the first successor to Allah's Prophet wanted to distribute the gains of the wars he gave every participant an equal share. That was his ijtihad. Was it right? Was it wrong? This remains an issue that we can go back and forth on. When Umar (radi Allahu anhu) came (and) succeeded the Prophet as the second to him after Abi Bakr (radiAllahu anhu) chronologically he said no. I'm not going to give those who fought with Allah's Prophet a share equal top those who originally fought against Allah's Prophet. That was another ijtihad. They disagreed. What are we going to do? Make an argument and then become divided because of this issue? He tried his best. Each one of them in their own capacity tried to understand the issues the best they could. He said I'm not going to equate those who fought with the Prophet of Allah in Badr, in Uhud, in all of these battles with those who fought against him in these battles and later on became Muslims. How can you say these are the same? Then they had to decide other social issues pertaining to these types of people in their capacity as the decisions makers of the Muslims.
 
It appears there were around 130 Mujtahids after the Prophet passed away. They had formulated and they could prove their own opinions. It wasn't like "this is what I think." No. They'd tell you why they think that way. This tells you and it should tell anyone who's thinking that there was a vitality in people who's trying to figure out what to do.
 
Then we take a look at the characters of these people who the sectarians of today right now want to (use to) divide us because of their personalities, (i.e.), Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali (radi Allahu anhum). People want to divide Muslims because they say "you belong to him or you don't belong to the other." We still can't understand this! We sort of getting old here- over sixty years of age and during all of these years we can't understand why people in their thinking mind cannot visualize these individuals who with Allah's Prophet from the beginning until the end (were) harmonious with each other. They may disagree but they didn't hate each other unless, of course, we give the explanations as the traditions that we were talking about. We said when Abu Bakr assumed this office he was fully occupied with Muslim affairs. He was a very successful businessman (but) he could no longer go to the market and make a living for his family. So the people around him decided- he didn't decide, OK, you're going to be given what an average person and his family are given, nothing more, nothing less. When Umar came and assumed that position (it) was the same thing. He was given the same amount (and) in addition to this he said, (we're paraphrasing), not one penny of what I'm getting is going to go to the functions of state around- its equivalent today to the media or some kind of ministry that will try to build up his character. He said from my position none of that is going to be dispersed to any of them. So this was a down to earth person living just like the average person, if not less. Then we come to Ali. This following discourse will detail how he lived. There's a particular individual who had a brother. This particular individual's brother became a zahid or in today's world something like a Sufi. When we use the word Sufi it has so many definitions but here we are in the original definition of the word where people sort of extract themselves from their daily lives and responsibilities and then live a very simplistic life with absolutely the bare minimum. So this brother began to do that and his brother did not feel comfortable with that so he went to Ali and he complained to him. He said look, I have my brother and he became a zahid and a Sufi. Could you please speak to him? So when they met Ali asked him do you not have a wife and children? He said yes, of course I do. Then Ali told him there are rights that belong to yourself, there are rights that are due to your wife and there are rights that belong to your children therefore give each one in these three categories their rights, yourself included. This person answered Ali with the following sentence, remember this person wants to become a zahid, but look, the food that I have is better than the food that you have, the clothes that I am wearing are gentler than the clothes that you are wearing. So Ali answered him like this I am not like you. Whoever assumes a position of responsibility to make decisions for people has to live as one of the lesser peoples meaning Ali is telling this person I have to live like a disadvantaged person in this society for whom I am making decisions so that the poverty of a poor person doesn't instigate him. When rulers are poor people you take away the fuse of rebellion by the poor people in society to take on the ruler. You would wish that people who study society, especially those who are class conscious, would understand this one statement of Ali; much more, you would wish the Muslims to understand this. Now can't we see, contrary to the cultural and traditional minds that we have, the personas (or) the characters (and) the behaviors of Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali- we skipped over Uthman (radiAllahu anhu) because there's a lot of information that can go back and forth here and that doesn't mean we disrespect him and that doesn't mean we have some type of grudge against him. If we didn't make this remark and this khutbah was played somewhere else or someone quoted to someone else and says "Imam Al Asi says this and look he didn't even mention Uthman and what does that mean?" Then they'll go off on their sectarian tangents "Oh, he's a Shi'i or he's a Khariji or he's an enlightened Sunni but he really doesn't fit the mould" and on and on. That's not the case. What we are trying to say and also trying to demonstrate is there's much more in common between these pioneers of Islam than we after 1,400 years are trying to polarize them and then emerge from all of this with civil wars.
 
During the 18th year of the hijrah, this was the year in which the agriculture was not there. There was no harvest  (and) there was no food and people were starving, literally starving, so you had incidents in which some people began to steal because they had to survive, they had to eat (and) they had to live. So Umar suspended the punishment for theft. What- you want to begin to chop off people's hands because they are taking food to live? This is what the Qur'an says? This is what Allah says? So he did away with it for that year until that hardship receded and people were back to the norms. He didn't just do that, he went to other people who had, (in today's language), other people employed for them, (i.e.), he went to the employers and made them aware that their employees may be thinking about stealing because they don't have enough. He went beyond that, he went to some of the governors in some parts of Arabia and he said you are going to be held accountable for people who steal because you are not applying social justice meaning you are forcing people to steal because you are not giving them the rizq that Allah has provided for everyone. Some people may say "this is an ijtihad of Umar." OK- let it be an ijtihad of Umar. Does it make sense or does it not make sense? The laws of the Qur'an came to preserve the morality of the Muslims or to extend the morality of the Muslims. Laws don't mean a thing if there's no moral character in society to be taken care of by these laws.
 
Zayn Al Abidin, one of the Imams, use to have, (and once again, this is in today's language skipping all the fine words), a class in the Prophet's Masjid, Al Masjid An Nabawi and that class continued for thirty five years. During that time period in which he used to explain the ayaat of the Qur'an and the hadith of the Prophet and issues that are today known as fiqhi issues, etc. etc. when he used to conduct his class the word would go around in Al Madinah the son of Allah's Prophet is explaining the book of Allah. Everyone would say that. There was no one saying "I'm a Sunni" and "I'm a Shi'i." "I belong to him" and "I don't belong to him." "I'm for him" and "I'm against him." None of this. There were individuals like that- yes; but society was not like that. This issue of "I'm a Shi'i and he's a Sunni" or "He's a Shi'i and I'm a Sunni" came into existence the third and the forth century after the Prophet the way we understand it today which gives canon fodder to those who are trying to kill us altogether.
 
The Imams whether they are "in the Shi'i chronology of history" being the eleven or twelve Imams or the Imams (or) Mujtahidin who are "in the Sunni chronology of history" (being) the Imams of fiqh (viz.) Abu Hanifah, Ash Shafi'i, Malik and ibn Hambal- you should ask this question to those who are fermenting dissension among Muslims- can someone bring us any of their statements (or) any of their words that indicate that they were against each other? If they were not against each other, and that's the case, then why can't we consider everything that they produced with their thinking minds to be a treasure and a bonanza for us today? We can't pool of this together? What's wrong? You can go back home (and) think about this tonight, this weekend, the coming week: if we can't pool all of this together- why? Ask yourself, what's the barrier? Why can't we consider it? You see, even among those who speak with sectarian undertones don't know that the closest of the Fuqaha'- if we take all of the Fuqaha' together the closest would be Abu Hanifah on the Sunni side and Zayd on the Shi'i side. Strictly, if you just take their fiqh and then see what they said on certain matters you would say these are closer to themselves even though one belongs to a Shi'i context and the other belongs to a Sunni context but the way they thought, the way they answered (and) the way they solved issues was the closest from among all the Fuqaha'. But does that come out obvious and clear to the average Muslims of today? No. They want to bury these facts and make you believe there's some type of polarity (and) there's some type of "these being on one end and the others being on the other end and hostilities in-between." In the books of fiqh these Fuqaha' would summarize all of their intellectual efforts and say this is the best that we were able to produce. They qualified whatever opinion or judgment they had all of them qualified that with this is the best we were able to produce. If they were selfish, (because some people want some of us to believe there's some selfishness in all of this)… They were not selfish. Imam Malik refused to have his Muwatta as the reference for the judiciary of the Abbasi era in his time. The Abbasi ruler said I'm going to have your Muwatta the reference of all the judges in the land. He said I refuse that. I will not accept that that be the case. Of course, the ruler didn't want this to become a big argument because it could have political(ly) horrible consequences to him so he didn't pursue it. Ash Shafi'i had one opinion in Iraq and another opinion in Egypt. What do we say? He's schizophrenic? Those who are pursuing a sectarian line will make a schizophrenic personality out of him? They'll say "on one issue he ruled in Iraq in one way and when he was in Egypt he ruled on it another way. Who would follow such a person? Who would follow his ijtihad?" This is what these people (would say). They don't even know the nature of ijtihad! Because this same statement could be taken to the Qur'an. The Qur'an says one thing about riba' at one time and another thing another time; it says one thing about khamr one time and something else another time. There's no nasikh and mansukh in the Qur'an?! But this is how people when they are reduced to traditional automatons (who are) incapable of thinking come out with and they serve the political agenda that they belong to. Ibn Hambal, (this is the one that these sectarians and blood thirsty trouble makers around take pride in), refused to have his statements written down. What he said is different from what he wrote. What he wrote was written but what he told those around him don't register (or) don't write down what I said. Of course, some people in the vitality of the time, not as closed minded as today's Muslims, went up to him and asked well, why is it wrong to write what you are saying. He said I may reconsider myself (or) I may backtrack from what I said. These are his words. Compare that. This is supposed to be their reference Imam in history among the mujtahidin. Compare that with what they say and what they do. They consider everything they say is final. They don't have the taqwa in them that ibn Hambal had. There are two well known students of Abu Hanifah, (viz.), Muhammad ibn Al Hassan and Abu Yusuf. They disagreed many times with their teacher, with their professor, with their Faqih, (viz.) Abu Hanifah. What are you going to do out of this? You want to come here and make a divisive issue? These are the issues that these people right now who are on this course will pick on. If they begin by dividing Sunnis and Shi'is then they'll go into the Shi'i context and divide Shi'is and they'll go into the Sunni context and divide Sunnis. And more particular within the different strains of Sunnism they'll divide them also.
 
They said: We have indeed found that our fathers, our grandfathers, our forefathers (and) our ancestral fathers were living according a social pattern and of a certainty we shall follow their traces (or) their footstep. (Surah Az Zukhruf verse 22)
This is the ayah that summarizes the internal thoughts of people. You can stay quiet. You heard this khutbah (and) you can go home and stay quiet about it. It's up to you but the ayah here exposes this social conduct and the behavior. It's not new. We know time is (running out) (but) we ask you, where do you find anywhere stated by Allah and His Prophet that Muslims have to follow one madh'hab? Where is it? Where do you find this?! Is this an ayah? Is this a hadith that the Muslims have to follow one madh'hab? Ask yourselves today, if you can't find an ayah and a hadith that says you have to conduct yourself according to that one madh'hab then why do you do so? 
 
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
We know it's very hot and we're sorry and we beg your patience and forbearance. We took a little more than usual so we'll be extremely brief in this second khutbah which is already brief. We'll say this issue of Al Khilafah today as it is brought up in the media- "The Khilafah" they say, "The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS"- and all of this hullabaloo around it and the takfir that goes along with it. Whoever doesn't agree with these people becomes a Kafir and then is killed. All of this has no basis in the Qur'an and in the Sunnah. We want you to take away the following observation and that is Islamic authority is so important and so critical that it has caused us to go to extremes. The first extreme is some of us who classify themselves as Shi'is". The history of At Tashayyu' (and) knowing that authority and leadership is so important some of these Shi'is went to the extent- of course, there may not be many of them but it exists- and as far as deifying Imams which of course anyone in his Qur'anic and Prophetic mind knows is not Islamic. An Imam (is) a deity?! You got to be kidding us?! But it happened! We have this in our history and it's our history! We don't care how much you come under the influence of those who are in control today, this is our history with its ups and its downs. Some of us went to the absurd degree of deifying Imams. Nastaghfirullah. On the other hand those who come from the Sunni category, (and we see this played out today, we can see it and hear it everyday), because we don't have an Islamic leadership or they don't have an Islamic leadership in their mind or they don't have and Islamic authority (and) they're trying to bring one calling it Al Khilafah they've gone to the extent of saying "the Muslims are Kafirs" which is absurd. This extreme is absurd. Muslims are not Kafirs and Imams and not Gods! But the absence of Islamic authority then and now caused us to go to these extremes and the only way we're going to come back to sirat al mustaqim within the context of the Book of Allah and the Prophet of Allah. 
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 5 September 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.
 

__._,_.___
Posted by: stop evil <stop_evil123@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive