| THE STREET MIMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (5 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…
Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/347249 (08-29-2014)
ABSENCE OF HOSTILITIES BETWEEN IMAMS AND SAHABIS
We think our active public mind is aware that there's a grand scheme out there to have us eliminate each other. Any average human being watching what is happening in this world especially as it concerns the Muslims realizes that the fomenting of wars and the spilling of Muslim blood and the tarnishing of Muslims with a broad brush of negative and savage imagery is meant for us to dissipate and (for) this Islamic reawakening and Islamic reassertion to fall by the wayside. Much of this is done nowadays with a sectarian flavor or with the misreading of history that feeds into sectarian polarization (and) sectarian hostilities. You know, especially you who have been here all of these years that we've spent so much time on this issue to try and beat back our ignorance and to defeat those who come to us with divisive ideas that harbor within them a distance from the other Muslim. Obviously a lot of this has history in it and many of these sectarians draw on their own misreading of history to justify what they are doing. So they force us- it's not of our own volition that we are visiting this subject frequently. If we were in another set of circumstances we would not be dealing with this sectarian issue. (It's) simply because this has become an issue of killing and wars (that) we have to clear the air on it and we have to go back to those times in history where this misreading of history is generated in the minds of these sectarians, of course. We will begin by citing an ayah in the Book of guidance, (i.e.) Allah's revealed words in Surah Al Anfal ayah sixty three. Allah with his enlightening words says, (and we hope that we are thinking), and the general meaning of the ayah is
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)
This is an ayah that you and I and all other Muslims should be reading and thinking.
… He has brought their hearts together (and) made them heart friendly; if you were to spend everything in this world to bring their hearts together you wouldn't be able to do so, rather it is Allah Who has reconciled them to each other… (Surah Al Anfal verse 63)
Surah Al Anfal as well as the following surah, (i.e.), Surah At Tawbah are surahs that concentrate on the battles of the Prophet. You see, the world doesn't leave Prophets alone. If they would leave these Prophets alone they wouldn't have battles in their lives but when you pick a war with a Prophet then Allah gives permission to fight back. So these surahs speak about Uhud and they speak about Badr and they speak about Al Khandaq and they speak about these military conduct of Allah's Prophet. In this military atmosphere Allah presents us with this ayah
It is He, Allah, who has supported you with His triumph in these battles and with victory with the committed Muslims… (Surah Al Anfal verse 63)
Who are these mu'minin? Are they one or two? Are they five or six? These were the people who were going out to war. Look at Badr, look at Uhud, look at Khandaq, look at Hunayn, look at Tabuk- we're talking about what? Two or three individuals? Of course, later on (and) some centuries after that we have some people who write some of this history that is fed to sectarians today who say "the only Mu'minin around the Prophet were a few people, five or six people. How is a military victory going to be accomplished by five or six people? These were the people who were fighting with Allah's Prophet? This is how he won at Badr and all of these military encounters? With five or ten people around him? But this is what al asabiyah does. This ayah doesn't figure in to people who speak with asabiyah. You can review this ayah (when) you go back home. You open the Qur'an if you don't understand the words directly in the Qur'an look at the translation that you refer to and see what the ayah means and then look at these military encounters and (see) how many people were fighting with Allah's Prophet. A few of them? Or this was an aggregate of committed Muslims?
Now for the purposes of exposing this sectarianism we take now the time when the sectarians of today basically relate to you two categories of people. Some of them say "we are the champions of the Sahaba" and the other ones say "we are the champions of the Imams." That's how they classify themselves. We're not saying this, their language says it! When you listen to them this is what they are saying. Then they want us to fall into their chronicle of history and they want us to think that there's some kind of hostility between the Sahaba on one side and the Imams on the other side. This is how it all generates. OK- let us go back to that first Sahaba and that first Imams and see was there any hostility between them and among them.
In the first instance, the first individuals in these two lists, (viz.), Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu) on one side and Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (radi Allahu anhu) as Sahabas on the other side. Now Ali is also a Sahabi but in these minds that have drawn this sectarian line you can't put Ali in the category of the Sahaba! Why? Actually if we wanted to get down to the nitty-gritty of the word's meaning Ali would have been the first Sahabi because sahaba menas to accompany and who was more company to the Prophet of Allah than Ali? But the sectarian mind doesn't permit this. We realize (when you) read the history (and) when you go to at Tabari and you go to ibn Sa'd and you go to Al Waqidi and you go to Nahj Al Balagha (and) you go where ever you want to go, (we should be speaking this to the sectarians), try to show us any occasion in which there was one display of animosity or hostility among these pioneering characters in any if these categories. Certainly we couldn't detect (it). We're just human beings just like you and going through all of these books we couldn't detect that there was hatred (unlike) today's sectarians that want hatred between Sunnis and Shi'is and they want to go all the way back to the beginning; well, show us where is it displayed in any of these books that all of you refer to on this side or the other where you find that there's hostility and hatred between Ali, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman? Where? Now in this interim when Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman ruled, where was Ali? This is a very serious question. We think any of you who come across sectarians of any flavor, Sunni or Shi'i ask them this question: during the rule of these three rulers prior to Ali was Ali at home crying because he wasn't the ruler of the Muslims? Ask them, where was he? Where does he appear in this time period? We're talking about two years and twelve years and ten years- do the math! Twenty five years- where was he/. What was he doing? When Abu Bakr became the ruler of the Muslims there was an attempt by Abas and Dhubyan, tribal power factions in Arabia , to distance themselves from the central authority in Al Madinah. This is called in Islamic history Hurub Ar Ridda. Don't use apostasy for ridda. Was Ali part of the war against these murtadd deen or was he at home lamenting his lack of fortune not to become the first decision maker of the Muslims after the Prophet? He was actually involved in this war effort and this is a part of history that they want to omit from the public mind because if you see these people working together you'll see there's no place for sectarianism and these honored individuals were working together at times of crisis, at times of war, at time of challenges coming either from nature or from men. They were working together.
In the descendants of Ali there were grandchildren who were named Umar (and) there were grand children that were named Uthman. If there was a type of serious emotional and personal distance between Ali on one side and Umar and Uthman on the other side then why would we find these names in his great great grandchildren?
We come across statements (where) Umar would say in honor of Ali I seek refuge in Allah from a problem in which there is no Abu Hassan. Abu Hassan is in reference to Ali. Hassan is Ali's first son so this is the family title of the father of the family. He didn't say this in a closed room, he said this in front of the public (and) in front of the people. What do you think- if he's trying to cut down Ali would he be making a statement like this?
When it comes to Uthman, here is where every thinking Muslim detects that the political order of Islam was showing serious symptoms of disintegration. The first six years of Uthman were more or less an extension of a type of justice that came from the preceding two Khulafa' but in the second six years we begin to encounter very serious problems. When Uthman appointed Marwan, a relative of his, as a governor Ali refused to agree with that decision. This is a point of contention. Both of them disagreed on something. It may have been a serious disagreement but there was no hostility, there was no hatred. It's this hatred that generates the hostility that brings us the war that we are witnessing today and Ali advised Uthman. Ali went to him. He wasn't sitting back. You see- in this sectarian history in these critical years Ali shows up at certain times and then he is absent in the majority of times! Where was he in all of these years. What was he doing? Ask these promoters of sectarianism? Where was he? What was he doing? So he went to Uthman and he said appointing Marwan a governor is a Yahudi fist. This gives us serious insight, at least according to some of these historians, that Al Yahud at that time had clout. They had influence. When Uthman is appointing one of his relatives to a position of decision making as a governor Ali sums this up by saying (what) means in today's language (and) if we were to bring that into today's vocabulary this is a Zionist fist. This has deeper meanings than just appointing some type of relative to higher position. It means that these Yahud, in today's language Zionists, had positions of power, they had connections whether its inside of Arabia or outside of Arabia and this Marwan whatever his relationships are, it appears to Ali that he had relationships with the Zionists of those times. So this is a serious disagreement. You appoint someone to a position of authority and this is the comment by Ali but still, with this serious disagreement we don't feel that there's hatred or that there's an enemy speaking to an enemy. None of that appears because its not there like the sectarians today want there listeners and viewers to believe.
Ali also gave advice of Khalifah Uthman when he saw that there were influences by the superpowers of that time, Byzantium and Persia , in the affairs surrounding the Arabian Peninsula . As far as the north was concerned there was the Taghlibi tribes who were prone to listening to the Byzantiums and then there was Al Aswad Al Ansi in the southern part of the Peninsula who were prone to listening to the Persian empire . Would he go with advice like this to Uthman to open up his political horizons if there was some type of hostility between them like the sectarians of today want us to believe?
During the time of Umar we had two of Ali's closest confidants, Salman and Ammar (radi Allahu anhuma),placed. The first one was placed as the governor of Mada'in and the second one was placed by Umar as the governor of Al Kufa. You tell us, think about it, would this indicate that there is a hostility between these two men, Umar and Ali. Umar is the one that Sunni sectarians refer to and Ali is the one that the Shi'i sectarians refer to.
Then, in the famous day of As Saqifah when Ali was preparing the Prophet for burial and he was away from this canopy and there was this argument or this give and take right now (about) we don't have a leader; who shall fill this position. On that day at that time known as Sakhar ibn Harb known as Abu Sufyan comes to Ali and he says extend your hand. I'll be the first one to give you the bai'ah. This is not a disputed part of history. It is found in all of these history books. Sunnis and Shi'is alike. Ask yourself why would a person like Abu Sufyan come first and foremost to Ali and tell extend your hand. I'll be the first one to give you the bai'ah? These are his words, (its something like saying), after you, Ali, become the leader I'll come at Abu Bakr from every direction with means of transportation and with manpower. Then Ali turns his face and says By Allah! Its not Allah that you are intending Oh Abu Sufyan. Once again, he's exposing another type of internal power mongering personality.
Then if you go and review the explanation of Nahj Al Balagha Ali saying about Umar as if at that time they were trying to put an end to the sectarian strife that we are living in our time. He says, when Umar passed away, this is his obituary in the words of Ali,(for those who didn't understand these words, Ali is saying about Umar), he left without any blemishes, literally speaking, on his clothes but what he meant was without any blemishes on his character, with very few deficiencies, he got the better of Al Khilafah, he preceded the troubles of Khilafah, he gave Allah his obedience and he avoided Allah's power of revenge and correction as is due. You tell these sectarians when you encounter them- where do you come, where do you get this information from that you want us to believe that there were enemies there and these people were enemies of each other? We grant you and be prepared, some of them will find some hadiths either in Sahih Al Bukhari or in Sahih Muslim or in Al Kulayni- they dig up some hadiths, not many of them but they'll dig up some, that will indicate that there's some type of bad feelings, (we're putting it in gentle words), between Umar and Ali; but think. First of all, Sahih Al Bukhari or in Sahih Muslim or in Al Kulayni are not ma'sum books. These are the collections of hadiths. Al Bukhari died in the 256th year of the hijrah. Muslim died in the 265th year of the hijrah. Al Kulayni died in the 229th year of the hijrah. What they did was they collected these hadiths in what they call a string of narrators. These are in hadith terminology called salasil or string of narrators. You tell us- who has scrutinized these strings of narrators to tell us that they did not have any political bias in them? Is it one of the conditions to qualify a narrator to scrutinize his political background? We present this to those who deal with the works of hadith. They come and say "Oh, there's a lot of energy that when into this. There's a lot of conditions and there's a lot of details to qualify to narrate a hadith. You have to be honest, you have to be trustworthy." OK-
Then one of the Imams sort of summed this whole issue of being hostile or being friendly, Imam Zayd said my grandfather, Ali, wrote history (or) made history. Whoever he was peaceful with I am peaceful with and whoever he confronted I will be confronting. Very clear. Simple. It doesn't take a PDH (and) it doesn't take studying logic and all of this to understand this simple issue.
Now for those, (and unfortunately sectarianism is coming at us from all directions so), we're going to quote two prominent scholars in the Shi'i scholars who spoke about the Khulafa'), The first one, (and these are not in our time frame), because today if we quote people who are well known then we're going to begin take one side or the other because there's so much information in the air that the statement is going to be dismissed. So before all of this misinformation took its effect on our public mind, we precede that. We go before it and we take Sayyid Muhsin Al Amin in a voluminous book, (we think its ten volumes), called Fi A'yaan Ash Shi'ah, and we quote his words, "Their affair, meaning Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, is referred to their Sustainer who well knows what they conceal and what they may have spoken beyond the public. And we have to respect them as an expression of our respect to our Prophet." You see- this is a scholar who understood the ayah that was quoted at the beginning of the khutbah.
… He has brought their hearts together (and) made them heart friendly; if you were to spend everything in this world to bring their hearts together you wouldn't be able to do so, rather it is Allah Who has reconciled them to each other… (Surah Al Anfal verse 63)
Then another prominent Shi'i scholar, Muhammad Al Husayn Aal Kashif Al Ghita', in his Asl Ash Shi'ah wa Usuluha. He has a book called The Origins of Shi'ah and its Foundations in which he says (and) we quote "they, he means al Khulafa' are the best people of the world and the Imam, in reference to Ali, saw that the first and the second Khalifah did their utmost for the cause of tawhid. As far as military policies are concerned they did what was expected of them to do as far as logistics, as far as policies, as far as dispatching. Whatever was required they did whatever they were expected to do. They showed no selfishness. These were no people of ego and they showed no tyranny." These were no despots like the despots right now want you to believe. Then he says "those Khulafa' had of the virtues and the services for Islam to their advantage what no one can deny except those who are jaded."
For those sectarians we say: all of us Muslims, regardless of our reading of Islamic history with all the misinformation there-in, had a time period of rulers that is an exception to the rule. Never has humanity witnessed such exemplary rulers. When Abu Bakr becomes the ruler what does he do? He says I have become right now your decision makers and I'm not the best of you; rather my burdens now are more than anyone else among you. When the second Khalifah was criticized (while) standing in front of Muslim people in one of his statements he says woe to you if you don't say it. If you don't criticize us then we are in bad shape. If we don't listen to you we are in bad shape. Listen to this! Which ruler you have around today who is capable of accepting criticism with this open mind and open heart? Ali says whoever is assigned decision making for the Muslims or for people has to live as if he is the one who is the least advantaged of that society, meaning any ruler who gains that position has to live like a poor man. This is not an artificial life. It has to be practical and it has to be without any second thoughts. Then he gives an explanation why- so that a poor person is not agitated by his poverty. You speak about all of these theories around (on) the relationship between the rulers and the ruled (but) this outlines the nature of who and what the rulers should be and do so that those who are less fortunate in society do not begin a rebellion against those who if they miss this character deserve what they get. Gone are the times when the first Khalifah, Abu Bakr, who when he assumed this responsibility he was told you are going to get from the Muslim treasury that which is enough for you and your dependants- that's it. Where are the rulers that we have like this? Think about (it). This is a serious thought. These people, even the ones who are not ruling, who are in other capacities in government need security, they need guards. These people didn't need any security and they didn't have any guards. Look at the most advanced countries in the world- can you point to one President of one king or one of these headhantial decision makers anywhere and say they have no security contingent around them? They have no guards?! We've heard personally, these are rare and we have to be fair to the subject, (that) in some of the Scandinavian countries in all of the world one personal friend was at the airport and he was waiting for his luggage. He's a Muslim and he's waiting for his luggage at the carousel at the airport (and) as he was waiting the prime minister of the country came to the carousel, picked up his own luggage and then this Muslim wanted to follow him and see how far this was going. He followed him outside the airport. The prime minister put his small luggage on a bicycle and took off. This, even though it's rare in our world today, was the standard in the time period that we are speaking about. So where do these sectarians come to us with this asabiyah and this sectarianism of hate and kill and war? Where does this come from?
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
There is a world of a difference between the honorable and the selfless personalities that we are speaking about- Sahaba of A'immah on one side and the current rulers we have in Arabia . You may have heard this news item just ten days ago or so- the youngest son of the ex-king of Saudi Arabia, king Fahd, was travelling in Paris and of course with all the security guards that are needed going to an airport (and) checking in a hotel (and) spending for one room 10,000, (we don't remember if its Euros of dollars (or) whatever), every night at that hotel. Then he's going to the airport in at least two or three vehicles and he was ambushed and the news report says "looks like it was an inside job. The car that had the money, something like $335,000, was stolen." This, (excuse the frank expression of it), punk (had) $335,000 in cash travelling from the hotel to the airport. If it was an inside job he probably had some of those wild characters that his kingdom has fostered in the past twenty years to try to stifle and abort Islamic self-determination. That kingdom is winding up today looking at Iraq and Syria Arabia . How many guards do they have? Challenge any of them- they sing the songs of As Sahaba, do they act like them? Do they behave like them? Challenge them only in one respect, (i.e.), get rid of your guards and see if you can walk among ordinary Muslims, walk the streets of Makkah and Al Madinah, of Jeddah and Ar Riyadh like ordinary people or even when you perform your hajj or umrah see if you can be shoulder to shoulder with the other Muslim from Palestine or from Syria or from Iraq or from Egypt or from any other victimized area in the Muslim world?! And you want us to swallow your propaganda of sectarianism?
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 29 August 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) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment