| 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…
Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/347639 (09-05-2014)
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
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
That's an Ummah. Then they say
… and of a certainty we shall follow their traces (or) their footstep. (Surah Az
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 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
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-
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-
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 Iraq in one way and when he was in Egypt
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
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.
__._,_.___
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