| THE STREET MIMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (17 October 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/349112 (10-10-2014)
INTER-ISLAMIC FANATICISM_ABU HANIFAH AS TARGET
We have to clarify that the contents of the khutbahs are related to the events around us. Some people will say "there is an issue with that." We will respond to them and say: no. There is not any issue with that. In the first count, the Prophet's khutbahs (and) jum'ah prayers were instituted upon the Prophet's arrival in Al Madinah and it continued 10 years. So if every year has 52 jum'ahs to it there's over 500 jum'ah khutbahs that he delivered but when we look for these khutbahs mysteriously they are not around. So they can't tell us that the khutbahs that address the life and death issues that we are living are not germane. This khutbah will begin with an ayah from Allah's guiding Book in which He says
Had Allah willed it (or) had your Sustainer willed it He would have rendered people as one Ummah but they would continue to have differences among themselves except for he who your Sustainer has blessed with His mercy… (Surah Hud verse 118-119)
Differences are part of our human nature, part of our social behaviour (and) part of life itself. Muslims have a hard time coming to grips with this fact. We have to submit to the guidance that Allah has given us and say to ourselves: we are permitted to have differences. Let's, in the first instance, agree to this fact- we, the Muslims, are permitted to have differences. You'll find (that) even in your own family there are differences. The closest people to you have differences among themselves. Observe the members of society- the closest members of society have their differences. When we go and observe the time of Allah's Prophet, which is our Islamic golden age, in the time of Allah's Prophet there were differences. In the battle of Al Muraysiyah the Muhajirun and Al Ansar (radi Allahu anhum) were about to get into a fight with themselves. These are the cream of the crop. One Muhajir yelled out Ya Ahl Al Muhajirin. One Ansari yelled out Ya Ahl Al Ansar; which means they had an issue of contention among them. There were differences among the cream of the crop of the Sahaba (radi Allahu anhum).
Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) had his differences with Umar (radi Allahu anhu), Umar had his differences with Abi Bakr. They had their differences with Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu), Ali had his differences with Uthman (radi Allahu anhu) and vice versa and we can go on and on. There's plenty of these examples, (and we've covered them several times in past khutbahs), but the observation here is when these differences erupted they did not develop into hostilities and conflicts during the lifetime of Allah's Prophet but then when we, the Muslims, were left to ourselves when Allah's Prophet passed on (and) when we began to have our differences something developed that wasn't there during the time of Allah's Prophet and that is that these differences were to become louder and they were to become more acute.
Let's begin with the day of Saqifa. All of this is leading up to something. Stay with us. The day that the Prophet passed away and his immaculate body was being prepared for burial there were serious differences that surfaced among the closest people to Allah's Prophet and that had to do with who's going to fill in the void now. Everyone felt there's a void and it has to be filled. Someone has to step up and become the ultimate decision of the Muslims. In this atmosphere we realized that there were differences. Let us tell you some information that hasn't been presented when we visited this issue previously. In the saqifa the overwhelming majority of people in the saqifa were from the Ansar. The best information available to yours truly is there were three individuals from the Muhajirin in the saqifa at that critical time, those were Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaydah ibn Al Jarrah (radi Allahu anhu). Now all of these individuals attention was focused on who is going step forward and lead the Muslims. Here we observe serious differences. The majority of Al Ansar were Al Khazraj and the majority of Al Khazraj were in favour of Sa'd ibn Ubadah (radi Allahu anhu) to become the leader of the Muslims. The atmospherics were developing in such a way that at one moment it looked like Sa'd would become the leader of the Muslims regardless of the differences. They had this internal exchange of opinions among themselves. Let us give you a feel for why there is validity on all sides. This is a delicate issue and because we haven't visited this issue with our thinking minds it has become one of contention and one of division among us today. We've had more than 14 centuries to think through this and then realise that not everyone had the sole validity on their side. There was validity here (and) there was validity there; there was merit here (and) there was merit there; there was deficiency here (and) there was deficiency there if you visit all of these opinions that were arguing on that day. So the point is here (that for) Sa'd to become the leader of the Muslims there was a very strong argument for that because you have to remember Al Madinah was the place (where) the Muslims were concentrated. They were living in Al Madinah for over 10 years and Al Ansar were the support base of the dislocated Muslims from Makkah, (i.e.), the Muhajirin and they were generous, they were hospitable, they were accommodating, they were sacrificing (and) they attended the battles (at) Badr, Uhud, Al Khandaq and the liberation of Makkah and all of the others. You take it in today's world- so how can it be that there are people from another community or another city state, meaning Makkah, who are now going to be the ultimate decision makers of Al Madinah. You (can) that this into today's real world- let's say you are from a certain country, (we don't want to name any countries, we'll leave that for you to fill in), and then with all your dedication to Allah and His Prophet and in that course you are visited by others who are just like you dedicated to Allah and His Prophet but they come from a neighbouring country. They're not from your own, (so to speak). We're all human beings- the Prophet passed away and none of us is ma'sum so we are all subject to our strengths and our weaknesses and our human nature with its ebbs and its flows. So in this instance and on this occasion that human nature and that ebb and flow were at work with good intentions. There was no one here who was looking out for their ego. We subtract that from all this forum here. There was no ego here but they were looking for keeping the Muslims together. The priority of everyone here in there own ijtihad (or) in their own best reasoning is to have a leader of the Muslims who would keep everyone together. So there were valid presentations of how to go about to do that. We saw that because there are other factors involved here when Al Ansar heard the presentation of Abu Bakr and Umar pertaining to Quraysh and to Bani Hashim they understood. It wasn't "we're not going to understand what you're saying! We have the truth, we monopolise the truth, we know the truth and you don't!" Their position is a lesson for us- unlike when today's run of the mill Muslims hold on to some issue that they understand they think right now they are in control of the whole truth and anyone else who has another position for the same objective is all of a sudden illegitimate or illegal or a cast away or whatever (and) becomes the other. This notion of the other was not there on this occasion. They were in this altogether but those who were absent from this saqifa viz. Ali and the Muhajirun and some others. They were not there. When this decision was made (it) was made in their absence. You have to understand that because this issue is not presented in a rational way (and) in a well thought out presentation some of the nuances and some of the details are absent. The fact of the matter here, (something that not many Muslims pay attention to even when they cover this area), is that the sympathy of the Ansar or the inclination of the Ansar in their majority- obviously not absolutely everyone of them- were in favour of Ali rather than Abu Bakr or Umar or anyone else. There's a reason for that. The reason for that is (that) from the perspective of Al Ansar Ali had established himself vis a vis Quraysh because in the battles that took place Ali- here the counts differ; but at the minimum Ali ((and) this is the least number that is given in all these history books), terminated the lives in battle of 15 of the Mushriks. Other sources will tell you 23, other sources will tell you scores of the Mushrikin. So he's not a person in the view of the Ansar who's going to become the patsy of Quraysh or Bani Hashim. So they were inclined, if he were there- he wasn't there. He was tending to the Prophet's funeral details so he wasn't there; but if he were to be there, now with hindsight we would understand that in all likelihood the balances would have tipped in favour of Ali- not because of any ego, not because "I am holier than thou" (and) not because of all these other factors that you hear when people arguing this issue you get the impression that they don't understand the people they try to identify with, (i.e.), these are the Sahaba and these are the Imams. Actually, some Ansar did mention Ali but Ali was not there as we've just already pointed out. Now the question is here if we just were to think about this so this issue doesn't become a matter of civil wars- right now the Sunni-Shi'i sectarianism harkens back to this issue. Why do they come back to this issue? Because it's been buried under centuries of ignorance and skewed information. So the question now becomes did Ali, himself, when he was tending to the funeral rights of the Prophet know that this was going on? There's nothing, (at least as far as we can reach), from the books that are available that indicate that he knew about it or did not know about it; but that's a question we think we should be concerned with to understand how to reintegrate ourselves with each other instead of warmongers coming (and) throwing this issue at us and creating enemies out of our one body. Did he know about it or did he not know about it? If he did not know about it we understand. He didn't know about it and this took place; but if he knew about it then the question is why did he stay with the Prophet's body and did not leave to tend to the affair of the leadership of the Muslims? That's a question that number one no one asks and number two no one has offered an answer. Obviously if we are not entertaining this question in our mind we're not going to come up with any answer. So what lingers on and what we are living with now is why was this bai'ah for Abi Bakr in the saqifa by the Ansar as the overwhelming majority of individuals under the saqifa and the few Muhajirin in the absence of other Muslims, (i.e.) the majority of the Muhajirin, Ali, Al Abbas (radi Allahu anhu) the uncle of the Prophet wasn't there, his sons Abdullah and Al Fadl (radi Allahu anhuma) were not there? This question begs out attention. It doesn't make for divisions or bad feelings among ourselves; it is inviting our minds to think about what happened and why it happened in the way it did. When it was consummated and Abu Bakr on that occasion at that time became the acknowledged leader by those in the saqifa- that was on the first day; on the second day it was in the Masjid and the majority of people came and endorsed Aba Bakr as the leader of the Muslims but resistance to that remained for six months among those that thought that this bai'ah (or) legitimate endorsement was less that valid because shura was not applied here. Allah says in his words of fulfilment
Their affair is a matter of social (and) mutual consultation among themselves, meaning the committed Muslims… (Surah Ash Shura verse 38)
(In this instance) this community that we are looking at being Al Muhajirin and Al Ansar. But no one went to war. Can anyone point out there was war among the Muslims? Sa'd himself who was the first nominee from those in as saqifa refused to give the bai'ah to Abu Bakr for the rest of his life. Did he say "we're going to carry arms, we're going to fight, we're going to shed blood, we're going to go into war? It's become a sectarian thing!" None of that! None of it because they were all keen on keeping the Muslims together. The reason we say that (and) this was an introduction is we're going to leave the Sunni-Shi'i area of ignorance that goes all the way back to that day and just leave you with the impression that we need to think about this rather than to fight about it. If we disengage our minds from it other people have their plans and their strategies. They'll come and they'll impose it on us just like is happening today. Much of what is happening today in the killing fields in the sectarian areas of the world is directly attributable to our absent mindedness, our lack of thought, our misinformation about all of this that is going on. So we'll part from the Sunni-Shi'i issue for the moment. We will concede that we have the right to have our differences but those differences do not have within them the range of turning into hostilities. Differences are permitted, hostilities are forbidden! Right now the uninformed Muslims say "differences are permitted and hostilities are also permitted."
Now we come to the Sunnis. Forget about the Shi'is for the moment and even among the Shi'is themselves there were differences. Al Imam Al Baqir and Al Imam As Sadiq (radi Allahu anhuma) did not agree with Al Imam Zayd and An Nafs Az Zakiyyah (radi Allahu anhuma). All four are Shi'i Imams- three of them descendants of Al Imam Al Husein (radi Allahu anhu) and (the other) one a descendant of Al Imam Al Hassan (radi Allahu anhu). Two of them saw things one way and two of them saw things the other way. When Zayd and An Nafs Az Zakiyyah went out to address the issue of injustice (and) political corruption what did Baqir and Sadiq say about Zayd and An Nafs Az Zakiyyah? They said about Zayd, (what in today's language would be), he was the comrade of the Qur'an. So there's no bad feelings and there was no distance among the Muslims.
Now we come to the Sunnis, (and O Allah we beg you for forgiveness because we're forced to display our dirty linen in front of ourselves). We have to say this because a word that injures is much better than a bullet that injures and hopefully we can pre-empt the bullets that are right now being stored for us by being frank with each other. This is only an issue that pertains to Sunnis. Shi'is have nothing to do with this. There's a book called As Sunnah that is written by the son of Al Faqih ibn Hanbal (radi Allahu anhu), Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Hanbal. Of course, you're not going to find this book, As Sunnah, at your local book store. You'll probably have a hard time finding it anywhere and you're obviously not going to find it translated and maybe there's a good side to that and a bad side. This is what is said in that book about Abu Hanifah (radi Allahu anhu). Now we know that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims who identify in a fiqhi sense with Abi Hanifah. In this book this is what is being said about Abi Hanifah. We will go word by word or phrase by phase and we will translate for you what is said in this book about Abu Hanifah. We all know who Abu Hanifah is. Remember, this has nothing to do with Shi'is. This is strictly an intra Sunni issue. Some times you think ignorance is bliss. Imagine if the Hanafis who are going and praying in that Masjid that is run by Hanbalis knew this information how they'd feel. The first thing they say in this book is- nastaghfirullah, a person who expresses other people's kufr is not a Kafir- "Abu Hanifah is a Kafir." (Do) you wonder today why some of these people are saying "other Muslims are Kafir?" Well here they are! They had the gall to say "Abu Hanifah is a Kafir." Then they say "he is a Zindiq." A Zindiq is the equivalent in today's language of an infidel. There's a difference between a Kafir and an infidel. Then they say "Abu Hanifah is undoing Islam one increment at a time, literally undoing Islam one knot after the other." Then they say "no one has been born into Islam with more harm and more bad luck than Abu Hanifah." They say "he is the father of sins." They say, (we're literally quoting their words), "he is conspiring against ad deen." Unlike the word ajami- ajami means non-Arab; here they're being more specific, which means "he's a mongrel, he's a half breed, a non-Arab." Then they say "the manufacturers of liquor are better than Abi Hanifah." "The Hanafi school of thought is worst to the Muslims than thieves." "The followers of Abu Hanifah of the companions of Abu Hanifah are equivalent to individuals who are exposing their private parts in the Masajid." We're not making any of this up and we're sorry to bring this to your attention. They go on "Abi Hanifah is going to be poured into the fire by Allah." "A Muslim is rewarded for hating Abu Hanifah and his companions." "A place (or) a town, in which the name of Abu Hanifah is mentioned should be vacated." "If you have Hanafi judges ruling in a certain place, town (or) country, that's worse to the Ummah than the appearance than the anti-Christ." Then they say "the first one to say the Qur'an is created was Abu Hanifah." "Abu Hanifah has done away with the usul of this deen." Then they say "if all of the mistakes and the errors of Abu Hanifah were to be distributed to the Ummah then you'd have more left (or)there's more to go around." They said of him "Abu Hanifah parts with al hadith and establishes his opinion." For your information here, this is not mentioned in this Hanbali book- and by the way not all Hanbalis agree with this, it is the type of Hanbalis who are to the extremes, (i.e.) the same types that we are seeing today with machine guns and with weapons of murder and destruction- Abu Hanifah had rigorous standards for accepting the hadith. These others, (i.e.) Al Hanabila don't have these rigorous standards so they looked at Abu Hanifah and they took this out of context and they said "look, he has parted with the hadith and he is an opinionated person." Then they go on "it is mandatory to quarantine yourself from Abu Hanifah the same way you are quarantined from persons who have contagious scabies." They say "he has parted with the deen." "Abu Hanifah and his companions are the worst of any segments, period." Then they say "there is nothing that is accommodating in his deen, (meaning in his understanding of the deen)." "He was never right," We can go on. "There's a ring of fire around the burial site of Abi Hanifah." "There's no one who was born who did more harm to Islam than Abi Hanifah." "Some scholars thanked Allah when they heard that Abu Hanifah passed away." "Abu Hanifah is an incurable disease." "In following Abu Hanifah you can drink alcoholics and you can eat pork." "Many scholars say it is permissible to condemn and to curse Abu Hanifah." This we think is a sample of what we have in our books that has made it possible for us to see these types of people today, (i.e.), the takfiris coming out. If they said that concerning Abu Hanifah then you can leave it up to your common sense and up to your faculty of thinking as to where they will go from there (and) how they will consider us. We don't bring these issues up. How long have we (been here)? These people who are controlling (and) occupying the Islamic Centre have been forcing us to pray here for 31 years. If it wasn't for these events in which hundreds of innocent Muslims are being killed everyday because of the type of mentality that you just heard we wouldn't have been bringing this issue up, (i.e.), that these who are occupying the Masjid are from the followers of Ahmed ibn Hanbal and we are not followers of Ahmed ibn Hanbal. Probably everyone in the world has prayed in this area on this day in the past 31 and a half years except those who are (Hanbalis). We don't ask but generally speaking it is comfortable to say if there was any follower of Ahmed ibn Hanbal who prayed here, it would be the exception but we never brought this issue up?! We never consider them the way they consider us; but this is what happens when we don't concede that we have the right to differ and when we don't know how to come to terms with our own differences to maintain our togetherness. This is what happens to us!
Dear committed brothers and committed sisters…
Don't think that the types of wars- civil wars, internecine warfare, imposed wars, wars for expansion and occupation- that are inflicting ourselves come from no where. There are depths to what is happening. If we just honored our God-given mind and eliminated the distances among ourselves that would go a long way in preempting the wars that are happening as we speak and the wars that are being planned for the years to come and for the generations to come. All it takes is for us to honor the intellect that Allah has endowed us with. Look at the scenario (and) what's going on in Syria and Iraq- just one area that is in the headlines and right now they say "the US and other governments are going to implement a no fly zone in Syria to draw in Turkey Arabian Peninsula bombing them. We had nothing to do (with that). Take a look at where we are- we are 6,500 miles away or so. We have nothing to do with that. The least we can do is observe the facts. Don't let this escape you! Ask yourself why is this happening? These are people who are supposed to belong to themselves and they're killing themselves. Where did this come from?!
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 10 October 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