| THE STREET MIMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (31 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, brothers and sisters…
Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/349548 (10-24-2014)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= aqltxh1TniU
"AQIDAH" BINDS THE SAUDIS AND TAKFIRIS
The takfiris that are going around and have been doing so for some time now (and) killing innocent people come from a certain background. They use certain words and they try to explain their actions even though they have no working minds when they do so. It is our responsibility to shed light on their fallacies and their inaccurate statements. If you've ever listened to some of their presentations there are some key words that they use; one of them is al aqidah, the other one is ad da'wah and the other one is at tarbiyah. These are three major words that they dwell on in their presentations and a major word that they latch on to with ferocity is the word aqidah. They used that almost every time they open up an Islamic discussion. The word aqidah is repeated by them multiply times. First of all, the word aqidah does not exist in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah. Their whole construct that is built (or) that is anchored in that word doesn't exist in the Qur'an or the Prophet's hadiths but there are words in the Qur'an that have a linguistic relationship to the word aqidah so we're getting down to the basics. We are going to go to the source to deconstruct all of their presentations when they focus on the word aqidah. The first word that is linguistically related to the word aqidah in the Qur'an is the word aqadat. In Surah An Nisa' Allah says
… and to those whom you have pledged your troth… (Surah An Nisa' verse 33)
Aqadat, this word is related to aqidah only linguistically- it has no shar'i attachment to the word aqidah at all.
Another ayah, the very first ayah in Surah Al Maa'idah
Oh you who are divinely and securely committed to the power and authority of Allah- honor your contracts or your covenants… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 1)
Uqud is the plural of aqad and aqad is a contract where two agreements are engaged; that engagement is called aqad which has nothing to do with the word aqidah which these Salafis, Wahabis, takfiris, etc. tell us means belief. "Aqidah means belief" which doesn't exist in the Qur'an or the Sunnah.
Another ayah, 235 and 237 in Surah Al Baqarah
And do not proceed with tying the marriage knot… (Surah Al Baqarah verse 235)
The word uqdah is linguistically related to the word aqidah but the combination of these two words in the Qur'an, uqdat an nikah, means tying the marriage knot which has nothing to do with the meanings and implications of the Salafi, Wahabi, takfiri use of the word aqidah.
In Surah Ta-Ha, ayah number 27 the word uqdah is mentioned. Musa (alayhi as salaam) is saying
And loosen a tie that I have in my tongue… (Surah Ta-Ha verse 27)
This is not a physical tie. These Wahabi types may think this is a physical tie. They immediately try to give meanings in a physical way. Musa didn't have a physical tie in his tongue. What it means is some type of blurring of speech. Once again, the word uqdah has nothing to do with the word aqidah that they try to give some type of shar'i weight to.
In Surah Al Maa'idah, ayah number 89 Allah says
… but He, meaning Allah, will take you to task for oaths that you have sworn in earnest… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 89)
Aaqadtum Al iman here means sworn in earnest or another way or translating this is complicating your iman. So it has nothing to do with aqidah.
The last one in Surah Al Falaq
And those who blow on knots. (Surah Al Falaq verse 4)
The word uqad is the word uqdah which means knot.
These are all of the linguistically related derivatives of the word aqadah from which the word aqidah comes and none of them have anything to do with the way these killers who substantiate their killing by saying "they refer to the Qur'an and the Prophet" There's nothing in the Qur'an quoted (or) written and nothing expressed by the Prophet that has the word aqidah in it. It's the same thing in the books of hadith. We have some linguistic derivatives of the word aqadah which likewise have nothing to do with the word aqidah that these people use. You'll find in the books of hadith the Prophet had officiated a banner to a certain person which means he's given him a military responsibility to carry a banner on a military expedition. What does that have to do with the Salafi, Wahabi, takfiri understanding of the word aqidah? Nothing! Another word you'll find in the books of hadith if you follow and trail the word aqadah from which aqidah is taken says he tied his belt. In today's way of understanding (it's the) equivalent of saying he tied his belt. What does that have to do with belief, etc.? This is after going through the ayaat in the Qur'an and the hadiths of the Prophet- this is what we come up with. So if you encounter (or) whenever a Salafi comes to you (or) whenever you're listening in on a Salafi, Wahabi discussion and whenever they use that word aqidah rest assured that they are using a word alien to the Qur'an and to the Prophet.
These same people, (i.e.) the Salafis (and) Takfiris attack the Asha'ira or the Sunnis who are not part of them- let's put it that way because there are some of us are not very versed on Islamic history (but) there are Sunnis who have nothing to do with Salafis, Wahabis and these- and who cluster around the word aqidah say "why are these Sunnis (i.e.) the Asha'ira using words like al qadim, al johar, al juz'?" These are words (which) if you back to over 1,000 years ago and read the books written by Muslims who don't belong to these Salafi types you'll find words in there that they say "you can't use these words because these are not words used in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah." If we want to literally follow what they are saying you can't use any word not being used in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah. The word juz' that they are saying "you can't use in your Islamic thinking or Islamic explanations or Islamic analysis", (because at that time there was an age of philosophy and different points of view were being discussed- so the Salafis came online and said you can't use these types of words), means a part. What's wrong with using the word "a part" if you're analyzing something as part of that discussion? What's wrong with that? Al Johar means the core (or) the essence. You can't use that word?! Al Qadim (means) from ancient times. There's nothing wrong with that but in their mind if you're discussing matters that are Islamic you can't use these words. They also say to those who are Sufis "you can't use the word Ahl Al Haqiqah or Ahl At Tariqah." These are two terminologies used in Sufi books and literature. Once again the Salafis come in on the line and they say "this is bidah. The Asha'ira are committing bid'ah because they are using words that are not used in the Qur'an and the Sunnah." Mind you, the Asha'ira are not making judgments about others when they are using those words. (It's) the same thing with the Sufis- they are not making judgments against others when they are using these words; but here we have these Salafis, Takfiris, Wahabis using the word aqidah which is not in the Qur'an and the Sunnah and because they are doing that they are passing judgment on the others that the others are not Muslims. We have a problem.
If some of them want us to believe the word the word aqidah is synonymous with the word iman we don't find the word aqidah being used synonymously with the word iman in addition to the Qur'an in all of the books of hadith. If you go back to history books and you read what the Sahabis and what the Tabi'in said you will not find one sentence in all of what was recorded from them using the word aqidah. Forget about sahih hadiths and authenticated hadiths, we have some hadiths that are fabricated and some hadiths that are outright lies (but) even in those types of hadiths you will not find the word aqidah. If your lend yourself to the Salafi, Wahabi, Takfiri argument you would find today in their own discussions and meetings they will ask among themselves if they mention any Muslim (who's) not part of them and they want to evaluate him or her they say "what is his or her aqidah?" That's how they speak. So during those first generations of Muslims when no one was using the word there were Munafiqin around, there were traitors, there were less than desirable Muslims yet none of that first generations of Muslims used that word to evaluate other Muslims in particular. So when they anticipate that word with their own notions then their aqidah becomes one, as we mentioned earlier, where you have to believe that "Abu Hanifah is a Kafir." That enters into their definition of aqidah and that Allah has two arms. That's how they think! We don't even know if we can call it thinking! If they're asked, they say "we can't describe it. We just say He has two arms and He has a chest out of whom was created the light of the Angels." We don't know where they come with all of that from but that's their "aqidah" in their own books. Then they go on from there under this title of aqidah and they point their fingers of kufr against Sunnis who don't belong in their way of looking at things and then at Shi'is and then at Ibadhis and then at Sufis and it goes on and on. Anyone who disagrees with them because of this centrality in their minds of aqidah others become Kafirs. Like we said, the word aqidah wasn't mentioned by any of those first generations of Muslims from the Muhajirin (radi Allahu anhum), from the Ansar (radi Allahu anhum), from the Sahaba (radi Allahu anhum), from the Badriyin (radi Allahu anhum), and those who follow them as best as possible. (It's) no where in there! So using the word aqidah is a bid'ah. Let's turn this word bid'ah around and use it against them because when you come to them this is information. If they have contrary information let them present it; but they don't!
If we wanted to interchange the two words aqidah and iman it would be like interchanging as salah and spiritual meditation. As salah is as salah- you can't say as salah is spiritual meditation. Al iman is al iman- you can't say al iman is aqidah. The Prophet of Allah says on one occasion concerning the compatibility of a young man and a young lady getting married to each other if a person comes to you and you are satisfied with his deen or his morals then go ahead and get married. (There's) no word (like) aqidah here that was mentioned. (in) the wording in this hadith- they refer so much to the hadith (and) that's fine. We have no problem with them referring to the hadiths as long as the hadiths are sahih hadiths; and not with their evaluation of what is a sahih hadith or not- the Prophet used the word deen. He didn't say aqidah. The Qur'an and the Sunnah are full with these words, (viz.) iman, Islam and deen. These are the three words they substitute for the word aqidah. Instead of using the word deen they use the word aqidah. Instead of using the word Islam they use the word aqidah and instead of using the word iman they use the word aqidah.
Then they say As Salaf as salih. That's one of the vocabulary combination words that they use, (i.e.) the virtuous ancestors. When we take a look at the forerunners of Islam (or) the pioneers of Islam (or) those first generations of Muslims called As Salaf but among those Salaf there were Munafiqun, among that Salaf there were undesirable Muslims, among those Salah there were all types of people besides as salih. Of course, among them were as salih also (i.e.) the virtuous types. So when they come and use this combination of words (i.e.) As Salaf as salih the impression is everyone in that era was virtuous. The correct way of wording it is as salih min As Salaf (or) those who are virtuous from that generation or that generation or those pioneers. If you want further breakdown of this as salih min as Salaf they would be Al Muhajirin, Al Ansar and those who follow them not the five or eight individuals that they shed lime light on, (viz.) Ibn Taymiyah, Al Izz ibn Salam, ibn Al Qayyim, ibn Abd Al Wahab, etc. This, in their perception, this is As Salaf as salih. They say "there is no khayr in Islam without Sunnah." What do they mean by this? Of course, that statement stands on its own without any critique. No one can argue that; but then you go a step further and ask what do you mean by Sunnah? They mean by that "takfir and dhulm and Isra'eeliyat and tajsim." Their definition of Sunnah is "to point a finger of kufr at another Muslim- that is Sunnah." Their definition of Sunnah is "don't take issue with an oppressive ruler- that is Sunnah. Don't scrutinize the hadiths to see which of these hadiths have Isra'eeliyat in them, meaning forged hadiths traced to Bani Isra'eel. These types of hadiths have to stay in hadith literature- that is a Sunnah." Then the other Sunnah is tajsim. When Allah says in the Qur'an
Allah's hand is above their hand… (Surah Al Fath verse 10)
They want you to understand the hand as you would look at it in your own hand- that is a hand. You can't understand this as
Allah's power or force is over theirs (or) above theirs… (Surah Al Fath verse 10)
You can't understand it like that or else you are courting kufr. This type of mentality, if we can call it that, makes certain Muslims hesitant. Let's say the truth- they have a lot of money. These people have a lot of money. They're combining takfir with treasury, they're combining this misunderstanding of Islam with a cash flow that is generous towards those who belongs to them. So if a Muslim wants to steep himself or herself in the Qur'an and the Sunnah and then wants to look at some of the events in history for example the issue of Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) stating a wasiyyah to Umar (radi Allahu anhu). In their mind if a Muslim wants to look at this issue (and) bring all the information that is available about it you can't do something like that even though- you see, they don't want to face the contradictions in their own head- they say "the Sahaba is the Sahaba (and) you can't say anything about the Sahaba." But when you come and tell them Imam Ali and Talha (radi Allahu anhuma) as an example of two Sahabis who took issue with Abu Bakr's wasiyyah to Umar because it wasn't inclusive of shura (they say "no, you can't approach this matter and think like that." Why? What's wrong? Something happened in our history (and) we can't use our intellect (and) our God-given mind to look at what happened? We find that Muslims at that time had two opinions: one of them centered around Ali and another one centered around Umar. In today's world, (without passing the negative meaning of the word), it's like there were two parties there- two Islamic Parties. Some of them saw that Ali was more qualified to lead the Muslims and they had their explanation and rationalization for it. First of all, Ali became a Muslims before Umar by a stretch of six years, he is the first male to become a Muslim. This is agreed upon by all the Sunni Ulema'. Umar was preceded to Islam by 130 Sahabis who became Muslims before him in Makkah. Ali had to his credit a military record in which he put to an end the lives of tens if not scores of Mushrikin in the battles against the opponents of the Muslims. As far as the record shows and we can see Umar has killed in war one opponent of Islam. Ali had more knowledge than the rest of the Sahaba and this is a consensual issue. There's no disagreement among two Muslims about this. Then the Prophet says to his daughter I have you married to Ali (who) comes out ahead of all the rest as far as his knowledge, as far as his tolerance and as far as his acquiescence to Islam having not one iota of history against Islam. This cannot be said of all the Sahabis and we're not here trying to denigrate any of the bona fide Sahabis, So Ali was closer to the Prophet than Umar. He is the husband of his daughter, he is the father of the Prophet's grandsons (or) grandchildren, he is the cousin of the Prophet, he was the head of Bani Hashim after the Prophet passed away and Banu Hashim were the head of Quraysh. This is the way one party saw the issue. Come to these Salafis and say to them open your own books and read for yourselves. Those who saw Umar more qualified for that position saw in his personality one who could take issue with the schismatics who are liable to breakaway from an Islamic togetherness. He was like a man of state. We covered this territory in a khutbah many many moons ago, (i.e.), the position of these individuals in Quraysh who later on became Muslims. Umar had, what you may call in today's language, a diplomatic position. So people who argued for him assuming this position said he had that experience in his life. They said when Umar became a Muslim the rest of the Muslims went public with their Islam. Before that Muslims were hiding, Muslims were underground (but) when he became a Muslim the Muslims were no longer behaving behind the scenes. He participated in the battles of Islam, etc. That was another point of view. What's wrong with looking at our own history (and) reading and understanding? What's wrong with that- you Salafis, you Wahabis and you Takfiris? Looking at this is not going to cause us to become enemies of each other; because we have extremists (so) whether you look at these two parties as a scholar is one thing and when you look at these two parties as a fanatic, (and we have fanatics on both sides), is another thing. We're not here promoting fanaticism. We're going to have to summarize this by saying that these people today who are armed, financed (and) trained and then they go around doing all these things giving excuses to foreign powers to come in dividing the Muslims almost every area where division is possible- whether it is religious, whether it is ethnic, whether it is geographic, whatever; all of these. Their whole concept is alien to Allah and His Prophet. We know these are words that not many people have the courage to say in public but it's the truth. We have to state it. They dwell among us. Some of you come into contact with them frequently. You have to understand who they are and what purposes they serve and if they are ignorant you have to help them out of their ignorance and if they are hostile you have to make them understand that they are hostile without any Qur'anic or Prophetic foundations. So communicate the message of Allah and do not fear anyone besides Allah.
Dear committed Muslims…
We are aware of the atrocities and the pitched battles that are causing Muslims to bleed to death. The complicating factor now being that we have Muslims in the name of Islam killing others who they perceive not being one of them. But we have to take a look at the sponsor of these Takfiris. Where did they come from? Who gave them the background and the shelter and the argument that they have today to do what they are doing? It's the kingdom of Saudi Arabia
There's a scholar in Saudi Arabia
There's a news item that appeared in one of their newspapers called Uqadh- remember we're bringing this to your attention because this is the environment from which the Takfiris are operating from. This news item in their Saudi Uqadh newspaper said "their moral police, (they call them rijal hayat al munkar), went to a certain residence and they told the man in the house you are under arrest." Of course they went in by force. This is in a neighborhood called As Suwaidi in Ar Riyadh. So they detained him. They said "we are detaining you. We're taking you to jail because you are in the privacy of another non-Mahram lady." This person said to them "I swear to you she's my wife." They didn't believe him so they took him there and they took her with him trying to accuse both of them of having illicit sexual relations being a non husband and a non wife to each other. So after interrogation they called the father of that lady to the police station and they began questioning him. He said "this is my daughter and she is married to this man who is my son-in-law." So after that what did they do? Did anyone bring them to task? Did this news item make its rounds? Nothing! Probably if you didn't hear it here you didn't hear it anywhere- and the whole issue died there. This is how they intrude on the innocence of other people.
Another one of these news items out of that kingdom of evil- there's a lady who works there. You know they have a lot of people that they get labor from around the world, from the Far East, from Africa, from Asia , from everywhere. They get this labor and they abuse them. So one lady spent 16 years in that kingdom. She came from one of those countries outside of Arabia- it wasn't disclosed where this lady came from; probably our guess is Thailand or the Philippines or Indonesia
Now we have these Dawa'ish (i.e.) those who belong to Da'ish all around the world. Some of them are students in places like Australia and here in the United States
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 24 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