THE STREET MIMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (7 November 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 brothers and sisters…
Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/349755(10-31-2014)
DELICATE ISSUES ABOUT UTHMAN
This week we are in the first 10 days of the month of Al Muharram therefore this coming week carries within it very significant historical details. We have Muslims who have taken positions or not taken positions concerning what happened precisely in this time frame over 14 centuries ago. We have yet to encounter a balance of mind and a balance of emotions when we remember or when we describe or when we even try to analyze this occasion referred to as Karbala' or Aashura'. Of course by now we think you are familiar with the approach this speaker has with these types of issues. We're not once a year occasional individuals who remember Aashura'in a very emotional way. We carry with us the meanings of Aashura' and Karbala'throughout the year and we've been dedicating weeks and months and years to try to have Muslims approach this event with alertness, with fairness and with connectedness. So we're not going, (as is the routine and the tradition by some Muslims), to concentrate specifically on this particular day, the 10thof Al Muharram; rather we're going to continue to deconstruct the misinformation that, for many years, went in to the build up towards the 10thof Al Muharram. We'll carry on from where we left the last time which was an extension to many times before it. So here we are in a sequence of ideas not just in some type of state of emotional agitation once a year during the days of Al Muharram. No. We dig deeper into this to try to diffuse the inaccurate information that Muslims have about this. So we're going to carry on from where we left off last week.
When the third Khalifah to the Prophet was in the process of being nominated-how did all of that begin? Now remember, because these are continuations (and) one thing leads to another, all of this is in light of ayaat of the Qur'an
And all of you take hold of Allah's extension of protection to you and be not divided…(Surah Aal Imran verse 103)
Anotherayah
… and do not be divided… (Surah Al Anfal verse 46)
Regrettably we are put in a position to speak to our division because this occasion, by some Muslims, is an occasion of division. It's not an occasion of closing ranks, it's not an occasion of dusting off the ignorance from the centuries behind us, it's not an occasion of setting aside some of these emotions and activating the mind a little more so that we can share a common understanding- no! Unfortunately, (to be blunt and frank), this has become to many people (and) to many Muslims this has become a time of division. So we are going to have to remedy this. We can't remedy this in one khutbah. We can't even remedy it in many khutbahs. It's going to take a consistent marathon of khutbahsand contacts and speaking and presentations, etc. to try to set the record straight. So the second successor to Allah's Prophet chose six individuals to try to agree on who's going to be the third successor to Allah's Prophet. All these individuals were from the Muhajirin (radi Allahu anhum). None of them were from the Ansar (radi Allahu anhum). They were Ali, Uthman Talha, Az Zubayr, Abd Ar Rahman ibn Awf and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhum). These were the six individuals who were trusted by the 2nd Khalifah to make up their minds as to whom will become the third successor to Allah's Prophet. He did this by imparting on them, (i.e.), there's a statement he said which indicated his conviction that the most suitable person for this responsibility- (i.e.), the Khilafah or the Imamah- and the most qualified and the most meritorious person for this is Ali ibn Abi Talib. You see, this runs head on with the information that circulates in today's world. He said if they were to give him this responsibility, referring to Imam Ali as al ajlah- and this has a range of meanings so let's leave it at that- he would have them go in the right direction. You don't sense here that there's some type of bad feelings between these two individuals but you go (and) you listen to some of the things that are being said by those who say them- there are people who just don't want to speak about this. They have yet to wake up to the facts belonging to their own history; but you get the impression (from) those who speak about this that there is a war between these two individuals. There's no such thing. Our comment (after) understanding Allah and His Prophet (is) this is nothing, (i.e.) there's no ayah (and) there's no hadith that Umar (radi Allahu anhu) should pick six or how many number of individuals to decide who is going to become the Khalifah- none. That's his ijtihad. He may be right (or) he may be wrong. He is not ma'sum but he did this in good faith. If someone understands something else out of this, they are not understanding this in good faith. So in this process when they were trying to settle on who is the most qualified to lead the Muslims, among themselves they realized there are two individuals that have divided them. Some of them tended towards Ali (and) the others tended towards Uthman. So Abd Ar Rahman ibn Awf said I'm going to expand this and I'm going to see how people feel about this. He went out and he began to ask people who do you think should become the leader of the Muslims? He sensed that the people themselves were also divided on this issue. There wasn't a clear cut majority opinion here or there. This was becoming a little confusing. What complicated this issue more was this was done during the time of hajjwhen (that) there were Muslim governors and deputies and rulers meaning in the sense that they were responsible for remote areas of the Muslim state at that time. They were there. They were present. So Abd Ar Rahman ibn Awf,in soliciting opinions, went to them and said what do you think? Who do you think should lead the Muslims after Umar?Most of them, if not all, said, it should be Uthman.At this point the confusion even increased. This person, Abd Ar Rahman,was going around trying to find some type of peaceful and friendly decision as to who is going to assume that high office (and) he realized that there were two things here that people were considering when they were giving him their answers. One of them is Ali is a man of principle and is a man of integrity. He's not going to give in to some type of policies that will generate some money or some type of decisions that will get the commerce going (or) get the economy kicked into higher gear and these things. This was on people's mind- do they want a person in that position who is strict and disciplined and principled? Or do they want a person who is easy going, who wants to open up the economy, who wants people to enjoy a higher standard of living? He found out that it seems like the sentiment of the people, even though it was a close call, was going with those who wanted a higher standard of living, This is not in a vacuum because during the time of the Prophet, during the time of Abi Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) and during the time of Umar (radi Allahu anhu)austerity was the description of their policies. These were hard times and people were looking for an opening up (and) some relief and they saw that Uthmancould offer them the relief that they were looking towards. But there's a problem here. They knew- whether they were these six or whether they were other notable Muhajirin or Ansar- that Uthman had a soft part in his heart towards his extended family and his extended family is Banu Umayyahand Banu Umayyah for all of those years leading to the liberation of Makkah were against Allah's Prophet, were against the Muhajirin (and) were against the Ansar in battle, in the media- everywhere you looked and here Uthman- the person who's going to bring us the anticipated prosperity that we are looking forward to- may also bring with him bag of Bani Umayyah. This is a dilemma. So Abd Ar Rahman ibn Awfcollecting these impressions came up with a type of formula that he thought would satisfy his conscience. Remember, up until now we're speaking about these events- (does) anyone feel that there's any hostility going on? (Or) someone hates the other? None! All of them were trying to preserve what we call the Islamicinterest, Islamic togetherness and unity, Islamic principles and values up until now. Anyone who wants to tell you something else either doesn't understand this history or has a grudge of some sort. So Abd Ar Rahman ibn Awf said Ok- I'm going to approach Ali ibn Abi Talib and Uthman ibn Affan and I'm going to ask them a question. Are you going to govern according to Allah's Book and according to the Sunnah of the Prophet and keeping up with the Seerah of the two Shaykhs (i.e.) with the lifestyles and the policies of Abi Bakr and Umar? So he went to Aliand he asked him that question. He said yes. I will govern in accordance with the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Messenger. As for those two Shaykhs, Abi Bakr and Umar, they had their opinions (and) their ijtihads I have mine. What he was trying to say (was) you can't impose on me something that is not valid in the Book of Allah and in the Sunnahof the Messenger. Why add this to it? So he declined out of sincerity and truthfulness. He was being frank. Besides he was an A'lim, a scholar (and) a person who they used to refer to. Abu Bakr and Umar used to go to him, so how is he going to say I'm going to follow?! They had their own differences among themselves. You'd give a contradictory statement saying I'm going to follow the Seerah of the two Shaykhs when the two Shaykhsthemselves had different policies on issues- on prisoners of war, on paying those who go out to military duty, on how to treat al muallafa qulubuhum.They had their differences. If you're going to tell me to follow these two Shaykhswhich way do I go? Abu Bakr had his way, Umar had his way. So Aliwas being honest to the facts. The same question Abd Ar Rahman ibn Awfposed to Uthman. He said are you willing to govern according to the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His messenger and in the pattern of the two Shaykhs? He said by all means. What Abd Ar Rahman ibn Awf meant by this particularly concerning Uthman is that Abu Bakrand Umar did not bring their family into the ruling class and Uthmansaid I agree to that. I'm going to rule like Abu Bakr and Umar indirectly saying I am going to agree not to bringBani Umayyah (and) my extended family into the ruling class. That was the agreement. So Abd Ar Rahman ibn Awf tried to activate his conscience in this whole affair. So it was to Uthman's advantage. This is just reading history and this history has its presentation in today's world. We'll be here for another two hours if we break from the khutbah and come to the Islamic movements and the Islamicstate today and begin draw parallels between what was said and done then and what is said and done now. We can't do that! You have to use your brains. So the five that were left or the four that were left came to Uthman because he agreed to that and they gave him the bai'ah. Talha, Az ZubayrAbd Ar Rahman ibn Awf, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas said Ok, fine. When they did that, Ali did that. Where do some of these books that come and say "Uthman is going to dwell in hell" and all of these come up with all of these?! You will see as we go on there was no grudge, there was no hatred, there was no hostility (and) there was no fight between Aliand Uthman in all of these developments that we're going to cover in a couple of minutes. Ali had his disagreements with Umar. They were disagreements that didn't generate bad feelings. This is an extremely important one sentence to understand, (i.e.) the differences did not generate hatred or hostilities. They lived those differences, we only read about them. When they were living the differences they didn't dislike each other; when we read about them we go to war with each other?! This is what's happening- a fact. Umar (said) a statement that is very famous. You'll find it in all of these books if you care to open up those books. Umar said this many times, if it wasn't for Ali Umar would have perished (or) Umar would have been in bad shape. When a person is saying something like this (do) you think he's saying this because he considers Ali to be an enemy (or) to be a vicious rival like some people tell you during these ten days? So after this initial agreement that Uthman should become the leader Al Muhajirun and Al Ansar went- even though Al Ansarup until now were excluded (and) had nothing to do with this. Ali was in the middle of it. If you think anyone held a grudge or anyone had bad feelings it would have been Al Ansar (because) they've been excluded (but they were) the personalities who stood firmly, even though this happened. The majority of people wanted prosperity. They didn't want Uthman as a person, they wanted what he could bring them; and he could bring them better economic conditions, he could bring them a better standard of living, he could open up these policies, (i.e.) you want to go to that fertile agricultural land in Iraq? You can go. I'll rescind these policies of Umar. Wherever you want to go, you go. Make money! That's what they wanted. So when all of this popular trend gave its bay'ah to Uthman there were some personalities, (viz.) Ammaar ibn Yaser, Abu Dharr, Al Miqdad ibn Amr, Khab'baab ibn Al Arat (radi Allahu anhum) and other who said no. Even though we agree that most of the people agreed but we still maintain that the person who should be in that position is Ali ibn Abi Talib. It's not reported anywhere that fights broke out. No one punched anyone, no one pinched anyone in those disagreements and why are we today opening fire on ourselves? Because of these same elements here, (i.e.) if it's not for the institutionalized ignorance that we've been carrying for all of these centuries.
Uthman had some campaign privileges or some things that make people attracted to vote for him, (so to speak). First of all he was a very wealthy person. He could give and he gave generously. He has a record. He spent very generously and people understood this. So if he has a lot of money he can also be very sympathetic to those who make money. Another issue that was in Uthman's favor was his blood relationship to the Prophet. (It) wasn't as close as Alibut still he has a relationship. Another one is, he's included from As Sabiqin. He was one of the first pioneers who carried Islam with them in Makkah when Muslims were under opposition. But still these individuals that we just named saw Ali as more qualified for this position. They said even though the majority of people-because here you have an issue of majority, many people- 70% to 80%- agreed that Uthman should become the leader of the Muslimsand that is the case but these who were strictly living for their conscience and their principle said but there's a person who is more qualified than Uthman. This majority thing did not phase them. They were especially incensed when they realized that Abd Ar Rahmanwent to the governors and decision makers who came to the hajj from the different areas of the Muslim domain.
Then we realize (that) for the first six years almost during Uthman's reign everything was sort of an extension of what it was before. No one was rocking the boat, (so to speak), but then something very serious happened. The first thing is Uthmanbegan to tell the governors who were appointed by Umar you are no longer in your positions, to use a more blunt expression, he fired them. You are the waali of Al Kufa, you are the waali of Misr,or the waali of Al Basrah, you are the waali of here and there- well you were the waali; you no longer are. So people begin to watch and realize that this doesn't seem right- something is going on here. What exacerbated this more is that Uthmanbegan to fill those positions with his own relatives. This is where things became very sensitive and critical. His relatives of course were from Bani Umayyah.Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas was the waali of Al Kufa.Uthman told him step aside. I have someone else to fill in that position.so he gave it to Al Walid ibn Uqbah. Al Walid ibn Uqbah was from the tulaqa' (i.e.) those that the Prophet pardoned (or) he amnestied when Makkah was liberated. They were in war with the Prophet for over 20 years and then when Islam became the conquering force in Arabia and Makkah was liberated they were amnestied. So Uthmanplaced ibn Uqbah, the taliq, as the governor in Al Kufa-replacing a Sahabi (viz.) Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas. He relieved those who were the Wulaat in Bilad Ash Shaam (or) the waalis in the area of historical and geographical Syria of their responsibilities whether he was in Jordon or in Palestine, whether he was in part of Iraq. He said all of you leave your positions. Now the person who's going to be in charge of this whole area is Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan is a taliq also. He's a person who stayed for 20 years militarily, psychologically and in every other sense opposed to the Prophet. Now Uthmanextends his wilayah (or) his governorship in Bilad Ash Shaam and people are watching. Remember, a lot of times when people speak to you about these historical events they speak about individuals; refocus your attention from individuals to the people, to the populace (or) to the population- this is where it counts. So people were watching this. People in Arabia, people in Iraq, people in North Africa, people in Ash Shaam, people all over the place are watching. What is this that's happening? Amir ibn Al Aas was the governor of Egypt. Uthmanreplaced him with Abdillah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh. He also was from the Tulaqa'.Uthman placed a person by the name ofAbdullah ibn Aamir as the waali of Al Basra. Abdullah ibn Aamir was a very young Taliq. He wasn't a person who lived with the Prophet and went through the struggle and all of this. He was, in today's language, a kid but he was among the Tulaqa' those who were amnestied and pardoned after the liberation of Makkah. Then people began to complain (about) Al Walid ibn Uqbahwho was appointed by Uthman to become the waali of Al Kufa. So Uthmanhad him replaced by Sa'id ibn Al Aas, another Taliq(or) another one who comes from that crowd that fought against Allah's Prophet for twenty odd years and then when Makkah was liberated they became Muslims. This did not go down well with public opinion. So right now virtually all of these main governorates (or) all of these regions in the Islamic domain were in the hands of the Tulaqa'.
Add to all of that Uthman had a person who was told to leave Al Madinah and to go to At Ta'if by the Prophet himself, Al Hakam ibn Abi Al Aas. This person made fun of Allah's Prophet. There was evidence that he was contriving against Allah's Prophet (and) conspiring against him so the Prophet of Allah told him you leave and you don't come back. You go to At Ta'if and you stay in At Ta'if.This person, Al Hakam ibn Al Aas, pleaded with Abu Bakr please have me come (or) return to Al Madinah.He said you stay where you are. The Prophet put you there you stay there. When Abu Bakr passed on he pleaded with Umar, have me (or) permit me to return to Al Madinah.He said you stay where you are. The Prophet put you there. You are not coming to Al Madinah. Umar passed on then came Uthman. When Uthman came, this relative of his, Al Hakam ibn Al Aas (said the) same thing. He said I want to come back to Al Madinah. Permit me to do so. He said yeah sure. Come on back no problem here. This was also observed by the people. It wasn't something that was done surreptitiously behind the scenes. It was done and people knew about it. Then what happened on the people's watch (is) they saw Marwan ibn Al Hakam,the son of this Al Hakam who was exiled to At Ta'if, (appointed). They saw Uthman appointing him as his right hand man. In the books of history it says something equivalent to a secretary but in a fact and in practice he was his right hand man. This person was not from the Sahaba and he was not looked upon favorably by the Sahaba-who were still alive. So now, remember the issues that were brought up before (i.e.) not to have Bani Umayah over the people? This was mentioned in As Saqifahwhen there was an argument as to whether Al Muhajirin or AlAnsar should assume the high office (or) someone from either of these; and then there was this fear that Banu Umayyah will become the bosses. They had money, they had clout, they had influence, they had connections. So inside of these people of principle they are afraid that Bani Umayyah is going to come and recapture the glories of Arabia. Well right now with what has happened (i.e.) Uthman placing Bani Umayyah in all these positions the fear that was expressed by Umar and other Sahabisafter the Prophet passed away and then during the interim years between the Prophet and Uthman now it is coming to fruition which means something like Banu Umayyah is now riding rough shod over people. Now these are disagreements. These are sensitive parts of history. Notice how you are listening to them and compare that where and when you listen to others who cover this same territory. Then what happened to Uthman's oath (or) his vow that he will follow in the course of the two Shaykhs, Abi Bakr and Umar? What happened? They didn't have their relatives making decisions for the Muslims. Uthman has and people were watching and listening. So criticism began to surface in a very public way- something is going on, something is wrong. There are mistakes and they have to be corrected. So Uthman placed his relatives in these sensitive positions and he wasn't able to supervise them. This was another complicating issue. They, themselves, had worldly inclinations. They didn't go through the struggle of Badr, Uhud, Al Khandaq, Al Ahzaab, Mua'ta, Tabuk. They didn't go through any of that. They skipped all of that history. They were Tulaqa'. So now they were in positions of power and decision making and they still carried the seeds of the world inside of them and people were watching and people said these governors all around are not better than the rest. The rest have records. Al Muhajirun, Al Ansar, As Sahaba, At Tabi'in, Ahl Al Bayt-all of these have a record of sacrifice, of struggle, of selflessness.What's going on? Then they began to realize that these governors (i.e.) Banu Umayyah (and) At Tulaqa' who had a free hand now were beginning to play fast and loose with Muslim revenue (and) with the Muslims treasury. These are sensitive points (that) no one wants to bring them up in a balanced way and that's what's required- a balanced way. So people's complaints began to increase. They began to sky rocket. It came to a point where the Sahabawent to Uthman and speak to him, listen, this is what's happening. Be careful. Do somethingbut Marwan, the right hand man of Uthman,along with the Bani Umayyah counterparts in the different geographies managed to have Uthman at a distance from the rest of the Muhajirin and the Ansar. They became something like a barrier. Uthman was also dealing with his senior years. He was of old age but they still came to him. These were people he knew very well and they knew him very well. Aliwent to him. Talha went to him. Az Zubayr went to him. Abd Ar Rahman went to him. Sa'd went to him. All of these people who were, prior to this development, very close to him and they tried to, (we're using an expression here), knock some sense into all of this but they found out nothing's going to work. Uthman now was aging and he had now more confidence in Marwan and his relatives. So it appears, (from reading all of this), he became confused and he became somewhat withdrawn from doing what had to be done. Then question marks no longer from the Muhajirin, the Sahaba (and) the Ansar (but) now from the average person in the street, the average Muslim. They began asking Uthman why did you give Marwan such and such a position? Uthman why did you hit Ammaar ibn Yaser?First time here. Remember these differences (but) the first time we come across someone hitting someone else with their hand was when Uthman struck Ammaar ibn Yaser (radi Allahu anhu). They had a heated exchange (and) Uthmancould not control himself and he hit Ammaar. People asked Uthman why did you do that? Uthman why did you exile Aba Dharr? Abu Dharr (radi Allahu anhu) was one of those who was a man of principle- frank and blunt. So here Uthman brought in from exile Al Hakam ibn Abi Al Aas who the Prophet put in At Ta'ifunder, (what you may call something like), administrative detention. Uthman brought him out of that- that was a Taliq- and then a Sahabi like Abu Dharr Uthman placed him into exile. People were asking Uthman why are you doing this? Why have you relieved so and so of his responsibilities when he's qualified and then you give that responsibility to someone who is related to you? At times it appears that Uthman felt he was the ultimate ruler and the ultimate ruler has privileges. He can do things that other people can't do. But this kept on going for a while and people began feeling this is going on for too long and these governors out there began to bunker themselves behind people (or) individuals who were either intimidated by them, (or) afraid of them or they were deceived by them or they were simply there for the money. At this point the popularity of Ali sky rocketed. Those who used to have arguments back and forth right now realized that no one can deal with this situation except Ali. We're sorry because time ran out (and) there was some other things to say. Insha'Allahwe will continue to approach this subject with a balanced mind and with the light that comes from Allah and His Prophet and being conscious of Allah's words to us historically and currently and the ayah goes on
Oh you who are securely committed to Allah, guard against or be warned against His corrective power presence as is due to Him and do not expire except in a state of submission and surrender to the only Power, Authority and Divinity that is legitimate. And hold firm to Allah's binding matter all of you- no exceptions- and be not divided; and bare in mind Allah's provision, favour and privilege upon you when you, who are now Committed Muslims, were once enemies of each other and then He reconciled your hearts and familiarized and acquainted you with each other and then, due to this provision, favour and privilege you became brethren of each other; you were on the edge of a pit of fire and Allah saved you from it; it is with this is mind and with understanding these dynamics and factors that Allah is going to guide us. (Surah Aal Imran verse 102-103)
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
Allah says
Be conscious of Allah's corrective power presence and express yourself with accuracy. (Surah Al Ahzaab verse 70)
This week- any person who doesn't have the weight of misinterpreted and misinformed history would tell you that Al Imam Al Hussein (radi Allahu anhu), the grandson of Allah's beloved Prophet is dear to His Prophet. What happened to him is a tragedy. In the first khutbahwe sort of concentrated on those who are in memory of this event even though it is overwhelmingly emotional and lacks the rational touch to it or the rational content to it but now we come to those Muslims who in these the ten days of Al Muharram go by and to them its as if there's nothing that happened in these days in the calendar- nothing! Something is wrong here! Allah's Prophet loved his daughter (and) he loved his grandsons and then some ruler, Yazid,comes and he slaughters individuals that the Prophet loved from the depths of his heart- do we need this blank mind to continue with us or can we wake up to that facts and the truth and identify an illegitimate ruler over 1,400 years after the demise of that illegitimate ruler? We can't do that yet?! Something is wrong if some Muslims are in capable of taking the facts of their own history and scrutinizing them in light of the Qur'an and the Sunnah(or) in light of the light that comes to us from Allah and His Prophet. This is a simple issue. It's a no brainer! Take it to anyone (and) they'll tell you "something is wrong. A ruler like that who massacres 70 odd individuals in a battle in a place called Karbala- well something is wrong with that ruler." That's a person with common sense. Come to a person who should have Allah and His Prophet in their minds and in their hearts- they should have a say in this and not remain silent. The emotionalism is killing us and our silence is killing us. We don't need that.
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 31 October 2014 on the sidewalk of Embassy Row in Washington D.C. The Imam previously led the daily and Jum'ah prayers inside the Masjid. His speeches were revolutionary and thought provoking, and eventually irritated and threatened the Middle-East Ambassadors who control the Masjid. Finally, the Imam, his family and other Muslims faithful to the course of Islam were forced out, into the streets. This khutbah originates from the sidewalk across the street from the Islamic Center, currently under seige.
__._,_.___
Posted by: stop evil <stop_evil123@yahoo.co.uk>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment