Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : DELICATE ISSUES ABOUT UTHMAN PART 2

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (14 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 dear committed sisters…
 
 
DELICATE ISSUES ABOUT UTHMAN PART 2
We know (that) some individuals will ask "why are we continuing the types of khutbahs that concentrate on our early Islamic history?" The answer to that is this is out of our hands. There are projects and plans to have Muslims fight until the Muslims finish their own selves off. This is something that is very obvious to anyone who is tuned in to this world's reality. The victims are in the hundreds of thousands if not in the tens of millions- depending on how you define the word victims and all of them are Muslims. Some of the rationalize (and) explain the killing of the other Muslim by going back to the precise history that we are trying to clarify in these khutbahs. Within these circumstances and the conditions there-in we are forced as our duty on this day of blessings and guidance to seek Allah's light and the Prophet's example to clarify this whole subject so that trouble-makers and warmongers do not instigate these issues among Muslims, (i.e.), whenever these issues are fed to the public by those who are in control of the mass media we will stand immune to their disease and their infliction. We reiterate- and it's Allah's command and Allah's order
And hold on, all of you, to Allah's fortified extension to you and be not divided… (Surah Aal Imran verse 103)
When Allah orders us to do something it is because there is something in us that doesn't want to do it or else there wouldn't be an order. It would have come naturally. There's something in either an individual or a society that doesn't want to be together. They want to breakaway, they want to divide (and) they want to isolate. The togetherness that Allah is speaking about is not in them; therefore it is necessary for Allah to bring us together. One of the issues that tends to have Muslims alienated from each other, (and we're going to carry on from where we left off in the previous khutbah), is this difference between Al Khalifah Uthman (radi Allahu anhu) with the mistakes that we are going to enumerate, (and we've done
so previously), and Imam Ali (alayhi as salaam wa radi Allahu anhu). There were differences between these two individuals. With all of these differences they never struck each other, they never thought about fighting each other, much less doing the other bloody and blood thirsty and blood letting issues that today we find those who say "we are champions of Uthman" doing and the others who say "we are champions of Ali" doing. None of that! Something is wrong and we will only discover what is wrong when we have the facts surface- that's what we're trying to do. So when Uthman began to appoint his relatives to positions of power, decision making (and) officialdom public opinion began to resent that. Now some people- not everyone, some Muslims- have this rosy idea that all the people in that generation are somehow angelic. No! That's not the case. The Qur'an (and) Allah's words teach us that in that generation there were Munafiqun, there were lesser than desirable Muslims, there were traitors and the rest- this is part of society. So when public opinion in its mixed constitution realized that something is terribly wrong in the highest office of the land when cousins and relatives are beginning to take over virtually the government. Of course, when we speak we try to put the events of history in the vocabulary of our time and sometimes this may not be very accurate but it is done to try to communicate. We don't want to return to the language of tribes and clans and then forget about power centers and rulers and decision makers. We don't want that to happen. So many of the populace (or) many of the Muslim public came to Ali and complained to him, (i.e.) this is not right. Something has to be done about this. Of course, this was said by many individuals in many ways and Ali was just like anyone else as far as identifying things going wrong. So he used to address himself to Uthman as an adviser (or) a person who's giving him advice. There was no taking out a sword or some type of weapon and challenging and I'm going to this and that- none if this! Then Ali found himself in a position between two sides that are contrary to each other. While this was developing Talha, Az Zubayr and Umm Al Mu'minin A'ishah (radi Allahu anhum) were more vocal in their opposition to Uthman than Ali. This wouldn't appear to be the case through our traditions and through our brainwashing that has been occurring through hundreds of years- but that's a fact! Anyone who's willing to dig out the facts will find that this was not an issue of polarizations per se as traditions present it today between Ali and Al Khalifah Uthman. It wasn't. There were serious differences absent antagonisms and hostilities. Then, when you read deep down inside you find out (that) wait a minute, during critical time period Umm Al Mu'minin A'ishah, Talha and Az Zubayr from the cream of the crop of the Sahaba were more vocally and publically critical of Uthman than Ali. It would seem- and Allah knows best but from going critically through the books of history, the chronicles and the narratives there-in you will find that the popular sentiment (and) the way people were beginning to feel (i.e.) if you were to probe their political mind they felt more inclined at this critical moment in their lives (and) in the development of their society to Ali assuming more responsibilities within this context to such a degree (that) if in that time- we're speaking about a specific time period, (i.e.) the last years of Uthman, particularly the last year in his life- if Uthman were to resign or was to step down or was to abdicate his responsibilities the popular sentiment was with Ali. It wasn't with Talha, it wasn't with Az Zubayr, it wasn't with Muawiyah (and) it wasn't with these other figures that are around. Some of the Sahaba and some of the notables in society meaning from the Muhajirin and Ansar (radi Allahu anhum) actually approached Uthman himself and said just give up this position- that's all we're asking you because you are, (we're trying to use a lesser loaded word but they meant is), incompetent. So we see that it is in the interest of the Muslims (and) the Ummah that someone else take your place because right now the division that is widening week after week and month after month. There has to be a trust between the citizenry and the leader but it reached a point where that trust now no longer exists. So in the last year or so of Uthman's reign, (to try and put it in some time capsule), we had for the first time now two serious (and) significant trends. One of them you may refer to as an Uthmani trend and the other one you may refer to as an Alawi trend. These are like social blocs in the Ummah. Its not that Uthman himself organize this current and it's not like Ali himself organized this current. They came into being because of the factors that were involved and it seemed like the people who were favoring Ali realized that there's something like an anti-gravity here, (i.e.) the most meritorious, the most competent (and) the most qualified to lead- this is in all societies, not only in the society of the Arabian Peninsula at that time (but) in your society, whatever society you come from it exists- and that is some people are interested in making money, other people are interested in power belonging to their own types- clannish types, national types, racial types, ethnic types, etc. In the Uthmani trend many individuals who supported Uthman supported that Ali was fair to Uthman. Some of them even went as far as to say he had a hand in the assassination of Uthman. They were afraid that if Ali was to assume the highest office in the land he is not going to play politics with people who have accumulated wealth and not in a legal way, he's going to deal with people who are abusing power and he's not going to show any amnesty towards them. So they began a campaign against Ali and Ali is caught between these currents. He can't deliver to those who say they support him because he's not in a position to deliver and on the other hand he cannot put an end to his distracters campaign and propaganda. Among the different things they said Ali abandoned Uthman. That is not true.
 
When you take just a general look at these two currents you will find that Ali had on his side the lower classes of society. We don't say this to try to develop a political theory. We're saying this just to try to state a fact in history- a fact that we are at a distance of over 14 centuries from. The supporters of Ali came from the lower classes, from the disenfranchised, from al mawaali, from the minority (so to speak, in today's language), whereas the supporters of Uthman same from the upper classes, these were from the merchants, the commercial class in society, the entrepreneurs, the bazaaris, the traders (i.e.) the money class. Once again, we're not saying this to try to develop a political theory. We're saying this observing the facts and trying to state them as they are. Most of the supporters of Ali were in the Arabian Peninsula, in Iraq and in Egypt. Most of the supporters of Uthman were in Bilad Ash Shaam, geographical Syria. There was tension here. We don't want anyone to misunderstand us. By us covering this area of tension we are not trying to feed into anyone's bias. We are trying to diffuse that bias and that tension. Both Uthman and Ali were aware of these currents, this polarization and this potential conflict. Both of them were aware of that and both of them were not satisfied with the increasing number of people joining both of these sides. They felt this is going to become a disaster. We want to pose a question here because these are only seeds. You can go to the books of reference yourself and scan this history with your open heart and mind relying on the guidance that come from Allah and His Prophet in doing so. When you see that Talha, Az Zubayr and A'isha were more vocal and more tense and more charged in their opposition to Uthman the question we ask is: why does that fact not appear now in the Muslim memory and the Muslim public mind? What happened? Something happened that this fact is not known by the average Muslim. We also realize that Talha, A'isha and Az Zubayr wanted this governmental, political (and) administrative mistake to be fixed. They were not their instigating trouble (and) creating problems. No. They were there within their own perception of things trying to correct mistakes but the circle around Uthman (i.e.) his own relatives, particularly Marwan ibn Al Hakam, didn't want that to happen.  They didn't want A'isha, Talha and Az Zubayr on one hand to fix this problem and they didn't want Ali, Ammaar, Bilal (and) Abu Dharr on the other hand to fix this problem because they themselves didn't see a problem. They were in power. Everything was going their way so there was no problem. What is there to fix?! The opposition-(i.e.) those who disagreed with Bani Umayah and the Tulaqa' becoming the virtual rulers- sensed that now the Ummah has become the possession of a family- that's how some of them felt. They felt like Uthman was ineffectual (and) he had no say in what was going on and now the Tulaqa' and their children are the highest ranking people in the Islamic State. At Tulaqa' and their supporters out maneuvered Al Muhajirin and Al Ansar and within a period of 20 years after the Prophet passed away they took over. This was their perception. Now, at this point, people began to dig up some history. We want you to be aware if what was said. At times of conflict when the differences are not bridgeable people begin to bring up issues so the opposition to Uthman began to say the following to try to discredit him, (and you can go and verify this in the history books), Uthman was not one of the Badris. He did not attend the Battle of Badr. He was absent during bay'ah Ar Ridwan. He fled on the day of Uhud. Many of the warriors around the Prophet ran away on the day of Uhud because they saw that they were being routed and Uthman was one of them and he gave amnesty to those who shouldn't have been amnestied. He burned the Masahif.  This needs just a little explanation. During the time of Uthman there was fear that because of the military nature and what was going on many Muslims were giving their lives for Allah. So those who had committed the Qur'an to heart were dying. So the fear was that if they begin to die and not all of the Qur'an is compiled then we're going to lose the Qur'an. So what Uthman did- not Uthman personally; it was a policy that he initiated but it was done by others including many of the Sahaba- they compiled the Qur'an and after this uniform Qur'an was put together the rest of the versions that were around, (i.e.), whether this ayah was before that or whether this surah was after that or these types of things that were going on (so) to put an end to the divisions that were going on he just (burned it). The way the Fuqaha' (said)- and this is an agreed upon fiqhi matter- if there is an ayah or a page of a surah or the whole Qur'an that is to be disposed of, the honorary way of going it is you burn it. You can't throw it in the trash.  The only way of doing it is you burn it. What was meant by burning these bits and pieces of whatever was around that may have caused disunity among Muslims was not to demean the Qur'an as a policy but when it was said by his opposition it was meant to say that somehow he had a hand in doing away with some of the Qur'an. This is what happens. Oppositions wherever they are have a tendency of exaggerating issues and this is one of those exaggerations. They all agreed, (i.e.) the opposition agreed that Uthman is no longer suitable as the ruler and he has to be moved from office. Either he himself declines the office or some power has to relieve him of those responsibilities because the opposition saw that these Tulaqa' were hiding behind Uthman's senility, his generosity, his goodness towards those who are his relatives, etc. All of this came to a head when Marwan ibn Al Hakam, Uthman's secretary, wrote a letter to the governor of Egypt. In that letter he told the governor of Egypt to kill figures of the opposition. Among them was Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and Abd Ar Rahman ibn Udais Al Balawi (radi Allahu anhuma) from the Sahaba and others. This is reminiscent and it reminds us of what happens today in our time. There are opposition figures and then orders go out "assassinate them. Get rid of them." It was done in a very ugly way. So when these opposition numbers found out that Marwan ibn Al Hakam wrote that letter they asked Uthman hand over Marwan ibn Al Hakam. Marwan ibn Al Hakam, (we spoke about him), was the son of a person who was exiled by the Prophet from Al Madinah to At Ta'if (or) from Makkah to At Ta'if. Uthman was afraid that if he hands this Marwan ibn Al Hakam over the opposition are going to kill him because he had deemed Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and the rest who were opposing these mistakes in Al Madinah- these are Islamic terminology words- mufsidina fi al ard and the punishment for mufsidina fi al ard is capital punishment. Of course, these are not mufsidina fi al ard. That is an erroneous judgment by Marwan ibn Al Hakam but the problem here is Uthman himself got caught up in the misjudgment and the type of conspiracy that Marwan ibn Al Hakam was responsible for because he would not distance himself from Marwan ibn Al Hakam. So this tension now began to grow and the opposition came and surrounded the residence of Uthman and they began to exchange words. It began by exchanging words until someone from inside Uthman's residence shoots an arrow against one of the oppositionists and kills him. This is when these people from outside of the residence of Uthman climb over the walls and they go inside the home of Uthman and they assassinate Uthman. The person who assassinated Uthman was immediately killed by one of the house servants of Uthman who himself was immediately killed by those who went into his home. There's actually some details here, brothers and sisters, but because of the time factor we're sorry (but) we're going to have to skip some of these details as important as they are. What we are left here with is that after this was done most of the Muhajirin and Ansar, if not all of them, (this is important that it not leaves your mind), at this point in most of the history books, (we're talking about mainstream history books here), all of the Muhajirin and all of the Ansar went to Ali and said now we want you to be the leader. Ali at this time, even though he had sent his own sons- Al Imam Al Hassan and Al Imam Al Hussein (radi Allahu anhuma)- to protect Uthman (so) these people (who) are saying Ali had a hand in the assassination of Uthman conflict with the facts of history but Ali did not want this bai'ah to be in his home. He said if I am to become the leader of the Muslims it has to be done publicly in the Masjid with the participation of all. That's the way it was done and they went to the Masjid and the bai'ah was done publicly with the support of all the Muhajirin and all the Ansar. The only ones who did not agree with that bai'ah was Muawiyah in Ash Shaam and those who were with him. This is what we had up until this point which up until now we realize that the Sahaba themselves, (i.e.), those who were with Ali did not launch any war with those who they disagreed with. They did not turn violent with those who disagreed with them. So why do we, Muslims- those who quote Ali or those who quote Uthman or those who try to make party politics out of all of this- get hyped up and try to kill themselves in the millions? Where did this come from? It's definitely not from the decisions and the intentions of the personalities that they relate themselves to. So it becomes difficult to surmount traditions and it becomes difficult to surmount cultures. We have 1,400 years in which certain impressions are set into cement in our minds so it becomes difficult to overcome these cemented ideas. Extremely difficult! It is at this point of difficulty that Allah tells you
You refer yourselves to the protection that Allah has given you and you're not to be separated from each other… (Surah Aal Imran verse 103)
 
Dear committed Muslims, brothers and sisters…
We are not making (or) we're not taking a leap away from what we have just said in the first khutbah. Today's sectarianism feeds on the distortion of these historical facts that you just listened to. Out of this sectarianism comes the accusation of the other Muslim being a Kafir. Just like we had the courage to look at history as much as we can, (while) trying to honor the word of Allah and the word of His Prophet we take a look at today's developments. These are happening today- we can't see them? We can't think about them? We can't understand who's instigating them? Recently, just in the past week the rulers in Arabia have been going through a fit because the evil ideas that they've been sponsoring and financing throughout the past decades if not centuries are coming home to roost. One of their ministers, the Minister of Information has been sacked because what happened last week when some Muslims were observing the 10th of Muharram some of their own products, (i.e.), individuals who were taught in their own universities with their curriculum (and) with their vocabulary "went out and shot at other Muslims in their own kingdom killing five of them and injuring 10 of them" as some reports say and not the rulers their (or) the upper crust (or) officialdom in Arabia looks around and says "wait a minute here- this type of action can spread allover the country and we'll have the kingdom falling apart." So there has to be a fall guy. Someone has to take responsibility for this. "It's you- Minister of Information." They closed down one of their sectarian satellite broadcasting TV stations called Wisal in which throughout all of these years they've been spewing sectarianism in its ugliest forms. They said "right now we're closing it." There's been contradictory reports. Some news reports said "it's closed" others said "it's not (ot) it hasn't." But the government there in that Kingdom says "we have nothing to do with this TV station." That's a flat lie because that TV station operates within their territory, they have guests on that TV station who are functionaries of that government but it goes to show you how nervous these rulers have become. In previous years they took their sectarian wars outside of the Peninsular. "Go and fight the Kafirs in Syria and in Iraq." That's what they were telling their youth. For a time, and still, some of them are fighting these wars that draw from distorted history accusing other Muslims of being Kafirs. Where do these come from? You tell us? Some of you have lived with Islamic awakening for the past 10, 20, 30, maybe 40 years- in all of this have you come across those who say "we have to kill other Muslims"? Where do these individuals and this type of organization come from? Organizations grow throughout the years, they don't just pop up in a year or two and then begin killing randomly and massively and then having international powers involved in their killing. There are drones, there are military missions, there's military build-up, there's budgets (and) treasuries involved in all of this- do you think we, the committed Muslims are involved in this, whether we are Sunnis or whether we are Shi'is? This type of Islamic sectarian "kill the other trend" and the other doesn't necessarily mean a Shi'i. In the past week these Da'ish types killed 500 Sunnis in Iraq. They'll kill anyone who disagrees with them. Where does this come from? Ikhwan Al Muslimin? Hizb At Tahrir? Hizb Ad Da'wah? Al Hizb Al Islami? Al Hizb Al Rifah? Jama'ati Islami? Take your pick of these Islamic orientations throughout all of these decades- these came from them? Or did they come from the type of mentality that is being financed? What we are seeing today is the wrath of Bandar- that Ambassador who used to live here in this city for over two decades. This is his wrath. His playing his last cards! They're nervous and let them stew in their nervous soup that they've created for themselves.
Be conscious of Allah's corrective power presence and express yourself with accuracy. (Surah Al Ahzaab verse 70)
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 7 November 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)

.

__,_._,___
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive