Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : LEADERSHIP, LEGITIMACY, POWER AND AUTHORITY IN ISLAM

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (2 January 2015)
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.
Brothers and sisters…
Assalaamualaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuh
 
 
LEADERSHIP, LEGITIMACY, POWER AND AUTHORITY IN ISLAM
Sometimes a person when speaking to an audience runs into a difficulty when he has a mixed audience. Some in the audience are Muslim, some are not Muslim, some are educated Muslims some are not, etc. etc. We think today there's more or less a homogenous type of audience. All of us are Muslims. We don't know if anyone here is not a Muslim? So we'll be addressing ourselves to a particular range of thought processes that doesn't involve the non-Muslims and we're going to take a lot for granted in doing that, meaning we're going to assume on your behalf (that) you have enough information to fill in the blanks of what we're going to try to express. In the case that I fail and I assume too much then I'm as humble as to be approached after the presentation with what you have on your mind and hopefully after this presentation you'll have more than what you can deal with on your mind.
 
The title, as has been mentioned by the introduction, has to do with leadership and then from leadership we have the few issues of legitimacy, authority and power. The issue of leadership is unfortunately an issue that some of us, Muslims, have placed so much attention on that we have lost some of the details that go into it. That may sound contradictory but looking at the practical condition that we are in that's where we are and some of us Muslims have almost sidelined the issue of leadership to such a degree that it really does not figure any longer into our Islamic personality. To break that down a little further I would say that not many of us want to speak about the issue of leadership in the public venues that we have. From time to time you have a conference, you have a program, you have a congregational event, you have a khutbah, you have a lecture or a sermon but in all of these how many of us know how to approach this issue with a balanced mind that is practical and that takes into consideration the brotherhood of all of us, Muslims, from whichever background we may come from?
إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِخْوَةٌ
Of a certainty, committed Muslims are brothers of each other… (Surah Al Hujurat verse 10)
We think that is a granted proposition in the public Muslim mind. So why are we amiss when it comes to this issue? One of the problems is that we, ourselves, have not elevated our thinking processes to the degree that we can sort out this issue of who's going to be the leader of the Muslims- whether that leader be in a local area or whether that leader be in a larger, (let's say), transnational or international area. We're almost blank when it comes to this even though the ayaat in the Qur'an are plenty and the instructions of the Prophet are abundant. First we would like to say that Alhamdulillah most of you here are in the prime of life where ambition is part of your psychology. Some of us, Muslims, who have reached a latter part of our life can be characterized by a lack of ambition, not to say broken spirits; (but) you in the first stages of life should have enough ambition so as to take on the issues that have to be understood. Our minds have to be at work when we take on these issues. Now, I just made that as a general introduction. Now let us try to get down to the nitty-gritty of this subject matter.
 
We know that we have somewhat of an irreconcilable definition of who the Muslim leader is. That's not because the Qur'an and the Sunnah are not clear on the issue. That is because we, ourselves, are not clear on the issue. Let's understand this very well. We hope we are as mature as to say if we do have any discrepancies or any misunderstandings pertaining to an issue we refer it to Allah and to His Apostle.
فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ
… and if you differ, refer to Allah and His Messenger. (Surah An Nisa' verse 59)
Is that clear? That's clear! Ok- so if we do have an issue that we have to refer- this issue is the issue of leadership, legitimacy, authority and power. We have an issue here that we can only refer to Allah and to His Rasul. OK- so what do we have on this issue? How do we begin to just think? Let's get our minds thinking about this matter instead of staying the political orphans that we are in the world today. Let's get our minds to think about this issue. It's about time! Do we have to sacrifice (and) do we have to suffer more than what we are going through to begin to think about (it)? How long is it going to take us to begin to think about an essential and a pertinent issue (such as) how to consolidate an Islamic leadership? We know some of you are not very familiar with the language of the Qur'an (and) it's going to take a little translation to bridge the meaning but this is how it has to be done. For those of you who are familiar with the language of the Qur'an, the ayah says
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ
O you who are securely committed to Allah, obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those who are entrusted with authority from among you… (Surah An Nisa' verse 59)
 Now, if we just think- this is what's required, a little thought. If we take this ayah, remember, there are many other ayaat in the Qur'an that have the word ta'a or its derivatives in them. So when we take this ayah we realize that Allah is saying (or) addressing Alladhina Aamanu and here, it is not necessarily Al Muslimin; it's a quality above just an average civil Muslim. This is another distinction that is not very clear in the public mind that we all share. Sometimes or rather most of the times we just equalize Al Muslimin with Alladhina Aamanu. If these were equivalents then we would have the contexts of the Qur'an making them equivalents but we have a specific delineation between the two. In an ayah in the Qur'an
قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا ۖ قُل لَّمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِن قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا
The A'rab came and said that we are committed Muslims too; say to them: you haven't committed yourselves to Allah but say that you are Muslims … (Surah Al Hujurat verse 14)
So we do have a difference between these two groups of people. Be that as it may require our thoughts, Allah here is saying
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ
 O you who are securely committed to Allah, obey Allah and obey the Apostle meaning obey Allah and obey Muhammad… (Surah An Nisa' verse 59)
So our obedience is due to Allah and to His final Messenger. Now, (in) what follows Allah doesn't use the word obey. He says
وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُم
… and those who are entrusted with authority from among you… (Surah An Nisa' verse 59)
He didn't say Wa ati'u Ulil Amri minkum. Which means what to us? It means that our obedience is due to Allah and to His Messenger and by leaving the word obey out from the third category in this ayah (i.e.) Ulil Amr it is by inference that we obey those who are in charge of authority from among us meaning as long as those who have authority among us are obedient to Allah and His Prophet then we are subject to their authority and their power. So legitimacy in its original state belongs to Allah and His Prophet and then by extension authority and power are relegated to those who are entrusted to authority among us. Now here's where we have our lack of thought. Here's where we encounter in the Muslim mind as lack of thinking and here's where we're going to help you out. So far we haven't used the word… Because we as Muslims basically in this world unfortunately have defined ourselves by traditions and we have inherited basically two bags of traditions or two packages of traditions. One of them is called Sunni and the other is called Shi'i. None of these we will encounter in the encyclopedic information to be found in the Qur'an and in the Sunnah- there's no such thing. We do have the word Sunnah and we do have the word Shi'ah in the Qur'an but we don't have the traditional understanding that we have today that defines these two words. The word Sunnah in the Qur'an basically means a social law and the word Shi'ah in the Qur'an basically means partisan.
قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ سُنَنٌ
Before you, you had an experience of social laws … (Surah Aal Imran verse 137)
هَٰذَا مِن شِيعَتِهِ وَهَٰذَا مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ
… this person being from his partisans and this person being from his enemy … (Surah Al Qasas verse 15)
So if we can understand that our affiliation with Allah and His Prophet require us to extricate ourselves from our traditional understanding of Allah and His Prophet we can begin the right course. We can take the first step in the right direction. So we go back to the ayah
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ
O you who are securely committed to Allah, obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those who are entrusted with authority from among you… (Surah An Nisa' verse 59)
Of course, here, if you know the linguistic construct of this ayah it's going to help you understand what Allah is saying. It says
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُم
O you who are securely committed to Allah, obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those who are entrusted with authority from among you… (Surah An Nisa' verse 59)
The ayah doesn't say Ulil Amri Alaykum and the ayah doesn't say Ulil Amri fikum. If you understand what a traditional Sunni is, (we're using this with a grain of salt), and if you understand who a traditional Shi'i is, (and we're also saying this with a grain of salt), then you will understand that we are not understanding what Allah is saying, (we can be frank with ourselves- it's no problem), because the way history has worked itself out we have a crowd of people who will obey those who have power because they grabbed it and the way they are interpreting this ayah- they don't come out and say this obviously; there's nothing you're going to find in the books and the references of a particular group of Muslims. It's not written there, it's practiced! So whoever is in power for those who subscribe to the traditional Sunni understanding of the way power is launched or practiced they will obey those who have power and those who have power may have grabbed power, seized it by force or did whatever they did in what are considered to be "non-constitutional" ways but they end up having power therefore we end up obeying them. There's no legitimacy for that from the Qur'an or from the Sunnah because Allah doesn't say Ulil Amri Alaykum. He doesn't say that! So there is no legitimacy for those who have acquired power in our days for those who have acquired power most of the times by the military. The military grabbed power therefore we going to have to obey them. That's not what the Qur'an and Allah is saying. So that addresses one segment of the Muslims.
 
The other segment of the Muslims say that there is a type of inherited power. Once again, you're not going to see this written in their books. You will not find this located in their references but the way the practice has become through these traditions is that through a matter of one generation after the other there is something which appears to be like an automatic leader that the Muslims have. The way they've "read" this ayah- all of us read it the way it is in the Qur'an, (i.e.) Ulil Amri minkum but the way it's practiced is Ulil Amri fikum. The ayah is not saying that. So neither are the traditional Sunnis right nor are the traditional Shi'is right. Now we've managed to make everyone here upset! We're sorry. We're not doing this of our own choice. What we're doing is taking an ayah from the Qur'an which has the rest of the whole Qur'an as a support system to it and understanding it and inviting you also to understand it along with us.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُم
O you who are securely committed to Allah, obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those who are entrusted with authority from among you… (Surah An Nisa' verse 59)
So when we say minkum, here we have a type of interplay between Alladhina Aamanu which is at the beginning of the ayah, at ta'a which permeates the ayah and then minkum which becomes a reference back to Alladhina Aamanu. So Alladhina Aamanu are a crucial part of understanding what leadership means as per Allah and His Prophet. Now, if we can understand this- this is not difficult! We're not here trying to explain some rigid or very challenging philosophical concept.
وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ
We've facilitated this Qur'an for the process of you being able to conscientize it. (Surah Al Qamar verse 17)
Now if we take this accessible meaning and we take a look at our first generation of Muslims- this is also an area in which when we begin to speak about it we're pigeon-holed; someone almost automatically is going to try to categorize where the speaker is coming from. Right now you are on traditional alert because what we said is we are going to go back to that first generation of Muslims and here's where your traditions are going to begin to kick in. "What is he going to say here?" If you can just put your traditions aside and take an objective and selfless look at ourselves. The Prophet passed away and these ayaat and these instructions from His Prophet are available to us. OK- the Prophet passes away. Now we look at who is going to lead the Muslims and we have libraries and bookstores of written material telling us who is supposed to be leading the Muslims but if we take a look at this ayah from Allah's book, we know that the responsibility of leading the Muslims falls within the scope and the area in the number of people who qualify for the words Alladhina Aamanu. When we look at the people who joined the fold of Islam during the 23 year struggle of our beloved Prophet we know not all of these people are Alladhina Aamanu because if we take a look at the details of these 23 years (and) the people who were around the Prophet we find that there's a category of people who are called Al Munafiqin by the terminology of the Qur'an. Take a prime example of this when the Prophet was on a military mission in Uhud. One third of the Islamic armed forces retreated from that mission. Can these be called Alladhina Aamanu? There is a segment of the population by the words of the Qur'an called Al Mukhallafin. Can these be called Alladhina Aamanu? But there were those who were with the Prophet come what may- whether it was the battles of Islam, the ghazawat or the saraya, (using the Islamic terminology), they were always with him. Can we deny that these were from Alladhina Aamanu? So the definition is not as tight as some Muslims make it and it's not as flexible as other Muslims make it. The truth is to be found in-between these two extremes that we now have as traditions. It just takes a non-subjective mind to take this issue and sort it out. So the Muslims are going to have to find someone who's going to have to take charge of this pool of Alladhina Aamanu- that's the task to be done. Now are the Muslims going to choose the most qualified from the pool of Alladhina Aamanu or are they going to choose someone who is less qualified from this pool of Alladhina Aamanu. The Muslims did what they did. History has it. No one can deny this. This is part of us. By the way, we're saying this because we are not fragmented Muslims or we're not supposed to be fragmented Muslims. We are a continuity of this process if we care to think. Yes- absent our thoughts we become sects and we become ethnicities and we become the rest of what we see in today's world but when we regroup through a thought process which we are supposed to do then we begin to learn from our common experiences. This is a shared experience. Whether you agree with it or not is another issue but its part of our shared history. When we are speaking about this issue of leadership, legitimacy, authority and power we are also speaking about the counter Islamic force. When the struggle was taking place in Arabia with the undisputed leadership of Allah's Emissary and Apostle are we speaking about the end of the enemies of Islam? The enemies of Islam were there. They were there in Arabia and they were outside of Arabia. There were many areas of hostility to Islam. As a given among us who have survived our traditions, meaning even though we are traditional Muslims we know that the major powers of that time were opposed to Islam. There's not going to come along any common sense Muslim and say "the Persian empire or the Byzantine empire were friends of Muslims." That's a given. So we know that outside of the Islamic territory of that time there were, (in today's words), superpowers that were opposed to this Islamic leadership and therefore this Islamic legitimacy, authority and power. The problem we have though is inside of our Islamic beginnings (and) our Islamic genesis in Arabia this House of Islam that during the last few years of the Prophet's lifetime took on an exponential growth so we have in Arabia those who said we are Muslims but in reality they harbored pre-Islamic tendencies. They wanted to go back to their own ways and their own ways formed the first asabiyah. (We're going to take for granted that you know what the word asabiyah means.) There was an asabiyah within this Islamic order that wanted to claim this Islam within its own asabiyah. So when the decision had to made, (i.e.) who's going to lead the Muslims it was not made with an ignorance of this asabiyah. For those who are having difficulties with two negatives in one sentence- the decision to choose the first leader of the Muslims was done knowing that there is a force of asabiyah that is just beneath the Islamic surface. So did it have a rationalization of choosing a lesser qualified person for the leadership of the Muslims to take into account what that asabiyah could do if the most qualified Muslim were to take charge and then we were going to have an outbreak of internal civil strife from the first day that the Prophet passed away. This is what we are going to have to think out- was it a wise choice for the Muslims to do what the Muslims did? Or they did what was a second priority and not a first priority. O help you along these lines (and) to break it down further for you- the Muslims chose from the pool of Alladhina Aamanu the first one to lead the Muslims. The first one to lead the Muslims was Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu). Whether you agree with it or don't agree with it, that's a historical fact. That's what happened. The question is: was it wise to do it that way or was it not wise to do it that way? OK- let's assume for a moment that the Muslims were not going to choose Aba Bakr, (i.e.) they chose not to have him as the leader of the Muslims and they chose to go for the most qualified person to lead after the Prophet and that was Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu). What would the impact of that choice have been on the asabiyah that was kicking just beneath the Islamic civil surface of things? What would have happened? We say to you, (and this is a matter of our thoughts common thoughts that we can deliberate on in a friendly and brotherly manner without tensions and without recriminations), that this would have sent a message to the nominal Muslims at the time who in the last years of Islam in the tens of thousands became Muslims- the majority of Muslims we had at this time were those who saw in the last years of the Prophet that Islam now is the wave of the future (so) let's jump on this Islamic bandwagon. They became the nominal Muslims that they became. So now you have, from these nominal Muslims point of view, the Prophet's cousin as the leader of the Muslims (or) the Prophet's son in law as the leader of the Muslims (or) the person who was brought up in the Prophet's household the leader of the Muslims- how would that impact this asabiyah that we are going to see more of in the years to come? How would that have impacted the Muslim public opinion if that was the choice of the Muslims at that time? We think, (I haven't done an exhaustive study of this but believe me I've spent a lot of time in this area), in that day of Saqifa, (i.e.) the day when the Prophet passed away, the day of his burial- when that decision was made Abu Sufyan who is a known character for opposing the Prophet until the very last year of Islam came to Ali and said extend your hand. Let me be the first to pay allegiance to you as the leader of the Muslims. Now we ask you, was that statement done out of sincerity? Was it said out of sincerity? Or was it said so as to feed on this asabiyah that was going to eventually cause trouble for the Muslims later on, as much as they tried to bring it under control in those first 40 years after the Prophet? We don't know how you're going to read history and we don't know how you're going to respond to this but it is definitely an area that we're going to have to come to terms with. We don't know how much you know of what happened as Islamic history unfolded after this but we do know that, generally speaking, the Muslim mind has taken extremist positions on looking at what's supposed to be our common experience. This is supposed to be a part of history that belongs to us and we're not going to be able to benefit from this history if we're going to approach it with preconceived traditions. It doesn't need that. Let's put these traditions aside and try to explain this history to ourselves in a way that we will learn from it, not in a way that's going to turn us off and not in a way that's going to freeze our positions. We don't need ice in this area. We need to thaw this ice and bring some understanding to it because those of you who know a little more about this coming history are going to see how this asabiyah was going to regroup and how it was going to burst out and make a comeback and the Islamic leadership that we had that was not tainted by this asabiyah was going to wither away and was going to be replaced by what today some of us call nationalism or others may call ethnicism and then the offshoot of this which is sectarianism. All of these were going to have their way of coming back. We're human beings and the people that we're speaking about in that time frame were also human beings; so if we have an Islamic movement or if we were going to have an Islamic authority are we not going to have a matter of asabiyah again? Did it go away? We've had 1,400 years of trying to shrink this asabiyah. This asabiyah's like a cancer to the Muslim body politic (or) to the Muslim body in general but have we had enough diagnosis of it so that it doesn't re-present itself in our day? You may come from some country in Asia or some country in Africa. This is mostly where the Muslims are. You may consider yourself very close to an Islamic movement or an Islamic organization or an Islamic authority- in and around whichever club of Islamic momentum you identify with, there's no asabiyah? You tell us today- you don't encounter this asabiyah? We've had 1,400 years to defeat it but we chose not to think about it. If you don't think about something, of course it's going to stay alive. It's going to live off of our ignorance, our inability and unwillingness to bring it within the range of our thoughts. So why don't we do it? What's wrong? Those of us who attempt to do it come out with a vocabulary that is offensive to other Muslims. Why? Because that vocabulary draws not on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, it draws on the traditions that have nested within our society. We don't need that. Come on! We can't have a fresh start at this? So you tell us after we've taken a lot for granted (and) we've tried to believe that within you, you have enough information to understand what we are saying- so today when we speak about Islamic movements- we haven't even mentioned any particular organization of committed Muslims- we're talking about, once again, the pool of Alladhina Aamanu, we're not just speaking about the Muslim Joe Blow out there, (so to speak), or the person who is uneducated or not initiated- we're speaking about the cream of the crop of today's Muslims who are in the Islamic movement in the world- whichever degree of success it is at or whichever level of failure it is dealing with; we're speaking about these types and they don't have an asabiyah?! You show us an Islamic breakthrough that doesn't have this asabiyah within it. If you can point to it and show us where that exists we're willing to reconsider everything we've said to you from the beginning of the ayah
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُم
O you who are securely committed to Allah, obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those who are entrusted with authority from among you… (Surah An Nisa' verse 59)
up until this very day. The fact of the matter is we've had this asabiyah during the Prophet's time, we've had it after he passed away, we still have it today even though it should have almost been eliminated if we just had the objective mind to bring it within our common thoughts and deal with it as we are supposed to deal with it. In the interim there's a lot of details. We can speak about the first 30 years after the Prophet or the 40 years of Islamic governance beginning with Al Madinah and then we can speak about what happened after that and how this asabiyah made a comeback and usurped Islamic authority.
 
Let us just wind down, (we know we've taken our time share here), by saying that the Prophet's struggle began as an issue of legitimacy. When we speak about legitimacy, authority and power we've taken the Islamic discourse of the seerah to another degree because the conventional way of speaking about it is "the Prophet was involved in da'wah and in tabligh." OK- these are general words and they are words that also can be traced to the Qur'an and the Sunnah but there's also more specific words when we try to speak about the common ground of the Prophet's struggle and these words are the words of al haqq. The first word is al haqq.
وَبِالْحَقِّ أَنزَلْنَاهُ وَبِالْحَقِّ نَزَلَ
It is by the truth and the fact that we have brought this Qur'an and it is by the truth and haqq and fact that it did descend. (Surah Al Isra' verse 105)
The translation that we have is truth. Al haqq is the truth and indeed the word al haqq when it occurs in some ayaat of the Qur'an it means truth but in addition to that the fine tuning of the word al haqq could also mean legitimacy because when they were looking at the character of this person in Makkah they were asking themselves is he legitimate? Does what he is saying have the attraction of authority to it? Because legitimacy is pre-authority. Does it have that to it? Then there were his distracters who said no, no, no. Just dismiss this man. So at one time he is accused of being a sorcerer, at another time he's accused of being a person who's coming and using this religious language and an ecclesiastical type of character and at another time he's just mad. These types of social accusations against him were to put a barrier between him and the legitimacy which he had. What follows legitimacy is authority. The word authority in the Qur'an has to be looked at a little more carefully. We have the word wilayah, we have the word amr- a lot of us use al amr bi al ma'ruf and an nahy an al munkar; that's a familiar sentence to all Muslims. Al Amr needs authority. After you have this popular legitimacy- you have legitimacy from Allah. There's no doubt about that! The comes (on) whether that legitimacy is going to be acknowledged by the people around. This explains the history of Prophets and Apostles. Were people recognizing this legitimacy or were they not recognizing this legitimacy? And therefore were they going to accept the next step which was the authority, al amr and an nahy. They needed that authority. There was a breakthrough and the Prophet gained this mass acceptance by the people at al bay'ah al Aqabah al ula and at al bay'ah al Aqaba hath thani. From there on the Muslims had a power base. That power base was represented by what was Yathrib that now became Madinah Ar Rasul or Al Madinah. So the history of Prophets was not a theoretical history. We're speaking about a struggle. If it wasn't for the issue of authority and power why have a struggle? There's no need for it! So people are involved in this at one level of things unlike today's world. In today's world you have generals, military men or you have these people who are born into royalty who have power automatically just because they have a tank or they have a gene. They have power and then power itself imposes authority and once you have power and imposed authority you have a propagandistic legitimacy. You see, it went in the opposite direction- power in today's world in areas that are supposed to be Islamic areas in the world the way it is, (is) you grab power then after you grab that power you gain that authority and after you have both power and authority you begin to propagandize your legitimacy. In the time of Allah's Prophet this legitimacy which was the issue of the masses, (i.e.), are you going to recognize and acknowledge and affirm this legitimacy? Once you do that then the Prophet who Allah has given authority- but (remember) if Allah has given him authority but the people are opposed to it (then) this authority is not going to be institutionalized. How are you going to make it work on people who are resistant to it? Once they acknowledge his legitimacy they accepted his authority and that formed the basis of power that became the Islamic state that we all think about and we all anticipate to become part of our social lives. So now it's done in the opposite direction to the way it was done through the struggle of Allah's Prophet.
 
We're sorry if we've taken a little more time to explain this issue. We hope that we have caused some of you to think and we hope also that we can out-think the traditional component of you so that we can get on with the serious struggle that awaits us to transform this world into the social image that comes to us from Allah and His Apostle.
 
Wa Salaamualaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuh
 
This presentation was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi at a Seerah Conference in Toronto on 18 November 2007. 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:

Friday, December 26, 2014

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : SUNNI- SELF CRITICISM

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (26 December 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…
 
 
SUNNI- SELF CRITICISM
Allah says
Guard yourselves against Allah's immediate and corrective presence and when you speak, speak with precision and with as much accuracy as you can. (Surah Al Anzab verse 70)
This is a translation with some license.
 
In another ayah Allah says
… do justice as that is the nearest you can be to taqwa… (Surah Al Maa'idah verse 8)
Meaning justice is on par with a consciousness of Allah's immediate presence. We know sometimes it's very hard to look at our own flaws and our own deviations- this is what Muslims lack. It's difficult. Sometimes people need to exercise (and) to practice not their physical selves but their mental and emotional selves to be able to accept self criticism. This becomes more difficult when Muslims think about themselves as a dichotomy; in other words when some Muslims think of themselves as Sunnis and other Muslims think of themselves as Shi'is. Criticism in this context becomes very difficult so what is needed at this time are some Sunnis who have the confidence that comes from Allah and His Prophet to look at their own waywardness (and) their own mistakes. This is equally applicable to Shi'is. We need some of them who can stand up with the confidence and the courage that comes from Allah and His Prophet to look also at their waywardness and at their mistakes. It's not going to work very efficiently or very effectively if a Sunni is speaking about Shi'is or if a Sunni is speaking about Shi'is. As you can see in today's world, that's what's happening and that's why no one's getting anywhere; but if we can have those who are accountable to Allah from each one of these two contexts who can step forward and say "look, this particular issue is out of order or that particular issue is an exaggeration or a third particular issue just does not fit in the context of the Qur'an and the Prophet." This is what is needed but this is what is absent. What is needed is not there! What we are going to try to do, (this has been a person who has spent many many years trying to blur the lines between Sunnis and Shi'is and in the process he gets arrows coming from both directions. It doesn't matter because this is not meant to satisfy any particular individual or sect or interest group or whatever. This is said and meant for Allah), and in trying to speak truth about our ownselves if we can look at our age now, 14 centuries old (if) you take us altogether, and try- this is yet another contributory effort to uproot (and) to extract from its origins the issue of sectarianism. So we're going to be stepping on some individual's toes in this presentation and it doesn't matter (because) it's not meant to harm anyone (and) it's not meant to hurt anyone unless of course some people are jaded or they are self centered.
 
When the ruler of the Muslims became a king, (i.e.) no longer an Imam or no longer a Khalifah- to be precise we're speaking about the first king that has ruled over the Muslims, king Muawiyah- during that time period there was a shift that took place from speaking about personalities to speaking about countries or nations. The fact of the matter is these are the unspoken words that none of the sectarians want to dwell on, whether they are Sunni sectarians or whether they are Shi'i sectarians but particularly the Sunni sectarians. What goes absent here in this context of speaking about persons to speaking about countries, to speaking about "nation-states", (as it were), at that time it was a dynasty the fact of the matter is Muawiyah could not compete with Al Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu). One personality could not stand on something like on equal par with his rival so obviously when that is the case those who have power want to shift the attention. So they sought to shift the attention from the individuals (i.e.) from Ali and Muawiyah to Bilad Ash Shaam and Iraq. Most of the supporters of Muawiyah were in Ash Shaam and most of the supporters of Ali were in Iraq so they wanted to shift the attention to speak about these two places. Here is where we encounter many hadiths that were contrived; they have no basis. Any Muslim with a keen sense of understanding the Qur'an and the Sunnah can distinguish these hadiths such as Ash Shaam is the domain of hijra at times of fitnas. This is one of these hadiths that is employed by the Monarchical dynasty. In the Prophet's words Al Mulk Al Adud. Then another improvised hadith you will find iman when fitnas occur to be present in Ash Shaam. And then you will find the victorious ta'ifah to be located in Ash Shaam. Nothing will harm it until the day of resurrection. Then, along these lines they say there is another hadith that says nine-tenths of evil is located in Iraq. Uthman is going to be killed by the Munafiqs and he's going to be a victim and these killers (or) assassins are going to enter the fire and Uthman is going to judge on the Day of Qiyamah people who participated in that assassination and people who were cowards who could not defend him during that time. And so forth and so on… These you'll find something of a plethora of them which a Muslim with enough common sense can realize (and) ascertain that these are manufactured hadiths. The Prophet never said anything like that! Of course, when some of these hadiths were worded, they were worded to parallel other hadiths of the Prophet in order for some person who's sitting there somewhere thinking this out, (i.e.) he would take an authentic hadith of the Prophet and then use as much words from that authentic hadith as possible and then in that wording introduce the critical words that would shift the critical words in favor of those who are in power. The valid and sahih hadith that is known that says there is going to be a ta'ifah from my Ummah who will remain victorious and they will not be harmed or damaged by their adversaries, etc. So these people who are manufacturing these hadiths were smart enough, (you got to give them that), to take a ahadith from the Prophet that was recognized by everyone and then use the same words of the Prophet and then in that interject their political objective, such as using the word Uthman (radi Allahu anhu) or the word Muawiyah or the word Umawis, etc. etc. Unfortunately all of this was done as a maneuver around the well established and recognized hadiths about Ali. There's many of these hadiths. It's not time right now to open up that common history- Sunnis and Shi'is alike submit to the fact that the Prophet has mentioned many hadiths concerning the qualities, the credibility (and) the merits of Ali.
 
Ali had with him the Muhajirin and the Ansar and the Badriyun (radi Allahu anhum). Contrast that with Muawiyah- he had with him the A'rab from Lakham and Judham and Kalb and the rest of these tribes who many of them became Muslims after the Prophet passed away. They also did this maneuvering to overcome the obstacle of the hadith pertaining to Ammaar (radi Allahu anhu). The Prophet said concerning Ammaar the aggressive (and) offensive camp is going to be responsible for killing you or is going to kill you. They're responsible for that. Unfortunately even though this thing happened almost 14 centuries ago we still have it today. The effects of it endure until our time. The reason for that in one sense is that the Muslim political mind has been closed! (If) you close the political mind for 14 centuries how is it going to discover what went right and what went wrong?! Now, later on in the second and third and forth centuries there was a type of amalgamation that took place that tried to claim credibility for the Umawi monarchy by infusing the Umawis with those who were "Sunnis" who were neutral in all of this. Maybe we'll get to that if time permits. Now, on the other side this doesn't mean that we didn't have types of exaggerations and the manufacturing of hadiths among the Shi'is. We had it. It exists! We don't want to dwell on this simply because in our time, even though we find sectarians among them and even though they have terrible examples but they are not the power house of the sectarianism that is killing toady- that powerhouse is in Arabia! But that doesn't mean we have to be blind to the facts. The facts are that just as there were pro-Umawi manufacturers of hadith there were also in reaction to that pro-Alawi manufacturers of hadith. It's hard for a Sunni to say the first part of this and it's hard for a Shi'i to say the second part of this. As we mentioned earlier, there were those who were neutral in the conflict between Ali and his camp on one side and king Muawiyah on the other side. They were not with Muawiyah, they were not with Ali, they were not with the Khawarij, they were not with Talha and Az Zubayr (radi Allahu anhuma). They withdrew themselves from this whole affair. They preferred to not get involved in killing other people even though they endorsed the legitimacy of Ali's leadership. Their sentiments also, not physically but in their own words and communications, were with Ali in his fight against Muawiyah and against the Khawarij. Some of them came to regret this neutrality when they died. We quote Abdullah ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhu) as he was dying I have no regrets in affairs of this dunya except for not being a participant alongside Ali in his fight against the offensive and aggressive side as Allah ordered us to do. That's in reference to the ayah in Surah Al Hujurat
If two camps of committed Muslims come to military blows against each other then (Allah says) the popular sentiment (or) your duty now is to reconcile the differences that brought them to the warfront; but if one side decides to continue its transgression against the other side then all of you become one force against the aggressive side. (Surah Al Hujurat verse 9)
This neutral segment of Muslims was gradually, as time went by, somehow consumed within the Umawi power structure. This began in some areas of Al Basrah and Iraq and Ash Shaam and other places. We have to remind you brothers and sisters- we're speaking history here but this history is alive today. We leave it up to your information- you know what's happening in today's world- to draw the parallels between then and now. These neutral Muslims said to themselves by not participating in this conflict that we give all of these who are fighting the benefit of the doubt. Obviously there were Muslims who addressed this issue (and) this problem of neutrality among Muslims. Besides the Shi'i scholars of that time Fuqaha', learned scholars and Ulema'- the most notable who took issue with these neutral Muslims were Abu Hanifah and Ash Shafi'i  in his seminal book Al Umm. They took issue with these people who were standing or sitting on the fence and not doing anything.
 
Let us look at a little numbers here that will give you the impression of what's going on. There were four or five of these neutral types who participated in the battle of Badr. Out of those who participated in the battle of Badr who were with Ali there were between 70 or 80. Those who were neutral who participated in bai'ah ar ridwan were between 15 and 20. Those who participated in bai'ah ar ridwan who were with Ali were around 800. This gives you a feeling of what's going on. On the other side, if we take a look at Muawiyah and his camp there were no Badris with Muawiyah. There were no people from bai'ah ar ridwan with Muawiyah. None of the Muhajirin and none of the Ansar! So here the Umawi propaganda machine began to claim these neutral types. You just saw the figures- how many of these neutral types compared to those who were active on the side of Ali- but the propaganda machine began to convince the public that these neutral types were with it, not against it. This was the position later on and hopefully in the khutbahs to come we will see how this worked itself out among those who were extremist Hanbalis. Obviously in this context the Umawi power structure would use the services of those scholars for dollars. There are people who are looking for money. They want to make money out of the information they have in their head. So power structures, establishments, monarchies, republics, whatever will use these types then and now! So they began to exaggerate their fealty to Uthman and they began saying that Uthman is an Umawi and besides it was Uthman's shirt that justified all the conflict that they entered into. Al Hajjaj who was one of the governors of the Umawis in the Iraqi area (who was) very well known for his ruthlessness and his despotic statements said in one of his statements indeed the likeness of Uthman is like that of Adam, he was made from dust. This is an ayah in the Qur'an, the ayah says
Indeed, the similitude of Isa is with Adam, who was created from dust… (Surah Aal Imran verse 59)
They replaced that word. Instead of saying Isa (alayhi as salaam), they said Uthman. A ruler like that! It was that they only took some wording from the hadith and twisted it to there favor (but) as is the example of one of these blood thirsty rulers, they also took an ayah took the word Isa out and put the word Uthman in there. Khalid Al Qasri who was also one of these governors of Bani Umayah used to express himself saying that the Umawi kings are better than the Prophets of Allah. This is in one of the history books written by Al Baladhuri. Al Baladhuri is a historian recognized by everyone- Sunnis and Shi'is, it doesn't matter. This is what you'll find. If some people will just open up their political mind and began to read they'll find things like this. Now remember sectarians: you're listening here to some statements that are trying to evaluate ourselves. We're not trying to promote sectarianism- to the contrary, we're trying to smother sectarianism but sectarians will take this same information and then with their rant they'll rile the public. Sunnis will do it to Sunnis and Shi'is will do it to Shi'is. That's not the intent! The intent here is to take a critical look at ourselves.
 
Then we had, during the Umawi time, something called al jabr. Al Jabr is a type of resignation. People resigned themselves after all of this taking (place). You have to place these facts in your mind. There were battles, there were wars, there were conflicts, there was bloodshed, there were shuhada'. A lot of these things were happening so certain people just resigned and said this all is from Allah. There's nothing we can do about it. This happens in times of war and it also happens after many many lives are lost. Tens of thousands (and) hundred of thousands of lives are lost in war in a decade (or) in a century then people look back and say "there's nothing we can do about this. We have to resign ourselves to this." This was a popular current among people. It picked up and then the Umawis took advantage of this. They tried to promote it (and) they tried to enhance it they saying "yeah that's right" so that the person who would find maybe a little motivation in him to try to do something about correcting the social evil, the political oppression (and) the economic dislocations that were going on they would say "well, what am I going to do by myself? There's nothing I can do by myself. Look at all these people resigning themselves to this fact!" Then the Umawis would bring to their attention "why would you people want to revolt? Why would you want to change the government? Look at what happened in Al Madinah. The Umawis massacred the people in Al Madinah- were there any results to that? Look at what happened to Al Hussein ibn Ali." They don't call him Al Imam Al Hussein (radi Allahu anhu). They said "look at what happened to Hussein ibn Ali in Karbala'. There was no result from that. Look at what happened to ibn Az Zubayr and his revolt. Nothing came out of that! Look at what happened to Zayd ibn Ali." They don't say Imam Zayd ibn Ali (radi Allahu anhu). "Look at what happened to the Khawarij. Look at all of these others who are against the government. Nothing has come out of that." There's two things happening. On one hand there is a self generated in the people that they can't do anything (and) "they have to resign to this fact that those who are in power are there because somehow Allah made it possible for them to be in power. We can't do anything about it." So there was something going on psychologically. The other thing was coming from the government, from the regime and dynasty that's ruling itself, from the power structure: "What do you think you're going to do? What can you, Muslims, do? You can't do a thing! So keep calm." Add to this, in the context of today's world, this happens to people who are revolutionaries. You look at some people 30 (or) 40 years ago who had fire in their bellies (and) they wanted to change the world (and) look at some of them today. What happened? So we're looking at human nature here (and) its ups and its downs.
 
Then there was another popular trend among the people's of Muslims around that's called Al Irja'. These are the types who were reacting to the phenomenon of takfir. Just like we have at takfir today, (which) has become part of our societies in a violent way or just in a theoretical way. People right now are speaking about others as Kafirs. At that time this was going on just like today so what happens when this takfir phenomenon takes it's course and reaches its highest level (is) it generates a reaction to it. That reaction to the takfir at that time was called Al Irja'. So these people said it's enough for a person to say ash hadu an laa Ilaha illah Allah wa ash hadu anna Muhammad Rasulullah. Once they say that we have nothing to do with it. Don't get us involved! This person says ash hadu an laa Ilaha illah Allah wa ash hadu anna Muhammad Rasulullah And that person says ash hadu an laa Ilaha illah Allah wa ash hadu anna Muhammad Rasulullah. We've seen what the takfiris have done so what do you expect from us? These are the types who when you ask "look at what happened at Siffin? What's your position on that?" "Well, don't get us involved! We don't want to say al haqq or al batil was with anyone or against anyone. We'll leave that with Allah. He'll judge this affair. Don't get us involved in this!" Some people ask, (we're saying this even though it's not customary to say it in a khutbah), "where's this information coming from?" There's a kind of authority in a neutral way on this history, neutral here meaning not taking a fanatical Sunni side and mot taking a fanatical Shi'i side. He has a book called Al Firaq Al Islamiyah fi Asr Al Umawi, The Islamic Factions during the Umawi Era; he has another book called Al Firaq Al Islamiyah fi Bilad Ash Shaam, The Islamic Factions in the Levant. The author's name is doctor Hussein Atwal. These people, (just like happens with the others), quote some Salaf, (i.e.) well known individuals who are from the Sahaba who came before them to justify their position. If Muawiyah used Uthman to justify his position they also needed some Sahaba to justify their position so they said "we are in the spirit or in line with the Sahabi Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and ibn Umar and Khuraym Al Asadi and Usamah ibn Zayd (radi Allahu anhum)." Those are their prototypes. So these are the facts of life that are used by today's sectarians with the twist and the spin that they give to it to have Muslims kill each other.
Guard yourselves against Allah's immediate and corrective presence and when you speak, speak with precision and with as much accuracy as you can. (Surah Al Anzab verse 70)
Remember that anytime you have the urge to speak about these issues. Or anytime you listen to some person speak about these issues bear in mind that the truth is not a monopoly of one side and that there are shortcomings all over the place (and) faults and flaws all over the place. It's like a mind field- when you enter it, enter it with caution so that you are not consumed by the explosive accusations that now are responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
 
Dear committed Muslims…
Just today the khutbah that was given by the khatib in the Haram in Makkah was lamenting the fact that tens of thousands of innocent children in Ash Shaam and Al Iraq are being killed. Of course, he wither didn't have the courage or did not have the knowledge to pursue this affair. These children whether they are immediate victims, meaning they were killed, or whether they are indirect victims, in the sense that they became homeless and refugees and stateless, didn't occur because of a natural disaster. There was no earthquake or hurricane that struck Syria and Iraq and rendered these people like that. Something was being planned. Could he use a little of his mind and pursue that plan? How did this develop? Where did it come from that Muslims begin to kill other Muslims with an Islamic argument and an Islamic justification? Where did this come from? Obviously it came from the type of "educational" institutions, universities and otherwise in the Arabian Peninsula out of which this rationalization for takfir and taqtil comes. They are the ones who exported this in contravention to some of their own statements. In their Islamic literature they don't want rebellion and revolt and revolution because it will lead to something worse than the status quo. This you will find. This is how they historically justified the monarchies and the dynasties that passed over 1,000 years. So why is it now that they are violating their own literature? In the rebellions and the revolts and the mutinies that are going on in these two geographical areas, in Syria and in Iraq, that were mentioned by the khatib in the Haram? We can understand that this is a person who has a position and he reports to his monarchy and he doesn't want to open up this. He's just lamenting. He's crying for children that his own paymasters are financing their own conduits (and) their own agents to perform these acts. A couple of days ago in Pakistan in a school, we don't know how many students in classrooms- 142, 150 odd, 106; and then all of this happens. (There's different news reports). A massacre of classroom students! OK- that was a school that belonged to the military. You go to schools, students, kindergartners, first graders, elementary school students and you kill them?! What do they have to do with this? Where did all of this come from? If we wanted to open up our political mind and pursue where is all of this coming from all the roads lead back to Arabia. These things keep on coming out. Just yesterday or the day before there was this Da'ish ISIS thing. They butchered a person North of Baghdad because they said "that person is a magician." You butcher a person because the person says he's a magician?! Where did this come from? Once again, if we had enough mental integrity in us we'd such- where does this come from? Inevitably if you invest enough effort you'll find the efforts leading back to Arabia. They come out with an official fatwa in Arabia in this past week saying "it is halal for Arabian and Muslim women who want to drive cars outside of Saudi Arabia but it is haram for them to drive cars inside of Saudi Arabia." Now listen to that! Isn't this an affront to common sense (and) to human nature?! All of this goes on and where are those who observe and watch human rights in the world? They want to score against their political rivals so they use the international forums, (viz.) the United Nations and the rest to bring certain countries in the world under a human rights microscope but human rights that are violated en masse inside Arabia?! Look- we're thousands of miles away from Arabia! Where are we? We're in Washington DC. This is supposed to be a land that is open and free- we can't even go into a Masjid for over 31 years now. Do you sense there is hypocrisy in the issue? There is double dealings and double crossings that are going on? Obviously! It only takes a person who puts his mind to the Book of Allah and the teachings of His Prophet to discover our internal pathogens that dwell in our Islamic body. This is a disease that we have to overcome and we can do it by being sincere and honest to ourselves.
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 19 December 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:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive