| THE STREET MIMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (12 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 Muslims, dear committed brothers and sisters…
Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/350972 (12-05-2014)
POTENTIAL SECTARIANISM- IMAM HASSAN AND MUAWIYAH
It's a sad comment to begin a sermon on Friday on the defensive. We, the Muslims, find ourselves trying to defend ourselves. From every direction it seems like problems, disturbances, upheavals, mayhem, the killing fields and many other imposed brutalities have been dumped on the Muslim lot of this world. At a time when a very serious policy to steal Al Masjid Al Aqsa from Muslim possession or Muslim access, at a time when millions of people have been displaced- Muslims and non-Muslims of the world (and) at a time when larger issues are staring us in the eye we are forced to sort out our own internal affairs so that the last stage of this diabolic scheme against us does not take place; what we mean by this last stage is an all-out, all engulfing and all consuming war in which Muslims kill Muslims. We have spent precious time in the past trying to get to the root of this problem. We reckon if we can get, with Allah's help and assistance, to the very genesis of this problem we can undo all the consequences that come from the complication of it. So with Allah's insight and help we will continue with this course in observance of Allah's words
… of a certainty, committed Muslims are brethren… (Surah Al Hujurat verse 10)
And He says
… reconcile your two brothers together… (Surah Al Hujurat verse 10)
If we were to look at the Muslim affairs today and the conspiracy that is in place against them it is precisely two brothers who are at war with each other because of the intrigue from the outside and the ignorance from the inside and it all goes back, in the minds of partially informed Muslims, to the Sahaba and Ahl Al Bayt. Everyone has an argument here to try to reinforce their positions. In a calm way we're going to approach this and this is obviously a human attempt with the best of intentions and with the most of sincerity to diffuse this problem right there in that first generation when these key and buzz words appeared- Ahl Al Bayt and As Sahaba- with the fragmentation of Muslims justified by reference to Ahl Al Bayt and As Sahaba. After the shahadah or istish'had of Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu) by one of the leaders of the Khawarij- remember, the Khawarij were the first in the Muslim domain to use the word Kafir against another Muslim. At that early time they took this Islamic terminology from the Qur'an, misunderstood it, misplaced it and misapplied it by saying Imam Ali is a Kafir as a result of what happened at the battle of Siffin and the arbitration. As a result of that these individuals said three individuals are Kafirs and have to be killed which is reminiscent of what is happening today, (i.e.) fast and loose with Islamic terminology. They said Ali is a Kafir, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan is a Kafir and Amr ibn Al Aas is a Kafir. The three of them are Kafirs and have to be killed. So they only succeeded in killing Ali by one of their leaders, Abd Ar Rahman ibn Muljam Al Muradi. He killed the Imam in the Masjid at salah time.
Remember, this is a time period right now, (that we're going to speak about), after the assassination and the shahadah of Ali. We're going to speak about a time period that both those who take pride in defending Ahl Al Bayt and those who take pride in defending As Sahaba want to ignore. This is a very delicate time period and this pertains to the leadership of Imam Al Hassan the son of Ali (radi Allahu anhuma). After the assassination of his father Hassan was designated as the ruler (or) the leader of the Muslims by the majority population of Al Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula and Khurasan with the basic area of the Levant, Bilad Ash Shaam opposing. (To the best of this person's knowledge), contrary to what some Muslims hold as an article of their belief there was, (this is a controversy that goes back to the time of the Prophet and the controversy centers around), what is called al wasiyah, that means the encouragement and the entitlement and the endorsement of the next leader. These people who think this way say "the Prophet expressed a wasiyah to Ali to become the leader of the Muslims." We agree that Ali is the leader of Muslims absent that wasiyah; the same thing occurred here. Some Muslims say "it was a wasiyah from the Imam to the Muslims that it was the next leader shall be his son Al Hassan." The next leader legitimately and by merit and qualifications was Al Hassan in addition to the bai'ah of the Muslims without the wasiyah. We think, (and may Allah show us the straight path if our thinking and our conclusion is not accurate), that this issue of wasiyah by certain Muslims is a defense mechanism to substantiate their position vis a vis their adversaries and enemies. It need not be like that. We can understand how this developed. (It's) just like in the adhan. In the time of Allah's Prophet there was no Ash'hadu anna Ali wali Allah. It didn't exist but as a matter of substantiating their position in the generations that followed they introduced this into the adhan. (It's) just like the wasiyah, it wasn't there. It was a matter of trying to fortify a position. (It's) understandable but not Prophetically endorsed. That's not to say that before his shahadah Ali was not aware of the political factors around, the human condition that he was in, the enemies that he had, their contrivance, their conspiracies, their plotting (and) their intrigue. He was aware of all of that but he was also aware that for a ruler to rule he needs the support of the people. If you're the legitimate ruler you can't impose yourself on those you are ruling. There has to be an acceptance for that. So from what we can read and tell he did not impose his son Al Hassan and he did not distract from his son Al Hassan. There was no one around who superseded Al Hassan in matters of honor and virtue and qualifications of leadership. No one was around who could supersede him. There were others from the Sahaba who could, (in a sense), in some people's public mind say well some people are more deserving because prior to Al Hassan we have people of the Sahaba who fought in Badr, for example Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas (radi Allahu anhu) was still around. In some people's mind this is one of the ten who have been foretold of access to al jannah, in the Arabic words al asharah min al mubash'shirina bi al jannah. So this person could merit a fair election or a fair contest for the highest office for the Khilafah or the Imamah- the leadership of the Muslims. Al Hassan had many of the Ansar (radi Allahu anhum), if not most of them, supporting him. Al Hassan was close to the Prophet, obviously. If we were to be fair and put aside this sectarian emotionalism we find that Al Hassan just like his brother Al Imam Al Hussein (radi Allahu anhu), were very dear to the heart of Allah's Prophet- his hugging them, his kissing them, his holding them, he carried them, he loved them, he adored them. He said in reference to Al Hassan and Al Hussein they are the most select and the most privileged of the youth of paradise, in the prophet's words. An observation in all of this, this is not to take away from the character and the qualities of Al Hassan, but he was not as it appears in the eyes of the public on the same level of his father, Ali. He did not participate in the battles that defined the existence of the Muslims like others did. He was not from the Badriyin. He was not from the Muhajirin (radi Allahu anhum). He was not from the Ansar, technically speaking. There's a public opinion out there- remember we tried to dwell on this issue so that it becomes clear in the Muslim mind- there are now hundreds of thousands of Muslims out there who never went through the stages of character build-up. No substantial sacrifices, no life threatening battles, no loss of limb and labor- they jumped on the Islamic bandwagon in the last year of the Prophet and in the years of the Khulafa', Islam is the wave of the future, (so) we are Muslims. This was the majority of people out there. When we speak about Al Hassan we have to take it into consideration- not personalities; even though technically speaking this is part of the issue, (i.e.) a conflict between Al Hassan on one side and Muawiyah on the other side- it is but larger than that this is conflict between popular trends, how people foresee their future, who do the majority of people want to become their leaders. The clash was in that demographic not in the personalities per se. Al Hassan, Ali and Al Hussein (and) other virtuous and upright Muslims understood the public out there. They knew what was going on. So they saw a tendency of the tribal chieftains who were more comfortable with Muawiyah than Al Hassan. This was a fact of life. This is what Sunnis and Shi'is don't want to speak about because it will eventually expose their bias and their sectarianism Muawiyah was known to be fast and loose money unlike Ali, Al Hassan and Al Hussein who observed their conscience when it came to issues of welfare, issues of finances, issues of income, issues of distribution of wealth, issues of commercial nature, etc. Muawiyah was another character. He didn't care. He would rationalize the end justifies the means. So he could rationalize to consolidate a type of base for himself he is willing to pay from the Islamic treasury to bring in supporters to his side. So he had some of the money that was coming to him channeled to buy loyalties from Arabian chieftains who were new to Islam- these are not Sahaba. This is where the Sunni mind gets confused. It doesn't demean the Sahaba to blow the cover off the opportunists who took a convenient political position calculated to be the winning side.
Al Hassan was preparing for a military encounter with King Muawiyah. There was an army of 40,000 individuals that was prepared by his father, Ali, before he passed away. Some of them were very dedicated, very sincere and others were not. In the army of Ali and now of Al Hassan there were those who were loyal and there were those who were opportunists. They were more concerned with the dollar; (there was no dollars in those days, obviously, but in today's language they went where the money was. So Al Hassan sent Ubaydallah ibn Abbas to be the general of that army, (so to speak), and with them another leader who is known for his skills Qais ibn Ubadah Al Ansari, the son of Sa'd ibn Ubadah (radi Allahu anhu) one of the main figures of Al Ansar. There was Sa'd ibn Mu'adh and Sa'd ibn Ubadah (radi Allahu anhuma). The son of Sa'd ibn Ubadah was one of the lieutenants in this armed force that was preparing for a dual with Muawiyah and his camp but in the days and the weeks that were unrolling this force began to show weakness. Some of the 40,000 that we are speaking about began to express their doubts about this. Some of them even had contacts with Muawiyah and Muawiyah himself initiated contacts with some of the chieftains on this side. Brothers, we're not here to give a history story. This has to do with debunking the arguments of the sectarians today. You take this information and immunize yourselves from the sectarians, whether they are Sunnis or whether they are Shi'is who come to you to divide us to (and) fulfill the plans behind the scenes of the Zionists and the Imperialists who are hard at work in this area to figure what is going to tick a Muslim. What is going to cause a Muslim an uptick in a Muslim! What is going to inflame the feelings of a particular Muslim? We have to diffuse that by going back to this information. So these commanders observed their own people under arms and they found that some of them, if not a good number of them, (don't have) their hearts in this military campaign. Their numbers were beginning to decrease. Some of them said we don't want to do anything with this. We want to leave. It is even said in some of these history references that Ubaydullah ibn Abbas himself abdicated his responsibilities. He was positioned to be a major leader in this military campaign (but) he said I don't want anything to do with this. I'm leaving and went to Muawiyah. That happened after a rumor was begun by Muawiyah saying there are defections in the army of Al Hassan. Remember, these rumors caused us headaches and they caused us lives over 1,400 years ago- why should these same rumors today have the same effects? We don't learn from ourselves? This is what happens! Sectarians will never be able to learn this lesson. So Muawiyah was involved in a psychological warfare. Just like today psychological warfare is part of this war, we find it then, at that time. In one of these rumors and propaganda he said one of these battalions has been eradicated and killed altogether. This rumor spread all around and it caused many of these people out of the 40,000 people and soldiers and conscripts to lose heart. What is all of this about? So people began to distance themselves from Hassan. Not to speak about some financial and some bargains that were taking place between some of these feint of heart on the side of Al Hassan and the people who had money. Just like today (where) you have people who have money you had people who had money at that time too! The Umawis had money just like the Saudis have money. So Al Hassan figured out clearly that most of the people are with money and not with principle. They are with their self-centeredness and not with the selflessness that is required. We have to be clear and we have to be fair- there was a strong base of support for Al Hassan but it wasn't enough. Don't confuse the two. So what are you going to do? Remember, Al Hassan right now is in Southern Iraq . He's not in Makkah, he's not in Al Madinah. In Southern Iraq there was a strong base of support for him in that geography but he looked around and he saw that some supporters and some followers in other parts of Iraq, in other parts of the Arabian Peninsular and in other areas are just no longer with this campaign against Muawiyah militarily. So now Al Hassan has two options. Either he fights and he knows what the consequences are going to be. He calculated what he has on his side and he calculated what the opponents have on their side and he figured that if we're going to go into this battle there's going to be a routing of his own side. There's not going to be a victory in any sense of the word. The other option is to reach some type of accommodation which will give his supporters time to revitalize through accurate information this whole scenario and win over the hearts of those who have gone astray. Obviously he opted for the second option. This second option had some results. First of all we have to explain (that) this is not a position of weakness. War was an option when the Prophet had the means and the resources. We had battles of Badr and Uhud etc. but when it came to the liberation of Makkah the Prophet reached an accommodation with the Mushriks. So there's a precedent for this. Al Hassan just didn't do this out of thin air. There was a precedent from his grandfather, the Prophet (and) there was a precedent from his own father who opted for the arbitration and not the continuation of the war. So whether it is war or whether it is a type of ceasefire, both of those are to be considered in there contexts. So in this context that decision to reach some type of ceasefire or the absence of military engagement had some results. We had people like Abdullah ibn Umar, the son of Al Khalifah Umar ibn Al Khattab (radi Allahu anhuma) towards the end of his life expressed regret that he was not on the side of Ali when Ali was fighting against his adversaries. The same thing or similar to that was said by Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas the famous Sahabi. So to a certain extent this type of action had its positive results.
We want to bring to your attention (because) some Sunnis don't know this and there's an established media around that wants them not to know this. The hadith I have left you with two substantial things. As long as you hold firm to them you'll never go astray- Allah's Book and my family. This hadith is in Sahih Muslim but the sectarians now who rule the day don't want Muslim Sunnis to open up there minds and say "wait a minute here- there's a hadith by the Prophet that says there is a value to the Prophet's intimate character members that is on par with Allah's Book." There's another hadith and this hadith is the one that the sectarian Sunnis have all over the place. It states the same words but at the end instead of saying Allah's Book and my family it says Allah's Book and my Sunnah. Now there's no contradiction between the two- we don't care how you go! The sectarians want you to believe you can accept one but in doing so you have to refuse the other. Who said that? From where did this come? Is there a contradiction between the Sunnah of Allah's Prophet and those family character members of his- whether it's Ali or Hassan or Hussein? Were these Imams contrary to Allah's Prophet's Sunnah or was Allah's Prophet's Sunnah contrary to these Imams? This is the playground of the sectarians that want to divide. For your information, even some Sunni scholars said "the latter hadith- Allah's Book and my Sunnah- is questionable." For those who want, go to Ad Daruqutni, a prominent Muslim Sunni scholar, in his book Al Ilal and see what he says about this hadith. So we understand what Al Hassan did. He was taking into consideration not his meritorious qualities but taking into consideration what the Muslim public had out there in their mind. How far are they willing to go and to sacrifice for the truth and for justice? Different circumstances merit different decisions. If the circumstances and conditions were conducive to a military victory that would have been the decision but if they are not then this is the decision that we have.
There were many scholars who said the following, may Allah have mercy on Ali. If it was not for him we would not know how to take issue with the aggressors. Al bugha' here is the plural of baaghi and this is in reference to the Prophet's hadith concerning Ammaar ibn Yaaser (radi Allahu anhu), you are going to be killed by the aggressive offending side or group. We're just going to name two or three of them who said this may Allah have mercy on Ali. If it was not for him we would not know how to take issue with the aggressors? Abu Hanifah said that, Ash Shafi'i said that and also ibn Hazm.
Now, (very quickly here), the differences between Ali and Al Hassan: the bai'ah of Ali was a consensual bai'ah between and among Al Muhajirin and Al Ansar and the inhabitants of Al Madinah. The bai'ah for Al Hassan was just concentrated in the geographical area of Southern Iraq . So it wasn't on par with the bai'ah of Ali. Many of the pioneering (and) sacrificing Muslims that went to Badr and to Uhud from the Muhajirin and from the Ansar gave their bai'ah to Ali- this wasn't the case with Al Hassan. The bai'ah of Ali had no counter bai'ah to it. Muawiyah usurped power and challenged Ali without a bai'ah. Remember this. So when Ali was endorsed consensually, popularly (and) overwhelmingly by the Muslims in the Arabian peninsula particularly in Al Hijaz in Al Madinah and in Makkah. There was no other there to contest it; unlike what happened with Al Hassan. During the time of the bai'ah of Al Hassan Muawiyah claimed the bai'ah for himself at this time, not before. So there was a contested bai'ah. So the hadith, for those who authenticated the hadith if there's a bai'ah given to two successors to the Prophet you finish off the last one. So in the case of Ali this was not applicable because there was no contesting Khalifah to him. People- we're talking about people here; we know some Sunni fanatics are going to say "look how he is undercutting or cutting the Sahaba?!" Did we say As Sahaba? Listen with your minds and not your emotions- the public out there (i.e.) the overwhelming majority of them are not Sahabis. So the people out there in the time of Ali and Al Hassan were more willing to listen to Ali than they were willing to listen to Al Hassan. We can't help it- this is how people act. This is the knowledge of societies. Ali had some specific statements from the Prophet that corroborated and strengthened his position. The hadith about Ammaar- the Prophet said to Ammaar you are going to be killed by the aggressive and offending contingent. That was the contingent of Muawiyah. Who killed Ammaar? Ammaar participated in the battle of Siffin and it was Muawiyah's army that killed Ammaar. So straightforward- fi'ah al baghiya is the fi'ah of Muawiyah per the Prophet's hadith. Then there are hadith of the Prophet concerning an nakithin, then there are ahadith of the Prophet concerning Al Khawarij- all of this buttresses and reinforces the position of Ali but Al Hassan didn't have such hadiths to support his position and the factors that he was dealing with. Given these altogether, the option of the absence of belligerence (or) of combat engagement (or) of going to war among the Muslims was the best option but those Umawis (or) those monarchists (and) those who were on the side of Muawiyah were not satisfied with just an absence of military confrontation; they used this to build up their position. They called this year of accommodation Aam Al Jama'ah. For those Sunnis who haven't read their own history- this is the first time the word jama'ah enters the Islamic vocabulary in its political sense. Jama'ah of course is a word that has its derivatives in the Qur'an and the Sunnah but the first time the political connotation of the word occurred was during this year. They said those who were following Muawiyah and all this said this is Aam Al Jama'ah. To follow that up the propaganda machine began to say this year is the year that it is proven to all and sundry (or) to everyone that what Al Hassan did was much more meritorious than what his father Ali did. See how their propaganda, even here, wants to divide Muslims? They said Al Hassan's father shed innocent Muslim blood but Al Hassan preserved innocent Muslim blood. Of course you know how propaganda works. You expose people day in and day out to certain statements, especially if you can get some Ulama' (and) some scholars on your side. The Umawis could buy scholars. No problem! You see today how the Saudis buy scholars? The Umawis bought scholars and they had them repeat this type of propaganda over and over and the average Muslim who jumped on the bandwagon of Islam would say "yeah I think that's true. Yeah sounds logical to me. Saving Muslim lives is not like shedding the blood of Muslims." The Muslim public could not see through this propaganda. They looked the other way towards Muawiyah. You can trace the problems of dictatorship that we have in today's world all the way back to today's Muslims not being capable of identifying the serious departure and deviation that began with Muawiyah (and) that continues until today. He is the one who broke rank with Al Jama'ah. Ali was the valid (and) the legitimate leader of the Muslims. It was only Muawiyah in Ash Shaam who refused to acknowledge that- so who's the one who's dividing the Muslims? But he changed this! All of this went upside down and he is the person of Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah! He is the reason that we live up till now with sectarianism. He used the flimsy excuse of Uthman's (radi Allahu anhu) bloodied shirt to cause bloodshed among the Muslims. He is the one who confiscated bayt al maal or the treasury of the Muslims. He is the one who came out with wilayah al ahd (or) appointing his son as the net ruler. Where did this come from? A practice (that is) illegitimate by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Prophet but practiced today and with the ignorance covering everyone's mind appearing to be legitimate! Those people right now who pass power and authority down to their children in families generation after generation rule today. If there are some Muslims who are weak today and they can't see this in today world, can't you learn from history? We're withdrawn- this is 14 centuries now- can you not discover this aberration (and) this conflict with the Qur'an and with the Prophet? Muawiyah also influenced the justice system to turn the courts of the land against people of virtue and righteousness. You probably could trace the first vestiges of secularism where Islam as a deen is one thing and politics as a government is another thing all the way back to him! Brothers and sisters- what's wrong if we take a look at this history with a composed mind, with a rational approach and sort out these issues amongst ourselves? It's not going to cause us to fight each other. We may feel strongly about a certain position but that doesn't draw us or take us out to the shooting fields, to bomb ourselves and to bomb others, to put explosives on and kill innocent people at public squares and bus stations and train stations (or) wherever they aggregate as is happening today. They trace it all the way back to this type of information that we just listened to. None of it merits or can justify the killing that is going on today by these Takfiris! Allah says
… of a certainty, committed Muslims are brothers of each other so if we come to blows bring harmony and conciliation between your two brothers… (Surah Al Hujurat verse 10)
Dear committed brothers and dear committed sisters…
To make a transition from the facts of life 14 centuries ago to the facts of life today- in today's world we have the holier than thou champions of Islam. These are self appointed custodians of the Haramayn in Makkah and Al Madinah. They rule not because there is a shura among the Muslims, they rule not because they are in that position due to a bai'ah, they rule because they are born in a certain family so the corruption that they are responsible for is enormous. That corruption feeds on our ignorance. We expect an enemy to be an enemy- what do you expect from an enemy? You want an enemy to be a friend? An enemy is an enemy! But we don't expect from a Muslim to be an enemy of another Muslim. This is outrageous! This regime that rules in Arabia with the money that it has to buy scholars today- yes, they have thousands if not tens of thousands of scholars who anticipate largesse fro, the regime in Arabia to do what? To institutionalize the misinformation that circulates in the minds of simpleton Muslims! Let's graduate from that condition of simplicity and become informed Muslims. The media here and the loud mouths around want to pick a fight with the global Islamic movement or the Islamic state in the world. They don't want to pick a fight with their patsies and their quislings in Arabia because they are their servants. Just in this past week a Saudi lady driving a car in the United Arab Emirates Holy Land ! You see- these are the issues! This is the type of political religious establishment that enslaves Arabia . This is at a time when there are military bases in that Kingdom with males and females and other genders- we don't know if this transgender stuff is going on but) they may have other genders inside that Kingdom that we haven't even heard of! A hybrid between humans and animals- physically or psychologically! Those are free to fly the skies, to ride the roads, to sail the seas. This is the plague that we, the Muslims, have in our collective body that we ask Allah to purge as soon as possible.
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 5 December 2014 on the sidewalk of Embassy Row in Washington D.C.
__._,_.___
Posted by: stop evil <stop_evil123@yahoo.co.uk>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment