| THE STREET MIMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (19 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 sisters on As Siraat Al Mustaqim…
Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/350972 (12-12-2014)
POLITICAL GRAND LARCENY- UMAYADS STEAL LEGITIMACY
As a reminder, the khutbahs that are expressed without fear and without favor are done as a service to the Muslim public- those who are here listening to it at this moment and those who are tuning in via the internet or social media or any other type of means. These khutbahs are meant to try to put the words of Allah and the teachings of His Prophet into context to address the life and death circumstances that the Muslims and others are in and because we have a very consuming issue part of it that has been imposed on us and the other part generated by us and because both of this self generation and external imposition play music with each other and because that process is costing us precious and innocent numerous lives every hour of the day it is our responsibility to trail and to trace this issue so that we can pluck it from its roots- which we've been trying to do with Allah's help and with His guidance and in conformity with Allah's commands and directives.
Fortify yourselves with the rope of Allah… (Surah Aal Imran verse 103)
The famous well known ayah that all Muslims should be familiar with from Surah Aal Imran (that is) encouraging and enticing us to hold together. This ayah did not come cheap. This ayah is not said in a vacuum. There are forces that are pulling us apart- internal forces (viz.) those misunderstandings and misconceptions that are inside of us that pull us apart and then those ideas and perceptions that are imposed on us from outside of us (viz.) from the external Shaytaan that are tearing us apart. The internal Shaytaan and the external Shaytaan are working together to see to it that this ayah never has any practical meaning and because of this we are going back to the beginning of this problem and dealing with our internal Shaytaan (viz.) the one who comes to us through our "Islamic" ideas or "Islamic" traditions or "Islamic" backgrounds. He comes to us through those means to have us divided. So we will follow with the previous set of khutbahs to undo and unravel this internal Shaytaan.
Last khutbah we spoke about the arbitration and the accommodation of Al Imam Al Hassan (radi Allahu anhu) with Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and the rising power of materialism and asabiyah and nationalism and the descending power, (as it were), of principles, of commitment and of values- the first represented by the Umawis and the second represented by the Alawis, (if you will). We had a consolidation of power resulting through chicanery by the Umawis, a consolidation of power that continued after the Umawis through the Abbasis and the others and there is a slue of others; some of them more regional and some of them more inclusive but all of them have one thing in common and that is, (we still live with the affects of this), they refused to go back to the internal deviation that occurred among the Muslim populous. So for those who are aware of this history in a more or less an accurate sense they are more adverse to the Umawis than, (let's say), the rest who came afterwards as rulers dynasties regimes because these Umawis were the first to cause this problem. The Umawis who took the Ummah in the wrong direction were living among the Sahabas (radi Allahu anhum); not the latter Umawis obviously; the first ones were living among the Sahaba, they were living among the Muhajirin (radi Allahu anhum) (and) they were living among the Ansar (radi Allahu anhum) so they were the ones who, (in loaded words), stabbed them in the back. They caused political, intellectual, financial (and) judicial deviation within the Muslim realm at the highest levels. That was followed by a set or a series of other rulers and dynasties who came after the Umawis so you tend to put most of the blame on the people who began this deviation. The Umawis were the first to persecute As Sahaba. Don't tell us "Umawis are Sahaba!" Here we run into this traditional mind that refuses to make a distinction between the Umawis and the Sahaba. This is the internal problem that the Shaytaan works on. We have to make it clear to ourselves that those who were the thieves of power early on persecuted the selectees around Allah's Prophet (i.e.) the Sahaba from the Muhajirin and from the Ansar and their sons and they were the first to express their animosity to the household of Allah's Prophet. They were the first to try to distort the image of the household of Allah's Prophet so they created this public tendency to steer clear -for peoples own well being. This is how governments act. They will make you believe "for your own well being, for your livelihood, for the security of those you care for there are certain issues you should not dwell on." It's done in our time. In our time who wants to speak about Islamic revolution? Who wants to speak about Islamic change? Who wants to speak about an Islamic paradigm shift? Who wants to speak about an Islamic ideology? You are made to believe that these are prohibited subjects and if you speak about them certain things are going to happen in your life. Well, this was going on way back then. So people in their daily lives said "ok- we better steer clear of the subject. The Umawis are against those who are in the tradition and in the mould of the Prophet so let's for our own safety and well being keep quite about this issue." The Umawis- don't tell us these are Sahabis, let's make it clear in our own minds- were the ones who killed and who were responsible for the killing of Al Imam Al Hussein (radi Allahu anhu). They were participant in and responsible for the poisoning of Al Imam Al Hassan (radi Allahu anhu). They were responsible for and the decision makers of the killing of Al Imam Zayd ibn Ali (radi Allahu anhu) and they were responsible for and complicit in the killings of the advocates (and) those who were defenders of the Imams such as Hujr ibn Adi and Kumayl ibn Ziyad, Sulayman ibn Sarad Al Khaza'i (radi Allahu anhum) and others. Who did this? This didn't happen out of nowhere?! Besides, if we, Muslims, can just refer to our God-given minds can't say "this is a part of history that we should dump." No! This is our history. No one is saying "anyone in this context is a Kafir" such as we here today from certain individuals. This dynasty of the Umawis- that has nothing to do with As Sahaba; we have to reiterate this because it is some type of underlying idea that Shaytaan works on- were the ones who tried and to a certain extent succeeded in ripping the followers of the Imams away from the populace (or) the average person. That didn't come naturally. What comes naturally is our affection, our connection, our love with the Prophet and those who the Prophet loved. Obviously he loved his daughter, he loved his son in law, he loved his grand-children- this is obvious. What type of government is going to interfere in this? This is what happened! They interfered with it and we are still living with the polarized consequences of it. So it became an accusation. In those times and those atmospherics and the realities of that life anyone who showed any sympathy or any mental alignment with Al Imam Ali or Hussein or Hassan or Zayd or As Sadiq or An Nafs Az Zakiyah (radi Allahu anhum) or the rest publicly will have gained a type of accusation. There's a strong public finger that comes from the government that points to him or her. In other words, if you don't want to stand out as a sore finger (or) as a sore personality in that society then you have to "shut up." Don't speak about these matters. This position that was financed and was guided by the Umawi dynasty had an image to it. That image was called Al Jama'ah. Now the government (or) the regime of the time took over a word that's in the Qur'an and in the Sunnah called al jama'ah. They confiscated that word and accused everyone who opposed them, i.e. the Umawi regime or the Umawi dynasty as against al jama'ah. This is where it began and with their carrots and their sticks, (they had carrots and sticks; just like today's governments have carrots and sticks at that time they had their carrots and sticks), that they used on certain "scholars" meaning people who could memorize and they could pass for intellectuals. Either the Umawis threatened them or they came to them with cash (and) with money. "Here! What do you want? Just don't take issue with us" Some of the names in this regard are Ash Sha'bi, Az Zuhri, Qabaysa ibn Dhu'ayb, ibn Sirin and Raja' ibn Haywah. These are some of the names. If you delve into those times and look for the scholars who were around the Umawis these are some of the names that will show up in addition to others. Don't misread this because it's very easy to go to the opposite or to go to the extreme. These types of scholars would not present an idea that is against the Imams (or) the legitimate leaders of the Muslims. What they would do is they would avoid the subject altogether and as far as the Umawi rulers are concerned, avoiding a hot subject like that in the nature of those times was a gain for them. That's progress. "If we can have the public not think about Imam so-and-so or that Imam or the other that's fine. That means we're retrenched in our position." So these scholars preferred to remain silent. If someone asked them "what is your opinion about Imam Hussein?" Silence! No answer! "What's your opinion about Imam Zayd?" Silence! No answer! This silence- this is a cumulative silence; it's not the silence of one scholar. It's the silence of all these people who have, (what we call today), access to the media. The average person out there realizes "wait a minute, there's this scholar and when he's asked about this question and he remains silent" this silence leads to indifference. It begins with silence and then the next step is indifference. "Look here- my father asked the same question and he wasn't given an answer. I'm asking the same question and no one's answering me (then) I don't care very much about this subject." From silence to indifference and this leads to killing the issue altogether. The issue is no longer a lively issue. Legitimate ruler versus illegitimate ruler is no longer an issue now. This didn't happen in one or two years. This happened through a few generations. When there was silence and indifference and distraction from legitimate rulers alongside there's a propaganda machine that was giving "legitimacy" to illegitimate rulers. They hid behind that word that we still live with today not in an informed manner. No! We live with it in a traditional manner and that is Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah. The Umawis took over this word and they used it for all of their purposes to justify all of their policies and even their wars and we still live with that today. We still live with it as silence towards it, just like at the beginning there was silence towards Ahl Al Bayt now Muslims who find themselves being born in a certain country or a certain culture they call themselves "Sunnis." These Sunnis cannot ask themselves "what is this Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah all about" to dig into this affair and reach the bottom of it. So because the Umawis hiding behind the title Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah have power, they have instruments of state, they have armies, they have budgets and treasuries and finances just like today's governments- they had all of this- so when you have all of this you make people believe, (we're not talking about a tribe and we're not talking about a clan, we're talking about the general population of Muslims), that whoever is against you is against the Sunnah and the Jama'ah. At this point we should say what's wrong with Sunnis? Why can't they come out of this traditional shell and express without a reaction? This is important and it's a delicate matter because some people want to do this for political reasons or for some type of other benefit; they will say "we love Ahl Al Bayt." This is not a contest here. This is a matter of principle and it's a matter of conscience and let's outgrow these shells and say we are affectionate with, we are lovers of and supporters when it comes to legitimate rulers after the Prophet. The first one we delegitimize is Muawiyah. What's wrong? We'll help you out- what's wrong is they don't want us to develop an Islamic political thinking mind. That's what's wrong with us! It's easy to do this and we should do this without going to extremes. Legitimate rulers are not gods. Legitimate rulers are not demi-gods. Legitimate rulers are not deities because we have on the other side in the Shi'i context- and some people say it meaning good; they say "brother, peddle softly on this issue." We would peddle softly on this issue if we were to think for a moment that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives as we speak are not being threatened by this sectarianism. Then we'd peddle softly on this. Unfortunately the killer circumstances that we are in do not permit a person of conscience who knows or has information about what is going on to peddle softly on this. So in the Shi'i context there are those who went off in the other direction as a reaction. This is a reaction. Just like people who have power act in a certain way people who feel the oppression of power react in a certain way. "So if you doing this and saying it we're going to say this and try to do that." So in the Shi'i context there were those who went off on a tangent with elevating the Imams, (i.e.), the legitimate rulers that they should have been to saying certain words that are simply unacceptable. So as we said this word Al Jama'ah- which is used in today's vocabulary in the Salafi (and) Wahabi type of presentations and talks and you'll find them- was used to scoop the Muslim public with almost everyone in it. The average person, the learned person, the recruited person, the commercialized person- almost everyone was scooped under this title and whoever now dares in that context- we're talking about Muawiyah and Yazid and Abdul Malik and all of their rulers with the exception of course of Umar ibn Abd Al Aziz (radi Allahu anhu)- to criticize them the media presented itself in those days as though it is criticizing the Sunnah of the Prophet and the jama'ah of the Prophet! It was tantamount to that. So now we have swept into this Umawi officialdom of Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah that strain of the pro-Uthmanis that went back and that traced themselves back to we want justice for Uthman and also within that there was the strain of those who were impartial. There were some Muslims who didn't want to get involved, we don't want to be part of this factionalization (and) this warfare among Muslims so we want to be neutral in all of this, so they were swept by this Umawi Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah inside of it. Then, any person who could not be classified technically as Alawis or Shi'is… We're using the word Alawi and Shi'i here as the historical word. It has nothing to do with the fiqhi and this thing of the Alawis in Syria
We may have a little more freedom in saying this than a Shi'i person- here is where Sunnis confuse or don't have a clear idea and thought about al amr bi al ma'ruf and an nahi an al munkar. Those early "scholars" within the Umawi circle of favors or fear could not say- like today's establishmentarian scholars- that Al Hussein and others who stood with their lives against the munkar was bid'ah and dalalah. Why? Because they would fall into an internal mental contradiction! In the way they read the Qur'an and the Sunnah a Sahabi cannot commit a bid'ah or a dalalah. A Sahabi in unwritten words is infallible when it comes to bid'ah and dalalah so how can they say Al Hussein- who is more than a Sahabi but let us trim him down to the level that they are at- is responsible for a bid'ah and a dalalah. They couldn't say that. So there's something internally wrong with the way they think. So they were caught- if they were to recognize the legitimacy of the struggle of Al Hussein they would incur the wrath of the establishment and the powers that be and if they were to go along totally with the powers that be then they would not have a comfortable conscience about this. So they said "let's take this amr bi al ma'ruf and this nahi an al munkar- a Qur'anic principle and a Prophetic practical policy- and let's not deal with it." Here is where confusion is generated in the public Muslim mind. Here is where we see the Sunni scholars are very lax or very absent when it comes to discoursing- we're talking about discoursing not mentioning or quoting or using a few sentences- and building ideas about ash shura- where are the Sunni books about ash shura? When it comes to the issue of bai'ah where are the Sunni scholars? We're not here using a broad brush. Obviously there are a few here and there in the course if the fourteen centuries but we're looking at the overview of it all; where are the ideas in our Islamic libraries about al bai'ah, about ash shura, about the judiciary, about the distribution of wealth, about the economy, about social justice? Where is it? It virtually does not exist. Freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of conscience – where is it? Where do we speak about this? All of this came because these Ulema' who classified themselves as "Sunnis" with all of this historical background felt uneasy with dealing with this whole matter because if they did in a conscientious and principled and authentic way they're going to cash with the powers that be. They had their justifications, etc. "A revolution that's going to bring about social instability when it doesn't have a guaranteed result is forbidden!" So they justified all of this. So we have right now some Muslim Sunnis repeat what they don't even understand. We'll find this more times among those who don't understand the Qur'an and the Sunnah in its original language! They just repeat what they don't understand! Some of them quote others and if you compile what they said from years past to years present you'll find that they're quoting contradictions. You'll find also in their statements that they are afraid to face off with the truth of the matter. Then you'll find also that they give too much importance to trivial issues. Instead of speaking about the blood of martyrs they will speak about is it halal or haram to kill a mosquito during hajj time but they will not speak about a regime or governments or alliances that are planning on killing Allah's men on earth. The issues on wudhu become a determining factor. If a person does not perform wudhu in their imagery then that person is deficient in his or her iman. They become literalists; they can't and they defy contextualizing words and expressions. Some of them run away from reality. Some of them are easy to follow the official line. All of this, at the end when someone wants to open their mind creates some confusion and doubt. All of this we have been living through. Let's say right now we are going to use our mind. We're going to go through all of this that we have and with our mind- when this happens there tends to follow that accusations. If you're going to use your mind then people are going to accuse you, "Oh, you're a Mu'tazili; no, he's a Shi'i; no, he's not that, he's a modernist. No, no, no, no- he's not even that." And it goes on and on. When you begin to use your mind then prepare yourselves for these accusations coming your way. There's a lot of them and it indicates that these types of Muslims are not confident with who they are. When you're not confident of who you are you protect yourself (and) you run into a cover of extremism. Extremism is an indication that you are not sure of who you are so you turn extremist because you don't know how to protect yourself in your mind. You're not confident of who you are in your internal mind and you have the whole world coming down on you from different directions now as a defense mechanism you turn as an extremist. This is part of human nature. It can happen to anyone. It doesn't only happen to Muslims.
We will end this khutbah with a few hadiths. These people are big on hadiths- not that we're trying to belittle hadiths here but ahadith to some of them are more serious than ayaat. There is a hadith, this is a sahih hadith; it says my Ummah will perish or my Ummah will be destroyed by the hands of loose lads or foolish fraudsters from Quraysh. For these who know this hadith exists (and) they know it's a sahih hadith but they don't want to mention it we will remind them that Abu Hurayrah the one who narrates the hadiths (or) quotes the hadiths said Quraysh here means Banu Harb and Banu Marwan, the sons or Harb and the sons of Marwan. That's obviously in reference to the Umayah clan. There's another sahih hadith Khilafah is going to be for 30 years and then after that it's going to be a despotic monarchy. What do you say to that? The problem with these people that we're speaking to refuse to think! If they don't think what are you going to say? They'll take refuge in their extremism. Another hadith, the first person who's going to alter my Sunnah is a man from Bani Umayah. Albani, the foremost authority on hadith among the Wahabis and the Salafis tended to believe that what is meant by this one man is Muawiyah. This hadith is mentioned in Albani's book As Silsila As Sahihah. There are other ahadith- all of them for your information are called ahadith ahaad which means they only have one chain of narration but they're all sahih. No one could doubt their authenticity.
Dear committed brothers and sisters…
You can think for yourself. The type of khutbah that was just pronounced, (i.e.) the first khutbah would be considered. We began the khutbah and the other khutbahs that preceded it by disciplining ourselves by the ayaat of the Qur'an- the ayaat about unity or togetherness and the ayaat against separatism or divisions. All of these was said in the context of these ayaat. In addition to the hadiths of the Prophet that speak about the Muslims being like one body like one solid structure- all of this is said in that context but we will come across individuals that will say "that was a political speech. It was not a khutbah." That type of comment discloses the gap of ignorance that exists between what Allah is saying and the reality that we are living. They don't want what we say to be referenced in the facts of life past and present. Perish the thought that anyone should find any similarities between Bani Umayah and Bani Saud. Look at the discrepancy here- people say Bani Umayah and they say Aal Saud. The word here Aal. If we were thinking people why don't we say Bani Umayah and Bani Saud? Why? Someone's afraid here that just by changing a word the mind is going to begin to discover new territories? Or if we say Aal Saud why don't the same type of people say Aal Umayah? They're afraid that we will begin to think. This is what they are afraid of and that's what we have to do.
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 12 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