Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Quran Interactive Recitations - Click below

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : KUFR FROM FALSE HADITHS

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (27 February 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.
Dear committed Muslims …
 
 
KUFR FROM FALSE HADITHS
In the world that we are part of today this strain of Muslims, as we said previously, that has come out with its dangerous, lethal and murderous attitude- of course supported by those who are inimical to Islam behind the scenes- have a root to them. They just didn't appear all of a sudden from nowhere. No. Tracing this disease back to its pathological roots, we find that in our common history there are some personalities that began this accusation of other Muslims being Kafirs. We retraced it in one channel two one of the Fuqaha' in Islam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (or) at least those who follow him from early on. Then there's another personality, ibn Taymiyah. Ibn Taymiyah is another person who along with his scholarly accomplishments, (may Allah have mercy on all these Muslims who preceded us), and maybe in their own capacity tried to explain what they understood but what they understood was wrong in this area and therefore what they explained was also wrong in this area.
 
We find that there are two words that are peculiar to their works or their literature or their lessons or their explanations. These two words are Al Uluhiyah and Ar Rububiyah. Now these two exact words do not occur- because you know the Arabic language is a derivative system- in the Qur'an and do not occur in the Sunnah. What we mean by the Sunnah is the verified, consensual Sunnah. They- Al Uluhiyah and Ar Rububiyah- don't exist. Of course the word Ilah occurs- Ilahana, Rabbana- all of these occur but these two peculiar words as are present in the books and the lessons taught by ibn Taymiyah is another matter. So they say that the whole issue of Islam centers around and Al Uluhiyah and that's Allah's authority. That's a very important subject but they are wrong when they extend that to eclipse the matter of Rububiyah, that Allah is the Sustainer of all. They say "even the Kafirs believe in that" and that to a certain extent also has some merit to it. The problem is not in the general statements that they express; the problem is when they come to explain it. Of course there are ayaat in the Qur'an. Phirawn said
فَقَالَ أَنَا رَبُّكُمُ الْأَعْلَىٰ
… I am your supreme lord or sustainer. (Surah Al Naaziaat verse 24)
You know, you could go back with this expression to ibn Taymiyah and ibn Qayyim and ibn Abdil Wahab and tell them look- there's an issue here and it's an ayah in the Qur'an. The Pharoah also said
مَا عَلِمْتُ لَكُم مِّنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرِي
… I know of no other ilah besides me that you have… (Surah Al Qasas verse 38)
 
In Surah Al Baqarah ayah 258 the person who was arguing with Ibrahim says
أَنَا أُحْيِي وَأُمِيتُ
… I cause life to occur and I cause death to occur… (Surah Al Baqarah verse 258)
So there is an issue here pertaining to people who steal Allah's divinity and who steal Allah's authority. The Prophet and the first generation of Muslims and the second generation of Muslims understood these to be one. There's no Uluhiyah and Rububiyah that are separate from each other. What happened, though, in the course of history is we had these types who appeared and then began making them issues that if you and I, as Muslims, do not agree with their point of view we are the non-Muslims (or) we become the non-Muslims. Now you know (that) in all of these years we've been very careful in quoting the Prophets hadiths. You don't find so many hadiths mentioned in the khutbahs that are presented here on Friday. There are many ayaat that are presented but not many hadiths because we are careful not to begin to quote Isra'eeliyaat and hadiths that are nonsense. You will listen to some of these hadiths in this khutbah. This khutbah is going to be concentrated on these hadiths that are nonsense and ridiculous but they are major hadiths in the books of those who say "those who disagree with them are Kafirs." The Prophet in the hadith that is agreed-upon says
من كذب علي متعمدا فليتبوأ مقعده من النار
أخرجه البخاري في كتاب العلم، باب إثم من كذب على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم برقم 107، ومسلم في المقدمة باب تغليظ الكذب على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم برقم 3.
Whoever deliberately falsely quotes me or lies (or) expresses a lie and attributes it to me should settle on a seat of fire. Obviously this in reference to the Day of Judgment and thereafter, so this is a serious issue. We don't take the Prophets hadith lightly. We don't just quote them just because someone comes and says "oh, the Prophet said this." There has to be a scrutinizing effort to place any hadith attributed to the Prophet in the context of the Qur'an. Now let us take these hadiths that the takfiris, (let's call them takfiris), meaning they accuse other Muslims who disagree with them of being Kafirs. We disagree with them but we never say that they are Kafirs; not like them. They disagree with other Muslims and because they disagree with them they say "they are Kafirs." Let's take a hadith- all of these hadiths come from the book of As Sunnah written by Abdullah the son of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He says
إنه ليقعد عليه جل وعز فما يفضلمنه قيد أربع أصابع، وإن له أطيطاً كأطيط الرَّحْلِ الجديد إذا ركِبَ من ثقله
جاء في كتاب السنة لعبد الله بن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل
Now, the point here that they are trying to make is called in Islamic Fiqhi literature the equating of Allah- not the equating of Allah in His authority or in His divinity but in His self- He's similar to man; that issue in Islamic fiqh is referred to as at tashbih and at tajsim. This is what all people who have studied or who have learned in this area refer to it. So this particular type (of Muslims) today that has its followers who right now are in the headlines of the news all over the world have this thing called at tajsim and at tashbih in this hadith are saying that the Prophet said, (na'udhubillah from the Prophet ever having said something like this but this is what they say he said and this is what they believe), that Allah most Exalted is sitting on a chair and what is left of that chair to his side is the width of four fingers and that he has a sound, (astaghfirullah, but this is what they are saying), when he moves on this chair that is similar to the sound to a person who is sitting on a saddle and the saddle is moving on whatever animal that saddle happens to be. We're not making any of this up. All of this extracted from their books.
 
Another hadith that they say… These are the Isra'eeliyaat. Sometimes some of you come and ask "brother Muhammad what do you mean? Sometimes you make reference to Isra'eeliyaat, the hadiths that have been implanted in the books of hadiths by those Muslims who were influenced by Yahud or Yahud themselves who became Muslims. This hadith says
كَتَبَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ التَّوْرَاةَ لِمُوسَى بِيَدِهِ وَهُوَ مُسْنِدٌ ظَهْرَهُ إِلَى الصَّخْرَةِ ، فِي أَلْوَاحٍ مِنْ دُرٍّ يَسْمَعُ صَرِيفَ الْقَلَمِ ، لَيْسَ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَهُ إِلا الْحِجَابُ
جاء في كتاب السنة لعبد الله بن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل
Allah wrote the Torah for Musa with his hand while Musa had his back situated on a rock in radiating tablets and you could hear or the sound of the pencil was heard meaning that when Allah was writing you can hear the pen moving on the tablet and there wasn't anything between Musa and between Allah except a hijab. (Nastaghfirullah, this is what the hadith is saying.)
 
Yet another hadith, and these takfiri types that we have are high on ahadith. Ayaat of the Qur'an matter much less than that so the quoting of these hadiths should go to the core of their belief system. So there's another hadith
رآه على كرسي من ذهب تحمله أربعة من الملائكة : ملك في صورة رجل، وملك في صورة أسد ، وملك في صورة ثور، وملك في صورة نسر في روضة خضراء دونه فراش من ذهب
جاء في كتاب السنة لعبد الله بن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل
The Prophet saw his Lord on a chair of gold which was lifted or which was carried by four angels, one angel in the image of a man, one angel in the image of a lion, one angel in the image of an ox and an angel in the image of an Eagle in a green garden beneath which is a mat of gold. Now they say "if we don't believe in these hadiths- we're going to quote a few more, we know that the weather is cold (but) we're going to quote a few more hadiths- then you don't believe in the hadith of the Prophet then you become a Kafir automatically."
 
This other hadith says
خلق الله الملائكة من نور الذراعين والصدر
جاء في كتاب السنة لعبد الله بن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل
Listen to this. Allah created the angels from the light that comes from His arms and his chest. Now imagine- if you as a Muslim believe in everything (but) you come across a hadith like this which they believe in and you say I don't believe in this as a hadith; they look at you as a Kafir. They bring their arms and they want to kill you. This is how this thing works.
 
Another hadith (says)
إذا تكلم الله عز وجل سمع له صوت كجر السلسلة على الصفوان
جاء في كتاب السنة لعبد الله بن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل
It means, when Allah talks you can hear his voice which is similar to dragging a chain on rocks.
 
Another hadith- remember, these people who quote these types of hadiths bring hadiths from Ka'b Al Ahbar. Ka'b Al Ahbar was a learned Jewish scholar during that first generation of Muslims who became, himself, a Muslim. So when he spoke Muslims were very careful, where did this come from?! But these takfiri types are not careful. "Ka'b Al Ahbar said that, let's write it down because he heard the Prophet say that." Another hadith- they say these are hadiths and none of these hadiths fit into how Allah describes or defines himself in the Qur'an. This hadith says (and) you can tell this is a Isra'eeli hadith
لما كلم الله موسى كان عليه جبة صوف وعمامة صوف ونعلان من جلد حمار غير ذكي
جاء في كتاب السنة لعبد الله بن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل
When Musa was spoken to by his Sustainer Allah was wearing a garment of wool and also a head-dress made of wool and two, (in today's language), shoes made from the leather of a dumb donkey. If you tell them "you think this is a hadith?" They believe this is a hadith. We don't believe this is a hadith! We don't think any Muslim mind that reads the Qur'an should for one moment think anything like this is a hadith. So if we don't believe this is a hadith they turn around and say "we are Kafirs" and when they believe these are hadiths no one is telling them you are a Kafir. (Do you) see the difference?
 
Another one of these hadiths
فرأيته وضع كفه بين كتفي حتى وجدت برد أنامله بين صدري
جاء في كتاب السنة لعبد الله بن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل
Allah placed his two hands on the shoulders of the Prophet and the Prophet felt the coolness in his heart. (Do) you see how Allah appears here to be someone like an individual? He begins to have some features like a human being.
 
Then they say there's another hadith that says
إن غلظ جلد الكافر اثنتان وأربعون ذراعا بذراع الجبار
سنن الترمذي, ابن حبان, الحاكم جاء في كتاب
The skin of a Kafir on the day of Resurrection is forty times- a dhira' is an arms-length- an arms length of the arm of Allah. They refer to Allah here using one of His attributes, (viz.) Al Jabbar.
 
Then another hadith
إِنَّ الْعَرْشَ مطوَّقٌ بحيَّةٍ
مجمع الزوائد, جاء في كتاب السنة لعبد الله بن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل
The throne of Ar Rahman is circumvented by a snake. Brothers and sisters- they say this is a hadith! These are ahadith!
 
وأن الله يضع يده في يد داوود
جاء في كتاب السنة لعبد الله بن الإمام أحمد بن حنبل
Allah will place His hand in the hand of Prophet Dawud.
 
These can go on. We have more of these hadiths but we think you have right now the picture of what they think, what they've written in their own books (and) what they believe in and therefore if other Muslims don't believe in this- and they took these types of hadiths and they said "the A'sha'irah don't believe in this so they are Kafirs, the Shi'is don't believe in this so they are Kafirs, the Sufis don't believe in this so they are Kafirs, the Mu'tazilis don't believe in this so they are Kafirs." They kept on going on and on (and) the made out of the Muslims Kafirs and they are the only true Muslims in the world!
 
Dear committed Brothers and sisters…
Just yesterday in the news there was one of these "scholars", (they call themselves scholars so we use the word that they use for themselves). He came out (and) he said "there is proof in the Qur'an…" Listen to this- when you go crazy, you go crazy all the way. He's a relatively young person who should know better and you'd expect someone like that not to say these things but he said "there is proof in the Qur'an that the earth is fixed. There's no such thing as the earth rotating around the Sun. It is the Sun that moves around the earth" or something to that effect. Imagine- after all of these years, with everything that is available to us, they come and they take whatever they understand in a wrong way and then they want to impose it on the rest of the Muslims and the rest of the world. How embarrassing a statement like that?! If anyone heard it, how embarrassing it is for Muslims to have a person like that try to un-explain the Qur'an. This is what they are doing! This is what we are living with because its not only lessons that they give; they have ammunition, they have guns, they have killing power- they have all of this. They butcher (and) they slaughter viciously, ferociously (and) brutally and then from there on all the world has to believe that because they say that type of thing and they do that type of thing all the Muslims in the world are like that. We absolve ourselves.
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 20 February 2015 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:

Friday, February 20, 2015

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : HISTORICAL ROOTS OF ISIS

 

THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (20 February 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.
Dear committed Muslims …
 
 
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF ISIS
This issue of kufr and takfir is probably on many minds and we have been trying to trace it and to explain it and to expose it. Everyone who's someone is commenting on the atrocities and the bloodshed and the acts of savagery that have been committed in the name of Islam against Muslims and non Muslims alike. This khutbah shall be another contribution for our heightened consciousness of Allah's authoritative power presence in our affairs, in other words, to reinforce the taqwa in us. We want to mention to you that the word kufr and its derivatives is to be found or mentioned in about 525 or 535 times (in the Qur'an). One source says 525 (and) another source says 535. Whatever the case is, the word kufr is mentioned more than 500 times in the Qur'an. This is a very important word obviously. These individuals and these pop up groups who came out of nowhere- they have no Islamic roots neither in the contemporary Islamic movement nor in the contribution to Islamic thought nor anywhere- which places a question mark around their very existence and their origins! Nevertheless, when Allah has the word kufr and its derivatives appearing over 500 times in the guiding Qur'an that means that this is an important word for us to begin to understand. Its about time, we mean (that after) all of these years and all of these centuries it's about time someone has a firm understanding of what the word is. Obviously this is a long and extended discourse if we were to go into the different ayaat or the different contexts with the different occasions (and) with different subtleties that this word carries throughout the ayaat of the Qur'an but for the purposes of today the shortest surahs are in the last juz' (or) volume of the 30 volumes of the Qur'an. Those are the shortest surahs in the Qur'an. The shortest of the shortest surahs- let's say beginning with Surah Ad Duha' and Surah Alam Nashrah all the way to the muawwidatayn- these are the shortest of the shortest surahs in the Qur'an; which means, probably, that these surahs are memorized by more Muslims than any other of the surahs or any of the parts of the Qur'an. It's something that many Muslims may repeat in their prayers (or) in their salah very frequently, (i.e.). these short surahs. Out of these short surahs, (the shortest or the shortest), the word kufr appears in two surahs only, (viz.) Surah Al Bayyinah and the word kufr also appears in the same surah once again.
لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ مُنفَكِّينَ حَتَّىٰ تَأْتِيَهُمُ الْبَيِّنَةُ
رَسُولٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ يَتْلُو صُحُفًا مُّطَهَّرَةً
Those who are involved in the action of kufr from people who say "they are Ahl Al Kitab" as well as the Mushriks will not (or) are not going to break from their kufr until evidence comes to them. A Messenger from Allah who is sequencing unpolluted pages of Wisdom. (Surah Al Bayyinah verse 1-2)
 
In the same surah.
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمْ شَرُّ الْبَرِيَّةِ
The Kafirs from Ahl Al Kitab as well as the Mushriks will dwell in the fire- the are the worst creatures. (Surah Al Bayyinah verse 6)
 
The other time the word kufr or its derivative is mentioned is in Surah Al Kafirun, a surah in the Qur'an that has the name Al Kafirun.
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا الْكَافِرُونَ
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
وَلَا أَنتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
وَلَا أَنَا عَابِدٌ مَّا عَبَدتُّمْ
وَلَا أَنتُمْ عَابِدُونَ مَا أَعْبُدُ
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
O You who reject Allah and His signs, and His messengers, and His Power; I conform not to that which you conform to; Nor will you conform to that which I conform to; And I shall not conform to that to which you conform to; Nor will you conform to that which I conform to; To you be your way and to me be mine. (Surah Al Kafirun 1-6)
 
Now, (there's) something to think about here and that is, is it perchance that Allah has mentioned the word kufr or its derivatives in only in two surahs in the shortest surahs of the Qur'an which most of the Muslims memorize? Could this be a subtle message that the Muslims are apt to misunderstand or misinterpret or misapply the meanings of this word? Could it be? This is just a question that merits our reflection (and) it merits our thinking. Why? In the shortest surahs of the Qur'an which probably most of the Muslims have memorized the word Kafirun or kafaru is only mentioned in two surahs? Now, in this short surah, Surah Al Kafirun, (this short surah that we just quoted, that we think most, if not all, Muslims are either familiar with or have memorized in this surah), to understand the word al Kafirun you need two keys to understand what it means. You have to understand two other words to understand what al Kafirun here means. The two words are abada.
لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
I conform not to that which you conform to. (Surah Al Kafirun 2)
You have to understand this to understand what Kafir means. The other word is the word deen. The word deen has to be understood to understand what the word Kafir means because at the end the last ayah says
لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِينِ
Unto your deen and to me is my deen. (Surah Al Kafirun 6)
So without understanding these two words a'budu or ta'budun which is one word which is ibadah and the other word deen (it is difficult to understand the word Kafir.) The problem is: in the average Muslim public mind these two words are misunderstood, mistranslated and therefore how are we going to understand who al Kafirun is. If we don't understand the words that divulge it's meanings how are we going to understand what it is? The problem we have with the translations is ibadah here is called worship and obviously if we understand the word abada to mean worship or to worship then we're going to not understand what the word Kafirun means. Then the word deen is translated as the word religion. If we understand the word religion to be deen (or) to mean deen then we are also contributing to our ignorance of the word al Kafirun. So here we are, we're stuck! The average Muslim person is stuck because there is an imposed idiom, an imposed definition (and) an imposed nomenclature upon him or her that has nothing to do with the unadulterated meanings of the words of the Qur'an. This is why, (i.e.) because we don't have a practical and a pure meaning of the word kafara and yakfuru and abada and a'budun and deenukum and deen. We don't have the uninterrupted understanding of these words then they come along and they say "the Kafir is someone who is a blasphemer. A Kafir is someone who is heathen. A Kafir is someone who is an infidel. A Kafir is an unbeliever." Where did this come from?! All of this is wrong! We have no such terminology in our Islamic book and in our Islamic sources- none!
 
So imagine- when you come across anyone who is speaking about ISIS or speaking about the takfiris and what they are doing and they use all of these terminology… They draw you into their sphere of thinking and analysis and because you don't have the metal immunity you get drawn into it! You begin to think the way they are thinking and you begin to conclude with the conclusions they want you to conclude and that's part of the mental fog that we are dealing with today. All the world is seeing and watching what this ISIS contrivance (and) fabrication are doing. Ugly! What they are doing is inhuman. It has nothing to do with Islam. What is the major impression that you have when the word ISIS is mentioned? The major impression is they have a knife (or) someone has a knife in his hand and then he's slitting the throat of a fellow human being- that's the first image; because it's been repeated so many times that's the first thing that comes to your mind. Now is this something new? This is the first time something like this has happened as far as our Islamic past and history is concerned?! Here's where we also fail our test because, (as mentioned previously), some of us can look at history and understand it but we can't bring the dynamics of that history to today's world. We can't make that connection! On the other hand some of us understand what's happening in today's world- we're up to date on the development and the news and all of this but we cannot connect it with what happened in the past. This is our problem! We can't see history in our own time and we cannot see our own time in history. It's a problem. So because of this we've left a very wide gap for those who can look at the issues with thinking minds- their strategy may be destructive but nevertheless they can think through these areas that we refuse to think through. So when we see this savage, this atrocious (and) this blood curdling image of ISIS with the knife and the decapitated head we ask ourselves- and any Muslim who is vital should ask him or herself- "where did all of this come from?" Let's go back to history and we're not going to fall here into sectarianism. When some people want to open up historical chapters and pages they get misdirected into some sectarian issue. We're speaking about powers, we're speaking about regimes, we're speaking here about individuals whether they are in power or whether they are in opposition and we're speaking about issues of equality and justice.
 
There is a Sahabi by the name of… (We know it's cold and we know we should make this a short khutbah- it's probably the coldest jum'ah of the year but we will try to be short to impress on you what is happening today and what you see and what is being broadcast all around the world didn't come from nowhere). There's a type of background to it. The Sahabi, Hujr ibn Adi (radi Allahu anhu), who these takfiris by the way just about a year or so ago went to his grave in Syria, dug it up and then demolished it. Who is Hujr ibn Adi? He is a person that the regimes at the time said he is a Kafir. (You) see- just like what is happening today. It's easy for the powers that be to identify people, Muslims, who disagree with the powers that be as Kafirs. If they want to get rid of them the first thing they do is "oh he's a Kafir." So they labeled him as a Kafir to justify killing him but what was the real reason that they killed him? Why was Hujr ibn Adi killed by the regime at that time? Because he refused- he's a prominent Sahabi- to condemn Al Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu). The government at the time wanted him to publically stand up and say bad words concerning Ali (and) he refused to do that. So they can't kill him for refusing to say certain words so how do they contrive an excuse to kill him? They say he is Kafir.
 
Another opposition figure his name is Ghailan Ad Dimashqi. (Now, with the social media available to everyone you go in your own time and Google and be careful with the information that is being presented to you. We grant that you have a mature Islamic mental filter not to accept everything that is said to you). Anyways Ghailan Ad Dimashqi was killed. His tongue was cut off. His arms were cut off. What did the regime at the time say? Why did they do such a thing? Because they said he's a Kafir but on further investigation what he really did was… He was told by Umar ibn Abd Al Aziz (radi Allahu anhu), one of the rulers during that Umawi period- the most balanced of the Umawi rulers, who assigned Ghailan the responsibility of looking into the wealth of Bani Umayah. Umar ibn Abdul Aziz himself was from Bani Umayah and he told Ghailan check on the wealth that this clan, his own clan, has. So he found out that these people have amassed so much wealth; so he went after this wealth. He had enough authority to do such a thing and then he began to channel this wealth back to the people but then the clan itself, Banu Umayah, caught up with him. He was the one who said I relieve myself (or) I am innocent from saying that these rulers are the leaders of guidance. A'immah al huda is what the leaders of that time (were titled), just like today's leaders. In Arabia, where this accusation of kufr and takfir is financed and it is taught into schools and universities- same thing. We have to see today in history and we have to see history in today. If we can't do that, as much as we try to grasp some issues and some facts they will corner us into sectarianism. It has nothing to do with sectarianism. So after Hisham ibn Abdul Malik, one of the Umawi tyrants, came to power they set up kangaroo court just like the kingdoms and the dictatorships of today have a kangaroo court and they asked him three questions concerning Allah, concerning, (what is called), the similarity of Allah and predestination. They asked him these three questions. His answer was I don't know. He didn't give them an answer. He didn't give anyone an answer to indicate "oh your answer indicates you are a Kafir" but still even when he said I don't know they said you are a Kafir and they used that to justify that horrible execution, (i.e.) killing him, cutting off his tongue and cutting off his arms or his hands.
 
Now these are not popular names: Al Juhm ibn Safwan- another person who was an opposition figure during one of these dynastic eras, the Umawi era. Once again they kill someone who disagrees with them. They kill him and they justify it by saying he's a Kafir but the real reason is he participated in a revolt led by Al Harith ibn Surayj in the area of Khurasan against the Umawi regime. What was that revolt about? It was about governance and decision making being placed in the context of al Kitab and As Sunnah and ash shura. This was his real crime. His real crime wasn't that he is a Kafir as the regime says then and it says today.
 
Another person- remember, these because the regimes write history- who is an opposition figure, he's name is Al Jaad ibn Dirham. Just like today, you see them slaughtering; (they) take a sharp knife and decapitate the person- well if you saw it in ISIS nowadays you could have seen it in Bani Umayah during those days! This Jaad ibn Dirham was butchered on the day of Eid Al Adha. Of course, as usual, the regime, the government (or) the administration at the time said oh he's guilty of kufr but what was the real reason? The real reason was he was an ally of an opposition figure called Yazid ibn Al Muhallab and Khalid Al Qasri, (which we mentioned in the previous khutbah), one of the ruthless (and) bloody governors was the one who passed the death degree against him without, in this case, any kangaroo court, without any procedure, without due course- nothing!
 
Another person by the name of Kambar who was a mawla of Ali- Al Hajaj, another one of these dictators and blood thirsty decision makers, also slaughtered Kambar. It's like you see the ISIS people doing nowadays. This had a mirror image 1,300 plus years ago. What was the reason for this dhabh? His close relationship with Ali- that's all it took to justify butchering and slaughtering an innocent human being. No crime, no offence, no felony- nothing!
 
Another person who the 1,300 year old ISIS slaughtered is Kumayl ibn Ziyad An Nakh'i. This was very close to Ali and one of those who basically considered Ali his mentor obtained much of his knowledge  (from him) and that was his crime. His crime was he had obtained knowledge and was influenced and was a very devout student of Ali. That was his crime! He did nothing wrong but what did they do to him? They brought the knife and they butchered him like you would butcher an animal.
 
A Sahabi who probably no one has even heard of! This is what official history does- it buries the names of the heroes so that we don't know much about them. Rashid Al Hijri (radi Allahu anhu), a Sahabi who attended the battle of Uhud. What did this Ziyad, one of the rulers there do? He cut him into pieces! Some people ask "where did this Da'ish come from? Where did this ISIS come from?" We tell you it did not come from a vacuum. It's not like they don't have any roots. Then a blind spot in our minds- whether we are Sunnis or Shi'is, we should be Muslims first and these should be peripheral descriptions; but one of the blind spots we have is that we can't see that when these things are happening- whether they are happening know, thank Allah there's some Muslims who have awoken to the fact that there's a combination of governments and militaries and intelligence services, etc. who are working to make this ISIS do what it is doing; but what we can't see is the same thing was happening in history. The defeated empires that lost their influence and their territories and the occupation of other people's land now were inside the Islamic dynasties taking revenge against those who were still in the line of the Prophet.
 
There's a person by the name of Abu Rafi'. He was lashed 500 times. Why? The ruling regime said you have to change your mind as to what it means to be loyal to the Prophet, in other words they wanted him to be loyal to them even though in his mind and in his heart that would mean disloyalty to the Prophet. He wouldn't do that so they whipped him 500 strikes. Remember he is known as Abu Rafi', which probably only scholars in Islam have heard of him. The average person hasn't heard of him; but who hasn't heard of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal? He was lashed much less than that but everyone hears about him and no one hears about a person who receives 500 lashes?! (It's) just like today, in the Arabian Peninsula there's between 30,000 and 40,000 political prisoners- prisoners of conscience just like these individuals we are speaking about. They refuse to tow the official line. They want to speak their Islamic mind and conscience about the issues. Do you hear about any of the 30,000 or 40,000 that are behind bars in Saudi Arabia? Do you know anything about them? But there's one liberal activist in the social media (and) there are demonstrations all over the place about him because the regime in Arabia's judge- whatever passes for a judge- "condemned him to 1,000 lashes giving him these 1,000 lashes in installments. Every week he will be lashed 50 lashes." All of the world has heard about him. Here, in Washington DC, in front of the Saudi embassy last week or two weeks ago there was a demonstration in support of him- not that the demonstration is wrong, not that this person has been mistreated and is being the subject of the pressures and the powers of the regime to which he is born. This person is a Saudi- that's his citizenship; but the citation here is: why do we hear about a certain person and we don't hear about another person?
 
Another person… These are the names that officialdom wants to erase from the public mind and by and large officialdom has been successful in erasing these names from the public minds. Have you heard of them? Are these household names? Haytham At Tam'maar. Anyone heard of Haytham At Tam'maar? This person was crucified. His tongue was also severed because he identified himself with Ali just like Kambar and Kumayl ibn Ziyad and Rashid Al Hijri- just like them. No crimes! Didn't murder anyone! Didn't commit any of the kaba'ir- nothing! No misdemeanor against them. It's just their thoughts and their conscience disagreed with the ruling class and that's what happened to them because of that.
 
Am'r ibn Al Hanq Al Khaza'i (radi Allahu anhu)- this is a Sahabi and a Muhajir Sahabi. Not many people have heard this name. Why? Because he ran afoul of the regime that undermined the Khilafah and turned Islamic rule into a monarchy. They also decapitated him. Just like the ISIS people are doing today that's what they did to him by a direct order from king Muawiyah and then they threw his body to his wife who was incarcerated. His wife was in prison (and) they brought her husband's headless body. They said this is your husband. They threw the body and they threw the head, here take him. Those who are pro-authorities, pro-regimes (and) pro-dynasties felt this is an accomplishment; so much so that we still have these pro-regimes (and) these underlings of officialdom in our Masajid, in our conferences, in our schools. Everywhere we will encounter them when they still have not conjured the courage to speak truth to power.
 
Then, finally, a woman by the name of Ath Thabja'- another one of these names that have gone down the historical memory hole. Have you heard of her? We'll repeat her name, Ath Thabja'. No? (It) doesn't ring a bell? No? Even to an above average enlightened and versed Muslim the name doesn't ring a bell- that's how awesome and ominous the powers that be are. Their influence has extended from 1,300 years and more all the way up to this day. Who was she? She was a virtuous woman who was killed by ibn Ziyad during the reign of Muawiyah. How was she killed? You think ISIS is doing new stuff? She was crucified upside down while she was naked. The silence is deafening from 1,300 to 1,400 years our mental silence has been deafening! Then all of sudden the same personalities the same mindset pops up today in the form of these takfiris and ISIS and we see all of this happening. The indication that we have been absent-minded is that we can't see what is happening today as a reflection of what happened then and we can't see what happened then as a mirror image of what is happening now. Who do you blame? Do you blame the Zionists and Imperialists? Do you expect them to educate us? You want the Zionists and Imperialists to bring out these facts so that we can correct our thoughts and defeat our weaknesses? No, they're not going to bring us this information. The sectarians among us are incapable of brushing off the dust and the dirty of centuries of generations. To the contrary they perpetuate this polarization and bloody status quo. So, once again, as was mentioned at the beginning of the khutbah because of our self generated and self maintained ignorance this word kufr and Kafir has been picked up by those who studied us very well. They are our enemies and you can't blame an enemy for doing his work. They picked up on our ignorance and they financed and they support these types who are giving us a bad name and a bad image and a bad reputation among ourselves and all over the world.
 
Dear conscientious brothers and sisters…
What we see happening in today's world, (all of us have our sources of information- we go to different newspapers, different social media, different individuals but more or less the information that is coming out), wants to give Islam a black eye. You have probably heard in the past two or three days three Muslim students in one of the universities in North Carolina were killed. (They were) shot at close range, point blank in the head- execution style and there seems to be something like a media silence about this issue. It's not playing out now. We wanted to just reverse this for a moment and say that some person who's against religion went to a certain campus and did exactly the same thing to three observant Jewish students. You can rest assured that this news item would be bouncing from one station to the other, commented upon by multiple pundits from the political left to the political right and it would not die down for at least a couple of weeks. When it comes to Muslims, when it comes to African Americans, when it comes to minorities (and) when it comes to people who don't have power and wealth- you see, (it's) just like when we read our history- these don't figure in. "Don't pay attention to them and if we wanted to deal with it we will explain it away." They will not explain it to expose it, they will explain it away. They're smart about this. They will come with apologies. They will come with some nice words, "it was some type of loner or some type of crazy, deranged, etc." Almost everything that happens against Muslims come from deranged people- from the burning of Al Masjid Al Aqsa back in 1968 or 1969 (when) that person tried to burn Al Masjid Al Aqsa- that's where all of this news description began. They called him a deranged person. From there on, everything that is done is done by deranged persons. From here, (and we don't know), this may be the beginning of some type of- may Allah forbid- popular harassment (and) intimidation to the degree of killing and expelling Muslims. Some of these governments, (they call themselves governments), these are dynastic rulers in our Islamic East, have already done it and some of them are going to do it- they are going to take away the citizenship of those who don't politically agree with them. To be more specific with you- Al Ikhwan Al Muslimin. The Egyptian government is saying "we are going to think right now of taking away your citizenship." That is condemning them to slow death or in another sense it is forcing them to go further underground and it's forcing some of them to breakaway from their mother organization and then to resort to the use of force that of course is processed as violence and terror and all of this other stuff. Have you noticed that with all of this, these loud speakers all over the place, (and we're sure you go probably to one or two of these either TV programs or radio programs or internet programs), no one is shedding the light on the Saudi Arabian regime that is responsible for the curriculum that is taught beginning with the elementary first grade students all the way to the university. So they begin to do these things. When you control people's minds that's what they do. You've heard- a few weeks ago some individuals in Iraq were watching a soccer game and then these ISIS people saw them and said "you are guilty of…" whatever it is (or) however way they worded it and then executed them. Thirteen young individuals were executed for watching a soccer game! Crazy! Then these same ISIS figures- remember, they're financed and supported by the loonies in Arabia- impose the Afghani way of dressing on certain employees in a certain part of their control in Syria and Iraq. What is this? If they don't wear the Afghani dress- is this anything to do with the Qur'an and the Sunnah?- then they are liable for the ISIS type of punishment . Then they find, just a couple of weeks ago, another Syrian young lady and they accuse her of adultery. This is something that baffles the mind. How do they find an adulteress and not find the adulterer when the Qur'an requires four witnesses of the act. When the act of adultery is committed it has to be seen by four individuals who are trust worthy, who are sane, who are mature, who are and who are… So how come they find an adulteress (or) how come they see the adulteress but can't see the adulterer?! How come they accuse the female and there is no male in the act? They get away with all of this and no one- who is anyone- is pointing their finger at the Saudi regime who is behind all of this. If they wanted to uproot ISIS then get rid off Saudi Arabia but if you want ISIS to continue then continue supporting the Saudis.
 
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 13 February 2015 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:

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : ISLAMIC REVOLUTION, BANI UMAYAH AND BANI SAUD

 


THE STREET MIMBAR
JUM'AH KHUTBAH (13 February 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.
Dear committed Muslims, brothers and sisters …
ISLAMIC REVOLUTION, BANI UMAYAH AND BANI SAUD
This week, 36 years ago, Muslim history took a turn to the better. Many Muslims are afraid or are careful not to deal with this issue (and) that is because many of these types of Muslims don't appreciate success, accomplishment and triumph when it occurs- that's the problem. They think these types of issues are going to come their way short of a struggle and short of sacrifices. It's not going to happen! There was a struggle and there were sacrifices that 36 six years ago culminated in the success of an Islamic leadership, an Islamic consolidation, an Islamicdirection and Islamic independence. Some of the ayaat, (if some of us who are old enough can go back to those triumphant times), that described this victory are the following:
This ayah speaks specifically about Bani Isra'eel who were oppressed by the Phiraunic superpower system of the world at that time and it says to them
وَنُرِيدُ أَن نَّمُنَّ عَلَى الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَنَجْعَلَهُمْ أَئِمَّةً وَنَجْعَلَهُمُ الْوَارِثِينَ
وَنُمَكِّنَ لَهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَنُرِيَ فِرْعَوْنَ وَهَامَانَ وَجُنُودَهُمَا مِنْهُم مَّا كَانُوا يَحْذَرُونَ
We want to favor those who have been oppressed, those who have been dispossessed (and) those who have been dealt with injustice and We want to make out of them leaders and We want them to inherit these, (i.e.) the affairs of world society. And We want to establish them firmly in this world and We want to show Phiraun and Hamaan and their troops and their military, coming from these mustad'afin what they did not want to see (or) what they were cautious not to see (or) what they were taking every measure and every procedure to have not to happen. (Surah Al Qasas verse 5-6)
This is one ayah that outlined the 36 year old success of Muslim for independence, Muslims for self determination, Muslims for tawhid and Muslims for justice.
Another ayah
وَمَا لَكُمْ لَا تُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَالْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ الَّذِينَ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا أَخْرِجْنَا مِنْ هَٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةِ الظَّالِمِ أَهْلُهَا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ وَلِيًّا وَاجْعَل لَّنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ نَصِيرًا
What is it with you that you don't engage in a fight for the cause of oppressed men, women and children who say "Oh Allah- deliver us from this society whose people are oppressors and grant to us someone who will lead us, someone who will support us, someone who we can refer our affairs to and someone who will succor us. (Surah An Nisa' verse 75)
In another ayah
وَفَضَّلَ اللَّهُ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَاعِدِينَ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا
… Allah has given preference to those who struggle over those who are static (or) those who are in a motion of sacrifice over those who remain silent with a degree of many rewards. (Surah An Nisa' verse 95)
These ayaat more or less defined the orientation and the direction of this Islamic accomplishment (and) thisIslamic revolution and since that time, of course, you have these 36 years- you can go back with your Islamic mind and with the light you have from Allah to the details of these 36 years and see how this Islamicleadership and these Islamic sacrifices and this Islamicconsolidation brought about an example for all the rest of the Muslims to learn from. We know this is not conventional but this is an area that not many people speak about when it comes to just one of the one of the accomplishments. There are many accomplishments that have been demonstrated and illustrated throughout these 36 years but one of the most interesting ones that not many people speak about is that this leadership and those who sacrificed along with the leadership with their lives and with their limbs, with their ties and with their families (and) with their possessions- all of this is not something that we are going to forget easily because the struggle still continues; but one of the most interesting exposes that came out of this effort for Allah is that it has exposed those false Muslims that present themselves as Islamicleaders or as "The Custodians of the two Harams in Makkah and in Al Madinah."This Islamic consistency (and) this Islamic strategy has exposed these phony kings and princes in Arabia for the span of the past 36 years. We Muslims suffer in two areas (or) on two sides. We have Muslims who have studied-and masha'Allah they have good memories and retention capabilities- so they will tell you the details of the history of 1,300 and 1,400 years ago. We have those- Alhamdulillah, but that's not enough. We also have, on the other side, those Muslims who can explain and discourse in details about what is happening in today's world with a degree of Islamic background and knowledge. The problem that we suffer from is rarely do we have qualified Muslims who can easily and equally speak about the issues of history as they relate to today and the developments of today as they are similar to those that occurred way back there back in history. This is where we are lacking. You can activate your mind and memory and see if you can find those rare Ulema' (and) sincere sacrificing individuals who have a healthy understanding of the 1,400 years that we all belong to. In your mind ask yourself- where is that individual? This Islamic success of 36 years gave us samples of those individuals who understand this quite accurately and in the process they have tried- not necessarily through classroom presentations but they have tried through a life and death struggle that has been in progress for 36 years- to demonstrate to you, the thinking Muslim, that the rulers of Arabia today are a continuation of the rulers of Arabia from Bani Umayah onwards. Banu Umayahof that time over 1,300 years ago are the predecessors of Bani Saudnowadays. What's wrong? What's so difficult to understand from this lesson? We're going to fill in some of the blanks.
The system that this Banu Umayahhad is a dynasty but let's call it a government. They killed Muslims- committed Muslims, Muslims for justice. Let us give you some names. You can go- right now you have the tool of Google- use your Muslim mind when you use these tools. Ghailan Ad Dimashqi and his companion Salih, Al Ja'd ibn Dirham,Juhum ibn Safwan, Zayd ibn Ali, Al Harith ibn Surayj; that's not to speak about their crimes against Al Imam Al Hussein (radi Allahu anhu) and his companions, Abdullah ibn Az Zubayr (radi Allahu anhu) and his followers and many of the Muhajirin and the Ansar (radi Allahu anhum) and their siblings. This regime in Arabia at that time- the counterpart of the regime in Arabia in our time- ransacked AlMadinah where the cream of the crop of the Muslims were living. They laid it to waste. They attacked the physical structure of the Ka'bah and destroyed it. They raped the Muslim women of Al Madinah and not to be undone; the Abasid dynasty that followed them was doing the same thing more or less. How come we have some people, (i.e.) speakers that get invited and go all around, who when they speak about some of the individuals that we mentioned- mind you there hasn't been a Muslim public speaker who has any name recognition who is capable of looking at this whole history and taking the Islamicopposition in its totality against the regime of Bani Umayah and Bani Al Abbas- they pick on two or three individuals. They will take two or three of the names you just listened to and they will take two or three incidents of war, of persecution, of assassination, of murder, or whatever (and) they will concentrate on that. First of all, they were incapable of stringing all of this Islamic opposition together and second of all they are incapable of telling us what the similarities are between then and now. Of course, the regime at that time (and) the dynasties of those days and generations are doing the same things as the dynasties and the kingdoms and the republics of our generation are doing. They buy a few so-called clergymen and they tell them "issue your fatwas because so and so is an opposition person" and they write their own official history about this and it comes to us through our official syllabi in our schools (and) in our universities and we learn official history never considering what the victims of this history have to say. In this history there was a group of Muslims, a current (or) a trend among the Muslims called the Mu'taziliswhich right now not many Muslims are really knowledgeable of and no one seems to be speaking about them. That once again it's due to the traditions that we have inherited. They believed in, (basically we can summarize them in four or five points), at tawhid, al adl, al wa'd and al wa'id,al manzil bayna al manzilatayn and al amr bi al ma'ruf and an nahi an al munkar. To make a long story short- the real reason they've dropped out of our own memories (and) no one speaks about them (is) because this was a portion of the Muslims that was considered, most of the time, an opposition but it had a feature that many of the Muslims don't have and that was the feature of thinking. It's not odd that we live in a world of Muslims who don't think! "So why should they be speaking about or discoursing about Muslims who do think!? We're only being consistent with ourselves. If we're not thinking then we are not interested in people who think even if they come from among us?!" This is an indictment! This Islamic revolution, if we were living with it in these years, would realize that we are indicting, in one way or the other, our ourselves…
This Islamic revolution has taught us who the rulers of Arabia really are. Before the Islamicrevolution the rulers of Arabia were very friendly to the Shi'is in Iran because the Shi'is in Iran were the traditional, orthodox type of Shi'is-that's all. There was no issue concerning justice. No Shi'i was really activating for justice. If there was any concern for justice, it was an academic concern or it was a scholastic element in their school books but was there any real movement for justice in Iran prior to 1979 in the Gregorian calendar? Was there any serious thing there that the rulers in Arabia felt threatened about? No! There was nothing there that was serious but when these Shi'isin Iran woke up, because of that gifted leadership, to the core issue of Islamand scripture and Prophets which is justice then all of a sudden now something is wrong with these people to the extent that where they are trying to convince the public that Shi'is are not Muslims. We learn that these rulers in Arabia, (not that we didn't know this but right now in the course of the 36 years it has become more obvious), feel honored that they are Hanbalis. To begin with, this whole thing about Hanbalis today was called Ahl Al Hadith and then it became the Hanbalis and then it became the Wahabisand then it became the Salafis and all of these state their reputation on monopolizing the word Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama'ah.They have taken over that combination of words and they claim it for themselves even though the Hanafis, the Shafi'is, the Malikis, the Dhahirisnot to mention the Shi'is and the Mu'tazilis don't agree that theHanbalis are the masters of the word Ahl As Sunnah wa AlJama'ah but because they have money- remember these people in the Arabian Peninsula have money and the rest of us are poor "so who am I the poor person to argue with them?" or "who are we as the poor 95% of the rest of the Muslims to argue with that 5%, (and we're inflating their numbers), of the Muslims" in telling them who do you think you are saying that you are the people of the Sunnah and the Jama'ah? So because these people in Arabia, (we learnt this in these 36 years), have the money, they have the control of the Masajid and Islamic Centers and budgets and treasuries and all this stuff they have equated love of Ahmad ibn Hanbalwith being a Muslim and they have equated the dislike of Ahmad ibnHanbal with being a non-Muslim! Thanks to these 36 years of sacrifices we can now look at them and see what they are really saying and doing. In past history, the followers of- the faqih and the Imam- Ahmad ibnHanbal were the most fanatic about him in unruly and unjustified ways. In his generation, what stood him out from the others is that he refused- there was an argument that was official and that was popular in different administrations in the Abasi dynasty. Some of them (were) for and some of them against in the two sides of this argument called "the fitnah that says the Qur'an is created"- that's how it is referred to in Islamichistory. So when it came to the personality of Ahmad ibn Hanbalhe could have said I'm going to avoid this whole issue and I'm not going to take a public stand and I'm not going to express my mind and soul on this matter and it would have gone unnoticed but he refused this taqiyah and he said the Qur'an is not createdand that put him in opposition to the particular administration or dynasty of his time. So he was persecuted for his belief- something that is admirable. He stood on principle but his followers took this and went way beyond anything that is logical or reasonable. Some of the scholars in his time that took this position of "you know I don't want to express myself on this issue" was Yahya ibn Wa'id ibn Sa'd and ibn Al Madini. They were the equivalents of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. No one hears about them! Why? Because they said "we're not going to argue this issue with the government. We're going to let it pass" but he didn't.
Another thing that we learnt in the course of these 36 years of struggle and sacrifices that exposed the rulers of Arabia is that the Saudi Wahabi followers who claim Ahmad ibn Hanbal and who claim Ahl As Sunnah wa Al Jama'ahand who claim Islam altogether, meaning anyone who is not with them is against them in one way or the other (or) in one sense or the other in their books say "it is permissible to cite Al Yahud and An Nasara." There are citations is their reference books about Al Yahud and An Nasarawho became Muslims or Muslims who themselves quote other Yahud and An Nasara. Some of you may want some names and here you are: Ka'b ibn Ahbar, Wahn ibn Munabbih, Nawf Al Bakaali and others. You look at some of their history references and there was a ruler in the last years of the Umawi dynasty. His name is Khalid Al Qasri.This was a ruthless ruler. He executed, killed (or) murdered some innocent Muslims. One of them is Al Ja'd ibn Dirham, (the one that was mentioned earlier in the khutbah), who was an opposition figure who became a shahid. When you read the Hanbali literature about him, they clap (and) they are delighted that a dictator has killed an opposition figure like that. The same dictator killed a couple of their own, meaning individuals that they feel affinity for, (viz.) Al Mughirah ibn Sa'idAl Bayan ibn Sam'an and they're silent about that. You tell us- why are they so elated when a certain ruthless governor kills someone they disagree with and they don't speak against him when the same person kills a couple of scholarly types that they feel a closeness to? What does that mean? This Islamicrevolution in these 36 years have taught us a lot of things. As we said the followers of Ahmad ibn Hanbal are not Ahmad ibn Hanbal himself. Even the son of Ahmad ibn Hanbal is not Ahmad ibn Hanbal himself. These are quotes from Ahmad ibn Hanbal… After listening to these quotes we want to know how they sit in your perception of these people who are ruling in Arabia today- the majority of them considering themselves followers of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He said and we quote my son, be advised that Ali, this is in reference to Imam Ali, had many enemies. His enemies were looking for some deficiency or flaw in him but they couldn't find anything in him so his enemies went and congregated around one of his enemies meaning Muawiyah. So they glorified Muawiyah because of their hatred of Ali. Another statement from Ahmad ibn Hanbal you cannot compare anyone to Ali and Ahl Al Bayt. In another statement he says whoever does not consider the Khilafah of Ali as the fourth Khalifah then he is more foolish than his folks donkey (or) than the donkey belonging to his relatives. In these books of the Hanabila says Ahmad ibn Hanbal agreed to the condemnation of Yazid. Yazid, of course, is the son of Muawiyah.
Right now, after 36 years, we come to the issue that is on everyone's mind. You heard the news in the past week. Da'ish,ISIS, etc. and what they have been doing and what's been done to them. They came out with this thing that "other Muslims are Kafirs." If we're not part of them we are Kafirs. It's easy for them to say but it doesn't stop at words. They go out with lethal weapons and they kill those who are not part of them. All of the Muslims- now tell us all of the Muslims are wrong- with our different madhahib, schools of thought, versions of history, etc. all agreed "it is not permissible to say that a Muslim who bares testimony that Allah is the only Authority and Deity and that Muhammad is His Apostle and Messenger is a Kafir…" along with "…and whoever after bearing witness to the wahdaniyah of Allah and the Risalah of Muhammad after that does not deny any of the legal aspects of Islam which are known by necessity and consensually agreed upon…" that's in reference to things like as salaah, az zakah, as sawm, al hajj, etc, no one after testifying to the shahadahdenies this. As we go along you will see that all of these innocent Muslims who are being targeted meet this criteria. Also a person who does the above "…and in addition to that does not deny those that are prohibited that are known consensually as an integral part of this Islam…" that would be things like injustice, treason, lying, fornication, theft, all of these are known (by) all Muslims. Who disagrees? How do you come and say that any Muslim who says (or) who agrees that these are the muharramaat is a Kafir? Much less, you can't come and say "whatever second thoughts he may have after submitting to these guidelines (and) whatever intellectual input he or she may have is a bid'ah" or as they will turn around and say "your intellectual input or your second thoughts are also a bid'ah." Here, this bid'ah is the first step which leads to kufr. So the Muslims will wind up accusing one another of kufr and this is exactly what is going on today. The Prophet of Allah says if a person says to his brother, meaning his brother Muslim, you are a Kafir then obviously one of them is. Then the Prophet says and this statement means a Muslim is not one who is a blood thirsty person, he is not a trigger happy person, he is not one of foul language, he is not a low life. (It's) as if these words are applicable to those today who are killing other Muslims- that's in reference to those people who are in Iraq and Syria.
Then we take al Munafiqun.At the time of Allah's Prophet ayaat were being revealed and inside the Muslim community, inside the Masjid praying behind Allah's Prophet there were Munafiqun and there is a hairs width between nifaq and kufr,allegorically speaking. How did the Prophet behave towards them? By saying you are Kafirs and we're going to do this and that to you? Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked about a person who uses foul language (and) bad words concerning the Sahaba- what was his answer? I don't think that type of person is in the abode of Islam. He didn't say he is a Kafir. He used other words to try and say this person is far away from Islam if he's using bad words against the Sahabaof the Prophet. OK- you people who are Arabia who are ruling consider these types of statements fundamental and elementary statements in you history books, in your fiqhi books, in your Islamic books (and) in all of these texts- what would you say about the Umawis who were using bad words, words of damnation and condemnation from the manabir against one of the Sahabisof the Prophet. You don't want to consider him from Ahl Al Bayt- fine. We don't know how far they can go with this but anyways, wasn't Al Imam Ali (radi Allahu anhu) a Sahabi of the Prophet? If he was a Sahabiof the Prophet and you are saying in one of the hadiths that you rely upon that goes all the way back to your foremost Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal,and he says I don't see that anyone who is bad mouthing any of the Sahabis is in the abode of Islam, how about these Umawis who are doing the same thing? What do you say about them? Why are you silent? This is not a course in history, like we said in the beginning. Some people (who) are exposed to this information think this is something that happened. No. It's happening today and it's happening now. These people in the Arabian Peninsular who are ruling with the support of the enemies of Allah and the enemies of the Muslims are doing the same thing today. Have you ever encountered any of them who has (or) who shows any honor or any respect of any connectedness to Allah's Prophet and his family? What's wrong? They want you and me to believe that there is a wedge, that there is a gap (and) that there is a world of difference between the Prophet of Allah and his son in law or his daughter or his grandsons to the degree, (I've heard this. We're not saying something to you that comes to us from someone who says another person told him (or) a third and fourth person told him- no! I heard this with my own ears from those who say "they are in a global Islamic movement." It's not like this is coming from some novice (or) some unlettered person- no! It's coming from someone who has a history in what is called Islamic activism.), he says to make you believe that there is some type of serious difference between the Prophet of Allah and his grandson. This is a sentence that circulates among them. They sayAl Hussein was killed according to the shari'ah of his grandfather. Astaghfirullah al adhim. This is what they say. This is how they think, if we can call those thoughts! This is their history. This is their reality today. This is what they are doing. What's wrong? After 1,400 years you'd think some people right now can sit down and look at these facts and realize where things went wrong and adjust themselves, but no! They continue. They consider this Islamic reawakening that happened 36 years ago the most hostile act in the world. It supersedes Zionism! It supersedes Stan himself! That's what they think or that's what their notions are. We thank Allah that He has given us a success that we're not going to relinquish and it's not because we are selfish. It is because we are Allah oriented.
Dear committed brothers and sisters, dear Muslims…
When a person looks at this development that is called ISIS it seems like it is a clone of the Saudi Wahabi establishment. It's a clone of theirs. They just don't have the 60 or 70 years that the Saudis have- that's the only difference. The Saudis have been established and well established but their clone, this ISSI phenomenon, is a recent development and all of these developments are occurring because we have an Islamic vitality in the world. For 36 years now there's been an Islamic re-instatement. If it wasn't for this Islamic re-instatement we would not have this ISIS stuff. It's yet another scheme to try to bleed us out of self-determination. What's the difference between the executions that the Saudis are doing and the executions that the Saudis are doing? They tell you on average there's an execution (or) a beheading, (we're talking about beheadings), in Saudi Arabia every four days. So why is the media (or) the people in the media talking about the executions by ISIS which are less than the executions of the Saudis but they're not speaking about the beheadings in Saudi Arabia? Why? Why is there a silence? The Christian world, whatever is left of it, is silent that there are Christians in Saudi Arabia. Most of them come from three countries: Egypt, Ethiopia and the Philippines- are there's not one Church in Arabia. Why are the Christians silent about this? Don't we all refer to Allah's Prophet? During the time of Allah's Prophet were there not churches in Arabia. There were churches in the South of Arabia (and) there were churches in the North of Arabia. The Prophet didn't say close these churches (or) you can't build churches- never! The hadith that the Saudi Wahabi political religious establishment relies upon (is) there should not be a combination of two deens in the Peninsular. Deenhere doesn't mean having a church. A deen is much more than just rituals and religious ceremonies. So why is all the world silent about this? (We want you to listen. We probably mentioned this maybe to one or two of you but we want this to be on record). One of the indicators that there is a repetition of history right now in our time is the beheadings that are taking place. These Da'ishpeople- this person can't prove it, obviously, but there's enough insight to say that this phenomenon that is cloaked in Islam is actually a convergence of all of the enemies of Islamic self determination from outside the area and from inside the area. One of the indicators that we have through these beheadings, (and you've probably seen this or heard about it many times), is they take a prisoner- he could be a Muslim or he could be a non-Muslim- and they slaughter him just like an animal. This is not heard of by Muslims! This is reminiscent of what happened to Hussein. After the tragedy of Karbala' Hussein was beheaded. If you review the wars of Arabia prior to Islam and even the battles that took place from Badrall the way to Tabuk and Mu'ta during the time of Allah's Prophet and even the years after that, there was no beheading that took place. There were savage things that were done at the battle field in the course of hot pursuit and war- that's a different issue. Hind chewed on the liver of Hamzah (radi Allahu anhu); that's an atrocious thing to do but specifically speaking beheading as beheading is not there. So where did the beheading of Husseincome from if it's not in the history of the people who live in Arabia? Where did it come from? If you take European history you find that beheading is part of European history. So it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that the Umawidynasty had within it a European hand just like the Saudi dynasty has within it a Zionist hand an Imperialist hand. If we can take these terms back 14 centuries we can say that those who beheaded Hussein had a Zionist and an Imperialist hand in them which is another one of these things that we wouldn't be able to understand if it wasn't for these developments and if it wasn't for these 36 years of struggle and sacrifice which we're not going to forget and we're not going to walk away from.
This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 6 February 2015 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: Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive