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 …
Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/352527(02-06-2015)
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) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment