Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAHS : THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAGHUT AND NIFAQ PART 1

 

THE STREET MMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (30 May 2014) webpage: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=182501078290&ref=ts http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_street_mimbar/ PLEASE e-mail Suggestions & Criticisms to khutbahs@yahoo.com It is in such a manner that We make plain Our signs so that the course of the Criminals may become clear.

Bismillah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem.

Alhumdulillah. Peace and blessings on Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa sallam), his Noble Companions and Family.

Brothers and sisters, committed Muslims…

 

Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/341560 (05-02-2014)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEkySOz1mNA

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAGHUT AND NIFAQ PART 1

Taghut and nifaq are enduring bedfellows. Even though these two words are part of the Qur'anic and the Islamic lexicon one would be hard pressed to find the Muslims using them in their common, every day vernacular to characterise or to describe the events that are taking place in their day and the circumstances that they happen to be oppressed by. Even when Muslims try to use these words they take a reductionist interpretation from translations and apply that to the extent that they restrict the meaning and domain of meaning of these words. It has gone to such an extent that the word nifaq is represented as simple hypocrisy and the word taghut, in the few times that it is used, is simply used to describe the actions and behaviours of individuals so when the word taghut is used by Muslims then they're referring to an individual tyrant or to an oppressor or to somebody who is given a position of leadership without being endorsed by the people but rarely is the word used to describe systems and governments, to describe social narratives, to describe socialising influences that affect the way people think for there are taghuti systems, there are taghuti governments, there are taghuti narratives of history and there is a taghuti prevailing socialisation which gets us to behave on a way that living side by side with tyranny is a normal behaviour. These ayaat which were quoted earlier from Surah An Nisa' tell us that there is a relationship between taghut and nifaq and by understanding this relationship we may be able to identify in the world we live in today who the taghuts are and who the munafiqs are. We read the Qur'an and this becomes a problem for us and we see these words used often and frequently but in the every day life we hardly see these words used; so how do we form an association between the taghut in the Qur'an and it's equivalent in the world that we live in. We don't hear the words used so how do we establish this association and that is the purpose of our talk today? The social and the political and the military expression of the word taghut in the world that we live in today is called imperialism and the chief executive of that program in our world is the United States. The most potent social and political and military expression of nifaq in our world today is sectarianism and the chief executive of that program is the hereditary monarchy that occupies Makkah and Al Madinah and the glue that binds the program of Imperialism with the self-consciousness and the inferiority complex of nifaq is Al Yahud. Let's deal with taghut first then we'll deal with nifaq and then we'll talk about the relationship between the two.

 

The word taghut itself has slipped out of common usage of the Muslims and it is buried under centuries of indifference, of expediency and of ignorance. Taghut at its very root in a linguistic sense describes excessive and aggressive power. It describes over-weaning, gargantuan and maximalist power. In other words, in our world today, the word taghut is equivalent to the word superpower or hyper power but when we talk about superpower, about hyper power, about aggressive power (and) about maximalist power we are talking about a kind of power that gets us as individuals to normalise the expression of tyranny in our lives. This power is used to get us to feel that the occupation of the lands of others is normal. It gets us to feel that it is power that confers legitimacy; that if you have power (then) whatever you do is ok (and) whatever you do is legitimate. The chief impact of this kind of aggressive and maximalist power is to get you- the average Joe in the street- to believe that you have a normal relationship with tyranny. These words in Allah's book are telling you that it is impossible, impractical (and) untenable to have a normal relationship with tyranny. The way that this aggressive and maximalist power exhibits itself in our lives today is Imperialism. Now if you go to the social science textbooks and you study political science (and) you study government politics you come across a number of definitions for Imperialism. You can go to ten different authors and they will give you ten different explanations for Imperialism and ten different motivations for such a program. Some of them say "Imperialism is the extension of state power by the forceful acquisition of the foreign territories of others"; others will tell you "Imperialism is governance by empire" and still others will tell you "Imperialism is the coalescing of people with less power into the territories of those who have more power." And the definitions goes on and on and as there are many definitions for the concept and the idea and the program of Imperialism there are also many many explanations for the motivations for such a program. Some of these political scientist will tell you "the motivations for such a program are economic- cheap labour, new markets, cheap acquisition of resources" more likely the theft of resources or the free acquisition of resources and within this domain of an economic motivation for Imperialism some of them will tell you "the chief motivation for Imperialism is a glut for investment resources," They will tell you "there is too much money and that these financial investments have to find markets elsewhere to help those markets grow." So were it not for a glut of capital resources these people suggest that there would be no need for Imperialism. Thus the argument has its detractors and it has its supporters but what really destroys this argument is the fact that in those places in the world that experience the greatest theft of resources- which is Africa, South America, the Islamic East and South-East Asia- what infrastructure development took place in these places during the heyday of Imperialism? The only time the infrastructure development took place was when the Imperialists were expelled. The extra capital that existed in these places before Imperialism took place, meaning in the Imperial domain, didn't find itself being employed to build infrastructure in the so called dark continents of the world- that only happened when these people acquired independence. So with these arguments these same historians and political scientists tell us "the golden age of Imperialism- what we refer to as taghut in our modern day- was from 1870 to 1914. This is the time when the greatest European expansion took place and the greatest acquisition (or) occupation of foreign territory took place, that during these three or four decades the European powers acquired up to twelve million square miles and they enslaved up to a hundred and eighty three million people." But in today's world that kind of Imperial occupation is not taking place because after World Wad One and World War Two many of these Imperial domains acquired a sort of second class independence- not true independence because if you were truly independent you wouldn't be haemorrhaging refugees so don't tell us that a particular country is independent if it is haemorrhaging refugees; but according to the United Nations these countries that were colonial domains in the past are now independent. What we are saying is that they have a second class independence. So in current usage the word Imperialism implies an interfering by the dominant power culture into the affairs (and) into the economic and political advancement of underdeveloped countries and territories. Western economist and historians go to the extent of trying to draw a difference between ideological Imperialism and Imperialism as a political program. On the one hand we have the Marxists who say "Imperialism is the final stage of a capitalism gone wild" and on the other hand we have the free market capitalist that suggest "Imperialism is a natural occurrence of wanting to expand markets and acquire new resources." So this discussion of what Imperialism is and what it isn't is a fertile ground now, or perhaps for the past thirty years, for the Marxists and their adversaries to have a discussion but within that discussion and argument of what Imperialism stands for we need to make two points and these two points come out from what we have learnt from these ayaat that Allah has revealed to us.

 

The first point is that when Muslims are derelict in there duty to place the word taghut within the domain of social affairs, political affairs and military affairs then it opens up the field for run away concepts like Imperialism to come in and dominate the discussion and they dominate the discussion with their own economic rationalisations and their opposite Marxist definitions and the only reason this happens is because we haven't brought the meaning of the word taghut into the public domain. For if we were to bring the meaning of taghut into the public domain then we would understand that Imperialism has a history, it has a past, and it belongs to a long book that has many chapters that explain the many flavours of taghut and only the modern flavour of taghut is referred to as Imperialism. But we Muslims are absent from the domain of ideas and therefore something like Imperialism doesn't have a past. It is hard for political scientists and historians to connect Imperialism to colonialism but that ought not to be hard for Muslims. It is impossible for political scientists and historians of our day to come up with a consistent explanation for what Imperialism is but this ought not to be hard for Muslims because the history which is given to us in scripture (and) the history which is explained to us in scripture tells us a social law, a social fact, a social reality, a social incontrovertibility that those who concentrate power with a view to concentrating wealth lose track of the meaning of social justice. If we put Imperialism with colonialism with foreign occupation in this domain we understand that Imperialism is just another incarnation of taghut and thereby we can give it a past. And if we can give it a past we can give it a solution in the way that Allah gives it a solution; but when we divorce this concept of its past we divorce it of its solution to deal with this kind of past. So when Marxists come to you and to us and they reject all religion and they throw out the baby with the bath-water meaning that they throw out the Qur'an with whatever is left of the Bible and the Torah we have to return to them and we have to tell them the Qur'an is the book of social laws, it is the book of social understanding and it is the book that gives us the only definable and executable program that can rid common people of tyranny and oppression. A famous person once said "the person who controls the past controls the future and those who control the present control the past" meaning that those who have power today tell you what your historical past looks like and if they desire to separate their particular flavour of occupation, tyranny and oppression from the flavours of occupation, tyranny and oppression of the past then they can compose their history books in their fashion and divorce you from the past and when they divorce you from your past they divorce you from your future.

 

The second point that needs to be explained in this domain of trying to equate Imperialism with taghut is that we cannot accept a defective narrative of history. The defective narrative of history that is in vogue today and that took over four hundred years to popularise and make it part of our social consciousness and it doesn't matter who you are- whether you're Chinese or South American or Eskimo or you live in Africa or you live in Russia or where you live, it doesn't matter where you come from- the narrative of history that you accept is a European exceptionalist narrative of history- you accept a European narrative of history as a standard, you accept is a European experience as a standard! That there is no other history unless it is comparable to the European history! There are no ideas except if they come out of the European philosophical context! There is no political philosophy unless it comes out of the European historical experience! Any other ideas are not ideas! Any other historical experience is not a historical experience unless it compares with the consensual historical experience of the Europeans. We have to understand that about the narrative of history and the only thing that can get you beyond a humanly poisoned narrative of history is scripture. This is the only thing that can take away the human bias from history. There is no human bias in Allah's narrative of history- none whatsoever. There's no favouritism, there is no elitism (and) there is no supremism. Nobody is favoured because of the way that they were born, nobody is favoured because of the family that they were born into, no one is favoured because of the colour of their skin and there-by no narrative of history is favoured because of the way that somebody else wrote it. When you read scripture, it is a dispassionate narrative of history and thereby it is the only source that is reliable enough to acquaint you with what happened in the past. Everything else is extraneous but we live in a world that is dominated by the European experience and this is what leads us to an understanding of nifaq.

 

As many of you have attended this jum'ah for several years you realise that nifaq begins to emerge when there is a clash between an Islamic power culture and a taghuti power culture; without the existence of either an Islamic power culture or a taghuti power culture there is no such thing as nifaq. Nifaq is an attachment to power not to principle and so far as to the way munafiqs behave they behave in a way that power confers legitimacy. If you have power you're legitimate (and) what ever you do is authorised. It could be said that whatever you do is right and beyond that it could be said that whatever you do is even moral. To the munafiq it doesn't matter what your principles are, all that matter is if you have power- "If you have power I'm with you" and in the worldly assessment of the continuum of power "if you don't have power I could care less about you. The only thing that gets me to gravitate towards you (and) to support you is if you have power" That's nifaq. But in the disproportionate power play in the Imperial domain of the world and the dispossessed and the occupied domain of the world a particular psychology emerges amongst those who are dispossessed and this psychology is peculiar in that it begins to appreciate Imperialism. It is infatuated with Imperialism! In fact it could be said that it has a fetish for Imperialism. When we talk about nifaq and its relationship to taghut all we have to do is follow these ayaat for we said a little earlier (that) one of the most potent expressions of nifaq today is sectarianism. In order to try and understand how sectarianism is an expression of nifaq let us just follow Allah's ayaat. Ok- so Allah says

Are you not acquainted with those people who claim or who pretend to be committed to that which came to you from on high and which came to previous Prophets from high? These are the ones who defer to the rule of excessive and aggressive power even though they were commanded to cease and desist and reject it. (Surah An Nisa' verse 60-62)

Ok- here we have an ayah. The ayah is describing or in fact the ayah is condemning a particular class of people who have a double mind. They come to the Islamic bloc and they say "look at us. Can you detect that we are not Muslims?" They say to us "if you talk like a Muslim (or) if you walk like a Muslim then you're a Muslim." You have a beard, your see him praying in the Masjid, you see him fasting Ramadhan, you wear the Islamic outfit and you wear the head-dress and so forth and so on- so he's a Muslim; but then when it comes to social policy, when it comes to political policy, when it comes to alliances what do they do? Brothers and sisters- when we are talking about nifaq and we are talking about it within the context of sectarianism what you ought to be doing (or) going over in your mind are those who are organising sectarian programs around the world, you ought to be going over in your mind what their economic policies are (and) what their political policies are, you ought to be going over in your mind where they go to when they need advice, you ought to be going over in your mind who they go to when they need protection, you ought to be going over in your mind whose views they defer to when they need to know what to do. We know where this sectarian program is being organised, we know where it receives its ideological input and where it receives its ideological support but at the same time, brothers and sisters, ask yourselves that when they need to gather funds to provide a financial base for their sectarian program where do these funds come from? You could say that these funds come from the sale of oil. But on whose auspices is this oil sold? If you're selling oil and you claim "the oil belongs to you and you're going to use it for various social and political activities" then why don't they sell the oil in riyals? They have a currency! They conduct transactions in their own country with riyals so why are they selling oil on somebody else's terms? Why are they selling oil in dollars? They claim they're independent, they claim they read the Qur'an, they claim the follow the Qur'an- this is what it means when Allah says

… they defer to the excessive and aggressive powers when it comes to social, economic and political policy… (Surah An Nisa' verse 60-62)

They affirm Allah with their tongues and they say "yes, He's the Creator and the Provider" but when it comes to following a law, when it comes to creating legislation and when it comes to enacting social policy where do they go? If we are on target with our analysis we know that they are just piggy backing on the sectarian program and in fact it is organised in Tel Aviv and Washington. For if they don't have a brain to sell their oil in their own currency they don't have a brain to organise a sectarian program! It has to come as no surprise that when they have this kind of inferiority complex where they prefer the temporal power of human beings or when they place more trust in the temporal power of human beings to the ultimate, unlimited and unrivalled power of Allah then they are the ones who raise the status of taghut to a position of a god. Yes- we have these either self appointed or taghuti appointed so-called leaders in the Muslim world and they are the ones who are popularising the idea that taghut is a god. You tell us brothers and sisters: do they fear Allah or do they fear America? Do they fear Allah or do they fear a nuclear bomb coming from Tel Aviv? It is these so-called leaders that raise the status of taghut and who raise the status of Imperialism to a god! Not a god in the theological sense- they don't say that Imperialism is a creator but by their behaviour they say "Imperialism is a law giver." When Imperialism passes a law they say "we hear and we obey." When Imperialism comes and says do this they say we already did it! What we need to understand, brothers and sisters, is that nifaq is a by-product of an inferiority complex- not an inferiority complex to somebody else's principles but to somebody else's power. In the way that taghut has organised the world, power is something exclusive. If a few people have it or acquire it by force and the rest of the mass of humanity y doesn't have it so the rest of humanity feels inferior to those who have power. This was the feeling at the time of Allah's Messenger. The munafiqs in Al Madinah felt inferior in a political and military sense to the Quraysh in Makkah. They were in a backwater called Yathrib so in a military and political sense they knew Quraysh had more power so they felt inferior. In a theological and economic sense they felt inferior to the jews who used to live in Yathrib. So we said earlier that one of the more potent expressions of nifaq in our world today is sectarianism and by this argument sectarianism is a by-product of an inferiority complex so you might ask "in so far as these leader who are financing and providing military support to the sectarian support all over the world we understand that compared to Washington and Tel Aviv these sectarian tribal Arabians have an inferiority complex- it doesn't take a degree in physics to understand that- but what about the people on these sectarians out in the field who are going out and killing innocent Muslims without course? What about them?" You could say well they're killing these other Muslims because they feel superior to them. So how can you say sectarianism in a by-product of an inferiority complex?! Brothers and sisters, we're talking about the relationship between nifaq and taghut, we're talking about those who have an inferiority complex and those who have an inferiority complex- so when you see these sectarians in the field who are indiscriminately going out and killing and crucifying and murdering other Muslims have you taken a moment to pause and listen to what they're saying? "They want to build what they call and Islamic empire that rivals the Imperial empire in the world today- that rivals the United states or that rivals the European Union." Now brothers and sisters, tell us if you're reading the Qur'an and if you're understanding the Qur'an is Islam an empire? Is it possible to characterise Islam as an empire? It's possible to characterise Imperialism as an empire, it's possible to characterise the United States as an empire, it's possible to characterise Great  Britain as an empire, it's possible to characterise the Rome as an empire, but if you read the Qur'an and you're familiar with the seerah how do you characterise Islam as an empire?! The only way that you can characterise Islam as an empire, again, in contrast to Imperialism as an empire is if you're affected by the European narrative of history (and) if you're oppressed by the European narrative of history (and) if the European narrative of history is your narrative of history! Islam is not an empire! Islam is the opposite of empire. In an empire you have a few people who marshal the human and material resources of large territories and large groups of people to increase their own wealth and power. Is that what Islam does? Islam just does the opposite. Islam distributes power (and) Islam distributes wealth. It is impossible to characterise Islam as a rival power to Imperialism! Brothers and sisters, listen to what they're saying! The only way that you can prefer to use a weapon instead of words when you're talking to your brother Muslim is if you're not reading the Qur'an and if you're more attuned to the taghuti version of history than to the history of Prophets which is the history of Islam.

 

There's a lot more to say on this subject; a lot more to say about the relationship of Yahud and with Yahud that binds taghut and nifaq together but what we need to understand (and) perhaps the nugget that we need to leave with on this occasion is that if there is no taghut there is no nifaq. If there is no such thing as taghut there is no such thing as nifaq. In order for taghut to drive its values and it's program into innocent territories and it's people of the world it needs this element of nifaq to enable it to penetrate into those territories and peoples of the world.

 

Brothers and sisters, committed Muslims…

We have to recognise that Imperialism has a past; only in that past it wasn't called Imperialism. The book of taghut is filled with many many chapters. Throughout history this taghut has gone by many names and the current name that this taghut is going by (i.e.) Imperialism is about to close. We take innocent pride in claiming some credit- not we as it refers to the Muslims here in the street, but we as it refers to the collective body of Muslims in the Islamic movement; we take innocent pride in helping to close this chapter of taghut. We are saying (that) this chapter of taghut is closing because of the facts that we see on the ground. The economists who study these kinds of things and who develop policy and definitions say "in order for a currency to be the worlds reserve currency fifty five percent of all international transactions have to be conducted through that currency with that currency as a medium. The number of international transactions that are conducted through the US$ has now fallen to thirty five present so it can no longer be characterised as the world's reserve currency. This ought to tell you that when we talk about Imperialism its dollar Imperialism (and) this ought to tell you that this chapter on taghut in the world is now closing. In the coming months the Russians and the Chinese are going to reach an agreement on an energy deal- a forward looking and a vast energy deal- and all transactions in this energy deal between the Russians and the Chinese are going to be conducted via local currencies and not with the US$. What underwrites the US$ brothers and sisters? What underwrites the US$ is not gold and silver but it is the world's energy reserves and the world's fossil fuel reserves and to the extent that more and more people get the strength and the courage to conduct their energy transactions without the use of the US$ it will help to close the taghuti chapter of Imperialism in history. All of us have heard of BRICS- that's Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. They are ready to promote a bank that is going to rival the IMF and the World Bank so now development projects are going to have competition with regards to where they are going to get funding from and this affects the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

 

Finally and most importantly elections are going to take place in around a month's time in Syria and these elections are going to take place outside the framework of choreographed democracy of the United States. Don't be surprised if the world's media do not cover these elections. Don't be surprised if these so-called jihadists which are being financed by the illegitimate regime in Arabia try to disrupt these elections. Their rhetoric is already disrupting these elections. They're saying "how is it possible to have free and fair elections in Syria when there are so many refugees and when there are so many Syrians outside the country?" OK- (in) answer to that we say how is it possible to have free and fair elections in Afghanistan? They just took place. You're telling us there's no Afghan refugees in other countries?! You're telling us there's not more Afghan refugees in other countries than there are Syrian refugees in other countries? What about the Ukraine? They're going to have elections also- don't the Ukraine have refugees in other countries also? Brothers and sisters, call it what it is- it's a bunch of hogwash. They're trying to derail these elections before they take place and the reason they're trying to derail these elections is because again they fall outside the domain of choreographed democracy by the United States.

 

This khutbah was presented by Imam Afeef Khan on the occasion of Jum'ah on 27 December 2013 on the sidewalk of Embassy Row in Washington D.C.

 

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: stop evil <stop_evil123@yahoo.co.uk>

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (1)

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : UMAR’S LEADERSHIP VS THE RULERS OF ARABIA PART 3

 

THE STREET MMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (23 May 2014) webpage: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=182501078290&ref=ts 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…

 

Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/podcast/podcast/340781 (05-16-2014)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Cii2X3RXI

UMAR'S LEADERSHIP VS THE RULERS OF ARABIA PART 3

Allah says in an ayah that should be a central ayah in today's Muslims mind

… so that the course of the criminals becomes very obvious. (Surah Al An'aam verse 55)

The problem with today's average Muslim, (and these are the majority of Muslims), is that the course of the criminals is not clear. It's supposed to be clear as per this ayah but it is not. We shall try to shed some light on the meaning of this ayah. This is something we have to do so that the criminals are exposed. In the previous khutbahs we tried our best to provide some illustrations of how the contemporary rulers in Arabia fit the bill of al mujrimin. We are not trying to blow things out of proportion, we are not trying to get involved in hyperbole; what we are trying to do is to look at the facts of history and look at the facts of our current affairs and the facts will speak for themselves. We said and we repeat that a few khutbahs are not going to be enough to clarify the discrepancy and the distance between the committed Muslims who ruled in Arabia immediately after the Prophet passed away and the current Arabians who rule in that same area today who claim that they are the extension of that time period. In other words today's kings in Arabia want us to be convinced that they are the natural extension of the Khulafa' who came after Allah's Prophet. We want to present the facts of the matter and then we want the thinking Muslim mind and the pulsating Muslim heart to draw their own conclusions from there.

 

In today's Arabia we have people, i.e. rulers, who claim the lands and the territories of that virtual peninsula to be their own. They call the Arabian Peninsula or the majority of it Saudi Arabia. This is how far they have gone in claiming that land. There's not a land in the world that is claimed by a family in the world except the one that dwells in Arabia. Furthermore, the natural resources that are there, viz. the petroleum is also claimed by them. There's almost one billion dollars every day that comes from beneath the surface of Arabia and then it goes to the coffers of these rulers. Compare this with the time of Umar (radi Allahu anhu). We are emphasizing the time of Umar and his rule simply because the current rulers in Arabia claim him as their foremost khalifah. In his time there was a person by the name of Bilal ibn Al Harith. This person was given by Allah's Prophet himself a very vast stretch of land in the measurements of those days (i.e.) an expanded piece of land that can be used for agriculture. He asked it from the Prophet and the Prophet said take it with its responsibilities and this person had that piece of land. When Umar became the ruler of the Muslims he asked the person are you taking care of that land? The land has to be managed. It needs labour. Land needs labour. Labour and land go together. This is the Islamic judgement on what is to be done with land. If the owner of, remember, agricultural land is not responsible in a labour sense towards the land he forfeits the ownership and this is what Umar did to this particular person. He asked him are you responsible in a labour sense for this land (or) are you are you tilling it? Are you planting whatever has to be planted? Are you doing whatever farmers and peasants do with lands? He said no. Well the land is no longer yours- that simple. It doesn't take a philosophy here to figure out responsibilities. How does that compare with today's rulers who have claim a Peninsula- not a certain acreage of agricultural land as was the case here? They right now say "they own the Peninsula" and where's their labour? Does anyone detect that they are responsible in a labour way towards the land? Obviously not! They don't know what labour means. They spend most of their times in capitals around the world and other places of vice around the world. If Umar was around he'd take this kingdom away from them. During the era of Umar ibn Al Khattab when the Islamic state began to expand there were new agricultural lands because it expanded into fertile valley's that were irrigated by major rivers in Africa and in Asia. So what did Umar do? He said this belongs to the community of Muslims. He wasn't there claiming it for his family. You rulers in Arabia say "Arabia is a family affair." Can you see (and) can you notice that that was never the case during the time period you yourself refer to?! You refer to the time period of Umar, (we have to say this), in today's world for sectarian purposes. Your concern is to feed a polarisation and a division among Muslims but we are placing you in the context of the facts and the facts say that there is a galaxy of a distance between you and Umar who you are identifying with. Remember we are saying this so as to expose in daylight the behaviour and the character of criminals as per the ayah

… so that the course of criminals becomes obvious. (Surah Al An'aam verse 55)

The Prophet of Allah says Muslims share three things- water, the literal word here which has to be understood in context an naar which means fire and al kala'a which means the earths produce the plantations of the planet. So Muslims are to share in that. This is a hadith of the Allah's Prophet and we'll see how Umar understood this hadith when he was responsible for ruling but can you observe any type of sharing that goes on in today's Muslim world? When it comes to water there are Muslims who have plenty of water and there are Muslims who have a scarcity of water- that's not sharing. (Its) the same thing when it comes to heating. There are some places (where) Muslims have access to heating and energy- this is the meaning of an naar in context. Let's say the Prophet came up with a word electricity in his time- who's going to understand what electricity is? No one would understand it. Let's say there's a form of energy that is going to come into existence a thousand years from today, (you can call it- let's give it a name; let's jump into time and create a name for a form of energy a thousand years from today), and call it electromagnetic ether and let's say the Prophet used that word. Who's going to understand that? If he used that to describe and to define that form of energy our time can come and we can use another word and avoid the word the Prophet used so the whole meaning is not going to be understood but when he says people share three things- water, fire and the earths produce these are the sources out of which we have extensions and we have derivatives. Any form of water whether it's water for nourishment and nutrition or its water for generating energy or its water for other purposes. If there is an Islamic policy everyone shares in it. The same is applied to fire- whether its for heating, whether its for cooking, whether its for industry, whether its for power or energy or any other purpose we share in it. The plants of the earth that don't belong to a particular person who is in possession of a piece of land; everything else that is out there that grows in the wild belongs to people. It doesn't belong to an individual, it doesn't belong to a family, it doesn't belong to a ruling class, it doesn't belong to a power class or a wealth class or a race class or any other class. It belongs to everyone. There's another hadith that has another variation of the same meaning. The other hadith says there are three that no one can possess (or) you can't own three things and the words are the same water, fire and the earths produce. This is a more dangerous hadith. You can't own them. Compare the hadith- and the rulers in Arabia quote the hadith more than they quote the ayaat; let them quote these ahadith! Let them vocalise these ahadith in public and explain their meaning to the public! No- they will steer clear of these ahadith because they don't want to expose their ownselves. Well- we can understand criminals want to hide their crimes but how about us? We are not involved in that criminal syndicate, we are not part of that criminal ruling family so we can't say the truth?! We can't quote the ayaat and the ahadith that shed light on such figures and their policies and their strategies? We can't do that?!

 

In the time of Umar he had a policy that said pasture lands of the state are opened for the poor, meaning poor people have access to fertile lands. Does anyone see any of that? Can anyone identify any stripe of this policy in the Arabian Peninsula? During the reign of Umar these fertile pasture areas were off limits to the wealthy individuals in the Islamic society such as Uthman ibn Affan and Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (radi Allahu anhuma) and others. Now you tell us, do the rulers in Arabia have any case when they say "oh, we identify with Umar"?

 

Then we come to a particular segment in Islamic history- that today's sectarian mindset wants to ignore because it helps diffuse the issue of dividing the Muslims which is meant by today's power structures- that is called the Muslims of the fath or post-fath Muslims, (i.e.) individuals who became Muslims after the liberation of Makkah. Some of them were mu'allafah qulubuhum (i.e.) you had to wing over their hearts by giving them some of the money from the Islamic treasury. Some of them called at tulaqa'. So bear these in mind. These are designations and descriptions that are taken out of circulation and by removing this characterisation of the facts of our history and by taking that put of the public mind what happens is we fall prey to today's Sunni versus Shi'i world and vice versa. Umar was aware that there is a type of people who jumped, (so to speak), onto the Islamic band wagon. Islam became the order of the day (and) Islam was in an ascending order (and) Islam became the power to be reckoned with in the Arabian Peninsula so those who were fighting the Prophet and the committed Muslims for the last twenty odd years all of a sudden had to submit to the fact that Islam now is the pre-dominant force in Arabia. So they became Muslims and they knew who they were and the committed Muslims knew who they were. We, the Muslims of fourteen hundred years later scantily know who they are. So Umar looked at this category of people and he said the following to this category of people who because of the changing circumstances and the rise of an Islamic power and the establishment of an Islamic society and order acquiesced to that-not because they were convinced but because right now it's the only thing to do to keep on prospering-, (we're going to read this because this is his words and then we're going to give you the quick translation), I have information pertaining to you that now you are beginning to have, (what we call in today's world), in-gatherings among yourselves. So and so has so and so around him meaning this category of people, once again, and you are the ones who are beginning to exclude yourselves from the general Muslim public. He tells them no, don't go that way infuse yourself with the Muslim public. In simple words, melt into the Muslim people, don't stand out! You're not excluded from the rest. You're not something special. This is what he's saying to them. We can't break and remind you that these facts are brought to your attention so that you can compare what was done then with what is being done today. That's all! Do you see these rulers in Arabia that fit the Umari bill? Are they not excluded from the rest of the people? They have a feather in their head and a chip on their shoulder contrary to what Umar was telling the same types of people during his lifetime.

 

There's a sentence from Umar who said (something like) concerning these types of characters and figures I am fed up with them and they are fed up of me (or) I have had it with them and they have had it with me. It's almost the same thing (for) a Muslim who is living today's world (and) the facts of what's happening. Why do we have very rich people and very poor people and all of us are supposed to be brothers? How can this happen? How can a brother agree to have another brother and the distance between them is the distance between a billionaire and a pauper? How can this happen? Something is wrong! So Umar said concerning this I've had it with them and they've had it with me. I'm fed up with them and they are fed up with me and then in the end he says in his soliloquy he's saying to Allah O Allah, take me meaning I don't want to live among these people anymore. These are the same types of people who are ruling Arabia today.

 

There's a person (and) he's name is Abdullah ibn Abi Rabi'ah Al Makhzumi. This person was an affluent person during the time of Umar. He wanted to bring his horses and his camels into Al Madinah and he expected the Islamic authorities in Al Madinah to feed his horses and his camels. This was during Umar's time. He said no. if you want to bring them to Al Madinah you bring also their feed with them. We're not going to feed them. This is your responsibility. So this person was forced to bring the feed from Al Yemen to Al Madinah and the person behind this policy was to see to it that rich individuals do not run roughshod over poor individuals. This was an Umari policy. Do you see the application of this policy in today's Arabia? Umar said- these are his words concerning this Ibn Abi Rabi'ah- I will not permit him to have his horses and his camels unless he brings his feed from outside of Al Madinah. Today's rulers inside of Al Madinah and outside Al Madinah do whatever they want to do. No one's looking at the interest of poor people.

 

During the time of Umar a person by the name of Hind bint Utbah took out a loan from the Islamic treasury. Listen to this brothers and sisters, especially those who read history in a sectarian way. Abu Sufyan got word that Hind obtained a loan from the Islamic finances so he goes up to her and he encourages her to be very slow in repaying her loan, in other words to default in paying back her loan. Umar was apprised of Abu Sufyan's behaviour. Umar got information that Abu Sufyan is telling this woman to extend paying back her debt indefinitely so what does Umar do to Abu Sufyan? This is going to strike some of the sectarians that think that there's some type of conspiracy among these people. He put Abu Sufyan under house arrest and he told him you're not going to be free until she pay's back her debt. (Is there) any Arabian ruler that we have in today's world willing to be as fair to the issue and as conscientious to the wealth of the Muslims as Umar was? Obviously not!

 

During Umar's time we had the type of people that we spoke about, (i.e.) Muslimatu al fath, al mu'allafah qulubuhum and at tulaqa'. They had ambitions. This was a growing Islamic reality (and) it was extending into many countries around it. Wealth and money and resources and assets were pouring into the Islamic state in Al Madinah. Some people from the Muhajirin and the Ansar- these are the cream of the crop- wanted to flow with this movement of resources and wealth, in other words they wanted to become rich and Umar saw (or) figured out what they wanted to do so he quarantined them in Al Madinah; in other words he made it unlawful for them to leave Al Madinah unless they had some valid reason but to go to these areas because they wanted to acquire wealth, they wanted to become powerful, they wanted to become wealthy and all of this- no! Some of them wanted to sneak out of Al Madinah saying we want to join the armies of the Muslims (or) we want to go into these ghazawat. Umar told them you have enough compensation for your ghazawat with the Prophet and he blocked this road of them wanting to sneak out of Al Madinah. He put them under city arrest because they wanted to acquire disproportionate wealth. Today disproportionate wealth is exactly the problem in the Arabian Peninsula. If Umar was around he's put these rulers, these princes, these monarchs and that family in a quarantine if nothing else. We think he'd do things much more serious than that. This was a person who was impulsive in his belief of the truth but would you know it if you were listening to the media and the information that circulates around today? Would you think that is the case? These people say "they are the champions of Umar" and if Umar was around he'd be condemning them and then other Muslims who are listening to them believe it and say "yeah, these are the extension of Umar, these are the extension of Abi Bakr and these are the extension of Al Khulafa' Ar Rashidin." No they're not! They're the extension of Abu Lahab and Abu Jahl and the rest of the enemies of Allah's Prophet. If there's any extension there, that's the extension!

 

So the Prophet of Allah passes on with the dynamic that we are trying to reconstruct in your mind. Sunnis and Shi'is don't have a healthy approach to analysing the facts of that time and they get caught into this rivalry that produces sectarian types that we all are familiar with- some of them have satellite TVs, they have budgets in the hundreds and millions if not in the tens of millions of dollars, you have sectarian Sunnis supporting sectarian Shi'is (and) you have sectarian Shi'is supporting sectarian Sunnis- this is a fact of today's world and this is attributed to one thing (viz.) they could not reconstruct the world fourteen hundred years ago so that we become objective and we become impartial to these facts. When the Prophet passed away there was only one person from Bani Hashim who was qualified to deal with this issue and that person was Imam Ali (alayhi as salam). He was the only one qualified to deal with this psychology, the social tendencies that were there, the jahiliyah that was beneath the surface (or) just slightly underground but the problem here was Ali belonged to Bani Hashim and in the pre-Islamic mind and pre-Islamic power structure Bani Hashim were not an elite. As is the case in today's world, if you're not from the elite you don't qualify to lead- a fact that was expressed by Bani Isra'eel.

… They replied: "but how can he have al mulk over us? How can he be a sovereign over us when we deserve it more than he does and he doesn't have all of that extra money (and) he doesn't have all of that wealth that we anticipate?"  (Surah Al Baqarah verse 247)

An objection by Bani Isra'eel to Talut becoming the leader can be applied to the objection to Ali becoming the leader of the committed Muslims and the Muslims because they saw that they were more affluent and more prosperous, they had more wealth and with that of course goes "they have more experience, they have more knowledge, they have more connections, they have more diplomacy" and more of everything that qualifies them to lead; "but a person like Ali from Bani Hashim?! You got to be kidding me!" That's the way that mentality works. Unfortunately we don't have much time to explain this critical lack of information in the Muslim public mind but the issue is (that) the Arabian Peninsula before the Prophet and before Islam and before the Qur'an was divided into power centres that were defined by tribes (and) by family lineage- that's how it was. That's a fact! The problem is- it's a human nature problem (that) has nothing to do with individuals in Arabia at that time per se, it's a problem everywhere- if you take power from people who had power previously- that's what happened; Allah's Prophet managed to arrest the power that was in the other power centres in Arabia and now the power was in Al Madinah and the Prophet was the leader. Some people honestly accepted and moved forward with that fact and others did not and the issue is going to arise when the most qualified person- which is Ali- assumes responsibility. He is from Bani Hashim and the Prophet is from Bani Hashim not to speak about Ali's sons who were also most qualified vis a vis those who were trying to take away the authority from them. The problem with this in real human life is "wait a minute here- this person took power from us and now power, once again, is a tribal power in his own family." This is a real human problem so Umar, and not only Umar but Ali himself, did not want this impression to become a social notion. So to avert this from happening the decision was made that those who are going to become the Muslims are not going to be from Bani Hashim at least for the time being and the hope was there that with the consolidation of goodwill time will heal this rift in the minds of the majority of the people of Arabia at that time. It didn't work out that way. When Uthman came to power all of a sudden we had the virtues that we were speaking about during the time of Umar turned into the vices during the reign of Uthman. Oh- you people (who) were under city arrest in Al Madinah can go and they went to the fertile lands and they went to the rich lands and they obtained wealth. Now a new problem began to develop and to solve this new problem under the pressure of society people began going to Ali. We want you to speak to Uthman. We want you to help him solve these issues. We want you to do this and we want you to do that and the fact of the matter is that during those twelve years when Uthman was ruling these principles and these values that were under close conscientious management of Abu Bakr and Umar (radi Allahu anhu) got out of hand during the time of Uthman and we had the unfolding that we tried to explain out of the sectarian context that it is being placed in today. There are quotes here (but) unfortunately I don't have any time now for these quotes (but) suffice it to say that we want you to understand this point- Umar did not want Islamic rule to become a family affair and that is in the spirit of the Qur'an and the Prophet. Islam is not a family affair. Islam is the responsibility for those who qualify but those who qualify should not become the victims of a resurgent jahiliyah. So Umar forbid authority becoming the issue belonging to a family or a tribe. What do we have today in Arabia? We have those who are ruling, who are ruling as a family; in other words they are telling Umar "we disagree with you. Here we are a family that's ruling." They do this at the same time they are trying to get away with claiming that Umar is theirs and because these types of Islamic centres all around the word don't approach the facts and explain the issues we have this issue of sectarianism now claiming innocent lives all over the Muslim world.

… so that the course of action of criminals becomes crystal clear. (Surah Al An'aam verse 55)

We want these criminals to be exposed in light of Allah and His Prophet's words and instructions. You are going to make people who are sightless equivalent to people who have insight. You are going to make the rulers of Arabia today equivalent to the rulers of Arabia then?

 

Dear committed Muslims…

This humble brother of yours in the past couple of weeks has been thousands of miles away trying to bring some Muslims to their senses that we are all one Muslim community or society in the world, at least, in as far as our emotions our hopes and our expectations. Politically that's not the case. We're divided into fifty or sixty different divisive political entities. When it comes to religious conviction they want us to believe that we are enemies of each other. Representatives of these same rulers today who are fuelling sectarianism in 2004 met in Amman with prominent Islamic scholars, Ulema' and they all agreed among themselves (under) no outside pressure nothing that all the Muslims are to recognise each other from whichever Islamic persuasion they belong to. They recognised eight Islamic legitimate persuasions, (viz.) the four that are Sunni- Hanafi, Ash Shafi'i, Al Maliki and Al Hanbali; the two who are Shi'i- the Ja'fari and the Zaydi and then the Ibadha and then the Dhahiris. All of them were recognised and then they signed on to it. Now because of some political expediency certain rulers want Muslims to fight because they want them to think "you are  either Sunni and therefore an enemy of the Shi'is or you are a Shi'i and therefore an enemy of the Sunnis." What happened? Ten years ago they signed a piece of paper and there are hundreds of scholars who signed on to it from all the Islamic schools of thought so what happened today? What do you want us to do? Are you lying then or are you lying today? Are we to believe you ten years ago or are we to believe you today? We don't want to believe you at anytime! But we want to expose what you are doing and refer this whole affair to Allah. Now the Saudi government that is behind much of this is saying "look, we're willing to meet with representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran." They had a meeting in London, England yesterday (with) The Friends of Syria. What do they want to do? They want to tell us "the elections in Syria that is going to take place in a couple of weeks are going to be a farce and a fraud." How about the elections in Egypt? Are those going to be legitimate elections? They don't want to speak about that! Why? Because the elections in Egypt doesn't fit the sectarian division that they have been working on all these years. (What about) the other elections everywhere? Why are they right now so interested in the elections of Syria? There're elections taking place in Iraq, there're elections taking place in Egypt, elections taking place in Afghanistan, elections taking all over. Why are they only interested in Syria? That's the only fraud and fraudulent elections that you can detect and all the rest are hunky-dory?! But it does to show you, if only we understood the valuable information that comes to us from Allah and His Prophet.

 

This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi on the occasion of Jum'ah on 16 May 2014 on the sidewalk of Embassy Row in Washington D.C. The Imam previously led the daily and Jum'ah prayers inside the Masjid. His speeches were revolutionary and thought provoking, and eventually irritated and threatened the Middle-East Ambassadors who control the Masjid. Finally, the Imam, his family, and other Muslims faithful to the course of Islam were forced out, into the streets. This khutbah originates from the sidewalk across the street from the Islamic Center, currently under seige. 

 

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: stop evil <stop_evil123@yahoo.co.uk>

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (1)

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

Muslim Unite Shia and Sunni KHUTBAH : THE QUR’ANIC MESSAGE PART 2

 

THE STREET MMBAR JUM'AH KHUTBAH (16 May 2014) webpage: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=182501078290&ref=ts 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 brothers and dear sisters …

Assalaamualaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh

 

Audio on http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/videos/videos/show/18515008-the-qur-anic-message-part-2-episode-1-by-imam-muhammad-al-asi-02-22-2014

http://www.islamiccenterdc.com/apps/videos/videos/show/18531393-the-qur-anic-message-part-2-episode-2-by-imam-muhammad-al-asi-02-22-2014 (02-22-2014)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8ASUNPhVCQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z8GwFWOB_M

 

THE QUR'ANIC MESSAGE PART 2

I begin by thanking each one of you for taking this part of your weekend off. Saturday evenings are usually family evenings or evenings of taking time off and relaxing from the stretch of the week but here you are and I think you are making an investment in some type of knowledge this evening and I hope I can deliver. I would also like to thank those who made this program possible. They had graciously afforded us a place where we can sit which is supposed to the character of the Masjid. The Masjid is supposed to be an open place (which is) accessible to everyone and we are very grateful for that. I'd like to also express my gratitude for the liberty to choose the topic that I think may be of benefit of you this evening. No one came to me and said "can you speak about this or speak about that"; that is obviously well appreciated by your truly here. So I think I would like to begin with a type of mild approach to the subject even though the subject matter that I will dwell on is, from my perspective at least, an extremely important one.   I know some of you if not all of you know that I am working on a tafseer which means an exegesis which further means simply an explanation of the meanings of the immaculate Qur'an. This has taken at least the last fourteen years of the time and the effort to try to put together an explanation that doesn't have the chains of tradition on it, it's not limited by the religious language of the Judeo-Christian context. Many of the translations that we have are weighed down (or) they have a heavy weight on them and now is probably not the exact time to go into any detail even though if you have and questions that will follow the presentation I would be more than willing to try to respond to them. So this explanation of the meanings of the Qur'an is more than just a translation. A translation obviously is a very important element (and) you're going to have to know very thoroughly the original meanings of the Qur'an to be able to lift those meanings from the Arabic language of the Qur'an to the language that it is translated into, in this case into the English language. I've encountered so much barriers to the types of words that we have around us. First of all we don't have a tafseer that's written directly into the English language- that doesn't exist. This humble effort of yours truly is the first such effort to bring out the meanings directly into English. You do have translations of other tafseers but we don't have a tafseer that has been written directly and immediately and forthwith into the English language so that overcomes one of the obstacles that exist.

 

Now I'm going to try to explain to you just a couple of things so that you can get a feel (and) you can understand better what I'm trying to say. Imam Nahidian just a few minutes ago quoted the short surah that we all know. The first ayah which is two words which is translated in much of the translations that you have and Imam Nahidian repeated it as it exists in these translations and it says. 

By the token of time. (Surah Al Asr verse 1)

The token of time is a way of saying maybe

By the transient value of time. (Surah Al Asr verse 1)

That's another way of trying to explain what you're saying when you say by the token of time and that is not an accurate translation. Now all translations are an attempt- we are all humans, we are not deities (and) we are not gods and therefore when we try to move meanings from one language to the other it's not going to be thoroughly complete and it's not going to exhaust the whole meaning, especially when we are speaking of the translation of the Qur'an- not what one person said and what another person understood; this is what Allah says and what we try to put in our human language. Now if I were to tell you, (I'm going to try and explain something here and I'm going to be very simple about it), the word asara in the average usage of the word is to wring something. You know- if you have a wet cloth and you wring it so that the water that was soaked up by the cloth drips out of it that is called in simple terms asr. We're talking about a material thing but here al asr is speaking to us, human beings, and the meaning here is relative to time. No one can squeeze or twist or wring time. Has anyone seen anyone do that? (That someone) brings time and then wrings it? You can't do that. So when the word itself, which has a physical representation, is applied to the aspect of time- because time is one of these concepts that also has a lot of philosophers trying to deal with its definition, but to avoid the philosophy of all this- when we say wa al asr we mean

By the depletion of time. (Surah Al Asr verse 1)

Time is depleting (or) time is going (or) time is missing (or) time is withering away- that's what it means.

By the depletion of time. (Surah Al Asr verse 1)

We say salat al asr. Salat al asr is towards the end of the day, i.e. after the day has been depleted (or) the juice of the day is already out and we're about to reach maghrib time. So that's the asr of a day time. I'm not in Surah Al Asr, I'm years and years away but when I get there I'll probably be translating it not by the token of time which is something someone says and something another person really doesn't understand but when you say

By the depletion of time. (Surah Al Asr verse 1)

which means time is running out (or) by the fact that time is running out- that's what this ayah means, by the fact that our time is running out. So when we give it a little though (and) this is where we are absent- the Qur'an is a book of unending information but what happens to us is- and this has been happening for hundreds of years; the issue is not in the Qur'an, the issue is in ourselves- we are incapable of running our minds (and) turning our minds on with this Qur'an so the problem is in us. The problem is not in the Qur'an. Even though I'm breaking it down for you to the nitty-gritty and the real basics of the language and the origin and all of this some of us are still going to need a little more to understand this and a little more would be like this… If Allah is saying in this first ayah

By the fact that time is running out (or) by the depletion of time. (Surah Al Asr verse 1)

In a practical sense that would mean that the fact of the matter is we are done because many of us think "I'm living today so I'm alive. I'm going to live. I lived yesterday so I'm going to live tomorrow." Most of us think like that- "I'm alive. We are living our days." What this ayah is telling us is we are dying our days; we're not living our days, we are dying them because time is something (that) once it's gone it's gone. It never returns. So when you think about yourself (and) you envisage let's say you're going live seventy years. OK- we say "we lived for seventy years" but if you understood what these words were saying and this other ayah comes and reinforces this original meaning .

Man is in a process of losing. (Surah Al Asr verse 2)

Because you're losing this time- your lifetime is not something you're gaining, your lifetime is something you're losing- so when you look at it like this you say and you begin to think "ok I'm dying but the dying process is taking seventy years." Our definition and the way we read this surah, because we don't understand it, is we lived for seventy years but if we had this hands on knowledge of what this short surah is saying we'd begin to realize that time period, (give yourself how many years you want, seventy (or) eighty (or) ninety- whatever the time period is), is a period of dying because our definition of death is that moment when we leave this world. When we come to that minute we say "he died (or) he passed away"; but no one ever looks at it in the range of the years that they were given knowing that this time is going away and when time begins to going away you reach the end of your time line (and) you die. So actually you've been living a life of dying. I'm not trying to give a course in tafseer, the thing I'm trying to say to you is we don't have a hands on understanding of the meanings of the Qur'an and this is just one simple example being that this is a surah that everyone knows and it was mentioned at the beginning of this presentation and so this is just another example of our distance from the meanings of the Qur'an even though we recite them, we memorize them, our children memorize them we teach them in school and we have certain types of competitions where people compete in reciting the Qur'an. One issue I bring up from time to time is has there ever been any competition in explaining the meanings of the Qur'an?! It's nice to have a good voice read the surahs and the ayaat of the Qur'an obviously. Sometimes it goes right to our hearts and it makes us feel that we are in a type of condition with Allah but it doesn't stop there. The Qur'an is meant for a range of involvement that goes much beyond just the emotional condition that we feel when the Qur'an is recited with a melodious voice.

 

I'll take another example or two maybe to try to give you a sense of why there is a very big distance between where the meanings of the Qur'an is and our understanding of it.

 

The other ayah that was read in the salah (or) in the namaz was

The germane and the root meanings of the Qur'an are accessible to you in this night of homeostasis when all of your appetites, all of your potentials are brought within their God-measured range. (Surah Al Qadr verse 1)

This surah is repeated so many times, especially in a particular school of thought in Islam, in prayers- so you hear this many times. The word anzala- you can check your own translation yourself; I don't want to go into these different translations that exists, you can go back and check your own translation whether its in English or Farsi or Turkish or Urdu or whatever language its in, because most of them even the Arabic explanation of the word falls into the same gap (or) falls into the same discrepancy- and when you say anzalnahu in the physical sense is like when you bring something down. This is up here and you anzalahu means you brought it down like this- that is anzala. That's how many people understand it. Even choose the word that you want for what I'm just showing you- OK. I hope I'm not going to lose anyone here because I wanted you to understand that that's not exactly what it means in this context. May be I can explain this using another word. There's another word in the Qur'an that's used frequently in the Qur'an. I don't know how familiar you may be with it (but) I hope you are familiar because the more familiar you are the better it's going to be for you to understand what I'm saying. There's a word that says ta'alaw. Now what does it mean when someone says ta'alaw? The mainstream understanding if this and the way the average person would understand it is come. That's the way it is understood. If you look at these translations it says something along the lines of

… come to a common understanding (or) a common word (or) come to a common phraseology (or) come to a common agreement… (Surah Aal Imran verse 64)

There's the word ta'ala which means to go upwards. Some of these translations give the flavor of it but they don't give the exact meaning. They say exalted or extolled but the word has this meaning, (i.e.), to go upward. So when the Qur'an says  

… come to a common understanding (or) a common word (or) come to a common phraseology (or) come to a common agreement… (Surah Aal Imran verse 64)

it doesn't simply mean come like we're in the same room (so) come to a common understanding or common word between us and you; it means raise yourself. It's true that you're coming but in the process of coming you raise yourself. (Do) you understand this much? I haven't lost anyone, have I? So in the process of you moving towards this kalimah you are also raising yourself. The other side of this is anzala. When Allah expresses Himself- just like we make an effort to come up- Allah makes the effort to come down. Of course Allah doesn't have any place. We are not here in the process of trying to physicalize Allah. No. There's no place that He is in and there's no time that He is in but for the purpose of just understanding ta'ala and anzala are two complementary words because the motion of ta'ala is a human motion and the motion of anzala is the motion of a divinity (or) of Allah. So He says

He has made the meanings of the Qur'an accessible in layl al qadr. (Surah Al Qadr verse 1)

Now layl al qadr is another (subject) but the meanings had to go through another process or a distance from these meanings being from Allah to them becoming humanly accessible- that is anzala. I'm trying to explain with so many words but I guarantee you (that when) you go to your preferred translation of the meanings of the Qur'an in whichever language you understand and try to obtain these meanings- try. You going to say "hey wait a minute- I listened to what brother Muhammad said that evening. I was listening and I think I understood what he said and here I am tracing these words of the Qur'an…" You go and take a concordance of the Qur'an open it up and go look where these words anzala and ta'alaw- in the plural, in the singular, in the past tense, how ever way you want- and see whether these meanings are what you are understanding from what you are reading. This is the problem that we have. One of the problems that a person who's trying to explain the encounters when he tries to put it into the English language. That's one issue.

 

Now, another issue is, for those who bother themselves (or) for those who take the effort to count the ayaat, the Qur'an has around seven hundred and fifty ayaat in it that deal with what is called today scientific subjects. Many ayaat in the Qur'an speak about as samawaat wa al ard, ash shams wa al qamr, al bihar, an nujoom, an anhar, al layl, an nahar, al falaq, so many. Seven hundred and fifty ayaat speak about today what is called issues of science. Now, on the other hand there's about one hundred and fifty ayaat in the Qur'an that deal with the issues of what we call fiqh; you know- how you make your wudhu as one example, at tayamm'mum (is) another example, beginning the fasting (at) what time of day and what time to end. These are fiqhi issues. There's about one hundred and fifty ayaat in the Qur'an that deal with these fiqhi issues. Now, I challenge all of you ((and) everyone who's going to listen to this or see it or however way this thing's going to be reproduced), to bring me these individuals who have done their homework on writing the meanings of the Qur'an to give you the impression when you are reading the tafseer of the Qur'an that the fiqhi issues are about one fifth of the scientific issues in the Qur'an. (Its) a simple mathematical thing! One hundred and fifty over seven hundred and fifty equals one over five but when you go to the libraries- you have libraries over here, you have a library in this Masjid, you have libraries in other Masajid, you have libraries in universities, in hawzahs (and) all over the place- and look for yourself and see whether you have that proportionality of books. If we were thinking in sync with the Qur'an (then) for every one book on fiqhi issues we'd have five books on scientific issues; but you go around here and look at the books that exist in the library- do you see that there are five books explaining to you the meanings of the ayaat in the Qur'an as opposed to one fiqhi book explaining other ayaat in the Qur'an. Do you see that? No, you don't see it. The question that becomes (is) why? What happened? Are we in tune with this Qur'an? If we were (then) when these seven hundred and fifty ayaat are speaking about observable, earthly, sensual things that you can put in laboratories that you can discover, that you can investigate (and) research then we should have a lot of these books. When Allah speaks about conception (and) how we are brought into life (and) how that process goes through the womb there's a sequence of information there that is accurate and that is precise. All that is needed is for us to observe what is happening and today we have so much scientific information available to us to bring the meanings out of these ayaat because everyone understands these meanings to a certain degree. When the Qur'an was first revealed over fourteen hundred years ago people understood the general meanings of these ayaat but the human condition and mind has gone a stretch since that time. The fetus, today, with the access that we have to the development of life in the womb is not what it was fourteen hundred years ago. Fourteen hundred years ago when they wanted to abort they couldn't do it. So if they wanted to end a life they would immediately after birth within the first minute or first hour (carry out) an "abortion." With today's information around that's not the way things are done. They will abort life in the womb or they will abort life before there is life. They have these IMF and World Bank managed programs around the world, contraception programs, in which they don't want populations to grow. That's another method at getting rid of life that Allah has made sacred. We can't do that. Anyways, the point here is we don't have the necessary output. This Qur'an is meant for our minds. Let's take away our minds (and) let's for the moment assume we can't think. What's the Qur'an meant for? (If) you can't think the Qur'an is not meant for you! So registration of acts and responsibilities is annulled when there's no thinking in him or her. Finished! It's done- as is the case with a person who is sleeping, as is the case with a person who is unconscious. So these six thousand and a few hundred ayaat in the Qur'an are meant for our minds- primarily; but because the Qur'an is so giving (and) it has so much to give even if your mind cannot latch on to its precise meanings it still has the capacity to fulfill your emotional being- that's another expression of Allah's rahmah. Don't feel sad that just because you can't understand the full range of meaning and the depth of meaning and the precision of meaning Allah is going to dismiss you and say "Oh- tough luck. You can't make it. By bye." No. Allah's Rahmaan and Raheem. Therefore you feel Allah. If you can't think Allah you feel Allah.

 

I just remembered an event that was related to me many years ago back in the 1960's or the 1970's when there used to be a Soviet Union. There used to be scholarships to the different organizations that were leftists and socialists and communists and these types. So one of these recipients of Soviet Union scholarships was the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO. They used to allocate certain scholarships to the Palestinians and they dispersed to certain students who qualified (and) who get good grades to go and study in the Soviet Union. So one of these persons who got this scholarship was a committed Muslim, an enlightened Muslim- that type. So he went to a city, (I can't remember exactly), I think it was Bukhara but don't hold me responsible for my mistake if it's not. It was in a city in an area which was predominantly Muslim in that part of the Soviet Union. They had Tajikistan, they had Turkmenistan, they had Kazakhstan, they had Dagestan, they had these places. This person went to one of these places where the majority of the people out there are Muslims, at least by name. They are Muslims. So after he began studying there for a while he began to know some people and they began to know him and when these Muslims who were living in that particular university area that he was attending realized  "seems like this is a very sincere and very enlightened Muslim. Let us invite him to one of our (meetings)." You see- at that time the practicing Muslims were Sufis and they had their weekly or their by-weekly meetings that were underground, away from the authorities where no one would know what is going on. So they had enough confidence in this person. They knew him for a while so "let's invite him. Maybe he can help us out with understanding our Islam." So he went. Because he didn't know what was going on someone invited him and he went there. He sat down. There were brothers and sisters and then they brought a copy of the Qur'an to him. They said "could you read it." Then he opened it up and said "sure." It was this person himself telling me. By the way. It wasn't some third person saying this. So he opened the Qur'an up and he began reading the Qur'an. I can't remember, maybe it was a few pages just like this Qur'an (or) any Qur'an that you have. You just open it up and he began reading. He's an Arabic speaker so this is not a foreign language to him. The page that I opened up right here says… He's reading just normal and they're watching very closely. They were paying so much attention. You know- is he going to make a mistake? Is he going to fumble? Is he going to mispronounce some things? He was just normally reading. There was no issue here. So as he was involved in reading the ayaat he actually was not watching what was going on around him. So after, (I guess), he read just a couple of pages and he looked around and he saw these people- it was tears coming down their cheeks. He said "almost all of them." Then he wondered in himself (do) they understand these ayaat in such a way that made them move to this extent but obviously that wasn't their language. They couldn't understand his recitation of it. So after he read then they told him "can you explain to us what you just read?" He said "yeah, of course." So he explained to them what he just read and he said "it's my time to ask a question." They said "what is it?" He said "why is everybody emotional? Why is everyone in tears?" They said to him "because you can read the Qur'an and you can understand it and we can't." That is something that, (I guess), you can't appreciate unless you realize that there's distance but even though there's a distance you might be reading the Qur'an (and) you might be trying to understand what is said in the Qur'an and just because you don't understand Allah is not looking the other way. The effort is what counts; but then the blame is on some of these people who understand very well the meanings of the Qur'an. It's not a matter of they can't understand what the Qur'an means; they know exactly what it means but after knowing exactly what it means they have a clash with it. This becomes a problem. Don't think simply because somebody is going to read the Qur'an and is going to understand the ayaat in the Qur'an they're going to follow what the Qur'an is saying. No! That is not necessarily so. We have some people- some of them could even be scholars- in some quarters when we use this words some people get offended. We're not trying to offend anyone. We're not trying to get on anyone's nerves. We're just trying to look at reality and see what's out there in the real world. There are real people who've went to school (and) they've studied this for years and years (and) they understand the meanings of this but when it comes to real life they say "no, no, no. Don't remind us of what the Qur'an is saying" or worst yet, they will take some of these meanings and they will try to adjust it (and) to turn it in a way that will serve either their own personal interests or larger corporate interests. They will do that. This reminds me of another incident. There was a TV program in Saudi Arabia. This was, (I guess), back in the 1970's and they called one graduate from Al Azhar university. He lives in Saudi Arabia (and) he teaches there in the university. He's a shaykh (and) a mu'ammam (and) everything like that. They told him "could you come and appear on the program? The subject of the program is going to be contraception, a woman avoiding pregnancy." He said "oh yeah. Sure I can come on the program" but then he asked "I want to know because I don't want to cause any problems- you want me to present the pros of getting pregnant or the cons of getting pregnant" meaning that in his mind he has two sets of arguments. One of them he can promote women getting pregnant and here we use ayaat and ahadith- so do you want that or do you want the opposite (and) then he can quote ayaat and ahadith for the opposite! You tell me- this person doesn't understand the Qur'an and the ahadith? He understands them so well that in his mind he doesn't have the yaqin of what is right and what is wrong?! He just has two arguments and he can present to the public! Forget about what is right and wrong- that's in his mind. So do we have people who understand the meanings? We were just speaking a few minutes ago about individuals and people who want to understand the meanings of the Qur'an and if they can't understand the meanings of the Qur'an they become so emotional because they can't understand it and then we have, on the other side, those people who understand exactly what the Qur'an means but they want to twist it in their own way to serve their own purposes. But what does the Qur'an have to do with any of these two categories? This is a neutral book. I mean, these are words on paper- that is all. When you think about it, these are words on paper- that's all they are; but how these words on paper make it into your heart and into your mind and in the best case scenario with equal access? That's the ideal way- fifty percent of it is going into your heart and fifty percent of it is going to your mind therefore you have gained the one hundred percent of the meanings in such a way that you can't plead ignorance and then you can't play tricks with it. Your heart will tell you "you can't play tricks with it" and your mind will tell you "you can't be ignorant of it." That would be ideal if we have something like that but once again this is where we are today. We've endured a history, because we've been so absent minded from this Qur'an, that we want to judge a person's worth (and) a person's Islam because of some fiqhi issues not concerning some scientific issues! Do we understand these from the Qur'an or we don't understand? Forget the seven hundred and fifty ayaat- basically our social character says "we don't care about seven hundred and fifty ayaat in the Qur'an that are speaking about issues that have to do with discoveries and investigation and research." We're not concerned with that! So what are you concerned with? "Oh, we are concerned with the fiqhi issues- the one hundred and fifty other ayaat in the Qur'an. This is what we're concerned with." Therefore we come to a Masjid, like this Masjid here, (and) if we happen to be a Sunni we can't pray the same way a Shi'i prays in this Masjid. Why? Because we're imprisoned in those one hundred and fifty ayaat! We are prisoners of them! We are prisoners to our own selfish interpretations of those one hundred and fifty ayaat therefore I can't exchange recognition with another Muslim; and this goes the other way around. If a Shi'i wants to go to a Sunni Masjid and he sees the Imam praying in a certain way he wants to pray in his own way. Why? Because he's hostage to his own personal interpretation! He can't offer recognition to the other Muslim. That's how simplistic we have become and we've caged ourselves into this. I'm yet to come across a healthy individual. I may see some individuals who would do some things like this when they go into a Masjid that is not of their particular fiqhi school of thought- they will go and they will not as a matter of recognizing the other Muslim as an equal- no not at all (but) just as a matter of maybe getting along. They want to get a long so to get a long they will for that time just pray like these other Muslims are praying. So what does it mean- you ask yourself- when you come to a particular Masjid and you find in that particular Masjid the way the salah is offered doesn't exactly (agree with your way)- there's about eighty percent that agrees with you (and) about twenty percent that doesn't- so what's wrong with offering recognition to the other Muslim? (I'm going to jump the issue here), some people "this is nifaq." No it's not nifaq. Plurality in Islam is not nifaq. If you recognize the validity of the ijtihad of the other Muslim that is not nifaq. You're just recognizing that- that's all you're doing; that doesn't mean if you come and share with other Muslims the way that they pray you have somehow bartered away or lost your own identity. No! You've done that because you have a healthy identity. People who are scared to do such a thing is because they are not confident of who they are and a Shi'i who's afraid to pray like a Sunni out of equal recognition is not confident of his own Tashayyu' and a Sunni who cannot pray like a Shi'i as a matter of equal recognition is not confident of his Tasannun. It takes people who are confident of who they are so that we can all lock hands with each other and move forward on all of the other ayaat that are un-noticed in the Qur'an, ayaat that have to do with Al Munafiqin and Al Mushrikin and Adh Dhalimin and Al Fasiqin and all of these words that also have lost definition and lost meaning. When you read your translations of the Qur'an- say who's a Kafir. In today's world there's this takfiri thing going around, (i.e.) "Oh, he's a Kafir." Ask "why's he a Kafir?" They'll come back to those fiqhi issues. A person becomes a Kafir because of fiqhi issues. Where did this come from? The Qur'an itself says

Whoever wants to commit themselves to Allah has the freedom to do so and whoever wants to deny Allah has the freedom to do so... (Surah Al Kahf verse 29)

This is guaranteed in the Qur'an. What's this?! But this is what happens when we begin to close our minds and we don't have the horizon of the Qur'an- we begin to suffer. Who's suffering? We are suffering. Who's losing lives? We are losing lives. Who's playing us as the fool? Our common enemies. And "don't rock the boat." (If) you get someone to speak to these types of issues they throw him out of the Masjid. So they throw him out. This is not an isolated incident. Alhamdulillah- in about two weeks we are going to begin thirty two years. What's going on all around the Muslim world? Many people (who) want to speak their conscience are told "you can't give the khutbah." The Masjid has become someone's private property. You can say whatever the "owner" says you can say or whatever the "landlord" or "proprietor" says you can say and if you cannot say it "keep your distance." What happened? No one arbitrates to the Qur'an. No one wants to arbitrate to this because nine tenths of it doesn't exist. Why arbitrate? (They say) "what's in this? How is this going to solve an issue if nine tenths of it doesn't exist? What are you talking about?" That's where we are and I guess with that my time has come to an end.

 

I ask Allah to accept from me and from you and I hope I have communicated some message. As I said from my perspective this was Muhammad Al Asi light. So I hope with that Allah will reward us for our intentions and our sincere efforts.

 

Wa Salaamualaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakaatuh

 

This khutbah was presented by Imam Muhammad Asi at Al Manasid Masjid on 22 April 2014. 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. His khutbah originates from the sidewalk across the street from the Islamic Center, currently under seige.  

 

__._,_.___

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (1)

---

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___